The Real Agenda behind ELENA KAGAN'S Anti-"Hate Speech" Jewsade(Jewish Crusade).

Some thoughts on the ALTERNATIVE RIGHT article:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/elena-kagan-professor-hate-crime/#disqus_thread

Elena Kagan:

"This Essay on the regulation of hate speech and pornography addresses both practicalities and principles. I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

This is pure rubbish. Inequality is not the product of speech but of race and culture. In Europe, there was lots of anti-Jewish speech in the late 19th and early 20th century, but Jews outperformed the gentiles and became richer and more influential.
Jewish-Americans are many times more successful than Polish-Americans. Is it because of excessive anti-Polish hate speech in America? Who believes such nonsense?
Pop cultural representations of Asians and gays have been condescending and demeaning for a long long time, but both groups seem to be doing better than the white average.
Our popular culture--Hollywood, TV, schools, music, etc--has given more glowing and positive coverage of blacks than of any other race. MSM even go out of their way suppress negative news stories about blacks--corruption, crime, lunacy, etc. Yet, black failure continues.
Since the 60s, 'liberal' became a dirty word, a political epithet, yet your average white liberal is likely to be more educated and successful than your average white conservative.
I don't see much anti-Mexican speech in our culture, yet Mexicans remain economically less successful than most other groups. Asian-Indians are often mocked on TV and there's a lot of yellow peril saber rattling about the Chinese, yet Asian-Indian-Americans and Chinese-Americans do better than most whites. Kagan's theory is just a lot of horseshit. I'm sure PC drones believe it, but Kagan is too smart to really believe it herself. She has ulterior motives.

So, let's cut the bull. Elena isn't really worried about racial or gender inequality. For one thing, she doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that Jews are heavily overrepresented in the most prestigious and influential fields. Hmm, could Jews be outperforming white-Americans and Muslim-Americans because our culture is loving toward Jews and hateful toward whites and Muslims? And I doubt if Kagan is bothered by black overrepresentation in sports and popular music. Gee, could Mexicans, Asians, and Muslism be underrepresented in football, basketball, and hip hop because 'hate speech' against them have hurt their self-esteem, thus their ability to succeed in running and jumping?

This whole thing is not about racial or sexual inequality. For one thing, black women do better than black males, and US colleges are now 60% women and 40% men. And gays, who are 2% of the population, control about 25% of arts and culture.

This whole thing is really about CONTROL and JEWISH POWER. Elena, like so many other Jews, is anxious about non-Jews growing alarmed about Jewish power, privilege, and influence. Especially with the internet and decline of MSM, more people are discovering sites like VDARE and Alt.Right and finding out who the real POWER ELITE in this country is and what they are up to. This is what Kagan and Google boys are really afraid of. But they can't spell it out, so they pretend to oppose 'hate speech' in the name of poor minorities.

When Jews weren't the power elite in this country and were suspected of radical/communist/leftist ties in the 5os and 60s, Jews were for 100% free speech. They were radical defenders of the 1st amendment. Back then, Jews were even willing to protect American Nazi and KKK speech. The real reason for this was to protect leftist Jewish speech, and in order to do so, Jews even protected Nazi speech to demonstrate that they stood for freedom of speech on principle.
Since Jews back then were still vulnerable in terms of power, they relied on the guarantee of the constitution. But now that Jews control most of the powerful institutions in this country, they no longer need the 1st amendment. They have the economic, media, academic, political, and cultural power to do as they please. The 1st amendment, which had once protected leftist Jewish speech from the white majority, now mainly serves to protect rightist white speech from the Jewish power elite. So, Jews want to remove this protection. Jews once defended Nazi speech in order to protect subversive Jewish speech. Now, Jews seek to suppress white rightist speech in order to consolidate Jewish elite power.

Leftist hate speech never bothered the likes of Kagan. Marxist ideas led to communism, which only killed around 100 million people in the 20th century. But, Marxist speech is okay with Kagan since it can still be used to destroy nationalism, culturalism, and racism. And Zionist speech doesn't bother her either, despite what it has led to the Middle East. No, she's only after white rightist speech since it speaks truth to Jewish power.

If rightist speech should be curtailed because it led to the Holocaust, shouldn't leftist speech be curtailed since it led to the Bolshocaust? But then, Marxism has long been associated with Jewish power, and Jews still feel a fondness for it. Through Marxism, Jews got to punish and kill millions of 'hateful' Russians. They smashed over 50,000 churches. While preaching equality to the masses, the Jewish communist elites enjoyed the best schools, best living conditions, best privileges in the Soviet Union.
Well, we have the same thing in the United States. Kagan is a child of superprivilege who's never rubbed shoulders with real people in her life, yet she acts like Ms(or Mr.)Egalitarianism. In practice, Jews seek the most power and privilege for themselves. In words, Jews yammer about equality and 'social justice', but it's never at their own expense but at the expense of middle and lower class white gentiles(who are certainly NOT privileged or favored in anything). Notice how Kagan isn't bothered even in the slightest by Jewish overrepresentation at Harvard, Hollywood, Wall Street, MSM, Law firms, medical institutions, etc. No, she only gets antsy about white male gentile representation at fire departments. This is how most two-faced Jews operate.

We also need to understand how and why Jews see us the way they do. Steve Sailer once wrote that blacks, being less intelligent and more aggressive, are more likely to fall into stupid or destructive behavior if you 'let the good times roll.' In other words, freedom is more dangerous to blacks since they have less self-control and self-understanding.

Jews see us the same way. Jewish IQ is 15 pts higher than that of white gentiles, which is 15 pts higher than that of blacks. How we see blacks, Jews see us. Jews fear that we may not be able to handle too much freedom. We are too stupid and irrational; too much freedom for us may lead to 'let the Jew heads roll'.
Just as some of us reluctantly praise Fidel Castro for keeping the blacks in Cuba in line, American Jews--now that they have elite power--want to control our minds and behavior and keep us in line, because if they don't, we may come to see the true nature of Jewish power, grow angry and resentful, and rise up to tear down the Jewtocracy.
That is what this is really about.

-----------------------------------------

Elena Kagan is not fighting for equality for defending Jewish inequality. If any group in the US is unequal and over-privileged in the most prestigious and powerful institutions, it is the Jewish community.

The role of politics is TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER. Since Jews are the most powerful, we should be speaking truth to Jewish power. This is what Kagan and her liberal Jewish buddies are really afraid of. They wanna label as 'hate speech' any expression that dares to speak truth to Jewish power. By making a big stink about 'hate speech', Kagan hopes to distract our attention from Jewish power and fool people into thinking that WHITE GENTILES are most powerful and that they use 'hate speech' to keep down blacks and Hispanics, whose only defenders are noble saintly Jews.
It is a form of political blackmail employed by Jews. Jews are telling white gentiles, "If you dare criticize our Jewish power, we will use our power in the media, law, and government to set the black and brown dogs to bite your ass."

Also, it is simply not true that 'hate speech' leads to white privilege in the US. If anything, the slightest whiff of 'racist' speech or expression by any white guy in any profession--especially the privileged and prestigious ones--gets him demoted, disgraced, fired, dragged through the mud, discredited, and etc. If anything, even without 'hate speech' laws, the worst thing a white person can do in terms of power, influence, and prestige is to say anything that is politically incorrect about race(and increasingly sex and homosexuality). How 'hate speech' is a social or ecnonomic advantage to whites is beyond me. Even sending a private email about Race and IQ gets a Harvard student ostracized and attacked by the Dean of College herself. Look what happened to Jimmy the Greek and James Watson. Even liberal Larry Summers got in hot water for merely speculating there might be sexual differences in math and science.

Also, there is more than one kind of 'hate speech'. There is the superiorist or supremacist kind employed by the privileged and powerful toward the weak and powerless. Whites in South Africa had such attitudes towared blacks, Jews in Israel likewise toward Palestinians. But, 'hate speech' has also been the function of the weak and powerless. Many Poles and Russians expressed anti-Jewish sentiments out of envy and resentment at Jewish economic and cultural superiority. Same in Hungary. In those cases, 'hate speech' was pro-egalitarian, for it targeted the Jew for being TOO rich, TOO privileged, TOO influential, TOO well-connected, etc.
Communism was essentially the radical Jewish appropriation of mass envy and resentment toward the rich. If populist-nationalists identified Jews with elite power and privilege, communists tended to target gentile elites as the bad guys. In communist Russia, many bourgeois Jews joined the communist movement to attack and destroy the goy elites and to gain control of the goy masses. We're seeing roughly the same pattern in the US. American Jews are using the politics of egalitarianism to preserve their own elite privileges while attacking the white gentile elites and muffling the freedom of the white masses. Frank Rich's noxious and rabid fuming about the mostly white Tea Parties should tell us what and how liberal Jews really think. What is Elena Kagan but Frank Rich in drag?

Indeed, much of anti-Jewish expressions in America have an element of egalitarianism since many Americans of all races--white, brown, black, yellow, Muslim, etc--are deeply unsettled by the power of the Jewish elite. Jews are 2% of the population but control much of news media, Hollywood-TV-music industry, Ivy League Schools, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, etc. For all we know, Jews own 40% of the wealth in this country.

This is why Jews really fear 'hate speech'. Not because it violates or is an affront to egalitarianism but because it speaks truth to Jewish elitism. But being ever so cunning and clever, Jews always try to defend their own tribal interests as a noble and saintly effort to help the underprivileged or disenfranchised or whatever.

If Kagan is really worried about inequality, she should call for suppression of freedom for Jews, for it was the emancipation of the Jewry which led to unprecedented levels of inequality. With freedom, Jews used their superior intelligence, brilliance, innovative spirit, social networking, managerial skills, and ruthlessness to gain unprecedented levels of wealth and power in Europe--in Russia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, France, England, etc. If Kagan is really into equality, she should note that Germany has been more equal with no Jews or few Jews(or suppressed Jews)--from Nazi era until today--than with free emancipated Jews. Jews simply outperformed the Germans, the most talented Europeans. In places like Poland and Hungary, Jewish success was even more astounding since most Poles and Hungarians didn't even possess the work ethic and efficiency Germans did. If inequality is the greatest evil, then having Jews in any given country will lead to huge inequalities. Jews have been among the richest people in South Africa too. Get rid of Jews, and a nation will be more equal. It may be equally poor, equally pathetic, equally lacking in innovation, equally lacking in enterprise, but at least it's more equal.
Detroit is very equal. Everyone is poor and stupid.

Inequality in the US had once been partly determined by social and racial discrimination, but that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Inequality today is the result of success, not because we oppress. With freedom and meritocracy, smart and enterprising people are bound to succeed much more than dumb and/or lazy--and all honest people know some races and groups are more intelligent and have more valuable cultural capital. It's not so much because smart and enterprising people oppress the dumb and lazy but because the latter are left behind in the dust in fair competition. Sergei Brin is worth billions while most of us just scrape by. Talk about inequality!! But did Brin succeed by oppressing whites, blacks, browns, etc? No, he just happened to be smarter than most. And what about Michael Jordan?

The irony of all this is that WE are not the ones doing the complaining about inequality. Most conservative white people have a sense of honor and don't begrudge those who've risen to the top through talent and hard work. Rather, it is the most unequal people in America--the rich and powerful Jews--who are bitching and whining most about inequality. Woah, what is going on?
Why are Jewish billionaires and Harvard elites complaining of inequality when they are the main practitioners and beneficiaries of it?
So, we must look for the REAL reason behind liberal Jewish mania over 'hate speech'. We must conclude it is not really about helping blacks and browns from white supremacism but about safeguarding Jewish supremacism from white populism. The real problem of white populism in the eyes of the Jewish elite is not so much that is racially supremacist but because that it is anti-elitist, which means it's potentially anti-Jewish-supremacist since the JEPE--Jewish Power Elite--now owns and controls this country.

If Kagan is really horrified by inequality and wants to do something about it, she should propose that we perform lobotomy on all Jews with IQ higher than 120. That way, we'll have far fewer Jews becoming super billionaires, Hollywood moguls, Ivy League intellectuals, head of pharmaceutical companies, leaders in computer softward, top lawyers, top bankers, and raking in tons of money from all over the world.
And we should kneecap every promising black athlete just so non-blacks get a chance to succeed in pro sports too.

--A.F.

Neo-Fascist Review of HURT LOCKER by Mark Boal & Kathryn Bigelow: War Drug.

HURT LOCKER is a film about war as drug–ironic considering our ongoing War on Drugs. Though HURT LOCKER deals with the Iraq War, it may shed light on why we fight the war on drugs. There is, of course, the sincere wish to be rid of the scourge of narcotics. However, could there also be an addiction to keep on fighting among those involved? Could they be addicted to the fighting the addiction? If so, the means have become the ends. We’ve all heard the expression, ‘ends justify the means’ but what if the desired ends are forever out of reach? In that case, could we end up with a scenario where means justify or become the ends? Consider Great Society programs of LBJ which were supposed to be temporary measures in the war against poverty. But poverty is still with us, and the government has only gotten bigger and bigger. Since the 60s the government has been growing bigger just to grow bigger and bigger. Government employees, politicians, and entire segments of the population have become addicted to government–for power, privilege, favors, security, handouts, etc. Though we still hear high-minded words about the need for more programs to solve social problems, we know that more programs are essentially for more power for the elite and for more handouts for the masses. We’ve all grown addicted. The means are the ends.
　
The same could be said of the US military. During WWII, it grew to massive size to defeat Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. During the Cold War, the rationale was resisting and fighting communism. One might have expected a scaling down of the military after the fall of the USSR, but the military only grew larger under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Many industries have grown addicted to military development and expansion. Many politicians have grown addicted to military power as the symbol of national power and glory–despite the fact that our ‘empire’ abroad is bleeding us dry. Many young males–and females–have grown addicted to the military career as jobs have seen off-shored to other countries. And Jewish Neocons have become addicted to American military power as an instrument of Zionist policy. Republicans, having little to offer to the American people, drum up militarism as the last bastion of patriotic fervor. Liberals, not to be outdone, do much the same. Besides, both GOP and Democratic politicians come from states which relies on military bases or military-related industries. Much of it is about pork.
　
HURT LOCKER is about men on the ground, what we might call the ‘honest soldier’. But it’s so simple as Bigelow and Boal present these soldiers as more than just pawns in a game. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER–with Harrison Ford–presented a picture where political bigshots were the bad guys while US soldiers assigned to duty–and then abandoned–were rock solid heroic good guys. Notwithstanding the fact that chickenhawk Neoconservatives pulled a lot of strings to take US into the Iraq War, it is bogus to say that every US soldier on the ground is an innocent, a victim of corrupt politicians. Bigelow and Boal are right to show that many–if not all–US soldiers also get a kick out of militarism and war.
Of course, no one wants to be shot or blown up, but the fact remains that there is a thrill in being shot at–and firing back–and feeling the adrenaline around danger zones.
　
HURT LOCKER gives us three characters, each of whom is half unique and half archetypal. They function as individual characters but also serve as certain social-cultural-mental-emotional types. The main character William James–played by James Renner–is a war lover, much like the character of John Hersey’s novel of that title. It’s not that he likes to kill people, but he loves being at the center of action, danger, and attention. As Ernest Hemingway said, there is nothing as powerful as war. We all know war is hell, but it is also a spectator sport or videogame. Of course, war is miserable for most civilians and hellish for crippled or dead soldiers and their relatives. Also, few people would actually want war to come to their own towns. Even William James wouldn’t want bombs to fall where his family lives. We all want peace and safety for our loved ones. But, peace and safety can be boring. For men with a sense of adventure or wanderlust, war is the thing. Nothing tests a man’s mettle like war. It’s no wonder that among the most fundamental literary texts of the Western canon are The Iliad and the Odyssey. Iliad is about war, horrible but overpowering and thrilling. The Odyssey is about a man who has to fight his way home. Odysseus wants to return home, but it’s the dream of home that is more alluring and romantic than actually coming home, which can only be anti-climactic. To cherish and dream of home, one must be away from home.
　
William James obviously cares for home and his wife–or woman–and child, but when he’s home, his mind longs for the war zone. It’s as if he has two homes. James the husband and father is at home at home. James the warrior is at home in war. It’s the hunter instinct which makes him want to roam, fight, struggle, conquer.
Granted, not all nor even most soldiers feel or think this way. Many serving in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably just come back home and forget about the whole thing. But, there are people for whom war is more than a political or military objective; it is a psychological, even spiritual, fix.
In the opening scene of APOCALYPSE NOW, we hear Capt. Willard’s voice-over narration about how all he could think about was getting back in the jungle when he was home on furlough. In the movie RIGHT STUFF, those jet pilots and astronauts get high on danger and risk, on pushing the envelope. Though only a relatively small number of people are willing to go so far as climb mountains or skyscrapers or walk the tightrope for a fix, we are all addicted to need for thrill and excitement. Perhaps, the most infantile-ized form of this is the theme park roller coaster ride or the horror movie. It may scare the hell out of us, but we know at every turn that it’s just for thrills. But for some people, make-believe isn’t enough. They must push the limit. They want to feel the thrill of being face to face with the real danger, real death.
　
HURT LOCKER has one such character, William James. His foils are Sgt. Sanborn and Specialist Eldrige. Clearly, Sanborn and Eldrige signed up for the military because they believe in the warrior code and all that, but they don’t see war as a game where they must prove something–to others or to themselves. Their main goal is to win or, at the very minimum, survive. Probably most soldiers are like Sanborn or Eldrige. But, there are the William Jameses of the world–in all levels of society. If William James worked in Wall Street, he would be a big gambler. As a gangster, he would be want to top henchman. As an athlete, he would want to be champion. Normality and mediocrity are simply not in his game plan. (He’s like those boxers who keep fighting even though they don’t have a chance of winning the championship. They need some higher goal in life, no matter how elusive. They need to be in the center of action.) Many viewers may admire him because our culture is obsessed with EXTREME shows on TV–like who can eat a live snake or lie in a tub filled with scorpions? ‘Reality shows’ test contestants to see who has the toughest nerves–or the smallest brain as far I’m concerned. But, if most TV contestants are dufuses looking for 15 minutes of fame, there is indeed something admirable–though also dark and disturbing–about Sgt. William James. He goes for the REAL thing and is obviously a man of great skill. He is also odd in his emotional makeup. He loves EXTREMES but is usually soft-spoken and withdrawn. He’s easygoing but intense. He’s ultra-competitive but also laconic in demeanor. There is a kind of bipolar madness held under check by granite will. Perhaps, William James senses on some level that he is a time bomb himself and feels the need to be distracted by or occupied with other bombs, lest he trigger something within his dark soul and set off an explosion. It’s kinda like some highly aggressive men would likely be criminals if they weren’t police officers. Violent by nature, they must fight crime if they aren’t to be tempted by crime.
　
To an extent the bombs in HURT LOCKER serve as metaphors for humans. Externally, the film is about men trying to defuse bombs strewn across Iraq, but internally the film is about the bombs inside the hearts of men. Every person is a capable of blowing up and being destructive. Just consider the Columbine and V-Tech killers. But as HURT LOCKER demonstrates with bombs, what really matters is the WIRING. William James generally works with wires than with bombs themselves. A bomb, no matter how powerful, is inert without the wiring. Similarly, what we do with our bodies is a matter of wiring. Faulty wiring leads to mayhem and murder. Anyone can physically pick up a gun and shoot people at random. Most of us don’t because of proper wiring in our brains. But, psychopaths and sociopaths have faulty wiring which makes them explode and do crazy stuff like shooting a whole bunch of kids in school. This fault wiring could be genetic or a product of prolonged social trauma or stress. Even so, all of us have the capacity for massive destruction, and there is no such thing as a perfectly normal person. Evolution designed organisms to be capable of aggression and competition. There’s conflict among nations but also among individuals. There is also conflict within every individual between the ‘good’ and ‘evil’, reason and unreason, the sacred and the profane, the egocentric and the empathetic. The presence of a psychologist in HURT LOCKER suggests to the problems of wiring within the human psyche. (Bigelow shares something with Walter Hill in that though she’s aware of psychology, she feels man must ultimately be measured by what he does.)
　
Indeed, much of HURT LOCKER isn’t so much about Americans vs Iraqi insurgents as about Americans vs Americans. The three main characters–James, Sanborn, and Eldridge–work closely and rely on each other, but they are not easy partners, especially James and Sanborn. There is something of ‘kid’ in Eldridge. He’s a fresh-faced lad, a good guy, and fine soldier. But, he’s a natural follower than a leader. He’s not a man of initiative but one who prefers taking orders. He’s either naturally a beta male or as yet too green to be truly manly.
Sanborn, the black guy, is a more interesting character. He is physically and emotionally made of iron. If he can’t lead an assignment, he at least wants to be an integral team member and be fully appreciated for his input and effort. In the opening scene of the movie, he seems to have good rapport and mutual respect with Sgt. Matt Thompson, who is killed and replaced by the radioactive William James. William James is like a walking nuclear reactor, which may account for fearless forays into danger zones. It’s as if he intuitively feels that he himself is the biggest bomb around. Though possessed of great self-control, we sense instability lurking underneath. He reminds us of the Tom Sizemore character in STRANGE DAYS–also by Kathryn Bigelow. Sizemore’s character was cool and helpful on the outside, dark and violent inside. If he ultimately turned out to be evil, William James ultimately comes across as a ‘good guy’. But both share a certain thrill-seeking/power-lusting nihilism. Both act as agents serving to defuse mounting social tensions or military crises but thrive in such environments. They are to constant crises what bees are to honey. In a way, William James is a more intelligent and socially competent version of Travis Bickle of TAXI DRIVER. Just as Bickle could not leave the city he loathed, James cannot tear himself from battle even as the stress drives him to the edge. He’s what one might call a warcenary. A mercenary loves money and will kill for it. A warcenary loves war and will sacrifice everything–sanity, happiness, family life, friends, etc–for it. Just as some fireman are obsessed with fire–not merely as profession but as the holy grail–, William James only truly feels at home at war.
　
HURT LOCKER has been hailed as the first great Iraq War movie, but not really. HURT LOCKER is actually closer to FULL METAL JACKET(or even THIN RED LINE) than to other films about the Iraq War. Both HL and FMJ, though set in particular wars, are really about the psycho-mythology of war than about specific realities of a particular war. One could add APOCALYPSE NOW to the list as well. If the Oliver Stone triology–PLATOON, BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY, and HEAVEN & EARTH–were clearly meant to be about the Vietnam War and if SANDS OF IWO JIMA, BIG RED ONE, and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are about WWII, HURT LOCKER, though keen on the details of the Iraq War, mainly focuses on what war–any war–means to human psychology. William James could have been just as well a character in WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, or the Gulf War.
Indeed, he shares the name with a man who is considered the greatest psychologist in American history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James His specialty was the philosophy of religion, and his masterpiece is considered to be VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES–some of which were drug-induced. Perhaps, the main character having the same name as the psychologist was mere coincidence, but it’s undeniable that the ‘hero’ seems to find some kind of mystical communion within the realm of war. And of course, drugs, stress(induced externally or internally), and mystical experience have always been inter-related throughout history–from soma of the ancient Hindus to self-flagellation during the Middle Ages to LSD of Bigelow’s boomer generation. If war is William James’s drug, it can also be said to be his spiritual high.
　
Religion gives us a glimpse into the connection between the instant and eternity, between life and death. The core of religion is dualistic, with simultaneity running through its entire length. It allows us to feel both flesh and spirit, the here & now and forever, happiness and sorrow, sin and redemption, birth and death. William James’s religion is the Zen of Bomb Defusing. It is in the heart of such activity that he feels most alive, paradoxically because he’s closest to death. He feels most important, almost god-like, with all eyes fixed on him. He also feels most humble, as the slightest glitch can kill him. He also has the dirtiest job, which reminds us of Dirty Harry–"Every dirty job that comes along." He feels like a man of granite, a lion of steel–invincible and unbreakable. Yet, he also knows he can be splattered into a million pieces.
As Jesus was both all-powerful as God and all-vulnerable as man, William James is both bigger than any General and lower than any private. He’s a whore assigned to the dirtiest jobs and a god who saves entire blocks–and who-knows-how-many-lives–from destruction.
Though it may be stretching it, there is even a dual sexual quality about his work. Though tough and manly, his work requires a kind of feminine gentleness and patience. In a way, he’s like a midwife delivering a baby.
The spiritual element of his speciality is driven home when he’s confronted with an Iraqi man booby-trapped with a TIME bomb. No amount of his ingenuity, talent, and experience can undo this predicament. He can undo bombs but not reverse time. The doomed man kneels and prays to Allah before he blows up. In a way, it’s a simple enough action scene, but it can also be interpreted as battle between Man and God. William James is Man with a Promethean will to steal fire from the gods. He has overcome the fear and anxiety that make most men run and hide from. He’s as fearless as they come. But even he has to run as time keeps ticking away. In the end, nothing is greater than Time and God. In previous instances of defusing bombs, James could work at his own pace. Under supreme duress held in check by iron will and meditative concentration, it was as if James entered into a state of mind where time is suspended or non-existent–at one point, he even tosses away the headphone as if to cut off all links with human reality. A state of mind where time is suspended must feel like eternity, as if one entered the realm of God. So, it is crucial that in the later scene, the time bomb reminds James of his humanity and mortality. Even so, it’s as though William James feels nearest to God when he challenges the limits attributed to Man by God.
　
James is also like some of the obsessive people in our lives. They may be supremely gifted and skilled, but they want to be work on their own terms. I knew someone who was good with computers. I once took my computers to his house for him to fix. It was a simple enough problem, but that didn’t interest him. He found one problem after another after another–most of them trivial and insignificant for my needs or purposes–, but he insisted on checking everything, and he got very testy when I told him I only wanted him to look into one single problem. It was almost like he took an obsessive interest in the computer. He ignored the fact that I had to wait for hrs and hrs for things I didn’t care about. It was either HIS way or the highway. In other words, there are computer geeks and then there are COMPUTER GEEKS!! William James, tough and manly as he is, is a kind of super war geek with a kind of cyberpunk-ish obsession with explosive devices.
For whatever reason–class background, lack of education, lack of connections, personality type, predilection for asocial behavior, etc–, he isn’t destined for glory in socially stable America. Without war, he would probably be a policeman chasing down crackheads, fireman hanging around the firehouse, or an air conditioner repairman. His greatest talent–fearless courage–wouldn’t be of much use in a normal society. To fix a car or heater requires skill but not courage. To defuse a bomb requires as much courage as skills. Nobody calls a car repairman a god or hero. I suppose there is sports, but very few have access to athletic glory–and besides most of them are Negroes anyway.
　
In a way, there’s a little William James in all of us. As mentioned above, we love the thrill of the roller coaster. But, it’s everything about our consumer society. We want our kicks and fixes all day and night. Near the end of the film, William James is back home at a supermart. Everything is quiet, normal, and dull. He sees shelves and shelves of sugary breakfast cereal. On the one hand, the image is one of dull and bland suburbia. But, it also indicates that we are all junkies in a way. What are most breakfast cereals made of? Sugar. From morning to night, from cradle to grave, many of us wake up to the kick of refined sugar, which some nutritionists consider a form of drug–even more damaging than heroin and marijuana. From the food we eat, movies we watch, games we play, sports and festivals we attend, porn men and women devour, twitter we twit, and myspace we disgrace, we are all addicted to non-stop thrills. Of course, it doesn’t cost us life or limb, though some would say it has snuffed out our souls. Given all the bogus and make-believe nature of all these inane thrills, William James wants to seek out the REAL kind. One might say that bullets are the real pills for real men. Losers pop pills, tough guys pop bullets.
　
Is there a racial element to HURT LOCKER to the extent that Iraq War pitted the West vs the Middle East? Also, one of the leads is a black guy, and the US military is known for its racial mix. Though we aren’t sure to what extent the tension between Sanborn and James is racial or personal, the tension is undeniable. This is just as well since reality is complex and not reducible as most message-laden Hollywood movies would have us believe. BLIND SIDE is for people who want the message, HURT LOCKER is for those who want complexity.
One racial element in the film revolves around US soldiers being in a foreign country. They might as well be on another planet among an alien race. There is very little understanding or meaningful contact between Americans and Iraqis. Most Iraqis are civilian standbys, but any one of them could be a potential terrorist. That uncertainty is the greatest terror that the Americans are faced with, especially since they are officially in Iraq to bring freedom and justice to the people. US soldiers in HL might are much like the fighting men in Robert Heinlein’s STARSHIP TROOPERS. They are mostly fresh-faced soldiers trained to fight and kill and not much else. In a way, it’s worse because STARSHIP TROOPERS presented a total war scenario where the ‘good guys’ could just blow up the other side as much as possible. In HURT LOCKER, we see Americans trying to save Iraqi neighborhood from bombs planted by Iraqis–to be more specific, the mostly Sunni insurgents among them. Talk about being caught between Iraq and a hard place.
When it comes to Iraqis, HL is like the typical Hollywood movie. Iraqis, like Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, Somalis, and others before them, are just part of the background, with a few token characters thrown into to be more fairminded. Oliver Stone’s HEAVEN AND EARTH gave us something rare and precious–war as seen, felt, and experienced by the people of the Other country. While many US soldiers have died in foreign wars, many more civilians of those countries experienced far greater misery and perished in much greater numbers. For American movies to have ignored this fact most of this is understandable but somewhat distressing.
Most moviegoers demand hard action and things blowing up in a war movie, not a patient and empathetic understanding of lives of civilians of another country. Of course, it’s somewhat different if it’s about American civilians. HEAVEN AND EARTH tanked at the box office whereas GONE WITH THE WIND is the biggest hit of all time–adjusted for inflation–because Americans would rather see a Southern belle in a romanticized version of war than a Vietnamese peasant girl caught in an hell-hole. Also, BORN IN THE FOURTH JULY was a moderate success in the tradition of BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES.
　
But to be fair to HL, it is not about the Iraq War per se. Its POV may be limited and narrowly America-centric like most war movies, but the film is true to its intentions and concerns. Indeed, given its thematic material, an attempt to be ‘fairminded’ toward Iraqi civilians would have been superfluous and strained. There is one effective scene which brings William James too-close-for-comfort with the inner world of Iraqi civilian society–in a kind of Kafkaesque-or-Mamet-like turn of events, James enters an almost surreal zone of paranoia to ferret out the killers of a young dvd-peddling Iraqi boy he’d casually befriended. (William James buys pirated dvds and defuses pirated bombs. The instant and all-pervasive availability of dvds even in a battle-worn wasteland suggests how far yet how close an American soldier is to any part of the world. Indeed, the internet has given us the Insta-War, where anyone anywhere can turn on the computer and see the war happening in real time through live cam. It’s more than C-Span, which is a professional news service. War has also been personalized through images captured through countless cellphones and digicams. Ironically, cellphones are also used to set off bombs. It’s almost like a surreal Bunuel-ian dreamscape where a cigar is more than cigar and a cellphone is more than a cellphone.)
The most disturbing scene between Americans and Iraqis is when the army psychologist decides to see some real action. Trained for psychiatry but not psyched for war, he’s too much of a ‘nice guy’ when trying to persuade suspicious Iraqis to move out of the area. Trained to analyze and understand behind closed doors than command and take charge in the open, his decency proves weak and fatal. It is to Bigelow’s credit that the character isn’t poked fun at and lampooned as a useless ‘geek’ as he could have been. He’s out of place, but he could be just about any American unprepared for battle.
　
The other racial element in the movie involves the black guy. This element isn’t overt and perhaps not really even intended, but given the racial realities in America, it’s something we cannot overlook. Sometimes, a movie tells us more about our racial issues and problems by what it represses than reveals. HURT LOCKER is correct that overt racial tensions in the military are essentially things of the past. It was long ago when blacks would have been called ‘niggers’ or when black soldiers would have said stuff like, "Man, why is I fightin’ for the white man??? The gooks didn’t call me no nigger!!" The official mainstream narrative is that the military is the most successfully integrated sector of American society. Even so, there are bound to be some racial tensions, especially since the military is a competitive field of toughness. The battle for king of the hill in toughness has long been between white males and black males. This is even more pronounced in sports where blacks reign supreme in the most prestigious sports. NBA and NFL have mostly black knights with white cheerleaders and groupies swooning over them; white males have been reduced to playing the role of squires on the team and serfs in the stands. If there is less racial tension in the military, it’s because the discipline and hierarchy don’t allow the kind of jive-ass show-boating you see among blacks in sports. Black soldiers have to behave or else. Also, unlike sports, higher rank in the military isn’t necessarily based on physical toughness or raw courage. Even a geeky officer can pull rank on a big tough lower-ranked soldier. In this sense, the military is a paradoxical institution. Nothing matters more than toughness and courage in battle, BUT toughness and courage alone are no guarantee for higher rank or prestige. The top brass and higher-ranked officers are generally graduates of military academies, the kind of people who experience less of the real battle.
There used to be a time when even the biggest athletes respected and bowed down to their coaches in a bygone era, but that is no longer the case in our utterly commercialized society. Today, in our ultra-individualistic and celebrity-crazed culture, even top coaches must cater to the vanity and narcissism of top athletes. Also, since blacks dominate the sports and naturally tend to be unruly and aggressive, they’ve set the new template of how athletes should act. Sportsmanship is a dinosaur ideal. Every top athletes tries to be like Muhammad Ali or Shaq O’Neal. There was a time when white liberals were excited by the rise of the UPPITY Negro–as a force of self-assertion, self-pride, and self-esteem among blacks–, but things have gotten so out of hand that liberals now dream of Tiger Woods as the nice Negro lad–before the scandal–, Oprah–the billionaire mammy–, and Obama–the half-Negro who speaks like a white guy. Liberals used to wax romantic about the White Negro; now they dream of the Black Whitey.
　
In HL, there is little overt talk of ‘nigger this’ or ‘honkey that’, not even the obligatory kind in movies like HAMBURGER HILL. Rather, the tensions are subdued and leave us wondering if the friction is racial or personal, or more racial than personal or vice versa. Sanborn is, on the surface, a solid soldier. He’s tough and seasoned. But there is an element of insecurity and testiness beneath his hard exterior. After William James ‘goes solo’ on a mission, Sanborn feels ‘dissed’ and speaks of his experience in the field of Intelligence. Sanborn carries what might be called the Affirmative Action Malady–irritation that whites might not take him seriously and regard him as just as a black guy favored by AA. Sanborn wants James to know that he’s not just some AA baby but a guy with real knowledge and experience, thus deserving of respect. This belies a certain insecurity. Sanborn goes so far as to call James a ‘redneck’ to drive home the point. In other words, Sanborn is nobody’s inferior or nobody’s boy. James takes all of this in stride, and we can only guess what he really thinks since he’s so Zen about most things.
But, there is more than insecurity in Sanborn. There is also a bit of resentment that he has to play second fiddle yet again. He was subordinate to Sgt. Matt Thompson who dies in the first scene but then has to serve under William James. Thompson was less of a cowboy and more of a team-player, which made Sanborn feel appreciated. James, on the other hand, walks into danger like he’s Achilles the Greek Hero. Sanborn naturally feels ‘dissed’. We can only guess as to his real feelings, and he may not know his true feelings either. Does he feel ignored for racial reasons? Or is he angry at James’s reckless game-playing? Or both?
Sanborn, as a black guy, may also feel that HE should be the leader. There is a biological basis to this. Blacks, due to biochemistry, tends to be more assertive, aggressive, and commanding. Blacks generally weigh people’s worth according to physical prowess and charisma, and this means most black guys cannot respect ‘white boys’ as figures of authority. Blacks don’t respect nobody whose ass they can whup.
Now, this doesn’t mean that Sanborn is a typical black guy. It may well be that lots of black males are not typically black and just wanna lead peaceful normal lives–especially if they’re matured in yrs. But, there could be an element of racial resentment in Sanborn when his anger boils over with James. After the second mission when Sanborn is ‘dissed’ again, he strikes James in the face. James takes it in stride–like a big bear that got scratched by a cougar–, and that seems to be that. Sanborn perhaps thought he had to teach the ‘white boy’ a lesson not to mess with a badass ‘nigga’.
And we may even surmise that William James’s reckless courage has a racial tone as well. Since whites cannot top blacks in strength and power, the only area left is daring and courage. It’s like "you may have a bigger dick, but I got bigger balls." Indeed, the military–especially the more exclusive special forces–has become a kind of ersatz sports team for a lot of white guys who can’t make it into college/professional sports dominated by blacks. Gun is the great equalizer. This is why so many angry, frustrated, and resentful white males–who are sick of blacks winning in sports and taking more and more blonde blue-eyed babes as their sexual prize–load up on guns and more guns. Facebook is filled with seething white males who desperately try to reclaim and demonstrate their manhood by posting photos of themselves holding pistols or uploading videos of them blasting away with semi-automatic rifles. They put on a "I’m an angry white warrior" facial expression which looks rather silly on a social networking site known more for quizzes, games, and virtual gifts. You bet they are fantasizing about shooting a whole bunch of left-wing Jews and black males–and possibly ‘race traitor’ white females who are into ‘jungle fever’.
　
Anyway, HL has surprises. William James’s approach to people is very much like his approach to bombs. He takes his time and works at his own pace. After Sanborn attacks him, he doesn’t show anger or blow up at Sanborn’s face. He doesn’t apologize either. You’d think the score is Sanborn 1 James 0. But there is more to James than meets the eye. It’s not that he’s someone who holds grudges forever; rather, he’s someone who has to see things through. So after an evening of carousing, he confronts Sanborn in a game of who-can-punch-whose-gut-hardest?
Sanborn surely has the natural edge since black bones and muscle are harder, but James is slightly the bigger guy and has much greater mental will. Sanborn, as tough as he is, cringes in pain and screams like a child–or even a little girl–when James gains control by sitting atop him. Though the punch-the-gut match is more or less even on the physical level, James wins the mental aspect of it. So, their rivalry score stands throughout the movie at James 2 Sanborn 1.
　
Sanborn is interesting as he’s both a fully realized individual AND a shopworn black stereotype we’ve seen in many movies. How can this be? We’ll have to credit the skillful writing and directing of Boal and Bigelow. Sanborn is, to an extent, what we might call a reverse-stereotype. In our ‘progressive’ society which disdains racial stereotypes even as it promotes them–blacks as studly athletes, Muslims as swarthy terrorists, Jews as wits, funny-accented Asian-Indian convenience store owners, Chinese computer geeks and William Hung, Italian mobsters, Mexicans-who-look-and-sound-like-Guillermo-on-the-Jimmy-Kimmel-Show, Teutonic Germanic types–, we are sometimes treated to the anti- or counter-stereotype as if we are all about ‘judging people by the content of their character’. So, we see the dumb mild-mannered Jew–like Ross on the TV show FRIENDS–, a loud and brash Asian girl, a very normal father-knows-best-like gay boy, or a self-controlled and reliable black guy.
In reality, we generally associate blackness with jive-assery, and indeed GUNNER PALACE did a wonderful job of showing the difference in attitudes among rapping & trash-talking black soldiers and white soldiers who were either more laid back or more conscientious(especially among the higher ranks). The way some of the brothas were rappin’ in GUNNER PALACE, you’d think Iraq War was the biggest baddest gang warfare they ever done seen.
To this extent, Sanborn could be said to be an anti-stereotype, which too is a form of stereotype. An anti-stereotype doesn’t necessarily favor reality over caricature but merely replaces one caricature(negative) with another(positive). But Sanborn is more because he’s so well realized and brought to life. He has credibility as a realistic character.
But as an anti-stereotype, he recalls the black guy in DAWN OF THE DEAD, Angela Bassett in STRANGE DAYS, Danny Glover in LETHAL WEAPON, the Boat Chief in APOCALYPSE NOW, and many others. He may even remind us of Woody Strode character in MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. If so, the anti-stereotype of the solid, stable, and straight-arrow black guy may partly be a ‘progressive’ reworking of the old stereotype of the loyal Negro.
In DAWN, the short white guy was the adventurer and gambler while the black guy was cautious and methodical. We have a similar dynamic in HL. More interestingly, the racial dynamic of STRANGE DAYS–also directed by Bigelow from a rotten script by James Cameron–was similar to one in HL. In both SD and HL, it is a white guy who has a mad obsession while a black character tries to restrain him and bring him back down to Earth. If SD is really a sleazy and stupid movie and the Bassett character was too-good-and-badass-to-be-true, this can’t be said for HL. To be sure, SD is sci-fi apocalyptic fantasy whereas HL is a realistic war drama, but SD would have been better without the Cameronian excesses and simple-mindedness.
　
I don’t know what the ‘white nationalist’ crowd would make of a movie like HURT LOCKER. My guess they would have loved it if it didn’t have the ‘positive’ black male character. Of course, there is a wide range of ‘white nationalism’, from those who believe that the West should be white-majority nations–sites like Vdare.com–to those still admire Adolf Hitler and deny the Holocaust–Stormfront and other such moronic sites. There is also defensive white nationalism–in response to the rise of the Obama regime, tide of illegal immigration, and affirmative action–as opposed to aggressive white nationalism–the kind of idiots who think everything would have been great if Japan and Germany won WWII.
Whatever the case, the presence of the black guy will be most troublesome to white nationalists. Black service in the military is welcome to many white conservatives but anathema to white nationalists–who aren’t necessarily conservative–Christian, capitalist, and/or individualist.
Many white conservatives hope that black military service will boost patriotism in the black community. Gee, maybe patriotic blacks will even join the GOP!!! White conservatives also see the military as the most effective institution that can train, discipline, and humanize unruly black males into constructive members of society. For a long time, Colin Powell was the wet-dream among white conservatives. Indeed, how nice if the military could turn more blacks into Colin Powells–or so that was the hope until Powell showed his real black nationalist face and endorsed his brotha Obama. If Saul Alinsky provided Obama with his rule book, it seems Powell’s career was ordained along the lines of the movie THE SPOOK WHO SAT BY THE DOOR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJGD5NAQwc8&feature=PlayList&p=499F675FC139EC95&index=0
　
White nationalists, unlike mainstream white conservatives, regard blacks as the MAIN enemy. Though white nationalists cooked up high-sounding anti-war rhetoric for opposing the American Empire and foreign wars, their main reason for opposing foreign wars is that many of them want to prepare for the REAL WAR in America–the race war between whites and the blacks, with browns caught somewhere in the middle. White nationalists wonder why we are wasting our resources and men against Iraqis and possibly Iranians who can’t possibly do us any harm when it is the blacks who are beating up ‘white boys’, taking white women–by rape or seduction–, and driving white folks out of high-crime integrated neighborhoods. Why are we over in Iraq when we are being invaded along the Southwest border by Illegal Mexicans and over-productive ‘poon cannons’ of anchor-baby muchachas? Why are we trying to save the world when the (Third)world is flooding into the US and European countries?
To white nationalists, the priorities of the American government–Democratic or Republican–make absolutely no sense. Worse, in fighting all these foreign wars, the US military needs as many recruits as it can get. Many of them are black and even possibly illegal Mexicans. Whites having to fight alongside blacks and illegal Mexicans in places like Iraq and Afghanistan compels all of them to be a band of brothers. They must rely on each other to fight, kill, and survive–as blacks and whites did in Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, blacks asked, "why we be fightin’ the gooks when they aint called us no ‘nigger’?" but whites could have just as well asked, "why are we fighting the gooks when they never raped our women and pussified white men into a bunch of faggoty-maggoty-assed dorks?"
The main threat to black Americans have always been white Americans, and vice versa. Even during the peak of the Cold War, there was far less chance of Soviets nuking the US than white women getting raped by blacks, white businesses getting burnt to the ground by blacks, white males getting beaten up by blacks, white people being robbed and murdered in their homes by blacks, and so on. Soviet were a distant enemy that could be held at bay. Blacks were within the walls of America and wreaking havoc on white society through crime and destroying white male pride and confidence by whupping the ‘white boy’ in the streets, in the ring, and on the sporting fields.
For white nationalists, there can be no easy truce with blacks. BLIND SIDE is for naive white conservatives as far as white nationalists are concerned. If mainstream conservatism is still informed by a good-willed and all-embracing Christianity–conservative churches are at the forefront of adopting and bringing lots of African and Haitian babies to America–, white nationalism long ago gave up hope of racial harmony. Not all or even most white nationalists call for a Race War, but many have a very bleak view of the future. They think whites must stick together just as other races are vying for their own slice of tribal power.
The good-willed nature of white conservatives is partly sincere, partly disingenuous. As Christians who believe in America-as-the-city-on-a-hill, they really seem to want to do good. But their excessive show of compassion to blacks and Jews is a means to overcome the sins of the Right associated to slavery and the Holocaust. Though they oppose liberal statism, they are eager to show that they CARE MORE for blacks than even liberals do. In BLIND SIDE, a conservative white family takes a huge-ass Negro kid into their own living room. It’s not just a case of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner but Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and Staying to Fill Up His Fat Black Ass(and become a famous athlete and have sex with lots of white women). Of course, what we are shown is a jolly looking de-sexualized Fat Albert type when in fact your average big black guy brought into a white house will soon be ogling and even fondling the missus and the daughter–who may actually like it, as young kids’ main passion today is jungle-feverish rap music and hip-hop.
The main reason for black problem isn’t slavery but biology. No amount of white conservative good-will or redemption can fix this. As for the guilt trip over the Holocaust and the mindless GOP support of Israel, why should white Americans feel guilt over what Germans did? Do white Americans feel guilt for what Japanese did in China? One could say white Americans didn’t try to enter the war and save Jews until the attack on Pearl Harbor, but did Jews try to save Ukrainians from Stalin or the Cambodians from the Khmer Rouge?
I suppose one could argue that White Americans and Nazi Germans were of a similar cultural lineage with deep roots in antisemitism, but one could argue that American Jews and Soviet Jews also shared a long and deep radical, subversive, and ideological lineage. If white American gentiles must feel guilt for the Holocaust, then American Jew should feel guilt for the evils of communism. Of course, the real problem is Jews are rich and smart, bought off nearly all the major media outlets and control most of the academia. They control the brain centers, so even most white conservatives think in terms and ideas framed by the Jews–leftists, liberals, and neocons.
　
Anyway, the thing is the military necessarily draws the various races closer. Whites, blacks, and browns must all fight together, especially in wars cooked up by liberal Zionists and Jewish neoconservatives. White nationalists feel that their main enemies are blacks and liberal/leftist Jews. If whites should fight any people, it’s the blacks. If whites should bring down any power, it is the JEPE–Jewish Power Elite.
White nationalists respect the military and what it stands for, but they see it as hopelessly compromised and perverted by racial diversity and by its being subordinate to civilian government which is no longer that of the white majority but of the Jewish liberal power elite which is using blacks and illegal aliens from Mexico to undermine and destroy white power and well-being. Worse, more and more white females in the military are going with black officers and soldiers, further pussifying white males who can only watch with resentment and envy. Whites males feel doubly emasculated–by PC and by the stronger blacks. If a white guy in the military complained about interracist or interracial relationships, he’ll either be court-martialed and dishonorably discharged and/or get beaten up by the black guy to the merriment of his white ‘race traitor’ girlfriend.
So, from this angle, HURT LOCKER may seem like just another Hollywood Neocon liberal Zionist interracist fantasy to white nationalist types.
　
But not all or even most white nationalists regard art and culture purely in propagandistic or ideological terms. Not everyone is as myopic as Richard Hoste for whom racial purism is just about the only lens through which to judge and understand society. Only a myopically jaded person like Hoste would underhandedly praise North Korea because of its racial purism. Never mind it is one of the most psychotic and miserable places on Earth. Hey, so what? They have a racial policy to give Nazi policies a run for the money.
Hoste’s view of HURT LOCKER is no less myopic. Though we should note and discuss the ‘subversive’ elements in HL in relation to white nationalist interests, our understanding and appreciation of art and culture should go beyond the Nazi-esque obsession with race. Hoste is so ideologically one-dimensional that he can praise a psycho-state like North Korea because it’s racially homogeneous–never mind North Korea is gives racial homogeneity a bad name–while dismissing an excellent and multi-faceted movie like HURT LOCKER because it has, by golly, a ‘positive’ black guy. This is perhaps why the Left and Jews are far ahead on the field in the appreciation and creation of arts and culture. Even as the Left and Jews may detest the politics or views of a Richard Wagner or Louis-Ferdinand Celine, they know great art when the see, hear, or read one. Not that HL is some super masterpiece, but we should be able to be able to appreciate it something other than a simple PC propaganda on racial progress.
　
Bigelow isn’t and will never be a great master. At best, she is a superior filmmaker with a fair amount of ambition which, thankfully, isn’t as strained as that of her ex-hubby James Cameron. The godawful STRANGE DAYS–which is more interesting to think about than to watch–was very ambitious but it had Cameron’s fingerprints all over it. Bigelow at her best seems to know her limitations. Even so, she seems unable to escape the habit of artiness in most of her pictures. If I like K-19: WIDOWMAKER the most, it’s because it’s the most conventional. When Bigelow goes for personal style, she tends to falter, and HURT LOCKER is no exception. My biggest gripe against the film is the artiness around the edges. The artiness isn’t enough to kill the movie but it can be irritating. Some people have complained about the hand-held camera style, but that’s not the main problem. Rather it is arty and self-conscious use of that style. What we end up is a kind of unnatural naturalism. It would have been less troublesome if the film had been shot by an amateur documentarian in a slapdash manner. Whether one likes the hand-held camera style or not, such would have been straightforward and honest–and even compelling–, like so many uploaded footage of war we’ve seen all over the internet. Unfortunately, what we get in HL is a very calculated and self-conscious kind of naturalism. It’s kinda like prole hands with fancy finger nail polish.
　
Worse, some of the jerky camera movement isn’t very purposeful but arbitrarily arty, possibly the worst kind of artiness. Instead of calling attention to the raw ‘reality’, it calls attention to itself. Now, consider what Steven Spielberg was able to achieve in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. SPR has a rather syrupy and ridiculous plot, the writing isn’t all that good, and the acting is ho-hum, but it is a visual action masterpiece, especially in the opening scene. Even the slightest camera movement bounces off a certain stimuli, danger, fear, anxiety, violence, etc. The camera shakes with the tremors of war. Come to think of it, it’s as though the camera is desperately seeking order and balance in a world being torn asunder. Human senses normally seek order and balance, and so the tumultuous visuals seem natural than forced in SPR. It’s as if the camera is being shaken against its will than for the hell of it. It’s the POV of chaos seeking order than vice versa. In HURT LOCKER, there are many scenes where the camera needlessly lurches about even when not much is happening. Why? Still, it’s not a fatal flaw, and we kinda get used to it like we get used to mosquitos at a picnic.
Besides, when Bigelow gets it right, she gets it very right. The best scene in the movie is when our guys come upon British mercenaries dressed up as Arabs. Soon, a firefight breaks out with Iraqi insurgents hidden in a far-off bunker, and Bigelow lets the scene languish under the merciless sun. This is the most surreal scene in the film, almost like a cross between Bunuel and Sergio Leone. It is a duel to the death that feels both desperate and eternal. The insurgents are hidden in a bunker while out guys are under the hammering rays of the sun. They grow more dehydrated by the minute. They don’t even know if they’ve killed all the insurgents or not. Pinned down, all they can do is wait and wait, as they slip in and out of hallucinatory slumber.
There’s more to this scene than struggle for survival. It could also be a matter of pride, and pride too is a drug, an addiction. Like a video game player who has to make it to the next level, Sanborn may feel a prideful need to finish off all the enemy.
　
This scene is also full of surprises. Ralph Fiennes–star of STRANGE DAYS–makes an appearance as a dashing and courageous–if also rather uncouth–war adventurer; he’s the kind of guy whom bullets usually evade or bump off of in movies. He gets shot stone cold dead. It is then Sanborn takes over the rifle, and we expect a dramatic shootout that will end the scene in a bang. But, the scene stretches on and on until we don’t know what to expect anymore and finally ends with a whimper than a bang. It may be the best thing Bigelow ever did, something even Spielberg cannot touch.
　
All said and done, a fine film.

The Irrational Religion of WHITE GUILT

What is one of the most blaring contradictions on the Left? It is none other than the ideology or spirituality of "white guilt". This is amusing considering that the Left prides itself as the RATIONALIST inheritors of the Enlightenment tradition opposed to religion. As rational materialists, leftists staked their claim of intellectual superiority by characterizing their methods, theories, and proposals/policies as ‘scientific’ unclouded by emotions entangled in religious or spiritual notions of ‘good and evil’.
Then, how does one explain the cult of white guilt? What is its rational basis? Is it rational at all? Or, is it really a mindset rooted in spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity?
　
Science or reason explores the world of man and matter minutely and specifically and then draws theories from those observations. There is no collective truth in science or reason. Thus, if one apple is rotten, it doesn’t follow that all apples are rotten. Science will find the culprit of the rot in whatever mold or bacteria that settled on the decaying apple. In the realm of man, reason would lead us to blame certain individual, ideas, or policies than entire populations. Thus, the crimes of Nazism should be blamed on Hitler, those who served him, and on its policies. It doesn’t rationally follow that ALL Germans were to blame, and it doesn’t make any sense to say ALL Germans past, present, and future should be tagged with the crimes of the Holocaust and WWII. Yet, the concept of collective German guilt promoted and peddled by the German Left had led to exactly that kind of mentality. Is it rational? Or is it irrational? Now, irrational feelings and values are not necessarily bad. There is much we cannot answer through reason; therefore, people find meaning through faith, mysticism, the concept of the sacred, etc. The problem isn’t irrationalism per se but irrationalism posing as rationalism. And, that is indeed the essence of the modern Left.
　
Consider the quasi-spiritual ideologies of white guilt, black nobility, and Judeo-philia–aka philosemitism. They are the pillars of what passes for modern leftist view of justice and socio-political agenda. But, what do they have to do with reason? What is rational about the notion that what happened to a one people at the hands of another people should forever define and shape our views of their goodness or evil for all eternity?
Also, what is rational about saying what happened at a particular time in human history was ENTIRELY bad and deserving of eternal apologies from the descendants or racial cousins of the perpetrators. Take American slavery for example. It’s true that mostly Anglo-Americans in the South practiced this institution. But, let’s look at the bare facts. Most whites in the South didn’t own slaves. Though slavery is unjust according to modern Western values, people had different assumptions about slavery, serfdom, and different races/peoples in the past. After all, slavery was universal all over the world until the 20th century.
Black Africans, though oppressed as slaves, also made great progress by having been brought into the bosom of a much more advanced civilization.
And, after waves of immigration, the majority of white Americans are not even Anglo-American. Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, and Russians had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery in America.
If we use our REASON and deal with facts, it’s quite apparent that American slavery was not the worst evil ever committed by man–not even close–, most whites had nothing to do with it, descendants of slave owners after the Civil War didn’t own slaves(and can’t be blamed for what their parents or grandparents had done), and European immigrants who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries never owned nor profited from slavery.
　
Given these facts and relying on reason, how can anyone perpetuate the ideology of white guilt as a progressive, rational, and scientific idea? It is something that must be taken on FAITH. It is an idea that bestows eternal victimhood/nobility or wickedness/rottenness on entire groups. Thus, Polish Americans are expected to share in White Guilt though they arrived decades after the American Civil War and though they suffered tragic histories of their own at the hands of both Western Europe–Napoloeon, Prussia, Nazis, etc–and Eastern Europe, especially in the form of Russia or USSR. So, even Polish-Americans are discriminated by affirmative action. They too must pay the price for American slavery that happened long ago and was carried out by non-Polish whites.
Or, consider the fact that black African immigrants enjoy affirmative action benefits though their ancestors were not slaves in the US. If anything, African immigrants are the descendants of slave masters or slaves in Africa. In addition, US did them a great big favor by letting them in. But, instead of expecting gratitude from the African arrivals, we teach them that they are automatically and eternally noble simply because they are black and because all whites–Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc–owe them something because they are of the same race as the Anglo-Americans in the ante-bellum South owned black slaves.
　
What is rational about any of this? What is rational about passing judgment on the past with today’s values? What is rational about ennobling an entire race of people because some of their ancestors or racial cousins had been oppressed by slavery? Do we say Russians are all noble for all time since most Russian peasants had been serfs until the middle of 19th century? And, why are only white people–among all the races in the world–burdened with the guilt of oppression when oppressiveness was the rule throughout human history on all five continents until relatively recently? Even today, most non-white nations are non-democratic, oppressive, and brutal. Yet, the tendency of the Left is to explain everything in terms of white evil and white guilt.
It says non-white nations are poor, backward, and/or non-democratic because of Western imperialism or neo-imperialism, when in fact, they had always been traditionally oppressive even before the first white man set his foot on their territory.
The Left also says that the only or the main reason why the West is rich and powerful is because it robbed and exploited sweat and labor from the toiling third world masses–and does so to this day through the machinery of globalist neo-imperialism. One can argue the merits and demerits of globalism for both the West and the non-West, but it should be clear to any honest and rational person that most non-Western nations are backward because their rulers, the people, and the native cultures are stupid.
Generally, non-Western nations are ‘exploited’ because they are poor than they are poor because they are ‘exploited’. Non-Western nations with intelligent people and smart cultures LEARN from their relations with the West and develop ways to catch up and even surpass the West. The success of East Asia should have made this patently obvious to honest observers. But, the Left still prefers the irrational and convenient ideology of white guilt to explain everything.
　
The ideology of white guilt is, of course, selective. It has two sets of criteria for white people and non-white people. Thus, it was a great sin of Afrikaners to practice apartheid but not so bad for the Chinese to crush Tibetans or Uighurs. When South African whites killed a handful of blacks, it got more world news coverage than black African nations killing 100,000s.
When white people want to preserve their own racial, national, and cultural heritage, they are said to be SUPREMACIST. But, when Jews do the same vis-a-vis the Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories, it’s just Jews trying to SURVIVE. Whites are held to a higher standard while non-whites–especially blacks and Jews–are allowed to get away with just about anything. White guilt is utterly paralyzing to the white community while emboldening to the black and Jewish communities.
Also, everything white–past and present–is judged morally while most non-white cultures are approached anthropologically. Thus, if a white kingdom waged war and killed a lot of people long ago, it is remembered as having been ‘genocidal’, ‘cruel’, and ‘intolerant’. But, if a non-white culture did the same or worse, we must anthropologically UNDERSTAND why it did what it did and not be quick to pass moral judgment–lest we be ‘Eurocentric’. Never mind that European or Western cultures of the past were nearly as foreign to our modern values as non-European cultures are today. If we shouldn’t pass easy moral judgment on other cultures, then the same should apply to European and Western cultures of the past since people long ago didn’t know, believe, nor feel what we know, believe, and feel today.
　
White Guilt is also, paradoxically and irrationally, premised on the notion of eternal white domination. There seems to be a ridiculous–even a bit arrogant–conceit among white liberals that they will forever be on top and therefore in the position to feel sorry for everyone else. Indeed, there is an element of condescension on the part of white liberals and leftists, as if they are firmly lodged in positions of power to dispense compassion for all the poor and backward non-whites out there. This idiotic outlook exists not only on the left but also on the right, with such stupidities as ‘compassionate conservatism’. Since Bush Jr. is rich and privileged, he seems to think ALL white people share his power and position to dole our white-guilt-inflected favors to everyone(who isn’t white). Thus, Bush pushed for not only more affirmative action but also affirmative immigration for Mexican Illegals.
But in truth, NO power is forever permanent nor to be taken for granted. At one time, Rome as the most powerful empire in the world. Well, what happened? One time, the Chinese Empire was the most powerful and advanced in the world. By the 19th century, China was the ‘sick man of Asia’ and about to be picked apart by Western imperialist powers. So, any white person who thinks white power is assured and permanent–and therefore, white people shall forever enjoy the privilege of feeling sorry for everyone else–is a naive, ignorant, and moronic fool.
　
Of course, some white people think otherwise, in a more devious and disingenuous way. They push White Guilt as a template for what they hope will morph into Guilt of All Stripes. Some white liberals do indeed fear the day when the West and white people will be eclipsed by the power of non-whites–Chinese in the area of international trade, Mexicans or Muslims via waves of invasive immigration, blacks and Africans in terms of higher birthrates, etc. Thus, white liberals hope that if they establish the ideology of White Guilt and maintain high moral standards for themselves, they will be in a better position to judge non-whites and eventually pressure them to develop their own forms of collective guilt.
For example, if Germans apologize for the Holocaust over and over and renounce all forms of ‘racism’, then they will have gained the right to judge others who have yet to purge their ‘racist’ views. Indeed, some white liberals in Europe have admitted that they support hate crimes legislation in the hope that it may used against non-whites when they become the majority over the whites.
　
One may ask why don’t white liberals everywhere push for sensible measures such as a moratorium on non-white immigration and expulsion of illegal aliens? Wouldn’t that be the rational thing to do for the preservation of white survival and well-being? Yes, but modern white liberalism is, above all, anti-racist and cannot abide by any idea or policy that suggests that the West primarily belongs to Westerners or whites. Also, the Left has long embraced the ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ theory that all races are the same except for skin color. All truly rational and scientific people know this to be false, but what prevails in the liberal community is more scientism than real science–at least in the human realm. Scientism, as we all know, has the appearance of science but isn’t really science–any more than imitation crab meat is really crab meat.
　
White Guiltism is EMOTIONALLY paralyzing and, as such, cannot be deemed rational. Truly rational thought motivates and encourages us toward necessary action. Reason is supposed to be active and applicable, not apologetic and apathetic. Suppose rats are spreading germs and killing people left and right in a community. The rational thing would be to decrease or eradicate the rat population. But, suppose the people in the community see rats as divine creatures and feel guilt about having to kill them. That would be irrational though perhaps beautiful in a spiritual way. White Guiltism is, similarly, a one-sided pacifism which says whites cannot take necessary measures to save their race, culture, heritage, and power. It emotionally paralyzes white people from waking up to reality, facing hard facts, and doing what is necessary.
　
Of course, one could argue that even the will to RACIAL survival isn’t rational but essentially irrational. The Life Force within every living creature is not a function of reason but the fierce will to live. People use reason to facilitate their animalistic survival instinct. Also, the desire for CULTURAL survival is also irrational at its root. People want to preserve their culture because it has become ‘sacred’, just as a rare faded family photograph may be emotionally and ‘spiritually’ precious to its possessor. Reason follows universal logic, but this cannot be said of cultures or personal items. Cows are sacred to Hindus but hamburger meat for Americans. One woman’s heirloom is just old junk to another person.
So, it would be wrong to say that the White Right is rational and the White Left is irrational. Both are irrational at their intellectual root. But, the instinct for survival and self-preservation is more useful than gushy pompous emotions about the unworthiness of one’s own people. It’s better to fight to survive and hopefully win than to seek dissipation and defeat in the name of some elusive notion of ‘higher morality’. Higher morality is fine and wonderful for individual seekers of wisdom; there’s nothing wrong with gurus, hermits, or monks searching for otherworldly or inner-worldly truths. It just cannot be sought in a collective fashion.
　
Also, this isn’t to suggest that everything in life is a either/or kind of zero-sum game. There may be choices other than fight-to-win or lay-down-and-lose. The human world is not the animal world. A community can have rich and meaningful minorities groups. Indeed, human progress wouldn’t have been possible without the movements of populations and ideas. Many ancient civilizations had cities where diverse peoples arrived to travel, learn, and teach. But, stability was generally possible only when a geographical domain had a sufficient majority to maintain a degree of social, cultural, and political cohesiveness. Too much homogeneity and xenophobia led to isolation, stagnation, and eventually defeat at the hands of more advanced peoples. Too much diversity led to division, dissension, and chaos.
　
Like all religions or faith-based ideas, White Guiltism comes with taboos. Taboos are always irrational and based on notions of the sacred and profane. For example, beef is taboo among Hindus because cows are considered sacred, and pork is taboo among Jews and Muslims because pigs are seen as profane–spiritually polluted. A devout Muslim will not even eat a perfectly clean piece of pork because his revulsion goes beyond microbes or health concerns. Eating pork is seen as an affront to Allah.
True reason has no use for taboos and works according to logic regardless of whether something is regarded as sacred or profane. So, a true man of Reason must reject social and ideological taboos that get in the way of logic and truth-seeking.
But in historical reality, Reason has been as much a religion as a science. Just consider the cult of The People during the French Revolution or how Marx’s theory of history was read and revered as sacred text–and how those who dissented were labeled as heretics and treated accordingly.
So, the fact that White Guiltism is riddled with taboos is nothing new to the real history of Reason and "Progress". For all the bragging on the Left about its respect for reason and science, certain ideas are forbidden in public–sometimes even behind closed doors. Thus, James Watson got in hot water for his views on black intelligence. Instead of debating or disproving his views, the liberal academic establishment just told us to accept on faith that Watson is wrong and that views such as his have no place in ‘respectable’ discourse. Worse, some liberals have said that EVEN IF people like Watson are correct, their views should be suppressed because they may have ‘evil’ consequences. They are worried about the use of ‘racist’ ideas to oppress blacks and Jews. But, couldn’t one argue that anti-racist ideas are leading to the oppression of whites under blacks and Jews? After all, blacks are physically stronger than whites, and integration will hurt whites. And, Jews are smarter than whites and also happen to be generally leftist. Since Jews use their superior intelligence AGAINST the interests of whites, shouldn’t whites embrace racist truths than anti-racist lies?
Besides, in any true practice of real reason there is no place for ‘good or evil’. Good and evil are essentially emotional or spiritual concepts or notions. They are beyond reason. Yet, the cult of White Guiltism is all about ‘good and evil’. How is it that Rational liberals and leftists are so hung up with the concept of ‘racist evil’? To a true Rationalist, there can only be one definition of good vs bad. Truth and honesty are good, falsehood and dishonesty are bad. According to real reason, something is either true or untrue, logical or illogical, functional or dysfunctional.
A rationalist may find some things less useful, pleasant, or illuminating. For his purposes, he may say some things are worse than others. But, he cannot say something is ‘evil’, a spiritual concept which cannot be explained by reason–though many have tried.
　
White Guiltism is nothing without taboos and obligations. One is forbidden to speak or even think certain thoughts. One is obligated to ‘redeem’ one’s soul by prostrating before non-whites, especially blacks and Jews. White Guilt forbids stating the obvious and enacting necessary measures because it says all whites must pay a special price for their GREATER sins and evil throughout history–for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
　
White Guilitism also says that white people must not only suppress their racial consciousness but feel responsible for the well-being of all the less fortunate non-whites around the world–especially for blacks in Africa. Indeed, White Guiltism is at the heart of so many major issues and agendas around the world. Take the issue of Global Warming or Climate Change or Whatever It’s Being Called Today. Its proponents claim that Africa is in social and economic decline because evil and greedy white people have messed up the world climate. Whenever some ‘progressive’ activist wants donations, grants, or important positions, he adds ‘racism’ to whatever happens to be his pet cause. Thus, environmentalism gets a boost if it denounces ‘environmental racism’. Or, nutrition activists will yammer about how blacks are fatter than whites, as if it’s white people’s fault that blacks consume too much fried chicken, biscuits, and malt liquor.
　
Whatever problem that exists among non-whites, the burden always falls on whites. Consider Somalia and Rwanda. In the early 90s, US was blamed for getting involved in Somalia. Then, it was blamed for not getting involved in Rwanda. And, though the enmity between Hutus and Tutsis predated European imperialism, the liberal media told us that everything had been hunky dory between the two groups before Europeans introduced ‘racism’ in the Garden of Eden that had been Africa. So, everything that is wrong in black Africa or black America is explained in terms of having been the work of the White Serpent.
This is extended to other parts of the world as well. So, even as leftists agree that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, they argue that evil white imperialists put him in power. Now, I’m not one to deny that Western governments did their share of bad shit and are culpable for them. But, the habit of the Left is to offer one answer to why the world is so messed up. It’s always one or more of the following: (1) whites did too much (2) whites didn’t do enough (3) whites did it badly (4) whites did it stupidly (5) whites did it with ulterior motives. Just as Jews could never live up to God’s expectations, whites can never live up to White Guiltism’s expectations of White Redemption.
.
Thus, whites were blamed for conditions in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina though blacks had run that city to the ground long before the storm arrived. And after the hurricane, blacks all sat on their ass and waited for HEP than getting off their ass and trying to do something for themselves. Bush got so much blame for this that he sought to redeem his white guilty self by giving billions in aid to Black Africa. He sought forgiveness and approval from blacks and white liberals by being a good ‘compassionate conservative’ white boy. But, did they show him any gratitude, shower him with praise, or forgive him? No, Bush got nothing out of it, just like Richard Nixon had gotten nothing out of expanding Great Society programs.
　
What are the roots of White Guilt? It probably goes back to Christianity with its notion of Eternal Sin and the Promise of Redemption through the one true Messiah. According to Christianity, Jews were forever guilty of having killed the Son of God unless they converted to Christianity. But, this has roots in Judaism as well. In the Bible, God protects his Chosen People and eternally condemns and ruins entire peoples for all time for having harmed His children. Or, there is the promise that God will one day send a messiah to curse and defeat certain peoples forever. Thus, all of the Egyptians are cursed for all time in the Bible. Because of the sins of the Ham folks, it is said that the sons of Ham shall be slaves of sons of Schlam.
　
But, the concept of spiritual guilt is not a problem as long as it remains spiritual. If there is indeed God, we can never measure up to his greatness or perfection. Our lives are filled with lies, betrayals, cowardice, treachery, and etc. Even when we don’t commit transgressions, our hearts are filled with vanity, envy, hatred, and cruelty. So, in a spiritual sense we are all guilty, and religious people feel a need to pray to God and ask forgiveness. Spiritual guilt makes sense because the assumption is that the only figure who has the right to judge our souls is God.
But, when spiritual guilt is applied to the secular realm, it means some groups get to play god over other groups. Thus, Jews and blacks put on airs of divine wisdom. They act like Jesus Christ–as both the Son of God and as the saintly martyr of (white)Man. But, aren’t Jews and blacks human too? Aren’t their hands also stained with the blood of Cain? What did blacks do throughout history? They waged wars, conquered, raped, and robbed while they ruled Africa. What did Jews throughout history? They committed their share of ‘crimes’.
　
In the secular world, guilt must be defined in a legal and specific manner. So, if John commits a transgression against Roger, John must be blamed for what HE DID. And, John must pay for what he did–for his specific crime–than for the ‘wickedness’ of his soul. This is why HATE CRIME LAWS are irrational and ‘spiritual’. They force the justice system to judge people according to the ‘spiritual stain’ in their hearts. It criminalizes thoughts and emotions as well as the specific crime.
Now, this isn’t to say that intention behind crime is irrelevant. The difference between first degree and second degree murder is that the former is pre-meditated. And, we do make distinctions between murder and manslaughter. So, the judge must take into the WHY of the crime in sentencing the criminal. But, to separately criminalize the WHY is to bring spiritualism into the courtroom. The criminal is being specifically judged and sentenced for the wickedness of his soul.
Even worse is the fact that this kind of spiritual guilt, when applied to the secular realm, favors or targets specific groups. Thus, whites are held to greater account for racial hostility than other races. A white ‘hate criminal’ is not judged only for what HE did but judged within the context of what white society might have done in the past. He is being spiritually judged for the collective sins of his entire people.
God has the right to see all of us as guilty in heart and soul as He is supposedly all-knowing. But, secular law, if it claims rationality and objectivity, cannot judge individuals this way.

Moneychangers & Matchmakers. Liberal Jewish Control of Purses and Pu**ies.

　
Jews have long been associated with finance–banking, investment, speculation, etc. The profession that had once made Jews servile and dependent on the gentile elites of Europe and America eventually made them the lords of the world economy. The finance sector no longer serves the productive sector but has come to command the entire economy. The world of finance and economics, like that of computers and medicine, has become so complex and labyrinthine that most of us–especially less intelligent goyim–have essentially left it to the smarter Jews to develop, innovate, and fix. Generally, we should be distrustful of those with great power and in control of our economic destiny–especially as economic power translates into other forms of power–, but we tend to be trustful of those controlling finance and high-tech because they happen to be Jews. If not always trustful, we are afraid to speak out and demand a full auditing of masters of finance. This is because the masters of finance are largely Jewish, and we’ve all been taught that to even hint of the possibility of Jewish corruption is ‘rabidly and virulently antisemitic’. When the Bernie Madoff scandal broke, the liberal Jewish media spun it as a great tragedy for the Jewish community since many of the prominent victims were Jews. There was almost no story of the non-Jewish victims of Madoff. Even though the villain was Jewish, the media’s sermon was that Jews were the PRIMARY victims, and thus all of us should sympathize with Jews. Never mind that when the going was good, many Jews did very well by Madoff who then swindled far many more non-Jews. Anyway, it’s no mystery to anyone that Jews are essentially the moneychangers of society. Through control of finance, they get to decide the value of products and services around the world. They get decide which sectors receive investment capital or bailout money and which sectors are left high and dry.
　
As if playing moneychanger isn’t enough, Jews have now become the matchmakers of society. Through control of the brain centers–the academia–, eyes/ears/ mouth–news and information media–, and the fist–law and politics–of society, Jews(mostly liberal or leftist)have gained the power to mold our minds and shape our hearts. Since Jews control much of the entertainment industry, they also control our hips and lips. They decide what kind of movies we see, what kind of music we dance, what kind of stars and celebrities we look up to.
Thus, they’ve also come to control the genitalia–the dicks and poons–of the goy population. Jews get to decide what kinds of sexual attitudes are okay or not okay, what kinds of passions are or aren’t cool and hip. In essence, Jews have become the puppet-masters of our sexual mores and desires. And, it is within this context that the Obama ascendancy is so dangerous and powerful. The real danger of Barack Hussein Obama is not what his economic or political policies may do for America. Though Obama’s policies are pretty shitty, even the worst political or economic policies can be reversed. Germans survived the Nazi lunacy, and the Chinese overcame the Maoist madness. But, certain changes are irreversible–those pertaining to race and biology. The real danger of Obama is he is the posterboy of miscegenation marketed and promoted by the liberal Jewish matchmakers who seek to mongrelize the white race. Liberal and some Neocon Jews intend to do this in the most humiliating way possible.
Both Jewish men and women find great pleasure from the sight of black men taking white men. Jewish men have long felt intimidated by the bigger and stronger–yet less intelligent–white goy males. Jews often associate white manhood with Nazi Aryan power that humiliated, beat up, and killed Jews. But, even if white males hadn’t done anything bad to the Jews, Jews would still hate a certain aspect of white maledom because, on average, white males are better looking than Jewish males. Jews have been resentful that the less intelligent white men are more handsome–just as many white males are resentful that the less intelligent Negro has bigger muscles and a more masculine voice. Though Jews have been brutalized by blacks in urban settings, their great success moved them out of black areas and made them compete with whites.
Through this experience, many Jewish men became angry over real and perceived slights by white males. Thus, there is a desire on the part of Jewish men to destroy white malehood. The favored tactic has been to seduce white women–especially blonde upper-crust ones–with Jewish money and wit and sexually conquer them. But, this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the vengeful, subversive, and destructive obsessions of Jewish males. They can only find full satisfaction by the sight of black men whupping white men–in sports and in the streets–and sexually ravaging white women.
　
Liberal Jews know full well that there has been a long and deep history of worshipful white male appreciation of the white female beauty and grace–women seen as goddesses than as mere possessions. This goes back to the age of chivalry where noble and brave knights fought for the hand and honor of the pure maiden. The white knight fought to defend his realm and win the love of the white goddess. There has long been a racial and spiritual–or racial-spiritual–element in this romantic culture. Men were supposed to be noble and courageous, women were supposed to be pure and devoted. Love wasn’t just about ass-shaking and ugabuga–as among African savages–but something sacred. Love was also something that went beyond social custom. It was appreciated as a longing between two individual souls charged with poetry.
Among ancient Jews and non-Westerners, relationship between man and woman was determined by arrangements made by parents and matchmakers. Though marriages were arranged for most of Western history, there had still been the concept or the ideal of the sacred love between two individuals. A love worth fighting and dying for. It’s all there in Sleeping Beauty the movie. This Western concept of love wasn’t ONLY about individual freedom but about higher vision and imagination of what love should be. So, there developed the image in the West of the noble knight and the beautiful damsel. In order for the knight to win the hand of the damsel, he had to prove himself worth in body and soul. And the damsel had to be a woman of quality and purity. This tradition passed down even though modern times. In the American South, there was the chivalric tradition where white men served as the protective warrior caste while the women devoted themselves to men worthy of their love. You can see this is the film Birth of a Nation where proud Southern men do what is necessary to maintain their manhood and protect their women from the black horde.
　
For liberal Jews to destroy the white race, they had to destroy this sacred concept of traditional Western or white love. They had to convince people that it was ‘racist’, ‘reactionary’, ‘patriarchal’, ‘male chauvinist’, and etc. And, it must be admitted that the Nazis made the job rather too easy for the Jews. National Socialism claimed to defend high Western principles. It viewed the ‘Aryan’ race as noble, beautiful, and sacred. It sanctified the role of the German Mother as producer of beautiful life. It emphasized the sacred bond between ‘Aryan’ man and ‘Aryan’ woman. But, Nazis were so filled with contempt and/or hatred for non-Aryans that they failed to acknowledge the beauty and customs of other peoples and cultures. Hitler, for all his pretensions, was a vulgar and shabby cretin blind to all beauty except that which he defined narrowly. The crimes of Nazism was such that they made it easy to equate anything white, Western, racial, nationalist, or rightist with evil.
It was only a matter of time before Jews found parallels between the Nazi idea of ‘Aryan’ love and American(especially Southern)idea of white love. For Jews, white love was the source of white hate. White love was to come under the scalpel of ‘science’ and demystified. White men and women were to be ‘cured’ of their sexual repressions and oppressiveness. Love was to be understood as a sexual drive–capitalist commodity or Marxist liberation.
The implication was that white love had all been bullshit to maintain the evil power of the white male. Supposedly, white men used the excuse of white love to keep white women subservient and chained to white male power. Also, white love was also seen as the driving force behind white oppression of non-whites since white male fear of miscegenation was a major factor behind white racism. After all, white males–especially in the American South–feared the prospect of non-white males putting their swarthy hands on the pure skin of white women who ideally should be preserved for white men.
　
White love came under assault from Marxism, Freudianism, Feminism, Capitalism, and Libertarianism. Marxism saw it as reactionary and atavistic. Freudianism saw it as irrational and repressed. Feminism saw it as white males controlling white women and forbidding them to seek sexual liberation–through lesbianism or sex with smarter Jews or more muscular blacks. Capitalism saw white love as undemocratic and anti-universalist, and libertarianism saw it as anti-individualist. In time, the sacred bond between white men and white women was broken. If a man held a door open for a woman in the new order, the woman was likely to throw a feminist fit and see the gesture as condescending patriarchal attitude.
Now, we mustn’t fall into the trap of overly idealizing traditional white love. There was indeed something stifling and overly precious in the chivalric tradition and in the Western conception of woman as an overly idealized creature. In the modern world, our desire is to be free, have our own thoughts, and make our own decisions. We don’t want to feel the burden of tradition or history. We want to chart our own destinies. So, to that extent, the weakening of old values and assumptions was not necessarily a bad thing.
But, are we really free individuals thinking our own thoughts and making our own decisions? Or, have the old system of cultural mind-control been replaced by another? Consider that most of us don’t form our own values, ideas, and thoughts but RELY on powerful institutions–school and government–and powerful industries–sports, music, movies, tv, books, magazines, etc–to tell us what is right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and undesirable. So, despite all the stuff we hear about individual freedom, most individuals are the ideological and psycho-social products of those who control the institutions and industries.
So, we need to ask who controls them and what is their agenda. We know for a fact that liberal Jews are the most powerful group in this country, and we also know they exert their power for a specific goal. We know they’ve done everything to undermine the power of white love and have been eager to replace it with another kind of love. Moneychangers are also the matchmakers.
　
And what kind of matchmaking do they want for us?
Jews want to babel-ize the white population. In the story of the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament, Yahweh grows fearful of the people who might unite against and challenge his power. So, what does God do? He smashes the Babel Tower and creates diversity among the people so that they will be divided amongst themselves and unable to challenge His power. Today, Jews are the god-like overlords of America. The people that the Jewish overlords fear most is the white American population for if it becomes angry enough, it may unite and work against Jewish power and bring it down. So, it is in the interest of Jews to create as many divisions and diversity among the white population as possible. Jews want to set white women against white men, white children against their parents, white liberals against white conservatives, white Northerners against white Southerners, and etc. Jews also want to dilute and mongrelize whiteness so that a sense of WHITE IDENTITY based on pride and power will slowly dissipate.
One way of doing this is cultural, and so there is the ideology of multi-culturalism where white kids are taught to celebrate non-white cultures while hearing only harsh critiques of everything Western, white, European(or Euro-centric), or Christian. But, a more profound and totally irreversible way is inter-racialism. In America, the most damaging form of interracist mixing is between black males and white females. This isn’t only physically but also psychologically damaging to the white race for white males are turned into pussified faggotyass white boys who are helpless to stop white women infected with jungle fever from running off to stronger and more masterful black men. Though the mixing of whites and Asians or whites and Mexicans on a large scale can also be detrimental to a sense of white identity and unity, it isn’t as damaging as black male-white female mixing. For one thing, white-Asian or white-Mexican mixing is often white male and Asian or Mexican female. In any sexual union, the dominant element is the male–no matter what PC and feminism has taught us about the sexes. In wars, the winning side takes the women of the losing side. When a white guy takes an Asian girl, it is the Asian guy who feels like the wussy pussyboy who has lost his women to the dominant male of another race. Similarly, when a white woman goes with a black man, it’s the white guy who has been pussified. After all, a white woman, out of her own free will, chose to surrender herself to a black stud than to a white dud.
It is for this reason that the black race has troubled white males more than any other race. A white guy may feel upset when he sees a white girl with an Asian or Mexican guy, but he doesn’t feel emasculated as he knows that the white girl didn’t choose the Asian or Mexican for his superior studliness or manliness. But, when a white guy sees a white girl with a black guy, he suspects–correctly most of the time–that the woman consciously chose the black guy as the SUPERIOR ALPHA MALE. Thus, the white man is reduced to a pussified white boy. When a white guy sees a white girl with a black guy, he can tell by the body movements that the white girl is saying, "I found a stud and now look down on white boys" and the black guy is saying, "I got me some prime white meat, and you white boys dare not even look straight in my face because I’ll kick your white ass." Despite all the goo goo talk about how wonderful it is for all the races to mix, the fact is black-white sexual unions are essentially a black male sexual war on white maledom.
And, we see it all around. Most of the music is rap or hiphop, which means that white girls all across the nation are shaking their butts to fantasies of jungle fever. Most of the top sporting events show us black male athletes and white female cheerleaders.
The truly sad thing is so many sorryass white boys are blind to the insult to their manhood. The Jewish social scientist doctors have cut off their balls in schools and lobotomized their brains through PC popular culture. Affluent liberal white boys even find a kind of wimpy satisfaction in their approval of black male/white female matings. They pride themselves in having been cured of white male pride, power, and racism. In other words, liberalism says white males can only feel (moral)pride by having no racial or masculine pride. As for working class and underclass white morons, many act like ‘whiggers’, as if aping blacks will make them cool, badass, and sexy. Just consider the Eminem phenomenon pushed on white America by the Jewish music and movie industry. But, we know black males don’t respect no ‘faggotyass’ white boy trying to act black, and white girls will continue to go with black males. Besides, acting trashy is self-destructive, period.
As for white rightist males, many of them live in denial or the sulk in their stew of stupid neo-Nazism or skinheadism, as if nasty white trash antics are going to save the day. The idea of skinheadism or Neo-Nazism as the spearhead of white pride is laughable. How can one feel pride as a trashy thug or an ideological psychopath? As for genteel and respectable white conservatives, they are too Victorian and repressed to deal with difficult and controversial issues such as this, and they just prefer to invoke Martin Luther King, Jr. and Christian morals over and over and over.
　
But, truth will always be what it is and can’t be wished away. We must face facts about Jews, blacks, and ourselves.