Notes on Review of THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI(directed by David Lean) by Trevor Lynch

https://www.unz.com/tlynch/the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai/

Nicholson’s “tragic flaw” is that he does not see that his virtues only really make sense when practiced among his own people, for their benefit. In the prison camp, however, these virtues are being exploited by a ruthless enemy who aims to destroy the Empire that Nicholson so loyally fought to preserve. There’s a lesson in this for white people today, since our openness to strangers, altruism, and moral idealism are being exploited by a system that is destroying us as well.

In a way, it's not so much a personal flaw as a cultural-professional vulnerability among the Anglos. On the one hand, Anglos were imperialist and race-ist and took pride in their blood and heritage. But their empire also claimed to be different from other empires. It wasn't merely about brutal conquest and exploitation of others but bringing of civilization unto benighted folks around the world. A light for both fellow Europeans on the Continent(as the British oh-so-superior to the Teutons, Slavs, and the fallen Latins) and the darker folks around the world. So, the British Empire wasn't just about white man clobbering the darkies but elevating them to higher forms of civilization. As one of the officers in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA explains, it's about 'discipline', not just 'guns'. One could also add excellence and meritocracy. In other words, Brits are better not simply because of their identity but their ability, know-how, dedication, and commitment to quality.
There was a time when Anglos had pride of seed, creed, and deed. They were about blood, culture, and work. So were the Jews, a rival power vying for dominance with the Anglos, an uneasy partner-in-crime. Jews knew that they had to undermine the element of seed and creed to gain control over Anglos. While preserving their own sense of seed/blood, Jews increasingly convinced Anglos in UK and US that they were too good for such ugly tribalism and 'racism'. Jews flattered the Anglos as the better kind of whites who, unlike those backward Italians and Slavs, lived by a higher universal creed and took pride in deed/work than in atavistic tribalism. Anglos increasingly fell for this BS pushed by Jews, but they were especially vulnerable as they were relative late-comers to civilization. While Jews had civilization for 3,500 yrs, predating even the Greeks and Romans, Anglos had been a bunch of barbarians until relatively late in history, and they grew to greatness only after the 17th century. So, Anglos had a weaker sense of roots and identity than the Jews did, and this made Anglos rely more on creed and deed than on seed.
Then, Jews worked on the creed/culture/ideology of the Anglos. Initially, Jews flattered Anglos for developing rule of law and culture of fairness, indeed far more than any other people. Anglos took the bait. Jewish flattery set a trap, however. If indeed Anglos possessed such a wonderful creed, how come they were such hypocrites and betrayed it with their 'racism' and 'classism' and imperialism' — never mind Jews financed much of British Imperialism, and never mind Jewishness has always been race-ist. So, eventually Anglos lost out in seed and creed. Hindus also picked up on the hypocrisy angle. It's like Gandhi said, "Western Civilization. It's a good idear." So, what did the Anglos come to rely on for pride as the years passed and as their outlooks and values changed(or were altered via manipulation)? Only the pride of deed and achievement, but they were bound to lose to Jews in this as well because Jews have higher IQ and are more able. So, once Anglos fixated on achievement and ability as the most admirable things that they should support and serve, they became cucks of Jews who are best at money-making and blacks who are best at sports, something Anglos are crazy about.
The signs of this is already evident in Nicholson who is so fixated on the pride of achievement. Perhaps, David Lean sort of understood because he made movies as the British Empire was crumbling, not least under the domination of the American Empire. Also, his movies required the funding of Jewish Hollywood. He was a proud Brit who had to work for others and make compromises, like Nicholson created his masterpiece(the bridge) under Japanese control.

Nicholson's dilemmas is further complicated by the fact that it's about empire vs empire. In DURKIRK, it's about British soldiers retreating homeward to defend the motherland. That is about true patriotism(though if the British had been more patriotic than imperialistic on the world stage, they wouldn't have gotten involved in another war with Germany that had no beef with the Brits.)
Both the Brits and the Japanese are invaders in Southeast Asia. They are patriots to the extent of serving their own empires, but empires trample on the patriotism of locals, and both Brits and Japanese are violating the lands of Southeast Asians. Thus, neither Japanese nor British can be pure patriots in the movie's setting. They are for imperialism, not nationalism.
Also, betrayal is part of the logic of empire, which is premised on winner-takes-all and losers-do-as-told. British Empire maintained itself through recruiting local collaborators or compradors(or traitors). British Empire required on the treason of the local elites. Japanese were the same way and had their own local flunkies. No empire can sustain itself without encouraging treason among the locals. And this logic seems to have come full circle for the British in RIVER KWAI. Brits work as collaborators of the Japanese(who, following defeat in war, became craven collaborators of the US empire). With universal nationalism, each people/nation is loyal to their own. But under empire, there is one winner and all the losers must betray their own kind in service to the winner. British Empire needed local traitors in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And US empire has local cucks all over, like in Poland and Ukraine and Japan and Taiwan. (Currently, as Jews are the top lords of the US empire, white elites betray their own kind and serve their Jewish masters, much like how the Hindus and Hong Kucks once served at the feet of the mighty British.) Imperialism intrinsically fosters treason. It's based on the conquered serving the conqueror. Brits demanded this of locals whom they conquered. So, it's not all that surprising that the conquered soldiers in KWAI RIVER become collaborators to the Japanese.

Of course, one could argue that Nicholson calculated that the Japanese were doomed at any rate. Bridge or no bridge, Japanese were fated to lose to the combined power of US and UK and other allies. So, it's not like the bridge he was building was a make-or-break thing in the war. IF HE REALLY THOUGHT THAT, he perhaps wouldn't have built t. But he figures the Japanese will eventually lose and the bridge will ultimately come to symbolize not Japanese might but British excellence and achievement. His style of thinking is like Temporal Imperialism. Japanese may have the whip hand but they will eventually lose the war, and the bridge will come to symbolize British triumph in the long run. Time will vindicate British virtues of hard work and dedication. It's like black slaves picked cotton and did field work for the white massuhs but, today, blacks use it as a point of pride and done say, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, WE done built America, even done stack up the White House like a pile of hot cakes."

At any rate, pride of deed is good, but no people can survive without pride of seed and ownership of creed. Jews did a fast one on the Anglos, and it should be lesson for all the world.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is masterful at exploring the fundamental distinction between aristocratic ethos that prizes honor above all else and the bourgeois ethos that prizes comfort, security, long life, and pleasure above all else.

Aristocratic ethos maybe, but not the Aristocratic way. With the passing of years, the aristocrats went from a hardy warrior class to a bunch of tooty-fruity playboys and slouches. While peasants did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown, many aristos whittled away the hours dressing 'gay', acting 'gay', talking 'gay', and etc. They powdered their faces and dressed and acted all whoopsy-doopsy. Just look at the high-born fells in CYRANO DE BERGERAC. Look at this guy's hairdo at 1:35 of the movie. It's ridiculous.

Once the wars ended or became rare, the aristos used their leisure time for little else but comfort and powdering their noses and sniffing snuff and sneezing. Sure, there were duels over honor, but mostly over petty egotistical matters. The aristos were into gambling and putting on big parties with rich food and decadence, and borrowed lots of money from Jews. Look at the aristos in BARRY LYNDON. What a bunch of toots.
True, not all aristos were alike. The Northern Europe types, esp Anglos and Prussians, were more conscientious and responsible. Instead of wasting their fortunes on good times, they used their privilege to run relatively cleaner governments, push social reforms, advance science, and patronize culture. Still, as kids were born into pampered privilege, many turned out to be soft mama's boys and floozers, like the pathetic son in BARRY LYNDON. Or consider Edward Fox's character in THE SERVANT. What a useless clod. Many aristos were about unearned privilege as they were born into position. Others did the work, and they lived off taxing their labor; at the very least, the bourgeoisie ran enterprises and took big risks. And many aristos only cared for comfort and good times. Also, their sense of honor was less about serving the greater good than a matter of personal egotism. Duels over perceived slights or someone stepping on someone's boots.

At least in terms of ethos, the highest value among the bourgeois was respectability, not comfort and pleasure that came with the rise of modern consumerism. Bourgeoisie were into money-making but also into stuff like the Protestant Work Ethic, restraint, discipline, and frugality. They believed work was good. The ideal was to keep working even if one had sufficient wealth for relaxation and leisure. (At the extreme, it could turn into a kind of Scrooge-ism. All work and no play.) Unlike aristocrats who shunned work and preferred leisure and privilege(if they could have it), bourgeoisie felt they should never rest on their laurels and keep working even when they had lots of money. Work was constructive and good for one's character, and so, one must work. Instead of spending one's money on fun and pleasure, invest and expand the business or invest in future enterprise. Or use money for philanthropy and build libraries and universities and do 'good work'.
As the bourgeoisie rose under the aristocracy, they felt culturally inferior and sought to win respectability by emulating the style of the aristos. Some bourgeoisie married into aristo families(on the decline) or bought titles. The bourgeois sense of respectability feared scandal and disdained the shameless and uninhibited, which is why anarchists like Luis Bunuel loved to expose and ridicule bourgeois anxieties and hang-ups. The bourgeoisie were repressed, and it was only with the rise of modernism and Freud's theories that things began to loosen up among the modernist children of the bourgeoisie. Also, the logic of capitalism transformed society from virtuous hard work and productivity to vice-laden hedonism and consumerism, but that came AFTER the cultural eclipse of the bourgeoisie and the rise of impulse-driven youth culture.

The Anglos, more than others, developed a fusion of aristocratic and bourgeois ways. Anglo aristocrats were more productive than most other aristos, and Anglo bourgeoisie were more repressed and respectable than others. There is something of the aristo in Nicholson but also something of the shopkeeper. He's like both a nobleman and a shop manager who counts every last penny. He believes in pride of work. He has boss mentality but also clerk mentality. He's so eager to prove he is worthy.

Since both Saito and Nicholson are master types, albeit at times “temporarily embarrassed” master types, the film needs a well-developed slave type as a contrast.

This is all relative among both the Japanese and Anglos. Saito and Nicholson are both master and servant types. Over their own men, they are masters. But they are also duty-bound servants of men higher up. So, while they are the two highest ranking men in the movie, they are mere servants of men even higher up the chain. Bushido means to serve, and every Japanese, no matter how higher up, was in service to someone higher. Samurai served the daimyo who served a higher daimyo who served the Shogun who, at least in principle, served the Emperor. Even though the Japanese Emperor didn't have much power, he was essential to the Japanese who believed everyone must serve someone higher, finally ending with the divine ruler. Same with the Brits. Everyone served someone higher. Every master was a servant to a superior, with the hierarchy ending with the King or Queen, who though not very powerful, symbolized the highest authority.

This is where Jews are different and perhaps unique. While Jews may play servant roles in society, every Jew, via the Covenant, feels that HE HIMSELF is special and chosen. His ultimate meaning doesn't come from serving someone higher or better but in valuing his own soul and self as having all the worth in the world by his personal connection to the one and only God who chose the Jews.
This is why Jews are the only immigrant group in the US who didn't come to serve others. Everyone else came to serve the mighty Anglos, but Jews had a powerful sense of self and believed, if anyone should serve anyone, the goyim should serve them cuz they got the Covenant, not the lowly goyim. In time, even the Anglos came to serve the Jews with such powerful sense of being.

the character of Commander Shears is a brilliant encapsulation of the slave type: cowardly, dishonest, and cynical about honor. Shears’ character is brought into sharper focus by making him an American, since America is a thoroughly bourgeois society that took pride in throwing off European aristocratic civilization, although vestiges of its ethos survived among the military and Southern planters. Making Shears a womanizer to boot perfected the character.

More like the Fugitive Slave type. A true slave type loves to serve. A slave has a kind of honor of his own. He believes he exists to serve others. He believes the meaning of his life comes from serving the master. A true slave would rather die for his master than live. It's like dogs who live for the love and approval of the master. And in a way, Saito and Nicholson have this slave mentality as well. Like loyal dogs, they will die for higher authority. Saito cannot tolerate the shame of disapproval from higher up. He feels it in his bones. Nicholson is always mindful of his reputation, not only among his inferiors but superiors back home. In a way, the master type and slave type are one and the same, and one cannot exist without the other. A slave believes he must serve and die for his master. In that, he too has a sense of honor. An ideal slave is loyal to the end. Also, an ideal master doesn't merely exploit his slave but appreciates the slave's loyalty, and this binds him to the slave. He must take good care of the slave. And to prove to the slave that he is no weakling and coward, the master must be willing to die alongside the slave. It's like lots of British officers died with the lowly soldiers in World War I.

William Holden's character of Shears isn't a slave type. He has no sense of deep loyalty. He wants to be free and do his own thing. It's a cowboy mentality, and to associate this with 'slave mentality' is ridiculous. Of course, one can say he's a slave to his personal needs and desires, but then, 007 would be a slave too because he loves women and gambling and good times. By the way, womanizing was a sport among the aristos, not so much among the slaves.
Also, Shears doesn't come across so bad because he's caught between empires. If he were an American soldier sent to Iwo Jima but dodged his duties for good times, he would be a lowlife rat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Americans had to fight back.
But Shears is like a fish out of water between the British and the Japanese in some godforsaken Southeast Asian nowhere-land. Sure, Brits and Yanks are allies, and Japanese are the common enemy, but patriotism is rather hard to sustain in the jungles of Burma or Thailand or Malaysia or whatever. He feels like soldiers in Vietnam War: "What are we doing HERE?" As far as he can tell, it's a war between empires in Southeast Asia, and he has no feelings about what the 'Japs' or the Brits are doing. He just wants to make it out of there alive.

I wouldn't call him cowardly but resourceful. His dishonesty is a survival mechanism among peoples he doesn't care for. He has little use for the Brits and far less for the Japanese. He doesn't feel like putting his neck on the line for either side. Also, his escape took some courage, and a true coward wouldn't be so brazen. Holden sort of reprises his role in STALAG 17, and George Segal took it up a notch in KING RAT.
Besides, there are varying degrees to cynicism, which doesn't come in one flavor. Some are opportunistically cynical to justify greed and loutishness, and there is something of this to Shears. But cynicism is also a smart response to the BS all around. It'd be nice if US soldiers today were more cynical and saw through the BS about 'honor, country, duty' blah blah when, in effect, they are nothing but attack dogs of the Jewish globo-homo ruling elites. How better things would be if white Americans were more cynical and saw right through the BS of GOP. How better if white progs saw through the BS of MSM and Jewish Power. Shears is both a self-centered egotist and a savvy observer who sees through the BS of authority. And the British who blackmail him into serving the mission are cynical in their own way. If they were really into principle and honor, they would have him prosecuted and even executed for impersonating an officer and etc. But they play him in the most cynical manner. They too know it is a game.

Shears is not bourgeois. He isn't into respectability or reputation, what the bourgeoisie care about most. He cares about being an individualist, being free and his own man. This makes him self-centered and selfish at times, but he's closer to the cowboy than the slave. He wants to roam free, and he doesn't want to fight battles for which he knows little. It's like the William Holden character in THE WILD BUNCH, a film that surely took some pointers from THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. An outlaw, he's out for himself, and he will deal with any side to get his cut.

One can argue that Shears is something of a worm, but a worm seeks freedom, not slavery(though one can argue such a cretin deserves to be a slave). Not to patriotism, not to honor, not to whatever. A worm would be like the Italian character of Lina Wertmuller's SEVEN BEAUTIES who spouts about dignity and 'honor' as a petty mafia hood, but when push comes to shove, chooses to save his own skin wherever and however.
Of course, slavery, used broadly as metaphor, can signify just about anything. Even to the want of freedom because freedom can mean addiction to one's appetites such as gluttony, sloth, and lust.
But, it's so easy to be cynical in war as all sides tell lies and betray trust. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the higher-ups exploit Lawrence's idealism and vanity to goad him into accomplishing something that will then be twisted and corrupted by diplomats who shill for oligarchs of the empire.
It's like the soldiers who fight and die in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY seem foolish compared to the three men who figure life is worth risking only for their share of gold. And yet, freedom gains meaning in attachment to something, and in that sense, Shears is also a doomed figure. He can lie, he can cheat, he can squeeze out of tight situations, but ultimately what is he if he's only for himself, if he has nothing to die for? It's like the thief in Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, once having gained a glimpse of the Takeda Clan, wants to be part of it.

Now, are we to believe that Americans embraced slave-mentality because they rejected the aristocratic ways of Europe? -???- Because Americans wanted to be free and not bound to higher authority, they were choosing to be 'slaves'?
In Europe, the general rule was only the noblemen owned land and were armed. In the US, cowboys could claim their own turf and carry their own guns. Somehow, this made the US 'bourgeois' and 'slave'-like? In Europe, freedom and privilege were hogged by the aristocrats while their subjects lived helot-like existences. In the US, every person aspired to be free and equal under the law and maybe own his own plot of land. And anyone could ride horses and own guns. Sounds more like freedom than slavery to me. If something like aristocratism survived in the American South, it was because of black slaves. In other words, aristocracy cannot exist apart from slavery. You can't have one without the other. Thus, aristocratic system is also a slave system.
Many pro-aristocratic romanticists seem to believe that they themselves would have been noblemen lording over the peasants(much like every little girl who reads fairy-tales identifies with the precious princess than with serf girls who made up the bulk of society), but the chances are they would have been peasants because noblemen made up maybe 5% or less of any population in Europe. Aristocracy is slavery because only a few enjoy privilege while the rest are subjects without equal protection of the law.

To be sure, US began as a semi-aristocratic enterprise. The Founding Fathers were bourgeois-aristocrats and landowners(and even slave-masters). And in the beginning, only land-owners could vote, which was less than 20% of the population. Thomas Jefferson believed in 'natural aristocracy' based on merit, which is a bourgeois ideal as success among the business class is determined by ability + diligence; it is earned than inherited(though children who inherit capital and live off interest are like the new aristos). He figured a smart person is a natural aristocrat and should have the freedom to rise freely.
US became something closer to a real democracy under Andrew Jackson the populist, but if we follow Trevor Lynch's logic, Jackson was the great enslaver since he dealt a blow to the quasi-aristocratic form of governance instituted by the Founders.

As for the Southern Aristocracy, what a terrible bunch. The North relied on free white labor and equality under the law. South relied on black slave labor, which made the neo-aristocracy possible, even necessary. Again, aristocracy is built on slavery. If a few are to hog all the wealth and privilege, others must toil as helots.
The North did better than the South for having equally free white folks. The North was bourgeois, the South was aristocratic. It was the South that became the source of the racial woes that came to haunt America by relying on slave labor, especially that of blacks who are more muscular and more aggressive than white folks. And Latin America was even more aristo, with Spanish elites relying on masses of brown helots. How did that turn out?

White Nationalists can fantasize themselves as aristocrats all they want. The fact is aristocracy means special privileges for the 5% and slavery for the rest. How about freedom for all, and that is what Shears represents. Granted, freedom isn't enough as people often do stupid shit with their freedom. And freedom in a degenerate post-bourgeois society like the US immersed in consumerism and vulgarity is being wasted in the worst way.

Because aristocratism means special privileges for a few, it cannot exist apart from slave mentality. For a few to be aristocrats, most must be slaves. For a few to monopolize the power and formulate policy, most must be obedient dogs. That's what we have today in the US though Jews cleverly disguise the neo-aristocratism with calls to 'diversity, equity, inclusion', and other BS. No, the US is about aristocratic rule by Jewish Supremacists who regard the rest of us as slaves or at best serfs. Whites can be either deplorable Field Honkeys who must be whipped or servile House Honkeys, like the Wasp-Cucks in the Deep State, who serve their Jewish masters, darn tootin'.

But the solution isn't aristocratism but neo-fascism, an ideology that ensures equal dignity and protection for all the volk who are served by an elite whose highest vision is the good of the nation and people than its own caste and privilege.

The fact is Nicholsons of the world in US and UK would still loyally and 'honorably' serve the globo-homo Deep State whereas someone like Shears would see the utter BS through cynical eyes. Look at all those 'honorable' men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon. They dutifully serve their civilian leaders who, in turn as political whores, serve their Jewish donor-master class and quasi-prophets of satanic globo-homo.
In this, the 'master' mentality is a 'slave' mentality. The master mentality always feels a need to be within the proximity of power. Thus obsessed with power and control, it doesn't really ask whether something is good or bad. What matters most is to belong in the club and be in the game. Look at the master military class in the US. All slaves of Jews.
Now, if some US soldier saw through the utter BS of the system and used whatever means to get out of the army and no longer serve the Jews, would that be a bad thing? Also, why not be dishonest with a system that is utterly corrupt and mendacious? If goons of the FBI come to your door, should one be honest when the agency is full of dirtbags?
True, Shears is too carefree and self-centered to care about truth or meaning, but he's someone who no longer wants to be a dispensable cog in the system, a slave of masters with their imperial dreams. He's like a cynical version of Dr. Zhivago who doesn't want to fight for the Whites or Red but simply wants to live. Sure, he's a 'deserter' but he never volunteered to serve the Red and has no personal beef in the fight between the Reds and the Whites.

And for someone who wrote a book called WHITE NATIONALISM that calls for universal nationalism for all people, why all this romanticism about the British Empire and sense of honor and duty? Duty to empire?

BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI covers some of the concerns of Jean Renoir's GRAND ILLUSION, which is also set in a prison camp and concerns the role of class in modern warfare. Even though it's Germans vs the French, in some ways the German aristocrats and French aristocrats have more in common. In a way, it's the last aristocratic war as well as the first truly people's war(at least on a grand scale) as all sides appeal to nationalist populism despite the outsized role of aristocratic military elements on all sides. Unlike previous wars where aristocrats fought aristocrats with soldiers used as pawns, the common man matters in World War I. Modern War isn't about lowly soldiers serving the superior classes but the higher classes claiming to fight for the honor of the entire nation where every soldier is worthy of dignity and pride. Or so every side claimed.

Both GRAND ILLUSION and MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE suggest an aristocratism that goes beyond class. A kind of spiritual aristocratism. In the former, the French aristocrat sacrifices his life so that his men(one a prole, another a Jew) can make the escape. Why would a man of higher caste give his life for men of lower order? Because, at least in the spiritual sense, more is expected of superior men. Similarly, the anti-aristocratic attitude of Jack Celliers(David Bowie) is paradoxically intensely aristocratic, at least in the spiritual sense. Though he rejects the notion of being part of the Superior Breed, he chooses the Herculean task of sacrificing his own life so that others may live. Only a man of superior courage and will could have done that. And this brings us to the figure of Jesus Christ, often referred to as King of Kings. A crass aristo-monarch like Herod is comfy with his privilege and power. His superiority is social-political. But for a man to reach spiritual aristocracy, he must prove a higher morality, greater courage, greater compassion, and greater will to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Thus, aristocratism, at its highest spiritual reaches, sacrifices itself for others(the inferiors) than sits snug and smug in its superiority.

Then Lean ended his career with Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984), which fail as films in part because their slighter stories were overwhelmed by Lean’s epic style of treatment, which had hardened into mannerisms.

Agree about RYAN'S DAUGHTER but not PASSAGE TO INDIA. Though I don't care for the latter, the treatment suits the subject, and it was done with considerable restraint compared to RYAN'S DAUGHTER which is pictorialism gone wild. PASSAGE is stately and measured. It's a grand work set among ancient ruins of India, but it doesn't feel monumental; it focuses mostly on characters and drama than visuals. With Lean's fingers fine-tuning the knob, it varies between intimacy and grandeur than goes for nonstop epic treatment, the failing of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is visually 'high volume' at every moment. PASSAGE TO INDIA is also equally literary and visual(even more so than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI that, for all its location shooting and action, feels a bit stagy). But whether some Hindu touched a white woman or not, I simply didn't care and wished the movie featured more elephants.

It's misleading to say Lean ended his career with RYAN'S DAUGHTER and PASSAGE TO INDIA as those two works are separated by fourteen years. They shouldn't be seen as a pair. If anything, their difference owes to the harsh critical rebuke to RYAN'S DAUGHTERS having led Lean's self-doubt and discouragement, which nearly ended his film-making career for good. He learned something from the criticism, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA is so different in style and tone from RYAN'S DAUGHTERS. The latter was a case of Lean laying on epic film-making thick in utter disregard of the material. In contrast, PASSAGE TO INDIA has a sense of proportion. It is big when it needs to be, but also personal and intimate in other parts, like in his earlier films(which many critics consider to be his best). Lean learned from the failure, both box-office and critical, of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA was greeted mostly with applause.

White Liberation must be based on Man-Mentality, NOT Dog-Mentality — Charles Murray is Worthless because, even as he speaks for White Welfare, his Innermost Emotion is Dog-like Servility to the Jewish Master

https://www.amren.com/features/2021/06/two-cheers-for-charles-murray/

It all comes down to whether one has man-mentality or dog-mentality. When a man believes something is right and wants it, he feels it in his bones. He tries to get it, and it's not matter of what others think. He prioritizes what HE feels to be right and righteous. He has autonomy, agency, and independence.
In contrast, no matter how much a dog wants something, the desire takes backseat to the dog's need for the master's approval. This need for approval stands between the dog and what it really wants. No matter how much the dog wants something, it won't run after it IF the master will be displeased.

This is why Charles Murray is ultimately worthless. He has a dog mentality. He may want good things for white folks in a country defined by liberty and civic nationalism, but when push comes to shove, this Biden-voting lowlife scumbag's innermost emotion is abject servility to the Jewish Master. (I can understand Murray despising Donald Trump and not voting for him, but how can anyone who cares for America vote for Joe Biden? Only a status-starved craven scumbag who wants to be invited to cocktail parties.)
Because of Murray's dog-mentality, even what he wants very dearly — decent treatment of white folks like himself — must take backseat to sappy servility to Jews and eagerness to win their approval. So, even as he lays out the argument for innate racial differences, it all comes down to, "I'm doing this for YOU, my Jewish Master. It's to prevent the rise of white consciousness lest it challenge your deserved Chosen-People supremacy over us inferior goyim." What a worthless cuck pile of dung. We can't have such dogs to speak for the white race. A true patriot must be pro-white because he feels it in his bones. Because it is his innermost desire and passion. All his thoughts and actions must flow from his pride of whiteness. Anxiety about Jewish Approval must not stand in the way between him and his desire.

When a man wants to hunt rabbit, he does so because he wants to. He doesn't look over his shoulder for approval. In contrast, even when a dog is most eager to hunt rabbit, it first looks over its shoulder for the master's approval. If the master signals NO, the dog refrains from its biggest desire because its innermost emotion comes down to servility to master's approval and abject fear of his disapproval. Murray is just a white dog, a pathetic hound.

But then, Jared Taylor isn't much better. Unlike Murray, Taylor will express pride of whiteness and need for white interests. But when push comes to shove, he is ever so fearful of spelling out that the main enemy of white consciousness and white liberation is Jewish Supremacist Power. He's not full-dog like Murray but is nevertheless half-dog.
One of the unfortunate aspects of HBD is IQ-centrism. As Jews both count as white and possess the highest IQ, there's this ridiculous awe laced with sentimentality that dreams of a magical Jewish-White Alliance, especially useful to whites as Jews come with moral shield as the Holy Holocaust people: "How can we HBD people be 'racist' or 'antisemitic' when Jews are on our side?" Keep dreaming! But philosemitic HBD clowns do keep dreaming and hoping that their position may gain the seal of approval of the Jews with higher intelligence and holier morality points. It's dog-think.

White Consciousness and Liberation must be based on man-think. White people must want what they want regardless of what Jews think, feel, or demand. If Jews want to join the White Liberation and Empowerment Movement, fine, but if not, the hell with them. If whites want to hunt rabbit, they should just do it. Don't look over the shoulder for approval from the Jewish Master. That is White Liberation, the only real path to freedom and power. Especially when Jews are calling on black thugs to hunt whites, whites shouldn't need permission from Jews to go hunting and choosing their own targets.

By the way, it's not enough to mention higher crime rates among blacks. The real problem is BAMMAMA or Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Reality is race-ist, and evolution produced different races. Blacks evolved to be more muscular, more aggressive, wilder, and less inhibited. THAT is why they act the way they do, and that has been the cause of White Flight and Jew Flew from blackening areas.
But because Jewish Supremacists need to keep whites in submissive mode in servility to Zion, Jews concoct horror stories about 'systemic racism' to paralyze white folks with 'white guilt'. This is all very amusing since Jewish bankers funded much of Western Imperialism and Jewish merchants played a role in the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews were also the biggest sellers of opium to the Chinese, destroying millions of lives(and recently Jews peddled opioids to the white working class, leading to the deaths of 100,000s of whites). Jewish Bolsheviks worked with Josef Stalin to kill millions of people. And of course, Jewish Power ethnically erased the Palestinians in the tragic Nakba, and the Jewish-led Wars for Israel effectively led to the ongoing Arabocaust in which over a million Arabs and/or Muslims have died. So, where is Jewish Guilt in all this? Jews feel NONE. What a vile bunch of people, and yet, sucking up to Jews is the highest value in currently sicko America.

JEWS AND AMERICA - MOST FACTUAL 40 SECOND CLIP YOU WILL FIND

Correctly and Honestly Naming the Source of Our Woes is the First Step in the Road to Recovery from the Current Madness — Question is DO YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO NAME THE JEW? If Not, Why Not? Sentimentality? Cowardice? Opportunism?

The woman in the video above can throw all the tantrums she wants. It won’t make a difference. Actually, NOTHING will make a difference unless people begin to Name the Jew. Indeed, Jews prop up stuff like globo-homo and tranny-tyranny partly to (mis)direct people's outrage at ANYTHING but themselves. Thus, globo-homo is a win-win for Jewish Power. When accepted by goyim, it has a weakening and deracinating effect on them. When resisted by goyim, it fixates moral outrage at homos and trannies than at Jews, the real puppet-masters behind globo-homo. This is why people must expose the Jew. They must name the Jew for blame. If a puppet hits you, should you direct your rage at the puppet or at the puppet-master? While homos and trannies do everything to further their agenda, they never would have amassed the kind of power and privilege without the backing of Jews who control finance, media, academia, entertainment, law firms, and courts. If you want real change, you must name the Jew. If you are unwilling to do so out of philosemitic sentimentality, craven cowardice, or mere opportunism, just give it up. You are hopeless.

Why must the Jew be named? Imagine the following scenario. Suppose there's this nasty spoiled-rotten kid Billy. Billy is causing a lot of trouble — spraying graffiti, throwing trash, making loud noises through the night, setting things on fire, kicking dogs, stealing property, smashing windows, puncturing car tires, and etc. — , and wreaking havoc all over the place. Now, what must the good people of the neighborhood do in order to end the madness? One thing for sure, Billy will not stop with his rotten behavior unless HE is named and blamed. If people get angry and mention all the bad deeds without naming Billy as the miscreant, why would he stop? Even when his actions are condemned, he himself would be spared any culpability. Worse, suppose all the neighbors flatter and fawn over Billy even as they detest all the bad things he does. If someone kicks you and you denounce the kick but don’t name-and-blame the kicker, what good will it do? Worse, suppose you complain about the pain in your arse but shake the hand of the very person who kicked you and praise him highly. You can be sure he will do it again and again and again, just like the Marx Brothers never stop tormenting their hapless goy victims.

Globo-homo and tranny-tyranny are proxies of Jewish power. Jews fund them(and also BLM). Jews control academia & publishing and favor certain 'intellectual' trends and ideologies for promotion. Jews have in their pockets all those whore politicians who dare not voice any criticism of Jews, even though Jews are tireless in their anti-white tirades. (At most, some conzos will make a big show of standing up to some Jewish-backed agenda, only to back down in due time and revert to the role of ‘beautiful losers’. They'll just shrug their shoulders and mumble about how it is now 'law of the land', and there's nothing that can be done about it.)
And Jews always feel smug and arrogant in the knowledge that, even as their agendas may be opposed and condemned, they themselves will never be. Take the Jewish attacks on the Second Amendment. Jews are the main force behind disarming white goyim, and many conservatives passionately resist such measures. But, for all their fuming and fist-shaking, even the most vociferous defenders of the Second Amendment dare not name the Jew as the force behind Gun Control. If anything, even as they denounce the Jewish-led-and-funded agenda, they praise Jews as the most wise & wonderful people on Earth and dream like a silly little girl about winning Jews over as allies. (Or, they will say they need guns to protect Jews from 'Nazis' and Muslims even though, LOL, it's the Jews who want to take away their guns and leave them defenseless against black thugs, Antifa nuts, and deep state goons.)
Likewise, many conservatives who oppose the agenda of tranny-tyranny(and 'wokeness' in general) dare not name the Jewish Power as the main wind behind its back. So, unless Jews are named as the pushers of globo-homo and tranny craziness, they have nothing to fear and will gleefully continue in their ways.

Now, think of how much things could change if people did begin to name the Jew. Imagine if people called it what it is. What if, instead of relying on misleading labels and brands, they called a spade a spade or a bagel a bagel. Take the media landscape. It's so full of fake news and BS all around. But nothing changes because the controllers of the media are never named and blamed, therefore, they never feel the heat for what they really are. Most people refer to it as ‘mainstream news’ or ‘liberal news' or 'leftist media' or whatever. There's no mention of the crucial fact of Jewish monopoly control. Why would Jews stop with their bad behavior when they are not named and blamed for all the fake news, anti-white vitriol, warmongering, race-baiting, and deep state propaganda?

After all, idiot conzos prefer to blame anything but Jewish Power. Some even refer to the media as 'communist', as if mega-corporations are managed by adherents to Marx and Engels than by globalist Zionist Jewish supremacist super-capitalists. What morons! No wonder Jews run circles around such fools. (Or idiot conzos like Alex Jones will pretend China controls US news and Saudis control Hollywood.) Behind closed doors, Jews laugh at them and indeed they're deserving of the mockery.
If we are truly serious about waking people up to the truth, we must attach the accurate label of ‘Jewish’ or 'Jewish-Supremacist' to the industries and institutions of power. Then and only then will people come to realize and understand the real power equation in the US. And then and only then will Jews feel the heat as the most powerful group in the US. As of now, even when Jews do terrible things, they never get blamed as JEWS. No matter what evils they perpetrate, they know the aggrieved will blame anything but the Jews: The Left, the Liberals, the Communists, China or Russia, the Globalists, the Neocons, or Wall Street or Hollywood as the bastion of 'white privilege', LOL. Only if we Name the Jew will Jews take notice, and then and only then will they think twice about being so vile because their evil deeds will reflect badly on their Jewish identity. Angry with Big Tech collusion and censorship? Don't just call it Big Tech; call it Jewish-dominated Big Tech. Angry with Finance Sector robbing the world with insider trading and denying service to patriots while lending total support to Zionist Supremacists? Don't just call it Wall Street or the finance sector, but call it Jewish-controlled Finance Sector. Outraged over Deep State corruption and abuses of power? Always mention that these deep state operators are cuck-minions of Jewish supremacists.

While the Deep State has immense power, most insiders just go with the flow and do as told. Every nation has its own deep state. Deep State on its own has no agenda but is just a bundle of power/control centers. Its overall direction is decided by whichever group that happens to control the money, the ‘science’, and the ‘gods’. If Muslims controlled the US deep state, its agenda would be very different from what it is now. Jews control the Deep State, and we have the current mess resulting from the bad behavior of Jewish Supremacism. This power must be properly named.
If a tiger is traumatizing a community, would it make sense to blame any animal but the tiger? Suppose people blame the buffalo, the sloth bear, the elephant, the heron, the turtle, wild boar, and etc. but never mention the tiger. They express outrage over the harm caused by the tiger but never ever name the tiger, and so, the tiger is allowed to roam freely and kill or maim people. People go on naming scapegoats but never the tiger. Unless the tiger is named, it is a doomed community. It's like hating and treating the symptoms of a disease but loving and nurturing the disease.

In the current US, even those who denounce Jewish policies feel obligated to praise Jewish identity. It's akin to praising the murderer of your family even as you lament the actual murders. The relation between Jews and whites is akin to one between god(s) and man than between man and man. Even if mankind loathes what the gods do, they must revere and honor them as wiser and superior beings. Likewise, even when white goyim detest what Jews do, they must praise Jews and Israel as the best of the best. Not a winning formula for white goyim… and Jews know it. Will whites ever?

The fact that Jews push all this censchwarzship suggests that they've given up on being Good Jews. After all, if Jews were committed to being good and fair, they could easily get along with most goyim who only want happy co-existence with Jews. Why would most goyim hate Jews if most Jews acted good? Goyim will grow increasingly hateful toward Jews ONLY IF Jews continue to act badly or even worse. The fact that Jews feel a need to push more censorship and implement more social controls suggests that they aren't committed to good behavior and mutual respect between Jews and goyim. Rather, they look upon goyim as subhuman cattle that exist to be exploited and abused by Jews. Naturally, when goyim are treated that way, they will come to hate Jews. To counter such hatred, Jews push for more censchwarzship and use their power of media/academia to instill goyim with 'white guilt', as well as mindless servitude and blind faith in Jewish sanctity and awesomeness. Enough already.

DEFENSE CHIEF TOUTS PRIDE FILTH - Brother Nathanael

Charles Murray's latest book FACING REALITY refuses to Face the Reality of Jewish Supremacist Power behind Political Correct Woke-Lunacy — It's Not just a Matter of Facts but of Power — Jews have the Power to willfully Warp our view of Reality

https://vdare.com/articles/charles-murray-s-facing-reality-ruling-class-must-accept-race-differences-or-provoke-the-disaster-of-white-identity-politics

Charles Murray's FACING REALITY: Ruling Class Must Accept Race Differences or Provoke the 'Disaster' of White Identity Politics

So, Murray's First Emotion is to shield Jewish Supremacism from White Liberation.

"Oh master, please don't treat whites so badly. They might rise up to be free and depose you. That would be a disaster."

Never mind the real disaster has been white submission to Jewish Identity Politics. But oh no, Jewish Identity is holy to Murray. Jews are deserving of identity... unlike inferior whites.

His main worry is Jews may lose the servile loyalty of whites if they mistreat whites too much.

Whites awakening and having pride is a 'disaster' for Murray.

It's like someone admonishing a slave-master not to end slavery but to perpetuate it. Gee, the slaves might revolt if they're whipped too hard.

Go easy with the whip if Jews want whites to be happy slaves ho-de-doing and shuffling before the Jewish Massuh. That's Murray's main worry. A cuck to the very end.

Charles Murray is a a real turd. Instead of asking why the elites don't believe the truth, he should ask why the elites are spreading the lie. The ELITES know the truth. Sure, there are plenty of educated dammies, the dogma-driven dogs who have the intelligence but no sense of agency. But many of the elites do know the truth but lie anyway.

But first, who are the ruling elites? Are they colorless and merely based on meritocracy and commitment to 'liberal values'? No, the current elites have a very powerful identity seething with arrogance and contempt. To understand why the LIE is favored by these elites, we need to ask WHO these elites are. Are they merely about riches, privilege, credentials, and power? Or are they about concentrating wealth, power, and influence within a certain group? And that group is what? Take a wild guess. The Eskimos or the Jews?

If all races and groups were equal, meritocracy would produce a colorless ruling class as each group would be proportionately represented at the top. But precisely because of IQ differences among races and groups, even colorless meritocracy leads to domination by a certain group. It's like pure meritocracy in sports has led to black domination and black pride/arrogance in athletics. The end-result has been relative racial homogeneity than diversity in outfits like the NFL and especially the NBA.

Because Jews are smarter, many of them rose to the top and gained more wealth and power. So, there is a concentration of Jews among the elites. But the current elites aren't merely about pride in Jewish achievement. After all, a people could be proud of their disproportionate achievement but still be committed to the principle of colorless meritocracy. Jews don't play that way. Though many Jews did make it to the top by ability, they use their power to rig the system in their favor. Insider knowledge goes a long way to explain why Jews in finance reap such profits. And guess why BDS is suppressed across the nation. And of course, the Tribal control of the legal system ensures that many Jewish crooks get off easy(or get huge bailouts). And even if they're convicted, they are favored for pardons under total shits like Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and etc. Just ask Jonathan Pollard.
There's also the matter of chutzpahistic personality among Jews. (Personality matters. The reason why generic, mild-mannered, golden-retriever-type goyim suck up to Jews is that blandness always loses to salt. Murray is a mild-mannered fuddy-dud, and he gets thrills up his leg by sucking up to Jews with strong personality.) Such personality makes Jews more pushy and arrogant with their power. Anglo Episcopalians are equally smart as Jews, but their blander personality prefers to walk away than get dirty in a fight. (Yellows are also well-represented among higher IQ folks but are even blander than the whites. Thus, they study and follow than think and lead, which is why most of them are cuck-dogs of Jews.) In the past, Anglos had awesome race-ism on their side and used it to great effect. But as 'racism' is now deemed the worst of all possible sins, whites daren't do anything for identity sake or group interest. Not only are Jews stronger in personality but they get pass-over privilege when it comes to 'racism'. What is 'racist' and wrong for whites is noble and wise among Jews. Jews demand that we all support Israel and praise Jews, and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, even if it has led to the victimization of countless Arabs and Muslims, as well as countless whites. It goes to show ideology loses to idolatry. Even though Jews push 'equity' on the ideological level, it never applies to them because of their idolatrous status as a holy people(and also because they control the media and shape the narrative and its heroes & villains). So, even as whites are to be bashed for not being equitable enough, we must never say Jews are the richest and most privileged people on the planet. Why, that would be 'anti-semitic', insufficiently reverential to the great, super-duper, sacred Jews who not only deserve all that power and wealth but out total devotion(even when they kick out teeth out). The relation between Jews and whites is like a Jew trying to push a white guy off a cliff while the white guy goes out of his way to prevent the Jew from falling.

Privately, Jews know the truth about race and racial differences. True, there are still some idealistic Jews committed to the dogma of 'race is just a social construct', but the really powerful and/or consequential Jews at the top know the truth. They know they are smarter. They know blacks are tougher and more aggressive. They know all about racial and ethnic differences. So, why do they push the LIE? It is not out of some do-goody naive dream for social justice or equality but out of their commitment to Jewish Supremacism.
Paradoxically, Jews need to push 'equality' or 'equity'(or whatever it's called in the Current Year) to maintain Jewish supremacy. As Jews control the dogma and narrative, the issue of 'equality' or 'equity' comes down to blacks and whites(than about Jews and goyim). The Main Gripe is 'why do whites have more than blacks?' It's never about 'why do Jews have more than goyim?' or 'how come 70% of the Biden administration is Jewish?' or 'Why are Hollywood, Wall Street, Big Tech, and etc. controlled by Jews?' Indeed, Murray himself speaks of whites, blacks, Asians, and 'Latins' but doesn't mention Jews. (Why is 'latin' still used for brown people from South America and Mexico when they aren't Latin in race or heritage?) Because Murray won't mention Jews, he creates the false impression that naive white people are behind the 'woke' lunacy about race relations, i.e. hopefully Political Correctness will end IF white elites come to their senses. But, that's just wishful thinking.
In truth, Jews control America and planted those lunatic ideas in the minds of deracinated soulless/rootless whites who are now so gullible because they no longer have a real heritage, history, religion, culture, and/or noble race-ism. Hungry for meaning, they readily absorb whatever BS is pushed by prestigious Jews from the top.
'Woke' lunacy and Political Correctness are not the product of do-goody zealotry and misguided naivete though propped up by them. They are the product of willfully malicious agendas of Jewish Supremacists. Of course, many who believe in the nonsense are sincere in their beliefs. No doubt many white idiots who weep to GREEN MILE or prostrate themselves before George Floyd murals are earnestly dumb or honestly stupid. But these are powerless boobs, the suckers. They are like useful idiots during the Cold War, the anti-war types who were unwittingly used as stooges by Moscow. If not for Jewish concentration of power, the current PC idiocy would not exist, at least not to the extent it does.

Besides, the powerful gets to decide the targets of any ideological ire. Thus, 'equity' fixates on whites having more than blacks but not on Jews having more than whites. It fixates on rare instances of blacks being mistreated by white cops but says nothing about countless whites brutalized by tougher and stronger blacks. It says nothing about the lack of equal protection for many individuals(of all races) who were attacked by BLM and Antifa mobs. It's like in the Cultural Revolution, the slogan 'To Rebel is Justified' didn't mean one could rebel against Mao and the Gang of Four. No, you could rebel only against targets approved by Mao and the Gang of Four. It's no different today in the current West. 'Equity' means kvetching about blacks having less than whites, not blacks or goyim having less than Jews. Even though Jews have the most by far, they hog moral credit by berating whites for having more than blacks. This way, Jews get to own more and morality at the same time. Even though they have more than whites, as spokesmen for the blacks they hog the limelight as champions of 'equity' by bashing 'white privilege'. Rather pathetically, rich white-cuck elites ape the Jews and play the same game. Bidens and Clintons raking it in and living like new royalty but always berating far less fortunate whites for 'exclusion' and 'social injustice'.

But Murray won't mention any of this because he has a giant kosher dildo up his pitiful arse. He is truly one of the most despicable turds that ever lived. In some ways, he's worse than full-blown cucks who are at least consistent in their cravenness; they never deviate from the official line and are rewarded accordingly. In contrast, Murray has taken lots of lumps from Jews in the media and academia, but he sucks up to them all the same. But then, Jared Taylor is even more despicable. At the very least, Murray is somewhat tolerated by the Establishment(because he rarely mentions Jews in a critical way) and promotes libertarianism while denigrating any notion of white identity or consciousness.
Indeed, Murray is sometimes useful to Jews because he will say what's on their minds in a genteel watered-down way. This way, Jews can outsource it to Murray and don't have to dirty their own hands. After all, even as Jews push the nuttery of PC and blackness, they are anxious it may get out of hand, as indeed it did in 2020 with Antifa and BLM getting overzealous and hurting some Jews in the bargain as well. It is then that Jews pull out Murray and publish his views. This way, Jews get to temper the extremism of PC by using Murray as proxy, all the while feigning moral outrage that someone could hold such views. A sneaky way of playing both sides. This means Murray has some value to the Jews. They keep him around as mild and moderate Mr. Crime-Think when things get too out of control(and a bit of counter-narrative is necessary), and on some level, Murray seems to know of and value his little niche in the system. So, if Murray were to speak the total truth, he would have something to lose. His shtick is walking the fine line between the Correct-Think and Crime-Think. In contrast, Taylor is utterly vilified and hated by Jews and has nothing more to lose but carries on with a ridiculous fantasy of smart Jews finally seeing the light and joining with the likes of him.

The current lunacy is the result of Jewish Power. Jews push 'equity-wokery' to blame and shame whites into moral obeisance in order to secure Jewish Supremacism. Critical Race Theory is essentially Jewish reworking of antisemitism whereby Jews-as-villains are replaced with whites-as-villains. There is an element of revenge in all this, but even that isn't the main driving force, which is Jewish Supremacism. Jews are no dummies, and they know they got numeracy but not the numbers. Whites got the numbers. So, if Jews are to maintain their supreme position, they need white cuckery, white submission, white obedience, and etc. before the Jewish Master. Jews use tons of bribes/carrots, but that only goes so far. Japan spread money around in the 1980s, but loyalty based on cash only goes so far. Also, allegiance based purely on money can easily be reviled(as China is finding out these days, especially with Australia). China spent a lot of money to buy influence and ended up being accused of corrupting the world, and people who took the money are shamefacedly cutting ties.
If Jewish Power was solely based on money, it would be vulnerable to exposure and condemnation, much like the money power of Chinese and the Saudis. Jewish Money Power exceeds that of any other in the world, but how come so little is talked about it, especially among whites, the key demographics for Jewish supremacist power? In the past, Jews spent a lot of money and bought a lot of 'friends', but they also faced the danger of being called out for their nefarious influence.
Jews know this and decided to control whites not only through gold but guilt. Give some pieces of gold to the 'good whites' who do as Jews tell them but also instill white hearts with massive 'guilt' so that whites won't dare Name the Jew. So, Jews endlessly bring up the Holocaust and say whites are responsible for all eternity and must atone and make amends. Or any white criticism of Jewish Power is deemed 'antisemitic', thus related to 'nazism'.
But emphasizing Jewish tragedy isn't sufficient to control white hearts forever. After all, Holocaust is receding into history. Whatever might have happened in World War II, the fact is Jews have become the richest and most powerful people in the world, which is becoming impossible not to notice. Also, Jewish Power has become Nazi-like and murderous, which is why criticism of Zionism is growing on the Left. If it were merely between whites and Jews, 'white guilt' may well grow weaker because whites would realize that the Jews who are always berating whites are the richest and most privileged people on Earth. Whatever Jews may have suffered in history, it's not a good look for a rich and powerful people to always play victim.
Unlike Jews however, many blacks will always remain on the bottom. Therefore, they are good material with which to bait long-term 'white guilt'. Unlike Jews who made it out of the ghetto and live in penthouses, many blacks are still stuck in the ghetto. So, while it'd be absurd for Jews to complain about their socio-economic conditions and blame it on whites, this can be done indefinitely with blacks. Jews can always point to blacks and say, "They are mired in poverty because of YOU WHITES", and enough whites will fall sucker for this. And even those whites who see through the LIE will pretend to go along because they won't be hired or promoted unless they are ostensibly with the program. This way, Jewish control of whites isn't just through money/gold but through soul and guilt. Thus browbeaten and sullen with shame, whites seek redemption for their 'racism', and Jews suggest the way: Endless sucking and cucking up to Jews and their two favored allies, blacks and homos. Notice there is nothing about how whites should care more about Palestinians, investigate Jewish power/privilege, or condemn supremacist Wars for Israel that killed countless Arabs/Muslims. If anything, Jews use BLM to whitewash their own racial supremacism in the Middle East. With blacks as bought-off allies, Jews strut around as champions of 'anti-racism' — after all, they are allied with Noble Negroes — , which gives moral cover for what they do to Palestinians. As long as Jews paint the bombs 'gay' or 'BLM', so many educated whites(the key support-demographics for Jewish Supremacism) will turn a blind eye to the evils of US foreign policy. How can the US military be bad when it spreads the gospel of BLM and globo-homo around the world? Jews favor ni**ers to get a free pass for killing san-ni**ers. And US military's globo-homo policy means it has the moral right to fuc* the world in the ass. For many brainwashed woke-cucks or wucks, just about ANYTHING is justified if wrapped in the symbol of BLM or Globo-Homo, in a manner similar to the dumb mantra of 'Support the Troops' justifying wars for idiot conzos.

That's what this is really about. And Jews have gotten even more extreme in pushing PC lunacy because of the internet and Trumpian populism. Jews are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. They know that White Liberation may well mean the end of Jewish Supremacism.

Now, Murray knows all this. He knows it but pretends otherwise because, all said and done, he is a worthless bald-headed cuck maggot whose First Emotion is mindless reverence for Jews whom he deems the Chosen Race due to their higher IQ. If some white women got jungle fever for black dongs, some white men(not least in HBD circles) have Juggle Fever for acrobatic Jewish brains. Murray is so awed by Jewish Genius, the summit of 'human achievement', that he grovels before it as the greatest thing in the universe. It's like master and dog. No matter how much Jews kick him like a dog, his sappy dream is, "I hope they realize I'm a good dog with everlasting loyalty, because my main duty as a goy is to serve the superior race, the one with Jewish Genius." So, just like a dog is loyal even when its master does wrong, Murray is loyal to Jews on a similar basis. While Murray knows full well that Jews sometimes act badly, he has internalized their superiority vis-a-vis goyim, and that means, all said and done, Jews must rule and goyim must serve. The main meaning of his life comes not from libertarian ideology but an idolatrous devotion to Jews as the Superior Race(just like some whites have similar feelings about blacks as the superior race of song-dong-strong.) What a worthless cuck. This lowlife even changed his view on 'gay marriage' because some of his RICH FRIENDS happen to be homo. You see, the status-minded Murray won't dare offend the 'better kind of people', especially Jews. And if Jews say 'homo is holy too', Murray bends over to the homos and gladly takes it up the arse.

He pretends in the latest book that these 'better kind of people' are just misguided and misinformed when, in fact, they know the truth but maliciously spread the lie to guilt-bait whites into obeisance. Imagine there's a master and a dog. But suppose the master, a nasty son-of-a-bitch, gets another dog, a bigger and tougher one, and uses it to attack and humiliate the original dog. The master knows full well what he is doing and sadistically enjoys the cruelty, but suppose the original dog prefers the fantasy that the master is acting this way out of ignorance and in total innocence of the fact that the new dog is bigger and more vicious. Stupid dog.

Murray, who won't FACE THE REALITY of Jewish Power and its abuses, recommends that we face the reality of race. Pot calling kettle black.

This isn't just a matter of facts but of power. Certain facts are suppressed and certain fictions are pushed because of who has the power.

Truth is power-neutral. Facts are independent of any ideology, any agenda, any side. Of course, every power tries to selectively use facts to favor its own agenda. Like with the question, is the cup half full or half empty. Still, the fact is the water fills half the cup, something that can't be denied by both sides... that is if they have any respect for facts. On the matter of race, Jews don't go with cup-half-full or cup-half-empty argument, because, no matter how one slices or dices it, it is threatening to the Narrative. So, they push the NO-WATER-IN-CUP argument when, clearly, water fills half the cup(suggesting both nature and nurture).

Facts don't assert themselves. It doesn't matter how true something is. It doesn't on its own express its truth, just like a gun, no matter how powerful, doesn't shoot on its own. Gun has to be shot by a person. And people communicate and spread messages. People love power-and-control above all, even above facts and truth. It's why we have so many lawyers. People don't hire lawyers to speak the truth but to twist facts and weave fiction to win cases. If politicians must lie to win and face losing with the truth, they will favor the lie over the truth.
Of course, facts are often crucial to power. Those with better understanding of chemistry make better medicine. Those with better understanding of ballistics make better guns. Those with better understanding of soil produce more food. So, better mastery of facts leads to more wealth and power. The West beat out the Rest because its methodology became more attuned to facts of reality.
But just because people use facts to gain wealth/power doesn't mean they prefer facts over wealth/power or hold them in equal regard. No, people love power more, and if suppressing facts will favor their power, they will do just that. Thus, when power favors facts, it's more opportunism than a matter of principle. Why are referees necessary in sports? All the owners, all the coaches, all the players, and all the fans know the rules that must be abided by. And yet, referees are necessary to call foul because the priority in sports is to win. If a foul is committed to the advantage of one's team, it's almost always overlooked(by owners, coaches, players, and fans) even though everyone knows it's a foul. In the 2020 election, even many Democrats must know that there was massive fraud. But those facts are secondary to their winning, their power. It's just human nature. Power has its own logic, and this is where fascism is most useful unlocking the true nature of power.

Truth is Jews control the US, not least its academia and media. And for over a generation, Jews have been using news, education, and entertainment mainly to increase their own power and to weaken rival goyim, especially the whites. THAT is the main driving force behind Jewish media and academia. While Jews will favor facts that favor them, they will almost always favor fiction over facts when it's to their advantage. We saw this with Russia Collusion Hoax, BLM lunacy, lies about Syria & Assad, Covid hysteria, and etc.

Now, why would this be any different with the subject of race? As long as Jews regard the facts of racial differences(being the real factors behind America's problems) as a threat to their control over whites(which ensures their control over America), they will do anything to bury those facts. Jewish Supremacism needs White Submission, and Jews decided long ago that White Guilt is the best way to guarantee white moral paralysis and lack of agency, thus putting them at the mercy of Jews and their allies, blacks and homos. If Murray hasn't the guts to FACE THIS REALITY, he shouldn't be lecturing about how we need to face up to the reality of race. He needs to dwell less on facts and more on WHICH power is suppressing those facts and WHY.

NICK FUENTES: YOU CANNOT BE PART OF THE SYSTEM AND AMERICA FIRST

Five Tricks of Deflection by Jewish Power to Divert Our Attention from Jewish Supremacism and Its Evils — How Jews both work with China against White America and make White America focus on China but not on Jews — Jewish Use of Globo-Homo and Tranny-Tyranny

We need to Name the Jew. Why not? Jews always name the White, even for things whites are not responsible for.

The Jewish Way has five main strategies for making whites suck up to Jewish Power and not see the light.

1. Blame White Supremacism and ‘systemic racism'. This puts whites on the moral defensive and always eager to prove they are not ‘racist’, meaning whites are afraid to make any criticism of Jews and blacks. BLM is largely Jewish use of blacks to guilt-bait and castrate whites. ‘White Supremacy’ is also useful to Jews as the ideological and iconoclastic glue that holds various nonwhite groups and self-flagellating(aka virtue-signaling) white proggies together.

2. Russia Factor. Trump won in 2016 because so many people were upset with globalism pushed by Jews. But lest more people realize this, Jews pushed the notion of Russian Collusion. In other words, Trump didn’t win due to legitimate grievances and validity of nationalism but because Russia cheated on behalf of Trump, aka "Putin’s puppet". Of course, Russia did no such thing whereas Jews defrauded the 2020 election — they stole it out in the open and could get away with it because they control all media and institutions — , but that’s how Jews play the game. If Jews do bad and people get upset, Jews blame the problem on Russia(deemed vile in the eyes of libby-dibs because it won’t bend over to globo-homo, the most sacred crusade for many idiot progs who can’t even defend the meaning of womanhood from tranny-tyranny).

3. China or the Chi-Coms. Here, Jews play a more devious game. When it comes to ‘White Supremacy’ and ‘Russian Collusion’, almost all Jews openly and loudly say IT’S EVIL WHITES or THE RUSSIANS. Jews of both parties blame Russia, Russia, Russia. In their paranoia, they hate Russia as a template for sovereign white nation that defies Jewish globalist hegemony.
But when it comes to China, Jews play it both ways. Most Jews on the Democratic side will be somewhat muted in their China-bashing. They will do it but pull their punches because they see China as a necessary partner in the globalist undermining of White West. And Chinese know Jews control the US and work with Jews as the New Masters of America. (Chinese know they must do this on a hush-hush basis as Jews don’t want to be named, but this means people notice the Chinese hand but not the Jewish one, meaning China gets all the blame.)
This is useful to Jews because China will be blamed for all that goes wrong in the US even though Jews are often the main culprits. And bashing ChiComs is a red meat that Jews allow for white conzos who are too chicken to name the Jew, black, or homo. So, while Jews don’t quite join in the pile-on against China(and even pretend to defend Chinese from ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’), they don’t use their formidable control of media and institutions to suppress white conzo attacks on China; usually, they tolerate it and even encourage it while keeping their own hands 'clean'. While Jewish media power will jump on and savage anyone who dares to criticize, however mildly, Jews, homos, and blacks, it pretty much tolerates any level of China-bashing.
This way, Jews win both ways. By acting friendly to China, they use it as a partner in Jewish globalism against whites. But by letting white conzos growl at China, Jews take no blame, all of which falls on the Chinese. (Conzos are like masochistic jealous jilted lover who will do anything to win back their Jewish master-hubby who is dilly-dallying with dragon lady Suzie Wong.) It's a smart move by Jews. Jews outsource China-bashing and China-goating to white conzos. Take the election fraud of 2020. Jews did most of it, but conzos blame China(and Iran and even Venezuela, and some even mentioned Pakistan). Jews know that white conzos are much frustrated in the New America controlled by anti-white Jews, and these conzos need some outlet to vent their spleen against. As white conzos are too afraid of Jews, they need something to bash, and it's usually Russia(among libby-dibs) and China(among conzo-wonzos).

4. Iran and Muslims or the Neocon thing. This may have declined in value over the years. Also, these days, libby-dibs are more likely to support More Wars than the Conzos are. Libby Dibs control all the Deep State and love the game of power; they are more gullible when it comes to so-called 'mainstream news', which is really Jewish Supremacist propaganda, not least for More Wars for Israel. Still, even though Conzos aren’t as war-crazy like in the post 9/11 Dubya years, many of them still love to growl at Mooooooooslims in the manner of Samuel Huntington's CLASH OF CIVLIZATION(and in the hope that if they bark at Muslims loudly and long enough, they will prove their worth to Jewish masters who will pet them on the head and offer more doggy biscuits). Never mind this CLASH wouldn't have existed but for Wars for Israel and Mass Immigration to Europe(pushed by Jewish forces and their cuck minions).
Many Conzos still knee-jerkedly support Israel as the ‘last outpost of Western Civilization’ against the Moooooslim barbarians. It’s seen as ersatz crusade. And more Libertarian types argue we must hate and even kill bushels of Mooooooslims because there’s less feminism and ‘gay pride’ in the Middle East; and Israel is so great and awesome because it puts on the biggest ‘gay’ parades in the world — this is what passes for ‘conservatism’, aka cuckservatism, in the West. (Never mind Iran ensures more rights and freedom for women than Saudi Arabia does, which goes to show that these libertardian arguments take backseat to ‘what is good for the Jews’.) As long as enough white conzos and white libby-dibs are into neo-crusade mentality(for whatever reason, e.g. ‘Muzzies are terrorists’, ‘Support and defend Israel’, ‘women’s rights’, ‘Christians vs Muslims’, ‘Assad gasses babies and eats them for lunch, and must go’ etc), Jews can direct white energies away from Jewish Power toward the Mooooooslims.

5. Use globo-homo as front and proxy. Multi-Culturalism was part of Jewish bait-and-switch. Initially, Jews attacked Western Civilization and the White West by calling for appreciation and celebration of ALL Cultures, especially those of key minorities. But, Jews showed no interest in the real values of Hindus, Arabs, Muslims, East Asians, North Africans, and many other groups. But then, why should they? Most cultures around the world tend to be conservative and traditionalist, at least relative to the deracinated West. Jews used Multi-Culturalism only to the extent of rallying nonwhites(as victims) into a coalition against whites(as perennial villains). It was never about any genuine appreciation of different cultures. Indeed, the globo-homo & tranny-tyranny cult has proven the lie of Multi-Culturalism. Instead of promoting various cultures equally, Jewish Power favors 'gay pride' uber alles. US embassies don't fly banners saying PALESTINIAN LIVES MATTER. Only Jewish Identity and Black Identity get equal billing with globo-homo. The rest are all sideshows or mere backdrop. As most cultures around the world are anti-'gay' agenda, Jews know that true Multi-Culturalism would be mostly anti-globo-homo and tranny-tyranny. So, instead of urging homos to respect other cultures, Jews demand that all cultures change their values and alter their attitudes to welcome, promote, and celebrate homo decadence and tranny degeneracy. Jews especially target the urban affluent and/or educated in cities around the world as such types tend to be most deracinated, rootless, status-conscious, and eager to conform to global trends emanating from Jewish-run metropoles. This is good for Jews because they totally control the money and brains behind globo-homo and also because homos and trannies are avid allies of Jews as both groups have much to gain from spreading rootless globalism and vain cult of narcissism around the world. Globo-Homo is essentially proxy of Jewish Hegemonism. Furthermore, globo-homo is a useful diversion for Jewish Power. If people direct their outrage at 'gays' and trannies, Jews themselves get less abuse. Jews are also devious. While the bulk of Jewish Power pushes globo-homo, Jews also take on the token role as opponents of globo-homo. Thus, Jews hedge their bets and even fool dimwit or sappy conservatives into believing that Jews are on their side.

Now, the sad fact. Jews attack whites, Russians, Chinese, and Iranians(& Muslims), BUT none of them dares mention that Jews rule America and are behind this madness. Just like Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, they are afraid to Name the Jew. Even Russia, China, and Iran, despite their national sovereignty, dare not name the Jew.
Why not? They fear Jewish power because Jews control the West. Whites, conzos and libby-dibs, are so reverential toward and protective of Jews that any naming of Jewish Power by Russia, China, or Iran will be construed by most white cuckservatives and wuckerals as ‘ANTISEMITISM’ or ‘NAZISM’!!
Russia, China, and Iran know that Jews control white people’s minds in the West, and they don’t want ALL THE WEST to be against them. So, they choose not to name the Jew who has the power over institutions and individuals in the West and can turn the Idiot White West against any nation. Jews are the cowboys, whites are the cattle to be herded this way or that way. But as long as whites play cattle to Jewish cowboys, their main role is as meat headed for the slaughterhouse.

JEWISH SCIENTIST PROPOSES CURE FOR WHAT HE CALLS THE “PARASITIC CONDITION OF WHITENESS.” - The Red Elephants - Vincent James