Two Kinds of People: Tribal/Selfless vs Universal/Selfish.

We loosely associate tribalism with selfishness and universalism with selflessness. It is said that a tribal–or particularist–person only cares about himself and his community whereas the universalist person cares about others and all of humanity. This may indeed be true in some respects, but selfless particularism and selfish universalism also seem to be quite commonplace. We only need to look at innumerable obvious examples from history.
　
Consider the Germans who obediently served Hitler. Consider the Japanese samurai who lived and died by their allegiance and oath to their lords. These were all highly particularist folks. They lived, fought, and died for their tribal, clan-centered, or national community. They were willing to sacrifice everything for their master or masters, to defend or expand a world of their own. They may have lacked great sympathy or feelings for people outside their community, but they were not selfish or self-centered individuals. Their life meaning was wholly invested in the community to which they belonged. If Hitler told his soldiers to go fight and die, millions of dutiful German soldiers did so. They considered it a great honor to fight and die for their Fuhrer, nation, and race. One could argue that they were selfish and greedy in a collective, communal, or tribal sense against other peoples, but they were not selfish in the individual sense.
　
Or, consider the family. There are many parents willing to do everything for their children. These parents can be said to be selflessly sacrificing for their children. And, some children are devoted practitioners of filial piety. But, these self-sacrificing parents or devoted children may not have much sympathy for people outside blood kinship.
Consider the movie GODFATHER where the Corleones will go to hell and back–at the very least, Michael went to Sicily and back–for the sake of the family but don’t much give a damn about those outside the family. Vito Corleone had tried to get Michael deferred from military service, and at one point, Sonny says only suckers fight and die for strangers. The young and idealistic Michael disagrees and says he signed up to serve his country. From this scene–the final one in Godfather II–, we might conclude Vito and Sonny are tribally generous but universally stingy. The Corleones established a good life in the United States, but their main loyalty is not to the US or the Constitution–nor even to NY–, but to blood. It’s all about the family. They’ll do anything for the family and closest associates(like Johnny Fontaine), but they’ll do little or nothing for the larger society. In contrast, Michael–at least initially–seems concerned about people and issues outside his immediate circle of family and friends. He appears more generous to all of humanity, less toward his own family. But, can we say that Michael is fundamentally more generous and selfless than the Corleones, or is the object of his selflessness simply different from that of Vito and Sonny’s? Furthermore, one can argue that Michael’s decision to defy the rules of the Corleone family was a kind of individualist selfishness. By embracing universalism–or a greater nationalism beyond family ties–, he was grasping for his own independence and freedom. Subconsciously, self-assertion rather than service to country may have been the main motivation.
As a member of the family, he was burdened with certain family obligations and expectations.
But, being a member of humanity–a patriotic American–enables him to lose himself among strangers to whom he owes NO SPECIFIC obligation. (One can only be truly free in the modern sense if one is a stranger among others bound by impersonal material contracts and abstract ideals. In this sense, it’s not surprising that even an oppressive ideology/system like communism had initially seemed liberating to many young people in poor countries who had previously been bound to family, clan, and custom.) One can also argue that an individual making a claim for the larger community or humanity is implying that he has the right to lead/rule/control/dominate other people or has the right to certain entitlements paid for by rest of humanity–welfare, free housing, free medicine, etc. Thus, universalism can also serve the interests of selfishness. Indeed, universalist selfishness can be more dangerous and destabilizing than particularist selfishiness. A would-be universalist leader seeks control and power over entire nations, even the entire world. A would-be universalist activist expects all the world to feed, clothe, and house him. Most radical universalists want either power or freebies. Rarely do they want to work hard and share the wealth they’ve created with rest of humanity. There are many ‘progressive’ rich capitalists, but they either tend to be naively stupid about world outside business, hungry for political power to bought with money, or simply afraid of ‘leftist’ activism and willing to dole out money to trendy causes so as to be left alone.
　
Let us consider some examples of universalist selfishness. Take Karl Marx. It’s often been said that Marx, for all his faults, was a man of great compassion. He wanted to ‘change the world’ so that man would not exploit fellow man. But, let us look at what Marx did for those closest to him? He had a devoted wife and children. His choice of lifestyle and career meant that his family would have to suffer, but Marx didn’t do much for their well-being. He was so busy caring about humanity that he let his family nearly starve to death. Now, it wouldn’t haven been so bad if Marx worked to feed his family, but he didn’t even do that. For all his professed compassion for the working class, he refused to stoop to its level and do manual labor. He only chose to do intellectual or ideological work, and he expected to be supported by rich capitalists who admired his genius. Indeed, one can argue that compassion conceals power-lust. Poor or weak people don’t feel compassion for rich or strong people. Feeling compassion for others means you’re in a position of superiority. Compassion is a form of luxury. A rich man dropping a few coins into a beggar’s cup feels the luxury of compassion. The beggar receives the coins like a dog receiving a bone. Thus, Marx enjoyed the pleasure of power-lust in his professed compassion for the working class. He claimed to struggle for a world with no more exploitation, but he never wanted to be a member of the unwashed rabble. He wanted to be a member of a moral and intellectual aristocracy that would lead the masses toward the new future. Thus, love for The People was a ticket to or a justification for his lust for power.
　
Or, consider Che Guevara, the much romanticized heir of Marx. He has also been praised and glorified as a man who cared for The People. Thus, it’s been said he was a selfless warrior who sacrificed his life for the good of the people oppressed by exploitative capitalism and imperialism. But, was he really selfless? He didn’t care too much for his family. He dumped his first ugly wife and married a prettier woman. But, he didn’t much care for her either nor the children they had together. He was too busy chasing after other women and the Revolution. His love for the People was a rationale for him to find pussy and adventure. Even if there was some truth to the fact Che was enraged by poverty and exploitation, it seems Che’s main motivation for joining the Revolution was vanity, self-glorification, and self-adulation. He wanted to be a communist god-king or rock star, a kind of Jesus. He dreamt of a communist empire stretching all across Latin America and saw himself as the King of the new order. And, was Mao any different?
　
Though universalism is often associated with collectivism, it is just as much a blood relative of individualism. After all, true individualism is only possible in true universalism. This is why there will always be a clash between nationalists and libertarians. Libertarianism understands that true individualism must be universalist. For an individual to be totally free and unconstrained by tradition, customs, culture, family, tribe, and nation, he must be a member of the universal or cosmopolitan community. Cultures compromise individualism because all cultures define and place moral/social demands on the individual. For example, a Jew is expected to uphold certain traditions and cling to certain loyalties. As long as he remains a Jew, he cannot be a totally free individual who makes his OWN choices on all matters. As a Jew, he is expected to remember the Holocaust and support Israel. To be a total individual, a Jew has to abandon his Jewishness and join the world community as a free-thinking individual who makes his own decisions every step of the way outside of social or cultural pressure.
Of course, the problem with libertarianism is it’s just another radical idea that tries to create the impossible. Despite all the talk of globalism and the privileged cosmopolitan delusions of the NWO elites, the fact remains that most people will remain affixed to a culture, nation, and tradition. Weakening borders and merging the world together will only produce more chaos, violence, and tensions. We need only look at the dire history of Latin America to realize that ONE WORLD culture doesn’t work. Catholics have failed, communists have failed, and globalism–at least the radical kind–isn’t working either.
　
If communism or Marxism is a form of collectivist universalism, libertarianism is a form of individualist universalism. Universalism is a good and noble idea, as it’s only natural for scientists, thinkers, spiritualists, and activists to seek or champion universal truth or justice. After all, we know that the law of gravity is universal all across Earth and throughout the universe. There is no British gravity as opposed to Arab gravity. And, we know that people everywhere are fundamentally similar; they feel much the same feelings and have many common intellectual abilities. So, universalism, to a sensible degree, was never the problem. The problem has always been radicalism, a poison that destroys all ideas, causes, and movements. Attach ‘radical’ to any -ism, and it turns into a purist, utopian, intolerant, and arrogant venom.
　
There may be moderate libertarians, but the more famous ones tend to be the radical ones like Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist. Perhaps, we should at least give them credit for their consistency of logic, but therein lies the problem–the idea that the world and humanity can be understood and saved by only one strain of thought or one thread of logical argument. No matter how logical an argument, all human arguments are grounded in ‘what FEELS right’. Ayn Rand calling her school of thought ‘Objectivism’ was just pure arrogance.
　
At any rate, libertarianism is valuable if only for exposing the moral defects of communism, and vice versa. Consider that both consider themselves to be universal truths, yet they’ve arrived at totally different conclusions. History had made it plain as day that communism was less about equality of man than about the Nietzschean power-lust on the part of some individuals to gain god-like wisdom, authority, and power. Communism may not take or maintain power without masses of selfless suckers willing to serve the Great Cause, the State, or the Great Helmsman, but it would never have come into existence or triumphed in certain countries without the cult of ‘great man’. So much for universal selflessness. Furthermore, the majority of the people came to tolerate or even support communism in communist nations out of selfishness than selflessness. Once Stalinist forced labor camps were shut down, communism for most Soviet citizens meant getting something for doing the least amount of work. A Polish friend once told me that despite communist Poland having been an unhappy place, the workers sure enjoyed their 2 hr lunch breaks. And, what does the passage of universal healthcare in America really mean? It means POWER for those who will control the system, and it means free healthcare for the masses who don’t want to pay for it themselves. There’s much here that has to do with selfishness.
　
Of course, other values and ideas are also rife with contradictions. Take heroism, for instance. Since heroes take on the toughest and most dangerous work, you’d think people on the ground or in the front line are most obsessed with heroism–and indeed this is true of some individuals. But, this isn’t so in most cases. Generally, those who make the most noise about heroism are the ones who are safely removed from the front lines. So, Patton talked big about heroism, but he was the one giving orders, not the one getting his guts blown apart. For soldiers on the ground or in the battle, heroism is an afterthought, if that. Their only thought is to survive and live another day. Men who lie wounded in army hospitals don’t think about heroism. Generally, chickenhawks and privileged men far removed from the battleground expound about big and grandiose ideals. There’s a scene in the German film DAS BOOT where the submarine crew comes up for air but then are lectured about duty and service by commanding officers who are enjoying champagne and gourmet food.
And today, there are many fools on the left who romanticize violent revolution and many idiots on the right who romanticize Nazi ‘heroism’ in WWII. Such people are poisoned by ideas and have little use for reality. They’ve forgotten the tyranny and murderousness of communism. They’ve forgotten the fate of the Germans in the war. Many German soldiers may have gone into battle feeling like great heroes, but they soon came face to face with the real nature of war–that heroism is a myth in war, especially in a modern war where whether one lives or dies is a matter of luck.
　
Hitler was the most frightening kind of tyrant for Nazism was a perverted synthesis of both particularism and universalism. It was what one might call a universalist particularism. Generally, particularists throughout history sought isolation. Thus, feudal Japan shut itself off from the rest of the world. Thus, Franco’s Spain was inward looking and wanted no great involvement in world affairs. The particularist right believed in a world of its own, wanted to be left alone, and wanted to leave others alone.
The universalists, on the other hand, sought to unify and reorder the world with their ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. They were not necessarily for a military conquest of the entire world. Their main objective was to spread their values and ideas all over the world. Thus, Christians sought to Christianize the world. It didn’t matter whether it happened by force, persuasion, diplomacy, missionary work, etc. This was also true of Islam.
And communists similarly wanted to turn the entire world communist by any means necessary. Universalism posited that people all around the world were fundamentally the same, therefore capable of understanding the same basic truths and attaining the same basic justice. Whatever delusions or hypocrisies were rife in all its forms, universalism was supposed to advance, liberate, and/or unite all of mankind.
　
The virtue of particularism was it wanted to leave others alone and wanted to be left alone. Its vice was its dogmatic clinging to much that was static and/or oppressive–in the name of sacred tradition–and its often petty or even contemptuous lack of curiosity for other peoples and cultures. (Thus, Japan stagnated over the centuries in virtual isolation precisely when the West was growing richer and stronger.) The virtue of universalism is it seeks to change society by overturning privileges of the few and ensuring rights to the many–all of us. It also has a very human and idealistic urge to share certain ideas, values, and truths will the rest of mankind. The vice of universalism is it can be intrusive, morally arrogant, aggressive, and blind to its own hypocrisies. Thus, Christian universalists were blind to the fact that other cultures had their own sacred faiths and even their own versions of universalism. After all, Buddhism and Islam are also universalist. Also, in its zeal and impatience to change the world, radical universalists have committed their own great crimes. The culmination of radical universalist folly was communism in the 20th century. Totally committed to their secular-faith-as-objective-science, communists were blind to their own blood-stained hands. It was more important to validate their sacred dogma, even if it meant enslaving or killing all the ‘wrong’ people.
　
Anyway, even more dangerous than communism was Nazism. If communism was radical universalism, Nazism was universalist particularism. Though it’s true enough that Hitler didn’t want to ‘conquer the world’, he did want to dominate of Europe and Eurasia and dominate world affairs. Hitler was not a traditional particularist whose motto was, ‘leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone.’ Hitler was a particularist on race but a universalist when it came to territorial vision. He wanted to universalize ‘Aryanism’. Since his ideology was based on blood–‘Aryanism’ was a biological truth than a moral or cultural idea–the only way to universalize it was by exterminating non-Aryans from the lands coveted by the ‘Aryans’. For a man who rejected universalism as an idea, he sure embraced universalism as a military and racial objective. Hitler sought to convert 1/3 of the world into an ‘Aryan’ utopia, and the only way it could be accomplished was by wiping off huge numbers of non-Aryans.
　
Some people on the White Right are ignorant of this and worship Hitler as a comic book hero fighting the venal Jews. Yet, other members of the White Right know this all too well but aren’t bothered by it because of (1) their obsessive fetish with the beauty, grandeur, and magnificence of the Third Reich. Priding themselves as nihilistic Nietzschean connoisseurs of higher beauty and unsentimental meta-morality inaccessible to the unwashed rabble, they turn their noses at notions such as sanctity of human life. As far as they’re concerned, most of humanity is commonplace and boring–what with 6 billion people around the world. What is truly precious and rare are deemed to be greatness, beauty, nobility, excellence, purity, etc. Since the ‘Aryans’ as formulated by Hitler were supposed to represent the highest form of natural beauty, cultural excellence, strength, and health & vigor, it is assumed that they had some natural right to dominate and even exterminate other peoples who were merely dime-a-dozen. Some white rightists admire the Japanese for the same reason. Regarding the warrior code and culture of the samurai to be cooler and more magnificent than the cultures of less martial Asians, some white rightists believe that the ‘superior’ Japanese had every right to massacre any number of commonplace ‘chinks’ to create an empire of the samurai. Most of these white right types tend to be hopeless geeks themselves. (2) There was and still is the idea on the part of some of the white right that Russians were lesser whites or no longer true whites because their blood had been tainted by Mongol invasion centuries ago and because their minds had been f***ed by the Bolshevik Jews. And other white rightists believe that the Germans had a right to rule over the Russians because Germans were simply a more advanced people while the brutish Russians were half-man/half-beasts who were only fit for taking orders. In other words, Russians are simply white ‘niggers’ or ‘spicks’, and Russia should have been a backyard for the Germans.
　
At any rate, it’s probably true that selfishness–or self-centeredness or self-more-ness–is a natural human trait. In this sense, if you repress one form of selfishness, it merely morphs into another kind. Similarly, if one suppresses or denies one’s sexual drives, it doesn’t really go away but surfaces in another form. Thus, if you lock up a lot of men together and don’t provide them with access to women, they turn to buggering one another. If you prohibit priests from marrying, some of them turn to child molestation. A lonely shepherd in the middle of nowhere may start mounting his own sheep. Or, if no kind of sexual outlet is allowed at all, sexual emotions can turn to violent emotions. To be sure, a few individuals do manage to overcome their natural animal drives, but it’s terribly difficult and not even desirable for most people.
　
Like sexuality, selfishness–perhaps it’s better to call it ‘selfness’–is natural. We see the world through our eyes. Even when a person sympathizes with others, he does it through his own private heart; all forms of sympathy is to an extent a form of projection, which is why some people are regarded and pitied as ‘victims’ even when they don’t see themselves that way. In other cases, sympathy is very selective and essentially self-serving. Thus, during WWII, Americans sympathized with those noble Russians and Chinese fighting the evil Russians and Chinese. During the Cold War, Americans sympathized with Afghanis fighting a ‘heroic’ war against communist imperialism. Oftentimes, we sympathize with other peoples–or fuel such sympathy among the masses–in order to serve our own interests in the matter. This self-serving sympathy can be political, economic, or essentially a form of vanity. After all, why do Americans care so much more for Tibetans than for the Uighurs who are also oppressed by the Han Chinese? Because Tibetan religion and culture invoke visions of spiritual Shangri-La so dear to narcissistic Westerners steeped in fashionable Eastern Mysticism. And, why are so many celebrities passionate about poverty among black Africans but show little interest for poor Bolivian Indians or Sri Lankans? Because the White West is obsessed with black athleticism and popular music, and thus feel more sympathy for suffering blacks than for suffering Bolivians or other ‘uncool’ peoples.
And of course, the sympathies of the some members of the White Right are just as suspect. They will bitch and whine about those innocent Germans killed in the Dresden bombing or raped by Russian soldiers but ignore, remain mum, or try to deny the much worse atrocities committed by Germans in the East.
　
In a way, one could argue that universalism can take the form of a megalomaniacal projection of one’s own ego–one’s own view of how the world should be. For the world to embrace universalism, there has had to be a person who projects his own idea of universal values and justice on everyone else. In other words, universalism isn’t possible without the prior existence of an individual with a huge ego who considers it a moral, philosophical, and/or political imperative for all of mankind to agree with HIS view of how the world should be. There can be no law unless there is a law-giver to begin with. Similarly, there can be no universalism without a man who lays down the universalist principles.
　
Great men who laid down universal laws must have been aware of the contradiction within their outlook. On the one hand, a GREAT MAN claims to be doing something for mankind–or the larger community–, yet he is imposing HIS own idea of how things should be. How can one convince the people–and oneself–that one is not merely forcing the people to follow ONE’S OWN idea of how things should be? Who is he to say HIS IDEAS are right for all people? Thus, the GREAT MAN often came to rely on God. He would say these universal or higher truths are not his own but were given to him by God to pass down to all the people. So, Moses went off to Mount Sinai to return with the tablets with the Ten Commandments. In the modern secular world, the creators of the new universal order invoke science, freedom, liberty, human rights, social justice, or The People.
　
This isn’t to suggest that all universal ideas are merely the eccentric inventions of individuals who seek to force their view of reality and justice on everyone else. Everyone is an inheritor of past traditions, wisdom, and experiences. With the power of reason, individuals may arrive at a set of values or principles that may indeed appear sound and useful to most people. Since people want to live in a ‘better’ world, there is a desire to learn, improve, and reform society. Some individuals are indeed more capable of connecting the dots, arriving at a higher truth, advancing rational arguments for the common good, and/or attaining an higher spiritual truth.
　
But, there are radical universalists who claim to be utterly selfless or other-istic and to speak and work purely for mankind. Yet, such radical suppression of the natural emotions of selfness leads to a monstrous selfness in the guise of utopian idealism. Consider Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che. Each claimed to be utterly selfless agents of human progress. They claimed to desire no wealth, no privilege, no fancy jewelry and the like. They only wanted to save or help humanity. But, were they really selfless or other-istic? Did they really care more for other people than for themselves? No, they used the idea of revolution to gain obtain power for themselves. They may not have been greedy in the materialistic sense but they were greedy for power and for ‘truth’. They wanted to own and control the truth, which is why communists took over entire media networks, all schools, and all other institutions of information and learning. They always said it was all for The People–and they may have been sincere in their conviction–, but they were, at heart, very selfish or self-istic men. In the end, all that power and privilege–in the name of The People, of course–whet their appetite for other things as well, and it was only a matter of time before communist leaders lived like king and barons.
　
The best option for most of us would be finding a balance between particularism and universalism, between selfness and otherness. This idea may be old as the hills, but that’s why hills last so long.

Andrzej Wajda’s KATYN, a Polish Masterpiece.

　
Some people may regard Wajda’s Katyn as ‘too little, tool late’, and it’s not hard to understand why. The mass killing of Polish officers happened long ago, and the official line during the yrs under communism was that the Nazis were to blame and Soviets were the liberators. Even when the truth was confessed by Gorbachev in the late 80s, its impact outside Poland was limited. Liberal media around the world emphasized Gorbachev’s integrity over the details of Polish officers killed in cold blood. So, even as the Soviets finally admitted to the mass killings, the revelation was spun as proof of a new and humane kind of communism. This was to be expected from the Western media dominated by liberals, leftists, and Jews. Though the story of Katyn did make the pages of New York Times, it had no lasting impact on Western consciousness.
It also didn’t help that the American conservatives, being generally less interested in world affairs and other nations/cultures, didn’t pursue the crimes of communism abroad as passionately and thoroughly as Jews unearthed the crimes of Nazism. And, as the American conservative movement was taken over by Neoconservative Jews, most conservatives didn’t make too big a fuss over communism–as radical and even liberal Jews had been crucial to the movement. Hollywood certainly wasn’t going to make a movie or even TV movie about it. (The Jewish God said there shall be NO god other than himself. Modern Jews say there shall be no tragedy other than the Holocaust. A jealous god and a jealous people.) Finally, the far right in the West is still stupidly enamored of Nazism and Adolf Hitler, thus blind to the suffering of victims of WWII–other than Germans of course. The far right never had credibility on the few occasions when it condemned the massacre at Katyn since it has routinely apologized for or denied the equally vile or worse crimes committed by Nazis in Poland. So, Katyn never became the focal point of discussion around the world; it wasn’t useful nor comfortable to non-Poles. Besides, even democracies like the US and UK had adopted the ‘necessary lie’ in order to maintain the alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler.
　
But, this wasn’t the case in Poland where every Pole knew but could only whisper the truth. Over time, the memory of Katyn became a kind of potent unifying symbol, all the more so because it was an invisible symbol. Its gruesome nature exposed the essence of Stalinism, and the enforced silence was proof of the repressiveness of communism. There are times when silence is more eloquent than sound.
　
So, the movie Katyn must be seen essentially as a Polish than a world event. Though nominated for Foreign Film Oscar, it failed to win nor garner much attention. There was no special promotion of this film in the US media nor by American film critics, most of whom are leftist and/or Jewish. It wasn’t attacked nor denounced neither but only respectably acknowledged, allowed limited release, and left to die a silent death at the box office. (It’s dispiriting that the sizable Polish community in the US did so little to promote this film to the wider public. But then, most Poles, unlike Jews, are not a very intellectual or cultural people.)
　
But, this is not a necessarily bad thing for Katyn is genuine in the way that Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List is not. Katyn is a Polish masterpiece made by a Polish master for the Polish people. Schindler’s List, though powerful and masterfully executed, is a movie made by a Jew to morally impress and guilt-bludgeon gentiles all over the world. Schindler’s List was an attempt to turn the Holocaust into a mainstream religion and Disneyland epic. As horrifying and grim as it was, it didn’t lack the fairytale elements in other Spielberg films. Wonderful and darling Jews convert the cynical gentile Oscar Schindler into a do-gooder and redeem his wicked soul. In the end, it warms our hearts like E. T. or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It was made with superb artistry and directorial ingenuity, but it was really a simple-minded and manipulative Jewish version of the Christmas Carol, with a gentile Scrooge saving his soul by loving Jews. It is thus essentially a hug-a-Jew movie. The violent scenes work terrifyingly well in conveying the brutality of the Nazis. But, the dramatic parts are embarrassing and hackneyed–Sound of Music in artsy b/w. No wonder then that Atom Egoyan felt a need to make an anti-Schindler’s List in the form of Ararat, a film that not only asks us to remember the Armenian genocide but ponder the means of representation, manipulation, distortion, etc. Katyn isn’t exactly an anti-Schindler’s List but more like a counter-Schindler’s List. Wajda has never been an avant-gardist in the manner of Egoyan, but he is a critical artist than a grand entertainer like Spielberg. Katyn is similar to Schindler’s List in using in the power of cinema to make history live again, but it is also contemplative on the subject of history: history is not only what happened but what is remembered, narrated, recorded, denied, exaggerated, reclaimed.
　
Katyn was likely disappointing to many viewers, not least or especially among Poles. Many people probably expected an emotionally wrenching or physically overwhelming experience–a grandstanding expose of the bloody and monstrous face of communism/Soviet Union. They wanted to cry their eyes out, be moved to patriotic fervor, or feel self-righteous as victims of communism, Russia, and history. They wanted the sensations viewers got from Schindler’s List, The Killing Fields, Passion of the Christ, Saving Private Ryan, or Platoon.
The movie’s opening scene hints at such film, with Poles fleeing from Russians coming face to face with Poles fleeing from Germans. One might well expect the entire movie to be about hapless and noble Poles mowed down by Germans and Russians. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with such a film, but Wajda probably feels we are well aware of what war and mayhem look like in movies. Besides, Wajda already gave us blood-drenched war movies long ago. Kanal is surely one of the most harrowing war films. Wajda is now an old man and naturally wanted to reflect on and understand history than use it for sensational effect.
　
From the outset Wajda mutes the violence as if a purely visceral approach might distract the audience from the larger theme of history and the more intimate realm of personal lives. It’s as if Wajda forwent the middle shot in favor of the close-up and the long-shot. His main focus is on the things that are generally not visible. We can all easily imagine soldiers, tanks, airplanes, bomb exploding, and people getting shot. It’s harder to imagine how the dots connect in history or how the inner heart trembles in times of crisis.
Indeed, much of the story takes place AFTER the mass executions in the Katyn forest, whose grisly details are not revealed until the final scene. This may be frustrating to the viewer, but it is fitting as the truth of the Katyn tragedy was fitted together piece by piece and unveiled after considerable passage of time. Though the world now knows, without a doubt, that Polish officers were killed by the Soviets, the truth had emerged only in fragments. There is a Buddhist koan: what is the sound of a tree falling in a forest? No matter how grand or horrible an event, it might as well as never happened if no one witnessed, recorded, or remembered it. As such, Katyn isn’t just a movie about an historical event but a metaphor of rediscovery or reclamation of something lost, forgotten, and buried. This is as true of the history of the planet as of the relatively recent history of a nation. Only through archaeology have we learned of innumerable holocausts that befell this planet–when humanity hadn’t yet arrived on the scene to bear witness--, at times nearly wiping out entire species.
Had Nazis won the war and hid their genocide of the Jews while exposing the mass killings by communists, the Jewish holocaust could have been a ‘Katyn’–a horrible truth hidden by official mythmaking–while communist killings might have been remembered as The Holocaust.
So, Katyn in the movie is partly used as a metaphor. It represents history shaped and manipulated by the powers-that-be for their own ideological justification and confirmation. There was Katyn and there is ‘Katyn’. When the Nazis invaded Eastern Poland and dug up the mass graves, they used the Katyn massacre for their own purposes. The Nazis were correct in claiming that the Soviets carried out the brutal deed, but they were using the Katyn massacre to hide their own ‘Katyns’. Though the Nazis also invaded a neutral country, wiped out the native elite, and set up death camps, they sought to legitimize their occupation of Poland as a struggle against murderous communism. So, even as the Nazis were correct about who did what at Katyn, they were using this truth to hide a larger truth–that the Nazis were killing even more than the Soviets. When the Soviets later retook Poland and set up a communist regime, they devised a lie, blaming it on the Germans. If it weren’t for the horrible nature of the crime, all of this would almost be funny, like a game of ‘he said, she said’. We are even shown snippets of Nazi and Soviet documentaries, and they are eerily and amusingly near-identical.
　
Katyn, in this sense, is more than an historical event. It concerns the uses of history. Of course, Poles are not innocent of this game either. Some Poles are likely to exaggerate the number of officers killed at Katyn. They are likely to paint the victims as noble patriot saints. Worse, some Poles are likely to use Katyn to morally bully others: collective pride or nobility is as dubious as collective guilt. For many decades, Poles were notorious in denying the special Jewish nature of the Holocaust and preferred the myth that Poles and Jews had been indistinguishably targeted by the Nazis. But, Jews are no less guilty in Katyn-izing history. Jews ignore the victims of World War II other than Jews. Worse, Jews have been notorious in discounting or neglecting the mass killings carried out by communists or treating it a dry manner while giving the Holocaust a whole hog tear-jerker treatment in books, tv, and movies. Anne Applebaum, an odious neoconservative Jewess has written a book about the Soviet gulag but has whitewashed the Jewish role in communism. The damn disgusting bitch even voted for Barack Obama though he’s a stealth radical because she thought he would be better for the Jews and Jewish interests. This goes to show that some neocons cannot be trusted as their main purpose is to use conservatism for Jewish end. (However, it must be said not all neoconservatives are of her lowly rat-like ilk.)
　
Though Jews are correct about the special Jewish nature of the Holocaust, the Jewish-controlled media have pretty much suppressed the fact that 3 million Poles died during World War II. Many Poles died bravely, fighting both the Nazis and communists, but they’ve been smeared and dismissed by many historians–either liberal Jews or puppets of leftist Jews–because the Polish patriots generally happened to be right-wing and ‘antisemitic’. Though there has long been a nasty tradition of Polish anti-Jewishness, Jews never seem to ask why they’ve been hated so. The fact is Jews were never a likable people. Worse, many Jews joined communism and collaborated with the Soviet invaders in 1939 when USSR took the eastern half. And after WWII, the leading rulers of communist Poland were mostly Jews. If the Vichy regime in France has long been despised for having collaborated with Germans during WWII, it’s not hard to understand why Poles have long distrusted and disliked Jews. Too many Jews collaborated with the communists.
At any rate, all groups have their own take on history, their own way of twisting facts or spinning arguments to make themselves good and noble. Of course, this game has become essentially taboo for Western Europeans–especially Germans–and white North Americans as the new liberal Political Correct order has brainwashed white boys and girls to hate their own history, race, heritage, and achievements and ONLY dwell on what had been nasty, wicked, and cruel about white power, rule, and domination. It’s as if there can never be any pride in victory–except for Allied Victory in WWII because Nazis were evil beyond evil–, only in victimhood. In this sense, even Katyn falls into this paradigm for it ennobles Poles as victim-losers than as proud victors.
　
The elliptical approach in Katyn should be familiar with those who know something about Andrej Wajda. His landmark film Man of Marble(and the somewhat lesser Man of Iron) also presented and explored history as a labyrinth where the truth becomes simultaneously more powerful and elusive as one meanders through the maze and nears the exit.
In Man of Marble a female filmmaker searches for the ‘true story’ behind the rise and fall of a brick layer, a man once transfigured into the Immortal Proletarian Hero for propaganda purposes, only to fall from grace and disappear under the radar. Both Katyn and Man of Marble present history and politics as a maze. Journalistic inquiry in a place like communist Poland must have been both frustrating and enthralling because it was neither totally repressive nor totally free. For most of its history, communist Poland was neither a Stalinist hell hole nor a liberal democracy. It was a nation of considerable cultural freedom as long as one didn’t push the envelope. Man of Marble takes place in the late 1970s when things were relatively liberal, at least for a communist nation. Much of Katyn takes place in a period soon after the end of World War II when Soviet presence was ominous and censorship was repressive.
Nevertheless, we get a similar sense from both movies: On the one hand, history is that which is recorded, interpreted, uncovered, hidden; those who hold the clay mold it. On the other hand, there IS indeed something called historical fact. It is for the latter reason that the ending of Katyn is so important and powerful.
Throughout the movie Wajda intelligently and philosophically laid out the mechanism of history in relations to evidence, powers-that-be, political expediency, faultiness of memory, etc. Katyn was, for a long time, what those in power said it was, with the real truth lurking in the shadows. But, all said and done, history cannot be whatever we say it is. When the evidence is overwhelming and obvious, we must accept and face the truth than cling to the warp of politics or ideology. Wajda is not blind to the concept of ‘Katyn’ but he finally shows us the real Katyn. Soviets killed those Polish officers at Katyn, and that must be acknowledged as a fact. We must not give into the temptation of fashionable postmodern theory which posits that history is PURELY a matter of interpretation in the service of power. Wajda shows how that has often been true but reminds us that surrendering to the idea that such MUST ALWAYS be true is to go beyond skepticism and embrace a kind of cynical nihilism which is no better than Nazism and communism. If indeed history is nothing more than text shaped or altered by various forces in order to legitimize their power, we might as well blame the Armenians for Katyn and Palestinians for the Holocaust. If it’s all a matter of interpretation, we might as well believe the mafia, KGB, or space aliens killed Kennedy. There is indeed much in history open to debate as evidence is inconclusive, but some facts are well-established and beyond refute. Wajda tells us that, at the very least, we should face the facts of history. Nazis may have committed other ‘Katyns’ but Katyn was committed by the Soviets. Unless we accept the facts of history, history is a form of propagandistic anarchy where anything goes, where myth becomes reality and vice versa. (Granted, even acceptance of facts doesn’t necessarily
guarantee a change of perspective or ideological outlook. There are neo-Nazis who accept the Holocaust happened but then apologize for why it was necessary. There are Russians who accept the fact that Stalin invaded Poland along with the Nazis but then argue it had been NECESSARY for national defense. Most blacks knew that OJ Simpson killed Nicole but sided with OJ anyway since being black is about sticking together.)
What is remarkable about this film is not only the mastery of Wajda’s technique but his deep understanding as an artist and human being. Though, or precisely because, it is a Polish film for the Polish audience, it is a film we non-Poles can enter with a certain awe and gratitude. Wajda isn’t trying to prove something, not to himself, the Poles, or to us. He’s asking Poles to remember not only Katyn but the tormented twists and turns of modern Polish history. It’s not a chest-thumping feel-good nationalist movie, the kind about saintly Poles fighting or being trampled by monstrous beasts. It is an intimate and thoughtful portrait of a nation not only trampled by forces of destruction but cocooned alive by a web of deception.
It is also a movie about the comprised nature of Poland. We see the heroism but can’t help but notice also the all too understandable fear and cowardice.
　
We tend to think of military men as heroes or martyrs, but they are sheep churned into sausages in the actual machinery of war. Poles have every right to remember the Polish officers who died at Katyn as heroes or martyrs, but the ending of the movie surmises–rather correctly, I think–that they died as human animals–frightened, panic-stricken, pitiful.
　
Katyn is so unmistakably a Polish movie that it’s like entering another world for non-Polish viewers. For those lacking basic knowledge of Poland during WWII, a good deal will seem puzzling but therein lies the richness of this film. It doesn’t explain nor simplify everything for the universal audience. If there are universal truths to be found–and what great art is without them–, we find them through navigating through what was uniquely a Polish experience. Wajda doesn’t pander nor cater to us. We must make the effort to understand and empathize with a people generally unknown to us. Wajda’s door of Polish history is open to all, but we must be willing to enter ourselves and find our own way through the maze.
　
Schindler’s List, on the other hand, is not a movie you need to enter. It spills out of the screen and washes all over you. Nazis are evil, Jews are lovable, and Oscar is a good guy because he loves Jews. You don’t have to know anything about history. Just see what Spielberg shows and accept it as HISTORICAL FACT and feel the warm glow of the emotions he shines on you. It is a crowd-pleaser. Though Schinder’s List ends at the cemetery of Oscar Schindler, we feel we know everything we need to know about him–and about the Jews, Nazis, and WWII as well. It’s no wonder that so many Americans blindly side with Zionists and hate Palestinians. According to a movie like Schindler’s List, Jews are all good and since Israel is Jewish, it must be 100% good too, whereas those who oppose Zionism must all be a bunch of neo-Nazis.
　
Katyn too has a scene with a cemetery where a woman tries to replace a tombstone with false date with one with the right date. Indeed, much of the movie is like walking through a cemetery, trying to access what has passed and been buried. A sense of mystery pervades the entire movie, one that is not only reflective but humble, as if no artist can claim full truth to what did and didn’t happen. This is all the more reason why the final scene depicting the cold-blooded killing of Polish officers is at once powerful and jarring. For we are woken out of the smokescreen of historiography and ambiguity. Yes, some things remain mysteries or controversies, but some things are beyond doubt. Katyn is now one of them. Those who continue to deny it–mostly in Russia–are either fools or lunatics, hardly better than those who continue to deny the mass killings of Jews by the Nazis.

What Makes a Good Society? What Makes us Worship the Great Man?

In this period of economic turmoil, War on Terror stress syndrome, and mood of general uncertainty, people are understandably worried about their society, present and future. Many people feel something is wrong with America and something BIG needs to be done. What is that something? Who can do it?
Due to the scale of the problems it’s understandable that many people feel helpless and look to people with Big Power(big government) to pull us out of the crisis. It seems people lost faith in people with Big Money(big business). We’ve borrowed and spent ourselves into national bankruptcy at the behest of ‘free market’ capitalism. We’ve driven ourselves off a cliff. We feel maxed out economically and spiritually. No wonder that the Obama phenom isn’t just political or economic but spiritual; he’s The One to fill the hole in our soul. Supposedly a man of ‘impressive’ or ‘staggering’ intellect, he’s also to fill the hole in our head. He even made a promise to provide free college tuition so more of us can be educated... or indoctrinated.

Something seems to be wrong here. Yes, the scale of the problem is HUGE, but we should realize that a Good Society begins in your neighborhood and community, not in Washington. Of course, those with more money and political power have greater means to do good or evil, but they cannot do it without the cooperation or collaboration of the people–countless individuals and families.
If anything, we should be wary of Big Money or Big Power for this very reason. Take Iceland for instance. It was a decent and prosperous nation whose economy had been soundly built on production and trade. But, it caught the finance capitalist bug peddled by Big Money. Finance is supposed to work with, not usurp, the economy. But, the decent people of Iceland lost their heads and followed the Pied Piper of Big Finance. They weren’t coerced but they did so anyway. They were misled and misinformed; people abandoned their common sense and put their faith in the Big Money folks who seemed to have all the answers. If a nation of educated people can fall for stuff like that, think of political and economic problems elsewhere. We all need to sober up. We must first trust and gain control over ourselves, not people with Big Money or Big Power. Icelanders stopped practicing capitalism and started worshiping capitalism as preached and led by the Big Church of Funny Finance. And, much the same happened in America. This happened with the New Economy shenanigans of the Dot Com Bubble in the late 90s and then with Easy Loans & the Housing Bubble. Never mind that Americans were shipping jobs overseas or running up huge trade deficits in a New World Order designed to favor the global elite over everyone else. We lost our sense because we knelt and prayed at the altar of Big Money. Actually, it was more like a pagan bacchanalia, with human sacrifice and orgies and all. Our society has become addicted to excess, pushed by liberals, libertarians, and even conservatives. America lost its hardworking and thrifty fascist soul that had been at the core of TRUE Americanness.

From Big Money, now we look to Big Power. From the Cocky Cowboy to the Dark Knight. Bush to Obama. Of course, Bush too was about Big Power and Obama too is about Big Money. But, the focus of Bush’s administration was ‘money is good’ and the focus of Obama administration is ‘power is good’.

We have lost sight of what makes a good society. Unless we regain our vision, we shall not found our way back. We shall no longer be Americans in the historico-spiritual sense. The national spirit of America has always been about individuals, families, and communities than Big Money and Big Government. America of course always had Big Money and Big Power, but Americans had a strong sense of personal and communal values. But, even as our individual freedom has expanded greatly over the years–especially since the 50s with rise of youth culture and rising wealth–, we’ve lost our sense of individual and communal worth, power, and responsibility. The Reagan Era, with its undercurrents of Ayn Randism, made us mindlessly worship the Donald Trumps of the world. The corporate and business giants were seen as new heroes, worshiped as new gods. This reached its apogee during the New Economy hightech bubble of the late 90s. Supposedly all those Silicon Valley geeks were the new supermen. They were going to remake our society and make us all millionaires in the bargain. Americans invested in the stock market like never before. Experts and commentators said old economic rules no longer applied. A new era was dawning. But, the bust happened. And, then companies like Enron and others turned out to be massive frauds. People lost faith. But, the economy had not totally sunk. Then came 9/11 and a feeling of new patriotism. And then, with low interest rates it was cheap to borrow money. With new financial instruments, new lending policies, and the promotion of the ‘ownership society’, it didn’t matter if you lost your job or if your income wasn’t much nor guaranteed. Anyone could get loans and buy homes and watch the value rise and expect to live off an endless boom. Well, that finally came crashing down. So, here we are, finally at a point where we lost faith in Big Money. So, what do people do? In panic and despair, they turn to Big Power. After worshiping capitalism, now they worship socialism. We turn men into gods, gods into scapegoats, and then find another bunch of men to worship as gods, then turn them into scapegoats. I suppose that is easier than taking a good hard and honest look at ourselves, what we can and can’t do, how we can succeed, how we can fail.

But, taking a good hard look at ourselves is the only step that can really do us any good. And, only such undertaking can teach us what makes a good society and what makes a bad society. By ‘we’, I mean all of us or at least most of us. We can’t do it alone. If only a relatively few people act smart or decent while the majority act stupid, ridiculous, or destructive, the tide of idiocy will overwhelm the pool of decency and sense. But, if most people gain good sense, think and act honest, and have a firm grasp of reality, we would live in a much stabler and better society.

What makes a good society? Before looking at or to the Big Man, Big Money, or Big Government, we need look closer to home. Everything big starts from everything small. Before asking what makes a good nation, ask what makes a good state. Or, what makes a good city. Or, what makes a good town. Or, what makes a good village. Or, what makes a good neighborhood. Or, what makes a good street. Or, what makes a good family. Or, what makes a good person. Bigger the entity, less power we have within it. Smaller it is, more power we have. So, before we raise questions about what goes on in Wall Street or Washington, we must ask what goes on nearer to us–where we have greater power.
How are we acting? What are we thinking? What kind of values do we support? What kind of things we do purchase? How much do we borrow? What kind of culture do we promote or consume? What kind of ideas and values do we cherish? What do we teach our kids? How do we raise our kids? How do we treat our parents and grandparents? What kind of relationships do we have with friends, lovers, spouses, relatives? How do we treat our neighbors? What do we expect from our neighbors? These are all things we have power over. These are the things that really define us. We must not hide behind or between Bush or Obama, or blame it all on Bush or Obama; Bush or Obama certainly deserve more blame–because they have more power–but not all the blame.
Notice that too many blacks have crazy sexual relationships and do a terrible job of raising their kids, but they never blame themselves; they only blame government or rich people for ‘not caring’ about the problems in their community caused by themselves; and they only look to government or handouts from the rich or do-gooders to solve all the problems. (Because so many blacks have been so pathetic at minding their own affairs, it has become unfashionable and even ‘racist’ to blame the individual for his problems. Blaming the individual would imply that individual blacks are to blame for their problems. That simply won’t do in our politically correct society. Because we are discouraged from blaming black individuals, this mind set bleeds into society as a whole; as a result, we are less likely to blame any individual for his failings. If the failures of black individuals are not their fault, why should the failure of any individual be his fault? Also, even conservative philosophy and policies stressing individualism have failed in the black community. Since the rise of Reagan, many people have succeeded in various fields through individual ambition and accomplishment. Blacks have seen many fellow blacks succeed in sports, hollywood, music, politics, and various other fields. And yet, many blacks are still social failures.
The problem is not the lack of individualism or self-interest in the black community as such is indeed more than abundant; the problem is lack of individual responsibility and sobriety to buttress the freedom and desire. It’s a truism that black failure is due to socialist mentality in the black mentality, but this isn’t really true. Welfare mentality certainly contributed to black decay, but welfare-ism isn’t socialism. If socialist policies lead to same problems everywhere, every corner of Sweden should be like Detroit, but it’s not. Indeed, black failure is, in some ways, due more to ultra-individualism, rampant greed, and self-interest than anything else. Black teens don’t turn to crime, drugs, pregnancy, and welfare out of socialist principles but out of hunger for lust, easy money, instant power, and etc. The welfare system may support and thereby indirectly encourage such kind of behavior, but the root of such behavior has nothing to do with altruism or socialist ideology on the part of blacks. Blacks fail because they are a primitive bunch of Donald Trumps who want instant pussy and money to boogie woogie with all night long.)

We should not worship Wall Street as the Golden Goose nor scapegoat it as the Golden Calf. Of course, Big Power and Big Money do have great power over our lives, but their power–often abused–would be less if we had better sense and took better care of ourselves. We need not have fallen into the traps of recent history. The Bush trap was one where the economy fell into debt, and the Obama trap is where the economy falls into government hands.
It could be argued that most of us were duped by both Bush and Obama, but we wanted to be duped because we wanted it easy. And, we looked to Big Money and Big Power because we just don’t want to deal with problems near to us. Especially in our non-judgmental, overly sensitive, hedonistic, and self-obsessed age, we don’t want to get into other people’s faces and speak the truth or look straight into the mirror and face the music. To some extent, tolerance is a good thing, but excessive ideology of tolerance has created a climate of fear, anxiety, and intimidation. It has made us afraid to judge what needs to be judged. Indeed, the only people who are JUDGED are those deemed to be insensitive, intolerant, and bigoted(‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘xenophobic’, and the like). A society where we cannot criticize the dangers posed by crazy blacks, denial of obvious sexual differences, the idiocy of ‘gay marriage’, the dangers of liberal & leftist Jewish power, and the recklessness of illegal ‘immigration’ is a world that is dishonest, incapable of hard truths, evasive, delusional, and self-deceiving.
In our age of rampant hedonism and lunacy, we are not supposed to judge men who act like pimps, women who act like skanks, boys who act like thugs, filthy TV shows, slutty fashions, and extreme-excessive-moronic behavior of all kinds.
In a way, political correctness and excessive hedonism go together. Since we feel repressed about uncomfortable truths regarding race, sex, gayness, illegal immigration, and liberal Jewish power which are having such negative effect on our lives, we seek to drown our fears and apprehensions through wild partying, drugs, drink, stupid tv shows, and the like. In a way, the rise of PC and Howard Stern go together. PC stifles us, so people turn to Stern. Stern is acceptable despite his political incorrectness since he’s Jewish and a total pervert degenerate. Since he degrades, denounces, mocks, and attacks EVERYTHING and EVERYONE(including himself), his kind of excessive hedonistic lunacy is deemed acceptable. Sarah Silverman gets the pass for the same reasons. But, neither PC nor hedonistic lunacy(despite its anti-PC-ness) promotes truth. Political Correctness is puritanical and censorious; hedonistic lunacy is degenerate and degrading. One is repressive, the other is excessive(it throws out the baby–moral values–with the bathwater–pc sermons). The sensible Middle is not allowed in this equation. Stern is allowed to attack PC because he attacks civilization itself. The Left tolerates Stern because what he is far more damaging to solid conservative values than to Hollywood celebrities and liberal politicians. Suppose someone with a bucket of shit enters a Church and slings it all around while badmouthing Rosie O’Donnell and Barney Frank. Only an idiot Christian would applaud him because the shit slinger has some nasty things to say about Rosie and Barney. But, just look at what shit slinger is doing to the church itself. This is why conservatives who embrace stuff like Southpark and Family Guy are retards. They think those shows are cool because they go after liberal sacred cows but fail to see that such shows turn our culture as a whole into a pile of manure. It’s why liberals don’t really mind Southpark, Family Guy, and Howard Stern. Some liberal sacred cows are mocked but our traditional values as a whole are degraded. This is why Camille Paglia too is ultimately subversive and dangerous to the Right. She’s a pagan fart, not a pagan fascist.

Anyway, the point is we basically knows what makes a good society at the smaller level. A good person is diligent, serious, honest, reasonably disciplined and self-controlled, moderate in his appetites, considerate, judicious, and helpful but also courageous enough to criticize relatives, friends, and peers. A person who’s totally nice and wants to be liked by everyone is a fool. Everybody must judge and be judged sometimes. And, it’s not good enough to be ‘tolerant’–in the pc way–if one happens to be lazy, deceitful, nasty, trashy, bratty, infantile, and/or moronic. Sadly enough, even as our society has become politically more judgmental, it has grown laxer in the area of morals and ethics. Trashiness, ugliness, and excessiveness of every kind is tolerated or even celebrated as long as it is politically correct(though to be sure, certain groups have license to be politically less correct than others; blacks, for instance, are given greater leeway to badmouth Jews, gays, women, etc; and it’s perfectly okay for Hispanics to speak of their Race or Raza).

In a way, laxity of our morals is intertwined with the rise of PC because much trashiness comes from the black and Jewish community. The highly influential pimp-and-ho music and attitude come from black culture. Jewish wit and irreverence target the sacred cows of our civilization. Jews, once the profound originators of much of our moral values, are today busy tearing them down. Jews do it because they love to show off their wit, to make money(as crazy stuff is popular and profitable among hedonistic barbarians), and to undermine the values of white goy society they want to get even with for the Holocaust and for all the times rich white goy dads said, ‘you can’t marry my daughter’. To scrutinize, criticize, and denounce the foul aspects of our culture is essentially to target Jewish and black cultures since they are the main movers and shakers of popular taste; problem is we are not allowed to criticize anything Jewish or black. Whether it’s the writers and producers of stuff like Sex and the City or all those jive-ass pimp-and-ho rap music, it’s Jewish or black. Indeed, many other groups try their best to ape the Jews and blacks, corrupting themselves in the process. They too try to become the new Lenny Bruces, the new Rappers. It’s a pathetic sight.

Anyway, since Jews and blacks are the favored racial or ethnic groups according to PC, we are supposed to accept their cultural garbage–disgusting, skanky, worthless, trashy, and hideous–as the wonderful and liberating blessings of our culture Call it by its real name–immoral garbage–and condemn the people who produce such trash, and you’re labeled as a ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semite’ like Gregg Easterbrook was charged by the dirty liberal Jews at The New Republic(who, by the way, feel free to criticize the culture of goyim all the time. So, it’s okay for Jews to attack Zhang Yimou’s "Hero" as evidence of something foul in Chinese popular culture, but it’s not okay for Easterbrook to criticize Jewish financing of anti-human movies as proof something rotten in the Jewish business community. By the way, suppose Muslims dominated the porn industry and used Jewish women as sex meat for black men, and then donated much of the profits to Muslim causes in the Middle East. It would be pretty outrageous, right? Well, it seems to be perfectly okay for Jews who run the porn industry to use white shikse women as meat for beastly black men, and then send much of their profits to the cause of Zionism and the Obama campaign. It’s no wonder that people have had this image of the Dirty Jew all throughout history. Of course, not all Jews are like this. Many Jews are good people, but liberal and leftist Jews are the biggest lowest scums in the history of man.)

If much of our ugly and foul culture had originated or was dominated by the white gentile community, it would be a different story. Indeed, consider the feminist reactions to white heavy metal vs. their reactions to rap. Many feminists screamed ‘sexism’ and ‘male chauvanism’ when it came to stupid raunchy white heavy metal acts, but most of them stayed mum about the far worse Rap culture. When Madonna first appeared as a white slut, the feminists jumped all over her. But, when she became the inflatable doll for the NBA, she became a good role model for all the white girls in the eyes of feminism(an ideology that favors interracism).
Modern feminism was created by ugly left-wing Jewesses jealous of pretty white goy girls. (The leftwing Jewesses were also angry because Jewish men were going with prettier shikses.) So, the ugly and rabid left-wing Jewesses created an ideology–disseminated far and wide by their liberal Jewish allies who control the national media and academia–which came to influence an entire generation of white goy girls to see white goy guys as the enemy. All the hoopla over Date Rape focused only on one set of victims and one set of perpetrators–white guys attacking white girls on campuses. White girls were to see their fathers, uncles, brothers, and sons as villainous people. White girls were told that it’s better to go with black men–like Obama’s traitorous and disgusting skankass mama–because white men were the REAL rapists. White mothers were told to castrate their sons into metro-sexual, dorky, and pussyass white boys–like what Anna Quindlan did to her faggotyass sons. In this day and age, even straight white males are raised to be faggotyass dorks by liberal white mothers who’ve been influenced by radical feminism constructed by ugly left-wing Jewesses. It’s no wonder that so many liberal white boys wet their pants at the sight of Obama. They’ve been raised to think, "I’m an inherently evil and privileged faggotyass white boy. My role in life is to find and worship a noble person of color."
Anyway, much of the trashiness of our popular culture emanates from black and Jewish culture. We are not supposed to criticize or attack anything defined by blackness or Jewishness. So, we have allowed cultural sewage to flow everywhere.

Sometimes, it gets confusing. For example, black people call each other ‘niggers’. And, it’s now part of mainstream culture for non-blacks to call eachother ‘nigger’ and even act like ‘niggers’. ‘Whiggers’ are all around. Chinese-American kids act like ‘chiggers’, and Mexican-Americans act like ‘spiggers’. It’s an ugly and trashy way to act, but kids wanna imitate ‘niggaz’ because blacks are tougher in sport and in pop music, the twin pillars of our popular culture. People are animals and naturally admire, respect, and want to emulate figures of POWER. Since the top athletes and top muscle-flexing ass-shakers are black, most kids want to act black. Never mind that black behavior is destructive, worthless, trashy, and useless outside a MTV studio or football field. People wanna associate with naked power, just like primitive people wear lion or bear claws to absorb the power of those mighty beasts. Bling blings–worn by kids of all backgrounds–are the lion or bear claw necklaces in our modern culture. Though we are technologically advanced, primitive tribalism has been on the rise because blacks have come to define that which is MIGHTY and BADASS. When Rampage Jackson or Rashad Evans flattened white boy Chuck Liddell, even white boys wanna be black, and white girls wanna put out to the tougher and studlier black men. Just look at sports like Basketball or Football, and you see pretty white girls cheering for strong black men; most white boys have been relegated to bench-warming status. White boy is to the Black Dude what the Asian geek is to the white guy.

Jewish-black alliance is strange because Jews promote cosmopolitanism while blacks practice a kind of wild-ass tribalism. Black culture, style, and expression are all about ‘we blacks are badass!’. Though there is an element of Jewish pride/identity in superior Jewish wit, Jewish culture casts a wider net–as does their control of much of the economy and media. Jewish-owned music industry have disseminated rap music and black culture far and wide. So, black culture, though primitive and tribal, has become the universal model for youth culture everywhere; perhaps one could call this uni-tribalism or globo-tribalism. So, you have Palestinians and Zionists trashing one another through rap music. We have French youths–white, black, and Arab–trashing one another America through rap. Kids all over share the global culture of tribalism. They sing the same ugabuga songs that turn them against each other as the soul of rap is thuggery and bullying.


Anyway, let’s return to the original point. What makes a good society? The quality of individuals and families make a good society. There are many levels of society within a good society. A village is a society, a town is a society, a city is a society. If the smaller units of society are rotten, society as a whole will be rotten(even if those at the top are good men). But, the smaller units of society are sound, it will weather even bad leadership at the top–as long as the leadership doesn’t gain totalitarian power over society. Civil society is more important than political society. All the Main Streets are more important than Wall Street. (One of the problems of globalism is that our control of our nation, city, down, village, etc weakens as our economy become more linked with the rest of the world.)
Suppose you want to build a toy tower with blocks. Most of those blocks will have to be cubes or interlocking for the tower to stand firm. The shape of the blocks matter most at the foundation or around the bottom. If blocks came in all kinds of strange shapes, the tower will not stand. In other words, a soundly built tower depends on the shape-worthiness of individual blocks. It would be foolish to see only the tower but not the blocks that make it possible; that would be like seeing the forest but not the trees. Of course, there can be some non-essential decorative stuff on the top, but we know that’s not why the tower is standing. (Remove decorative stuff from a skyscraper, and the building still stands firm. Undermine the structural integrity of the main body, especially at the bottom, and the skyscraper starts wobbling and may well collapse. Of course, it could be argued that society is more like a human body than a building. Building is all body and no brain whereas a society, like a human body, has a brain center. One could argue that the brain–the top–is the most crucial part in a person. Even so, the body has to be healthy for the brain to work properly. If the back, ass, stomach, or whatever hurts, the brain is much less able to focus and accomplish tasks; mental energy becomes focused on the ailments of the body. It could also be argue that the body is more important than the brain in this sense; life developed body before mind, mechanisms before consciousness. The brain is the outgrowth of the body, not the other way around; indeed, the brain is really just a part of the body that can function as if with ‘free will’ and imagination. But, the brain is useless if divorced from and ignores to serve the central reality of the body. A healthy society is where the body is healthy so that the mind can do things that the rest of the body cannot. When the body is unhealthy, the mind eventually collapses too, emotionally and intellectually. The ideas developed by the brain center of America–mainly liberal or leftist Jewish–in the past 50 yrs have not been healthy for the body as a whole–white gentile America. The brains have become ever more brilliant but not at facing and dealing with reality but in trying to suppress it, elude it, or go around it.)
Many people mistake the decorative stuff on the top as the essence of the tower when the real essence lies in the square cubes that making up its main body. Of course, all towers, even toy towers, need an architect, but an architect is useless unless he has many cubes to work with. This is why a national leader can only do so much. A leader working with cube people can build a mightier nation than a leader with odd shaped people. Hitler was able to do much more than Mussolini because Germans were made of more solid stuff than Italians. Hitler failed because once he erected his mighty tower, he tried to make it move. A nation takes a giant risk whenever it tries to conquer other nations.
In America no leader has had the power to disassemble the entire system and build anew. He must work with a system, a society, or a reality we all inherited. The president doesn’t have totalitarian powers to overhaul everything. Our society will essentially be as good or bad as the individual blocks composing it. This is why it’s foolish to look to the Great Leader to fix our biggest problems or save us. The greatness of Reagan wasn’t that he DID something but simply allowed the private sector–free individuals–to their own thing. He trusted in the individual blocks that made America. (Where Reagan and many conservatives failed is they over-estimated the wisdom of individualism. In an increasingly materialistic society, individualism can become synonymous with excessive hedonism and barbarism, promoting a freedom that is destructive and mindless than constructive and responsible. The overly materialistic yuppie culture that developed in the 80s was ultimately counter-productive; it was a culture based on individual hard work and success but its values were hollow–succeed to gratify yourself; the children of yuppies were raised to be spoiled brats; spiritually hollow, they either became stupid idiots or new leftists seeking meaning through the secular religion of radical ‘social justice’. Thus, Reaganism led to Obama-ism.) But, Americans, like everyone else, have been prone to fall for the Great Man or Great Men myth. That there are greater men in society is very true, but man is not god. When we look up to certain men as gods, we are making trouble for our nation. This happened with the deification of CEO’s in the 80s and especially in the internet boom yrs of the late 90s. Milton Friedman was a great economist, but many looked to him as a yoda-like sage guru. Ayn Rand fans are crazy about that crazy bitch. Wall Street and Silicon Valley were seen as bastions of all that was free, exciting, excellent, wonderful, intelligent, brilliant, and etc. The internet bust in the 1999 taught us the danger of worshiping techno geeks, and the recent financial bust taught us the dangers of blindly following Wall Street.
So, have we learned our lesson? No, because we now have people blindly worshiping Big Government led by The One, The Messiah, The Anointed One, The Prince, The King, etc, etc, Obama. Instead of looking to ourselves–and honestly at ourselves–, we are looking to the so-called Great Men to solve our problems.
The problems we face were created by all of us, though of course those with more power deserve more blame. They misled us, but many of us put them in power and/or foolishly or blindly trusted and followed. Or, we didn’t stand up to them and blow the whistle even though we sensed what they were doing was reckless or unwise. Consider the fact that the vast majority of people of Illinois re-elected Blagojevich though it was obvious that he’s a low-life crook. Not that a GOP candidate would have been any better, but the fact is both parties come up with unscrupulous leaders because of the arrogance, stupidity, naivete, or laziness of the people.

Sometimes, we do need a great bold leader to speak the truth and push forth a fundamentally new approach and system. But, that’s not easy to do in a highly developed society such as ours(where power isn’t concentrated in one place and where many people have the power to resist new ideas and policies for good or bad). It was relatively easy to establish a fundamentally new order in the Americas of the late 18th century because North America was mostly a vast empty continent. With plenty of land for everyone and following a terribly disruptive war, the Founding Fathers had a unique opportunity to try something profoundly different. Such was much harder to pull off in France because France was already a highly developed civilization with much entrenched interests; lack of radical policies would have left much of the Old Guard in power while radical policies would have led to a bloodbath and frightful dislocations. (Of course, our society has changed rapidly in the past century, but it was mostly the product of countless individuals competing with new ideas. Change in a free society is organic, unpredictable, and elusive than centrally planned and implemented. Like in sports, the real game happens on the field regardless of the game plan. Though practice and strategy are important, the real ‘plan’ develops as the game is being played, with constantly shifting realities on the ground. Communism had a different idea of progress, where central government would come up with five year plans detailing and commanding what must be done and how. There was no room for individual initiative and freedom. It was difficult to breathe change into the communist system because of its massive size and pervasive power. And, it’s difficult to radically change our system because individual resistance to government dictates and power. The real question is what kind of individuals and communities comprise America? Not all anti-government resistance or disobedience is a good thing. Arnold Schwarzeneggar tried to push saner policies some years ago but had to back down due to massive objections from the people of California. Government effort to educate blacks has been met with hostility or indifference on the part of blacks. The people of New Orleans didn’t cooperate with the government during Katrina. Indeed, the aggression and craziness of the people frustrated the rescue efforts of government at local, state, and federal levels. And, we only need to look at places like Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc to realize that minimal government doesn’t necessarily produce heaven on earth. If individuals of a community suck, then the community will suck.)

Only rarely do highly complex, advanced, and sizable civilizations get an opportunity to try something drastically new. It happened in Russia following the chaos of WWI. The power vacuum allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power and push forth radical policies turning society upside down. Nazi policy in Germany was less revolutionary but made possible by prolonged depression of the 20s and 30s. China was ripe for radical revolution in the late 40s and 50s because it had been worn down by a prolonged period of imperial decay, Western imperialism, warlord-ism, corruption, and Japanese invasion. But, without such giant geopolitical earthquakes, a new leader has only so many cards to play with. Even in America, presidents were able to do something truly new only following a massive crisis: Lincoln thanks to the Civil War, FDR thanks to the Depression and WWII, Johnson thanks to the Civil Rights Movement. Obama, of course, is hoping to use the current crisis to turn US into a socialist country. Even so, no American president had the kind of power to re-order society to the extent that leaders of other countries had done. America has simply been more stable than more countries, and furthermore, the strain of individualism and local autonomy has made many Americans resist the idea of government amassing power to shove its policy down all our throats. (It must be said, however, that because the freedom of the people was preserved there has been far more change in America than in nations with governments with power to do much more. Communism produced greater amount of change in a short period of time than any other system, but after the initial revolution a long period of stasis and stagnation followed since the only game in town was communism. At no point in history did America produce the kind of overnight change as happened under communism, but America kept changing year after year, with individuals infusing new ideas into the system day in and day out, year in and year out. America was not a nation of single all-encompassing revolutions but many mini-revolutions in various fields–science, business, culture, etc–happening all year round. Communism was a giant storm of change followed by a long drought whereas America was more like steady rain of new ideas.)
But, Americans tend to lose faith in themselves during times of duress and look to the Great Man. When times are good, Americans are likely to admire Great Men, the successful capitalists. When times are bad, Americans are likely to run to the Great Man, the savior who promises to protect us from the avarice of the Great Men exposed as Great Robber-Barons. In the Clinton and Bush yrs, many people looked up to CEOs and bankers. Today, those people are despised, and many people look to Messiah Obama to save them from the Greed of the Evil Rich Folks(though rich folks got Obama into office).

Perhaps, we should ask why this is so. What is it about human nature that makes us look up to and worship Great Men? The most obvious reason would be that some people are indeed great–imbued with special talent or power. But, there seems to be more at hand. It’s not just that people look up to men with great talent but that people NEED to look up to such figures–heroes, chiefs, kings, titans, gods. It’s as though there’s an innate desire within us to seek and worship great figures. Indeed, we would invent them if they didn’t exist–indeed, we do all the time. It begins with children who don’t need to be taught to admire super heroes, giant monsters, sports stars, etc. They have a natural inclination to look up to Great Figures. And, this tendency remains intact as people grow older. Even people who come to reject or distrust authority and institutions worship or, at least, highly admire figures like Hunter S. Thompson or Ayn Rand who supposedly embodied the essence of individualism. Even anti-authoritarianism has its own heroes and gods. And, of course Marxism, an ideology committed to destroying religion, had its own Holy Men.

Consider, for instance, people’s worship of movie stars. We know that movie stars are fakers. At best, they have a talent for mimicry, for putting on an act. But, we don’t admire only their acting talent; we see them as larger-than-life; we associate them with the mythic characters they play. We don’t look upon John Wayne merely as an actor who did a good job playing cowboys but as the myth of the American Cowboy itself. There’s no other way to explain the great popularity of movie stars. They satisfy the need of people to submit to something ‘higher than themselves’. And, consider comic book heroes. We all know such heroes are fake, yet kids love spiderman, superman, and the like. Even adults pay good money to watch Hollywood movies about action heroes. People spend lots of money on super hero posters, t-shirts, and such. There is an aspect of worship even as people consciously know super heroes are fake. And, athletes are admired and even worshiped by their fans way beyond their real worth. They’re seen as Hometown Heroes, National Heroes, or representative of the Noble Virtues or Great Causes. All sorts of cultural and mythic significance are draped across their shoulders. So, Muhammad Ali wasn’t merely seen as an entertaining and excellent boxer but as a god-like hero of the black community. Liberal Jews have vastly exaggerated the significance of Jesse Owens–whose only ability was to run fast–, making him into a larger-than-life hero so as to morally browbeat the white goy community and to teach blacks that Jews are their natural friends. (Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, and Jews against all those evil white goyim.)

To be sure, there is an element of hype and manipulation perpetrated by corporations that control information; therefore, it could be argued that we are conditioned to worship certain celebrities, leaders, and ‘heroes’. Still, we must ask why people are receptive to such conditioning and manipulation to begin with. People controlling the media can manipulate us because there’s something innate within us that can be(indeed wants to be)manipulated. It’s like the porn industry can manipulate the desires of men because men are horny to begin with; men’s innate sexual desires can be exploited and magnified, but it was there to be begin with, not implanted in man by the porn industry. Indeed, even before the advent of modern media and technology, the innate nature of man led him to seek out great men, worship idols, and so on.

Why do people feel this need to admire or even worship great men or great power? Fear may be offered as one reason. Fearsome things/beings may be unpleasant or terrible, but they are awe-inspiring. Fear may not inspire love but can inspire respect or at least acknowledgment of its power.
There is also the element of protection and security. You feel safer if you have a big strong guy on your side. Naturally, people turn to John Wayne-like figures to save the town in Western films. Power inspires fear, fear inspires respect. And, we hope that the powerful being is on our side or on the side of good. Indeed, most action films are predicated on the hope that some fearsome guys will choose good to protect the people from fearsome bad guys; Yojimbo is a classic example.
Even so, we respect power itself, good or bad. Detroit Pistons were the bad boys of the NBA but still admired by many simply because they were the best. Jack Johnson played the bad ‘nigger’, and even though whites hated him., they still had a reluctant admiration for his tough black ass(and today, ‘faggoty ass’ white boys worship him as the great black man who taught the ‘racist’ white boy a lesson and promoted noble black pride); and white women secretly desired to submit to him, the destroyer of the ‘faggoty ass’ white men. In the film "A Bronx Tale", the son feels closer to the tough mafia boss than to his good humdrum dad. In "Shane", Joey looks up to Shane because he’s cooler and faster than his father. Lucky for us, Shane is a good guy. Jack Palance is the bad guy and we fear him... but we are fascinated by him as well. If you ask most men who would they wanna be, Shane or Palance, they would probably say Shane–as Shane is a tough good guy. But, if you ask most guys would they rather be Palance–tough bad guy–or one of the weaklings of the community, most men will say they’d rather be Palance. Power even if evil is more enticing and seductive than weakness even if good. Rap music is openly about being nasty, raw, bad, disgusting, savage, uglyass, and putrid but it’s tough, aggressive, and power-mongering. Because blacks, the main practitioners of Rap, are seen as the toughest and baddest mofos, kids around the world imitate and hope to be black-ish. Even Hispanics who fight with blacks in California listen to black music, watch black dominated sports, and all that stuff. Blacks see Mexican-Americans as short funny-looking midgets while Mexican-Americans see blacks as badass mofos. So, even though Mariachi music is a lot more pleasant than ugly stupid Rap, Mexican-American kids ape blacks and not the other way around. It’s because blackness is associated with power whereas Mexican-ness is associated with funny-looking stubbiness. Of course, there are many tough Mexicans around, but they are no match for blacks generally(except numerically).
Blacks pose a real problem to our society because people naturally look up to powerful figures. We want our heroes to be both powerful and good, but the problems is blacks are powerful and bad. There was a time when whites were fearful of black power, good or bad. White men didn’t want to lose their status as the top dog, the alpha male of society. They wanted white women to see them as the top studs. But, black males whupped white boys real good. Black males became the new alpha males admired by stupid white bitches. Since this was fait accompli–largely with the help of liberal Jews who took special delight in the humiliation of white goy males–, white males hoped that black power would be synonymous with decency and goodness. Whites were willing to accept to the studly superiority of blacks but wanted blacks to be like Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Blacks played along with this charade for awhile(Jackie Robinson-ism), but Muhammad Ali revived the ghost of Jack Johnson in the 60s. Blacks didn’t want to be nice decent good negroes approved by white folks; blacks wanted to express their own style, do their own thang, and all that. Much of this could only offend or scare the white community. Even so, it was obvious that blacks were louder, tougher, badasser, cooler, and all that jazzier. Since kids naturally gravitate to power and toughness, more and more white kids turned to black culture even though much of it was hateful, stupid, retarded, ugly, and obnoxious. Again, most men would rather be Jack Palance in "Shane" than one of the weakling good characters. Young people prefer Alex in A Clockwork Orange to his victims. White suburban teens admire and romanticize the tough gangsta thugs of the black community than the decent ‘boring’ blacks who try to make an honest living. In the past, many people romanticized gun-slinging outlaws more than decent farmers and church going folks. Though most white guys in the past wanted to look up to tough white heroes and most white girls wanted to admire white men as the white knight(saving the damsel in distress), the fact was black dragon was tougher than the white knights((and bit by bit, the star of white male-dom dropped lower; white women no longer felt satisfied or safe in the arms of white men; they turned to the black dragon). So, gradually, more and more white guys became sorryass white boys worshiping and imitating black muscle AND more and more white girls became skanky white ho’s worshiping black dick.
But, because black culture is so ugly, hideous, disgusting, and yucky, this cultural shift within mainstream America has had a terrible impact on all our racial communities. (Instead of white people
upholding solid and proud values which blacks could accept, practice, and improve their lives with, white people stooped to the level of stupid wildass black culture. White culture grew trashier while blacks no longer had any higher ideal to look up; as such, blacks just wallowed more in their own trashiness as society deemed it as the badassest and coolest thing around.)
There isn’t much good that comes of imitating stupid ‘niggaz’. They may be exciting on the basketball court or singing and dancing like sex-crazed lunatics, but blackness cannot serve as the basis of civilization or maintain a stable society. Indeed, blackness is the very anti-thesis of civilizational values. If blackness takes over a society, society will fall. Look at the hellish black parts of Brazil. Look at Zimbabwe after blacks took over. Look at what’s happening to South Africa as blacks take over more institutions. Look at the black parts of America. Compare Hispanics who emulate decent middle class whites vs Hispanics who emulate ‘niggaz’.

This is why so many white folks have invested so heavily in Barack Obama. The white community is thinking, "okay, you black guys are tougher, sexier, and more badass. You can fool around with my wife, you can f___ my daughter, you can be my president, and I will pick cotton for you. Just smile more often, do the fist bump than hit me in the face, and don’t scare me half to death. Be tough and cool but also GOOD, because, let’s face it, black culture as it now exists is bad, destructive, and corrosive." (Because black culture is both cool and bad, it is highly dangerous. If black culture was considered bad and uncool, it would be ignored by most people and wouldn’t influence society. But, because it’s considered cool and bad, people identify badness with coolness. Vice becomes the new virtue. Ugliness becomes the new beauty. Obnoxiousness becomes the new manners. In-your-face attitude becomes the new face of American behavior. We’ve seen the awful result of such behavior in the black community, so why do other races try to imitate such behavior? Because blacks are seen as the toughest, baddest, and coolest. People worship power, good or bad. People simply don’t respect weakness, even if good. This is why Passion of the Christ was so popular in our deranged culture. It showed that Jesus was the baddest dude in the world by taking all that PAIN!!! The mentality behind Passion isn’t much different than mentality behind worship of Tupac the Rapper. Of course, Jesus in Passion isn’t some trashy mofo, but his worth is proven not so much by his spirituality but by his badass ability to soak up tremendous amount of pain. He is like a pitbull dog that could take hell of a beating.)

Long ago, whites wanted blacks to keep their asses still and act like Negroes–blacks who practice middle class white values. But, the Black Ass has been popped out of pandora’s box and won’t ever go back. Blacks can no longer be Negroes since even most of white society has grown so enamored of black coolness and jiveassness. Colin Powell was much liked, but he made many blacks and whites feel uncomfortable because he was too much of a traditional Negro. He looked and sounded too white. It wasn’t realistic for whites to plausibly believe that most blacks could be like Colin Powell; that would have been tantamount to saying blacks should act and talk just like white people. It would have smacked too much of expecting blacks to be ‘a credit to their race’. On the other hand, white folks–even liberals–thought that most black leaders were disgusting jiveass buffoons and sleazebags–the Al Sharptons so prevalent in black politics and culture. This is where Obama made his entry and solved the conundrum for many gullible, stupid, dorky, and confused white people. Obama has some jiveassness, but it is restrained by some manners. Colin Powell was missing the Ass Factor crucial to genuine blackness. Problem is that most blacks with the Ass Factor be shaking their booties wildly and violently, bruising white folks both physically and emotionally. Barack Obama has the Ass Factor but he’s goodass than badass. So, Obama is to politics what Will Smith is to movies. They are goodass blacks.
Now, wouldn’t it be far better for white people to come to realization that blacks in general are dangerous and hideous? Wouldn’t it be far better for white people to unite for white power like blacks are united for black power and Mexicans are united for Mexican power–and Chinese are united for Chinese power and Jews are united for Jewish power? So, why don’t white people unite? It’s because the Liberal Jews who have taken control of the media and academia have brainwashed white folks through guilt-baiting and guilt-peddling. It’s also because US had been locked in a long Cold War with the USSR in which US had to prove to the world that it wasn’t ‘racist’ in the eyes of the world in order to win hearts and minds all over the Third World(and in Europe which had been half-destroyed by the ugly radical racist policies of Adolf Hitler). So, white people have been hopelessly castrated by the liberal Jews’ Doctor’s Plot. Despite all the evidence, white people cannot accept that blacks are a racial danger to white folks and to civilization itself. Even if such were proven true, white folks are unable to look at truth in the face because they’ve been raised since cradle to kiss the ass of Martin King, suck on the teat of Oprah, wiggle their ass to Usher, and cheer for their hometown Negro sports hero.

Anyway, the innate desire to worship the Great Power may have predated the arrival of man. Look at social animals, and one notes a strict hierarchy within a pack or pride. Though males of any pride or pack(or females among hyenas as female hyenas are stronger than the males)will fight for dominance, the losing beta-males comes to accept the leadership of the alpha-male. It isn’t just that the weaker males are beaten into submission but that they come to genuinely look up to the stronger male. It’s not mere a case of reluctant submission but a willful submission once the dust clears after the battle. This kind of feeling may exist among solitary animals, but it’s certainly an aspect of social animals. Once the alpha member is chosen, all other members–male and female–look up to it as the god of the tribe. It’s as though all the members realize that they need such a Great Heroic Figure to lead the tribe to victory, safety, dominance, and etc. The alpha male also gets the best pussy. It’s also as though beta-males and females innately understand that if the alpha member falls, there will be dissension and chaos within the tribe in which a whole new round of internecine battles will have to be fought to produce a new leader.
Perhaps, this kind of innate mentality wouldn’t have developed if not for the fact that the natural world is dangerous. In a hazardous world, there must be strict cohesion within the tribe or pack; otherwise, they fall to other packs or tribes, or it will fall apart from internal dissension. An anarchist or libertarian social order is possible in a world without external threats or problematic individuals within the group, but such has not been the case in the natural world or through human history. A community had to cohere together against other communities and to suppress the crazies within. (The farming community in Seven Samurai wouldn’t have survived if everyone just did his own thing.) Even if one community practices peace and atomized individualism, other communities could well be tight-knit, united, and aggressive. (The problem of the Greek city states was they were too divided to form a solid and stable bloc capable of repelling all enemies indefinitely. So, they all fell under Alexander the Macedon.) For a community to prevail or protect itself from others throughout human existence, it needed a leadership class that it could look up to, follow, obey, and admire. The farmers in Seven Samurai need the warrior caste to save them from bandits. Usually, we think of superiors hiring people to serve as inferiors, but in Seven Samurai, inferiors hire people to function as superiors. Farmers need Hero-like men to save them from the bandits. When the bandits are finally gone, the farmers feel less need for the samurai. Even so, respect for the great force or being that maintains justice, peace, order, and advantage to one’s side is probably something that developed since the time mammals became complex social creatures. Whether it’s a wolves happily submitting to their top wolf to lead the attack or retreat from other packs or other beasts OR Hebrews looking to Moses to lead them to the Promised Land against all sorts of obstacles, there is a natural propensity for higher social mammals to play follow-the-leader. This feeling could be one of the basis for our social, political, and religious mentalities.