Monday, December 19, 2022

A Consideration of the Opening Scenes of the GODFATHER by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola

 

The opening part of a movie or novel sets the tone and provides the framework. It is loaded with clues and symbolism, the essential baggage with which the plot leaves the station. Significantly, the narrative unfolds in subtle variations of or in contrast to the introductory material. The story may come full circle or conclude in opposition. Below is a reading of the opening segment of the Godfather. It covers the movie to the closing of the wedding scene.

Michael Corleone arrives at his sister Connie’s wedding in his military uniform. His status, represented by his very appearance, sets him apart from the family. He’s something of a family black sheep for being a mainstream white sheep. In contrast to Michael’s position in society, there is Sonny Corleone’s overt hostility to the Feds. Michael and Sonny belong on opposite sides of the law, but then, organized crime is less about lawmen vs outlaws than the grey zone between hypocritical virtue and corrupting vice. Gangsters aren’t radicals, or Tony Montana(of SCARFACE) isn’t Che Guevara; they break the law but have no desire to upend the order. They just want a bigger piece of the pie and grab for it with bigger balls. As Barzini later says at a meeting among the bosses, “We are not communists.”

At any rate, there’s another significance to Michael’s soldierly image: He’s a fighter whose predilections are essentially toward order, discipline, sense of duty & honor, and a powerful sense of loyalty. The characteristics that served him well in the US Marines could just as well serve the Family. In defying his father and fighting for his country, Michael exhibited a shift in priorities but not in qualities.
Indeed, it’s not long before he serves as a foot-soldier for the Family by mowing down police captain McClusky and the dope dealer Sollozo the ‘Turk’. (Then, in his exile in Sicily, he feels at ease with two men with shotguns slung over their shoulders. And upon Sonny’s death, he rises to generalship in the Family.) Sonny patronizes Michael as a ‘civilian’, but Michael has always been a member of the warrior caste who knows how to fight with both mind and body, a concept of manhood somewhat unfamiliar with Sonny who relies too much on guns and muscle.

The opening segment lays out several different and contrasting notions of manhood. There’s the power of Sonny, the BIG MAN of the family. He attracts women with his raw masculinity. He’s a big strong guy, athletic, loud and brash. Somewhat similar is the manhood of Johnny Fontane who relies on looks, charm, and sensuality to win affection and adoration. Such prowess comes and goes, has its peak then burns out, much like the rollercoaster career of athletes.
(The other kind of manhood is, of course, more mindful and strategic — no wonder Hyman Roth of THE GODFATHER PART 2 is formidable even in his physically withered state.) Despite his limited presence in the movie, Johnny Fontane occupies a key role because it is through him that we see the linkage between two old men with similar understanding of power: Don Vito Corleone and the Hollywood mogul Woltz. (Fontane is later situated between the rising stars Moe Green and Michael Corleone in the great game for Las Vegas.)
Neither Vito Corleone nor Woltz has to command the main stage and make a show of themselves, like hothead Sonny or head-turner Fontane; rather, they are the pullers of stringers.

Yet, there is a key difference that gives Vito the upper hand over Woltz. Vito is a sober family man. Though his business is gambling, he isn’t a gambler. He knows the difference between risk, a matter of calculation, and gamble, a matter of carelessness. He certainly doesn’t gamble with emotions. Vito believes a man of worth mustn’t succumb to animal lusts that can easily unhinge his equilibrium and cloud his judgment. Man must think in terms of honor & fortitude and maintain a clear division between family and business.
Business is a matter of wheeling and dealing, of compromise. Family, in contrast, revolves around loyalty and fixed values. Vito’s sexual philosophy is not to be confused with repressed Victorianism or Catholic dogmatism; it is really a matter of balance and (self)control, without which men are easily led astray; after all, mythology and history are rife with examples of men losing their bearings over women, from the war over Helen of Troy to Mark Anthony’s doom with Cleopatra.

Vito harbors doubts about Sonny for muddying up what should be a clear division between family life and business by slapping his man-meat around. Emotionally and physically, Sonny makes himself vulnerable and even risks losing respect among his men, rather like Ted Kennedy’s sexual peccadillos turning off even his staunchest supporters.
Woltz may be Vito’s equal in many ways but is closer to Sonny on sexual matters. Woltz’s sexual vanity makes him rash and childish, endangering the empire he’s created. Woltz is excessively ‘personal’ over Fontane’s stealing his girl, letting the humiliation get the better of him; he’s deluded enough to think women are attracted to him for something other than money. He rants about his handmade goddess being soiled by Fontane when his business is trading in whores(not unlike what Tataglia the ‘pimp’ does).
He thinks he’s hot stuff. He lost his balance over Fontane’s eloping with his ‘piece of ass’. This is something that Vito would never allow in his own life; emotionally involving himself with a ‘piece of ass’ and then getting all butt-hurt over losing it. Vito’s ‘wisdom’ is his understanding that greatness is built on limits, not boundless megalomania. He understands that business is ruthless, chaotic, and corrupting; against these factors, a man needs a sanctuary of peace and stability immune to the ups and downs of the impersonal world. He needs a family and must fulfill his duties as the family patriarch; preferably, a family with a housewife for she preserves from the inside what the man provides from the outside.

Woltz, who could have accepted Vito’s offer and gained something in return, instead blows up like a child crying over spilled milk. He can’t control or suppress his silly sexual jealousy, blind as ever to the stupidity of having invested so much in a harlot. He says a man in his position cannot be made to look ‘ridiculous’, but he needs no help in that department in Tom Hagen’s eyes.
A tail that grows long enough will be stepped on, and same goes for the dong. Or, to modify an aphorism from Fistful of Dollars, ‘When a man with an unzipped fly meets a man with a zipped fly, the man with an unzipped fly is a dead man’, or at least a man with a dead horse in his bed.

The idea of sexuality as strength and weakness is developed throughout movie. It’s a strength in that sexual prowess can earn a man adoration from women and admiration(and envy)from men. It’s a weakness in that men may become distracted from their obligations and priorities. Woltz even ignores the fact that women are attracted to him only for his power and wealth, thus clouding his judgment. Woltz the Freudian creature is no match for Vito the Machiavellian.

Even the cold and rational Michael succumbs to the power of love in Sicily. In an instant, he forgets all about Kay. Unlike the other sexual relations in the movie, his feelings for Apollonia go beyond affection, sociability, status & class, sexual desire, ethnicity, and strategy(like the marriage among the aristocrats). Apollonia has an overwhelming impact on Michael who is struck with feelings beyond his power of reason and intellect, indeed emotions he wasn’t aware he was capable of. Kay is nice and pretty, and they made a nice pair, but just one glance makes Michael fall completely for her. She’s Sicilian but said to be almost ‘Greek’ in appearance, suggesting a timeless mythic quality.
Though the hit on Michael fails in Sicily, it is partly successful in that a part of him dies with Apollonia; and even though we don’t hear anything more about her(until THE GODFATHER PART 3), Michael is surely haunted by guilt as she died in his stead, much like the bomb that killed Darya Dugina than her father, the intended target.
Apollonia, like the monstrous opposite Luca Brasi, suggests there is a power beyond rationality and ‘business’, something irrational and obsessive(therefore inherently dangerous) but, if channeled constructively, inspiring or intimidating. The problem with Michael and Kay’s marriage is it’s too much like ‘business’, especially as Michael ‘settled for’ Kay after he lost Apollonia. It might have been different had he never known Apollonia as Kay would have been his first true love. But post-Apollonia, Kay is just good wife material. As Apollonia is above ‘business’, Luca Brasi is below it. He isn’t a gangster but a monster, a creature out of ancient mythology, which is why Vito, for all his dread and trepidation, finds him indispensable for certain jobs.

At any rate, it’s a sign of Michael’s strength and intelligence that, despite having bee hit with a bolt of lighting(or Cupid’s arrow), he maintains his composure and doesn’t lose his head over the girl. He patiently goes about to sanctify the matter, make it respectable, and lay the foundation for a stable long-lasting marriage with the blessings of all involved.

If Sonny doesn’t love his wife enough, one senses Mike loves Apollonia too much; when she dies, something dies in him, and his second courtship of Kay sounds more like a business proposition than an expression of true love. His words betray a certain degree of exhaustion, resignation, acceptance of less after losing what mattered most in his life.
Perhaps, Vito’s emotional discipline is rooted in his childhood, when in one fell swoop he lost his entire family and then found himself in a world of strangers in the New World. He was too busy trying to survive and give his life some semblance of order and stability to indulge in passion for anything or anyone. Vito, judging from THE GODFATHER PART 2(where Robert DeNiro plays the younger man), feels gratitude for what he has and loves his wife and is a stranger to deep, all-consuming passions of whatever kind. Even his ‘personal’ act, the vengeance on the man who murdered his family, is mixed with ‘business’. It was partly about alliances and territory.

Anyway, Vito’s humiliation of Woltz serves not only as a favor to Fontane but as a lesson for the Hollywood Mogul on how not to be stupid. Vito offered help in matters of ‘business’ in exchange for something so trivial(giving a movie role to Fontane), but Woltz acted like a child by mixing the ‘personal’ with ‘business’. Smart players should know that betrayal is part of business and just get on with life, but Woltz invested not only time and money in some bimbo starlet but his emotions and pride as well. After what’s done is done, the scene cuts from Woltz’s hysterics before a horse’s head to Vito’s calm and amused demeanor. Vito waltzes around Woltz with too many character warts.

Vito later tells Michael that serious men, unlike women and children, can’t afford to be careless. This is evident in the opening segment where most people are singing, dancing, and celebrating, whereas Vito, in contrast, puts business before pleasure in his dim-lit vampiric den. When he steps out, it’s to greet other Dons like Barzini and dance with his wife. And later to take a family photo and to dance with his daughter. He stays aloof of the circus atmosphere. Vito delays the first family photo shoot because Michael hasn’t arrived. He’s careful with details and won’t settle for less unless absolutely necessary. He believes in patience and diligence because the devil in in the details when one must be ruthless. Vito’s refusal to take the family photo just then also foreshadows how Michael is later drawn back into the family, how his life becomes framed within the world created by his father.

Still, Vito is only human, illustrated by his relationship with the undertaker Bonasera, the first character shown in the movie, which begins with Bonasera pleading with the Don for ‘justice’. Vito listens to him patiently but with quiet contempt. Bonasera cuts a pathetic figure, like an ant crawling before Vito. Bonasera’s business is death, but Vito is the one with the power of life and death. When asked to kill the boys who harmed Bonasera’s daughter, Vito exercises veto power over who lives or dies(further emphasized by his sheer will to live following a frightful assassination attempt that would have killed most men). Still, the limitations of Vito, his ultimate mortal status, comes later in striking contrast to the undertaker’s begging for help. With Sonny’s death, it’s Vito who is rendered helpless and pathetic, beseeching the funeral director to summon all his powers to make Sonny presentable at the funeral. By the way whereas the undertaker’s daughter had kept her honor and survived, Sonny never had much honor as a husband and ended up dead.

Bonasera the undertaker’s plea sets the tone for the entire movie, which revolves around vengeance. Mike, Sonny, Connie, Carlo, and daddy Tataglia all want to get even at one point or another.

Bonasera the undertaker also introduces the thorny theme of ethnic tensions in American society. He says he wanted to be a good American and allowed his daughter to associate with presumably WASP boys, but alas they treated her like a greaseball. (She kept her honor, and perhaps Vito has more respect for her than for her spineless father who, in his petty desire to be a respectable American, forsook the Sicilian sense of bond and loyalty, playing the whore to the Waspy ‘pezzanovantes’).
That her jaw was broken by non-Italian boys is echoed in what happens to Michael at the hands of Irish cop McClusky. If the undertaker’s predicament shows the darker side of ethnic relations, there’s a lighter side with the arrival of Kay with Michael. With her light brown hair and pale complexion, she sits in contrast to the dark-haired, greasy, and swarthy Italian-Americans.
In an America of the post war period where WASPS still reigned supreme, an Italian girl(like Bonasera’s daughter) could easily be just a plaything for privileged WASP boys. To an Italian-American male like Michael, however, a WASP woman is a prize, a symbol of upward mobility. Michael’s love for Kay is genuine, but she’s more than just an individual; she represents respectability and progress. As Jenny, the Italian Catholic, says to rich WASP Oliver in LOVE STORY: “I love not only you, but also your name and your numeral.” Michael’s feelings for Apollonia, in contrast, go beyond all such considerations.

Of Tom Hagen, Mike explains to Kay how he became part of the Family, even being considered for the special role of consiglieri. It’s in marked contrast to the brutality of the undertaker’s account of ethnic tensions. Yet, Tom is an anomaly in the Family; for one, Vito insisted Tom keep his original last name, apparently in respect to his ancestry but possibly as a reminder that one is a true Sicilian only by blood. (Ironically, Vito’s real last name isn’t Corleone, but it’s somewhat appropriate as he comes to represent an archetype of a cultural community, a time and place, than a mere individual.)
Vito shakes befriends anyone of whatever background; he’s not a man predisposed to blind prejudices. But, he is a man of deep suspicions and devoid of illusions about human nature and ethnic politics; then, it’s no wonder we hear him tell Hagen to contact some “Jew Congressman”, who, by the way, probably calls Vito a ‘dago’ or ‘greaseball’ behind his back. Still, where there’s ‘business’ to be done, it’s smiles and handshakes. At least among Vito’s generational peers, different ethnic groups did business but kept a certain distance. As a mafia chieftain says later in the movie on the matter of dope-dealing, “We’ll keep the traffic among the colored. They are animals anyway so let them lose their souls.”

Yet, there is a built-in contradiction in the Sicilian cultural value system. On the one hand, its loyalty and clannishness serve as basis for strength. But, because loyalties are so narrow and deep, divisions within the Italian-American community grow worse. Corleones and the Five Families are like fratricidal Italian principalities, sometimes bleeding one another dry, even as they try to unite against the hostile machinations of the Irish, the Jews, and the WASPS.

It is further complicated by the notion of ‘family’ in THE GODFATHER. Vito believes personal loyalty belongs within the family; outside the family, it’s ‘business’, a matter of opportunism and convenience but never deep-seated loyalty. But the larger meaning of ‘Family’ includes non-family members who serve the Corleones. Tom Hagen perhaps best epitomizes this tension for he’s not Italian but treated like a son. But, what about Clemenza, Sal, and and other chieftains? To what extent are they business associates or members of the ‘Family’? Sal and Clemenza are almost like uncles to Sonny, Michael, and Fredo(who later betrays the Family worse than anyone for sake of ‘business’, but then it turns out to be ‘personal’, which could be even more deadly). The very notion of ‘godfather’ suggests Vito feels as a patriarch over a certain Sicilian community in New York. Thus, Family Loyalty makes for ruthless machinations but also a certain sentimentality. (We see Sal dancing with some girl who stands on his shoes. This suggests that Sal will be stepped on by Michael whom Sal watched grow up since childhood: “I always liked the kid”.)

Carlo isn’t much of a character(and doesn’t have much character); however, he’s a crucial figure because he’s the bridge between festive hope & joy and death & tragedy for all involved. The movie begins with a wedding, and everyone seems to having a great time. It looks like the American Immigrant Dream. Carlo, a handsome nobody, is marrying into a top underworld family, and Connie is mad about Carlo. The other Families at the gathering seem at peace. Indeed, the scene could make a great HAPPY ending.

Yet, everything unravels soon afterwards. Contrast the festive spirit of the opening scene with the solemn atmosphere of the baptism of Carlo’s son juxtaposed with the baptism-in-blood of the heads of the Five Families. Near the end of the movie, Carlo thinks he has made it, indeed outsmarted everyone. True, he’d been upset that the Corleones kept him at the margins and took out his frustration by cheating on Connie and sometimes beating her up. And, when Sonny pushed him too far, he had a vendetta of his own and ‘fingered’ Sonny. But, he did change and come around(and win back Connie’s love), and Michael appointed him to a key position in the family, a case of keep-your-friends-close-but-your-enemies-closer. He became a devoted husband, and Connie forgave him. Connie and Carlo came full circle, back to hope and happiness.
But then, Michael kills him and Connie goes mad and ruins her life, as depicted in THE GODFATHER PART 2.
This other tragedy of THE GODFATHER is generally overlooked because the main focus is on the moral tragedy of Michael, plus the fact that most people don’t much sympathize men who hit women(but then, even Michael finds himself striking Kay after she killed the kid in THE GODFATHER PART 2).
But then, as Vito might have said, Carlo never would have gotten into that situation had he kept his fly zipped as his infidelity unwittingly set into motion a series of events. His fooling around led to angry Connie which led to black & blue Connie which led to Sonny seeing black & blue Connie which led to angry Sonny beating Carlo black & blue which led to black & blue Carlo setting up Sonny, so that when Carlo once again beat Connie black & blue, it led to angry Sonny being turned black, blue, & red, which then led to angry Michael whose men turned Carlo blue in the face. The Moral: Keep your fly zipped. One should note, however, that both Carlo and Connie are pushed to do something against their nature, respectively betraying Sonny and ‘ratting’ on Carlo to her brother, only when pushed beyond the limits of their endurance.

The opening also lays out the differences among the main players, the central contrast being between Vito and Sonny. The more we watch, more we wonder how this guy Sonny is be the heir to his father’s empire. Vito is at once economical and graceful; he doesn’t waste a single word or movement. Even his stroking of the cat communicates plenty. His actions are like Strunk-and-White’s advice on grammar applied to life.
Sonny, in contrast, is a busybody, unfocused, bullheaded, easily distracted, the locus of his attention being his penis than his head. Sonny is a man of some intelligence but can’t use it intelligently as his emotions usually outpace his mind.
Vito is later said to have politicians like so many coins in his pocket, but he also knows the value of each coin. Sonny, however, is a waster of energy. His casual tossing of few bucks from his pocket after smashing a fed’s camera says volumes about Sonny’s style of power. Sonny has no strategic sense and meets his enemies head on. Vito pulls his enemies closer and then outflanks them when least expected. He’s a Machiavellian whereas Sonny is a Macho-Ballian. Vito is like Lord Shingen in Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA, whereas Sonny is like the hothead son. (One might note a parallel between Sonny’s smashing the fed’s camera and Barzini’s ripping out the film and tossing it on the ground. This links them as future enemies.)

Somewhat later, when Fredo says Paulie called in sick, Vito instantly senses something amiss. But, Sonny, so full of himself, never even suspected Paulie could be a traitor; later, when he plays mental games with Paulie, it is after the fact.
When Sonny smashed the Fed’s camera at Connie’s wedding, sidekick Paulie kicked it. It’s a wonderful moment, Paulie’s kick being weak and half-hearted like his character and his devotion to the Corleones. It also foreshadowed Sonny’s death: Full of rage, out of his mind, splattered on the ground, kicked in the head.

The tragedy of Vito owes to the crisis of succession. He has some tough hombres working for him, but few can understand or inherit his vision. Besides, his is a family empire, which means he has a limited pool of successors. Sonny, Tom, and Fredo each lack a key ingredient, and whereas Michael has what it takes, it’s not what Vito wanted for the boy; indeed, Michael’s return to the Family is a bittersweet affair as Vito dirtied his hands so that at least one of his sons could rise in the world with ‘clean hands'(in the eyes of respectable society).
Hagen, while smart and alert, is a negotiator without the keen ruthless instincts to keep the family ahead of its enemies. Hagen understands the law and the means, but his loyalty is more conceptual than heartfelt. On grounds of ‘business’, he could advise Sonny to negotiate with the murderer of his father. Besides, even though he’s like a son, he still isn’t a Corleone by blood, and blood matters(as later evinced in THE GODFATHER PART 2 by Kay’s revulsion for the ‘Sicilian Thing’ and killing of the ‘son’). Tom’s arguments are impeccably rational, but it takes something more to be a true family member. Sonny, while tough and masculine, lacks sense. Fredo, while calm and gentle like his father(at least in the first part of the movie before his stint in Vegas), is a dufus. Michael certainly has the goods, but he too lacks something the old man had in spades: A bigness of heart that sentimentally bound so many to the Don.

Vito’s ideal of manhood comprises the best qualities of Fredo, Sonny, and Michael. Someone with Fredo’s cordiality and warmth, Sonny’s toughness and courage, and Michael’s will and vision. But, Sonny is a baboon and Fredo a puppy, and Michael has too much venom.

Vito insists on Sonny’s presence when he lectures Fontane about what it means to be a man. Sonny’s idea of manhood is a dumb joke to Vito. Vito has a soft spot for his godson Fontane but what a knucklehead he turned out to be, getting into a mess by falling for some cheap floozy. And, the wedding isn’t exactly a cause for celebration for Vito who feels Carlo is a poor choice for groom: Just a good looking hunk who wants a piece of the family pie. That Sonny introduced Carlo to Connie doesn’t do much to increase confidence in his first son. In this sense, his older sons ‘betray’ him — eventually Fredo turns into a stupid playboy in Vegas and Hagen handled the hit on the Don rather impersonally — while, ironically, the rebellious Michael turns out to be the most loyal, but then he ends up expanding the empire at the expense of the family in Part 2. (Hagen is amused by Sonny’s sexual antics in the washroom and with the Don’s scolding of Fontane. It’s this cool quality that’s both a strength and weakness with Hagen. Hagen gets everyone but has no fixed ethical center. He can as easily get along with horny Sonny as with the prudish Vito. In this sense, he’s not only a problematic war consiglieri but a poor consiglieri, period, for such a position requires not only lawyerly knowledge but a kind of compass for the Family. Hagen needs to be more like Tango in Akira Kurosawa’s RAN.)

Vito likely worries the Family doesn’t have much of a long-term future with these fellas(prior to Michael’s return, anyway), not when he’s up against real men like the masterful Barzini and Sollozzo the ‘Turk’. As Deke Thorton said to the ragtag bounty hunters in THE WILD BUNCH, “We’re after real men and by God I wish I was with them…”
Sollozzo the ‘Turk’ later says of the Don, “With all due respect, you gotta admit the Don was getting soft.” But then, Sollozzo’s impression of Michael as a softie civilian proved a fatal error on his part.

At the wedding, Clemenza asks Paulie for wine and tells him to take a look around, but it’s Clemenza whose guard is down, in effect, asking a fifth columnist to act as security. This is rhymed with Sonny telling his wife to watch the kids whereupon she tells him to watch himself, but then of course he doesn’t. Sonny’s wife extends her hands to demonstrate the size of Sonny’s dong, and then we see Sonny go off with Lucy, and next we see older folks singing an Italian song with rather naughty connotations as if to suggest young men and women falling in love/ lust is, far from acts of defiance or individuality, is simply conforming to established patterns, a form of supervised child’s play. Few minutes later, as Sonny bangs Lucy the scene cuts to a fat soprano as if to link all of culture and society to basic sexual drives. Most of the relational dynamic in the opening segment revolve around sexuality. Carlo and Connie’s marriage. Baker who wants Enzo, an Italian POW, to marry his daughter. An undertaker whose daughter was nearly raped. Sonny’s jealous wife and his thing with Lucy. Michael and Kay. Fontane driving women wild. Old coot singing some song and making lewd gestures. Vito, like Merlin in EXCALIBUR, is the only one who seems above all this dancing and hairpulling is all about; he has a kingdom to rule. (Does ‘Fontane’ mean fountain? How ironic he has run dry except for womanly tears. He shows up just when Hagen informs Vito that many judges and politicians didn’t show up. This matters a lot for Vito is not just a man who prizes money and power but reputation and respect, one of the reasons he declines Sollozzo’s offer as the already tenuous associations he has with respectable society would be jeopardized. There’s a layer to Vito’s character that is genuinely warm and in need of friendship, and though Vito knows Fontane is a sap and an opportunist, he appreciates the respect.)

At his best, we see Vito’s skill in complementing the various strengths of those around him, making the best of what he has. Sonny is a hothead but hard as a hammer when necessary. He’s the Thor of the Family. The somewhat anemic Hagen is superb with details. Fredo amiably performs his duties without complaint. Clemenza knows how to throw his weight around.

The strangest character in the opening segment is Luca Brasi, the only man who unnerves Vito. There’s something monstrous and brutish about Luca. Kay calls him a ‘scary guy’. He’s like a Frankenstein monster, and Vito is his master, the only man with the key to Luca’s black soul. Luca is almost like an Neanderthal, less evolved than the rest of humanity. He isn’t easily definable as man or beast, Italian or non-Italian, man or child, simpleminded or psychotic. He’s a pit-bull beast obedient only to one master, like Mike Tyson to Cus D’Amato. He’s like a mass of unformed humanity, perhaps what in a Kubrick movie would be the ape-man, the raw stuff from which mankind in all its variations has been carved from. He’s the unmolded clay, unchiseled marble. When he says he wishes the first son will be a masculine child, it sounds as much a curse as a blessing. He tries to make the most dignified impression on the Godfather but the result is crude and primitive, made even worse by kids rushing into the room. But Luca also serves another function. He didn’t expect to be invited to the wedding, but Vito is not a man to slight those who have served him well. Unlike Bonasera the undertaker who had shunned Vito or the politicians who refused the invitations, Vito is a man who honors those who have been loyal to him. (When kids rush into Vito’s room when Luca Brasi is present, Hagen fails in his duties as guardian which again plays out when Vito gets gunned down by Sollozzo.)

Vito knows there are two kinds of power. The raw kind pushing people around and built on fear, often creating unnecessary enemies and alienating allies. But, if you make many friends, with everyone from looney Luca to a high-strung baker to some ‘Jew Congressman’, there may be unforeseen payoffs down the line. It’s like collecting interest.
For example, consider Enzo(the prospective son-in-law of the baker) who is not a central character nor a member of the Corleone family. But, it’s his gratitude that sent him to that hospital with flowers on that fateful night, which led to his encounter with Michael who used him to bluff as a Corleone strongman, in effect saving Vito’s life. Surround yourself with grateful friends and they might help. Vito Corleone is like the George Bailey(IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE) of the Mafia. A lot of people he helped would do anything for the godfather.

The following is discernible only in the full-frame versions shown on TV and on VHS. At one point, Vito walks back towards the house, approaching the camera, and then he sticks his finger into the lower right corner of the frame, and then it cuts to Michael(sitting with Kay)being surprised by Fredo sticking his finger to the back of his head. This subtly illuminates what Michael told Kay about how his father freed Fontane from a contract by holding a gun to the back of a ‘band leader’ and making “an offer he couldn’t refuse”. The editing of Vito’s finger with Fredo’s finger to the backside of Michael’s head suggests that the Family is sticking a gun to Michael’s head and making him an offer he can’t refuse; in effect, saying, “Look, Fredo is a dummy, Sonny is a hothead, and Tom isn’t really Sicilian, so YOU Michael got to return and pick up the slack.”


Saturday, December 17, 2022

Alex Jones vs Nick Fuentes on the JQ and HQ(Or Hitler Question)

 Video Link

We believe Alex Jones’ genuine revulsion for Hitler(and other tyrants), but there is more to ‘Hitler’ than Hitler, indeed from the fact that he’s singled out as the worst of the worst. For Jews, the answer is obvious. Not only did Hitler kill Jews but conceived of a post-Christian political culture that came closest to replicating Jewish tribal-supremacism. (Had Hitler killed millions without targeting Jews, the Jewish-controlled academia and media would make far less of his evil. Always a game of who/whom.) As for respectable ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ whites, Hitlerism is a pornography of white power, i.e. Hitler’s brazenness spelled out the true nature of imperialism and conquest, thus denuding the West of its self-serving myths; after all, it wasn’t 1776 alone but the ‘genocide’ of the natives that made America what it became. Western Imperialism of the Christian or Liberal variety was often legitimized on grounds of sharing the faith and spreading progress, but when push came to shove, the natives were ruthlessly mowed down and, in some cases, replaced by whites and their compradors; there was also the massive exploitation of black slavery in North and South American colonies. So, if Hitlerism strategically mirrored Jewish tribal-supremacism, it also held up a dark mirror to the West that expanded on grounds of racial supremacism but preferred to believe otherwise. In a similar vein, American Jews are most triggered by the outspoken far-right politics in Israel, not because they oppose the Jewish Supremacist program of Zionism per se but because the sheer brazenness of ultra-right rhetoric gives the game away: The essence of Zionism isn’t about ‘democracy’, ‘socialism’, ‘western values’, or even ‘nationalism’; it’s really a Jewish Master Race ideology and gaining hegemony over all the world.

‘Hitler’, as opposed to the historical Hitler, is more than a modern dictator, the war-monger responsible for the bloodiest war in human history, and the architect of a dark ideology of racial supremacism. ‘Hitler’ has become the secular equivalent of Satan(as Richard Spencer explains in the short introductory excerpt). As such ‘Hitler’ is bigger than history and morality. It’s a trope, an incantation. Consider how many times ‘Hitler’ has been invoked by the Powers-That-Be to justify, ironically to put it mildly, all the wars and atrocities in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘war on terror’, which are, beneath the rhetorical surface, neo-imperialist actions in service to yet another form of supremacism, that of the so-called ‘neocons’ who are Jewish-Zionist master-racers who employ nihilism for tribalism’s sake. As Madeleine Albright said, it was ‘worth it’ to kill a half million Arab children. Just remember, all you good ladies and gents(and people of 60 other genders in the West), the blood sacrifice of Arab children wasn’t for imperialism and supremacism but for ‘democracy’ and the ‘rules-based order’.

Indeed, pure nihilists would be preferable in their principled amorality for amorality’s sake, whereas the Supremites(supremacist-Semites) weaponize the most cynical nihilism possible against goyim to maximize Jewish Supremacism. By rhetoric, the US is about ‘democracy’ and ‘diversity-equity-inclusion’, but the walk, as opposed to the talk, says the US is governed by the Jewish Master Race ideology that employs homos as commissars and blacks as cossacks.

Now, Adolf Hitler was a dark figure simmering with extreme visions and pathological impulses. There was something demonic that drove him to greatness and madness. Nick Fuentes is right about Hitler’s admirable(and even enviable) qualities but overlooks a darkness that was far deeper than his bright spots.

A caller to the program asked Alex Jones if Western Europe would have turned out better had the Germans won the war. It’s a tempting question given the dire state of the current West. But there’s no guarantee that the West wouldn’t eventually have taken a decadent and degenerate turn even with German victory. After all, communist takeover of Eastern Europe couldn’t halt the march of Western degeneracy. And Franco’s traditionalist right-wing regime only forestalled the soulless degeneracy that now pervades Spain. Sparta prevailed over Athens, but Sparta fell too within a generation. Nothing lasts forever. Who could have foreseen that the radical Maoist China would go the way of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and market economy?

Still, concerning only the Western/Central part of Europe(excepting Poland), one could argue German victory would have been better; but then, supposing Stalin somehow swept through all of Western Europe(and UK) in 1945, that too would have been preferable to the trajectory of Western Europe in the past several decades. In retrospect, Germany would have done better united under East German than West German rule.
Anyway, here’s the rub. Nazi victory would have been something entirely different for the East. German conquest of Russia would have paved the way for the single greatest crime in European History, possibly in human history. The main theater of bloodbath in WWII wasn’t in the West, where generally fewer people died than in World War I. What made World War II the greatest war in was the epic confrontation between Germany and the Soviet Union, one which went beyond ideological differences and territorial squabbles. It was a winner-take-all ‘race war’ of enslavement and extermination. The Pacific War was also a race war of sorts, a clash between White America and Yellow Japan. But despite all the hatred and blood thirst, the US had no grand plan of exterminating and/or enslaving the entire Japanese people upon victory.

Still, Hitler has to be appraised as a historical figure, not some Evil Incarnate, a spiritual concept. ‘Hitler’ turns the historical Hitler into Satan, which allows for political invocations, usually opportunistic, to justify whatever the Jewish-controlled US empire covets. By turning Hitler into ‘Hitler’, a figure of absolute evil, politics becomes a cartoonish binary of good and evil: The ‘muh democracy’ of the US against whatever is demonized as the ‘new hitler’.
Never mind Jews are the foremost practitioners of the Master Race ideology. Just ask the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, the ‘deplorables'(too many of whom are still dumb enough to bleat ‘muh Israel’), Russians(who’ve been targeted since the end of the Cold War), and the civilians of the Donbass regions shelled ceaselessly by Sub-Nazi types allied with Jews. The alliance of Neocons and ‘Ukro-Nazis’, or the Neoconazi Phenomenon, illuminates the depths of Jewish megalomania that will even recruit neo- and sub-nazi morons as muscle to attack Russia as one of the few sovereign countries in the world that can say NO to Jewish Hegemony.

Because ‘Hitler’ has so often been the go-to excuse for Jews and their Anglo-cucks, it’s time to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Hitler was a sinister figure but a man of history, not the lord of hell. He wasn’t the devil at war with angels. Josef Stalin was comparably evil, and the evil of Jewish Supremacism did its share to bring about World War II. Besides, what made Hitler so formidable was he happened to be the leader of an advanced industrial power with a large pool of capable men; if Albania had produced a hitler, it would have been a joke.

Increasingly over the years, the British Narrative of WWII is that of a war to ‘save Jews’ and combat ‘racism/supremacism’, but it’s ret-conning of actual history, not least to score points with the Jewish Masters of the UK. In truth, British policy was in keeping with a long history of ‘balance of powers’ on the Continent. Besides, it was less out of sympathy for beleaguered Jews under German occupation than for rich and powerful Jews above British politicians. Jews had become partners-in-crime of Anglos in the imperial game.
Also, even though British racial attitudes weren’t as extreme as the Nazi ideology, the Anglos were obviously triggered by the forthright brazenness of Hitler who, in a way, spilled the beans on the essence of Western Imperialism. The Anglos upheld a supremacism of their own in their non-white colonies and carried out genocides or semi-genocides in parts of the world, especially Australia and the Americas but disingenuously flattered themselves as beneficent civilizers(which they were too but only as half-truth).
An honest thief triggers the con-artist who keeps it under the table. (It’s like Joe Pesci’s Tommy in GOODFELLAS was too much of ‘cowboy’ who gave the game away and had to be dealt with to keep up appearances.)

Furthermore, Nazi Germany vs World Jewry wasn’t a game of supremacism vs egalitarianism but supremacism vs supremacism, of which there should be no doubt in light of the nature of Jewish Power since World War II. Jews took over as the new elites in the US, and what has been the result? Equality for all groups or the rise of neo-hierarchy where Jewish Power is virtually above the law and served by brown-nosing Anglos and their ilk who suck up to the Jews like like Johnny Ola to Hyman Roth(in THE GODFATHER Pt 2)? The Zionist project certainly wasn’t about equality between Jews and Palestinians. Neocon and Neolib wars concocted by Jews(via control of both political parties, intelligence services, and media) always favored Zion over whomever Jews happen to hate. Do Americans, most of whom have been thoroughly brainwashed by Jewish monopoly of flow of info, ever ponder why Russia came to clash with the US and West? Do Americans even about Russia in the 1990s or what Neoconazis have done to Ukraine, especially since the Maidan coup of 2014?

The ‘Hitler’ trope has compromised Russia as well. Pushed to the edge by Jews, you’d think Putin would finally address the JQ as the diabolical force leading the world to the brink of World War III(where goyim slaughter goyim while Jews watch from atop with hideous glee), but he justified the SMO(Special Military Operation) as a means to ‘de-Nazify’ Ukraine. Yes, there are Naziesque types there, but they are mere dimwit muscle of the Jewish Mastermind.

Because of the metaphysics of ‘Hitler’, Russia perpetuates the myth that the ‘neo-nazis’ are calling the shots in Ukraine and that Russians, as the moral brethren of Jews and other historical victims of Nazi Evil, are rooting out the poison weed. But, Jews were no less supremacist, which they are to this day(at an even higher pathological level because, whereas German supremacism was utterly condemned, the Jewish kind was given moral cover via the Anne Frank cult). It’s the Jews who’ve instigated semi-genocidal Wars for Zion in the Middle East. If not for Russia, where would Syria be today? It was the Jews who exploited Russia in the 90s and have been doing everything to destroy the its economy. Jews as the Master Race engineered a coup in Ukraine and installed puppets and gangsters to murder civilians in the Donbass. Yet, because of the ‘Hitler’ mythology, even Putin and Russian elites are under historical pressure to tone down honest talk of Jewish Power and and instead yap about the ‘Nazis’.

It’s all the more pathetic because, despite Russian condemnation of Nazi Germany and its horrors against Jews, there is ZERO reciprocity among Jews for Russians who were also targeted for extermination/enslavement and died in the greatest numbers in World War Ii. If anything, the Jewish view of Slavs is the flipside of the Nazi view. (But then, given Jewish Power pushes White Nakba and ‘Diversity’ on the entire West, it doesn’t think very highly of Western Whites either who are being dispossessed of land, deposed in power, dehumanized by ideology, degraded via globo-homo, and disoriented via ‘diversity’.)

Russians say they’re fighting the ‘nazis’, the kind that killed innocent Jews in World War II, but Jews are cheering on the ‘nazis’ to kill as many Russkies as possible. Jews seem delighted by news of dead Russians, much like Israelis get high on the deaths of women and children in Gaza.

Time has come to retire the ‘Hitler’ trope. As it’s especially associated with ‘muh holocaust’, it has a way of portraying Jews, the most powerful and most murderous people in the world, as pure-as-snow eternal innocent victims than as major historical players in their own right who did their share to bring about World War II. The ‘Hitler’ trope enables Jewish Power and their cucks to constantly invoke ‘Hitler’ to justify never-ending wars and terror, as well as increasing surveillance and censorship in the West. Jewish Power acts like ‘Hitler’ but justify its agendas as wars on ‘New Hitlers’.

We need to confront the Hitler of History, not the ‘Hitler’ of demonology. Of course, we certainly don’t need the ridiculous counter-myth of the ‘Good Hitler’ or ‘Cool Hitler’. A sober consideration of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism can discuss the positive, even outstanding, features of the man and movement, but let’s not pretend Der Fuhrer was some saint or misunderstood hero.

In the debate, Alex Jones regurgitated the oft-repeated truisms about the Third Reich, such as Hitler as gun-grabber. This wasn’t true. (Some argue Jews in Germany would have been secure with more guns. When outnumbered 99 to 1, guns are useless. Jews are anti-gun in the US because they are outnumbered but pro-gun in Israel because they are the great majority.) Hitler-grabbed-guns is one of the memes that just won’t go away, illustrating that those on the ‘right’ can be just as mendacious or gullible as those on the ‘left’.

Jones argued that the leftists, the real enemy, wrap themselves with Judaism or Jewishness as moral protection, but he got it backwards. The dominant power in the West is Jewish Supremacism, not leftism. In truth, Jews wrap themselves in ‘leftism’. Jewish Power is essentially ultra-rightist in its obsession with Master Race outlook, tribal zealotry, and near-genocidal imperialism. But, Jews package their true agenda with bogus ‘liberalism’(as with Chuck Schumer who is ever so cozy with far-right Benjamin Netanyahu) and ‘leftism’(the bogus kind that replaced real leftism with racial-supremacist Negrolatry and hyper-capitalist Globo-Homo; indeed, what now goes by the name of ‘leftism’ is usually celebrating vain homos who cater to oligarchs and the deep state).
Jews use the smoke-n-mirrors of DEI, or ‘diversity-equity-inclusion’, but ‘diversity’ is only for goy nations as Jewish divide-and-rule tactic, ‘equity’ means whites forever sucking up to blacks controlled by Jews — it never means noticing Jews are the richest and most unequal group in the US or calling for equal treatment of Jews and Palestinians/Arabs by US foreign policy — , and ‘inclusion’ means favoring whatever groups and voices vetted by Jews while excluding those that displease or threaten Jews. It certainly doesn’t mean including more BDS voices. Did Jones really think these matters through? True leftism is about more equality, not more concentration of power for capitalist oligarchs and ultra-tribalists. Survey globalism over the several decades, and the super-rich get super-richer while Jewish Supremacism is now at hyper-gangster level.

In typical boomer fashion(though he’s really part of ‘Generation X’), Jones says his hero is MLK who stood for colorblind justice. Jones claims to see past the BS, but he’s like Glenn Beck(and mainstream ‘conservatism’) in idolizing MLK as something he was not. Sure, MLK did make speeches about ‘the content of character than color of the skin’, but he was totally for Affirmative Action and race-based agenda for blacks. MLK simply made his message more palatable to whites by appealing to a generic sense of fairness. Characterizing the essence of MLK-ism with the phrase ‘content of character’ is like pretending Jefferson was some radical egalitarian on the basis of ‘All men are created equal.’ In truth, Thomas Jefferson was a race-ist who believed in group differences and had no use for equality between whites and blacks.

Now, one could argue that MLK had good reasons for demanding certain reparatory justice for blacks given the history of discrimination and social disadvantages faced by blacks. If indeed whites and blacks are equal in all respects but skin color, several decades of remedial policies and programs may have bridged the gap. But, hopes through such rose-tinted glasses were bound to run aground because racial differences are real, with blacks being lower in IQ and higher in impulsiveness.
This is why both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ have been bonkers on the issue. The libertarian ‘right’ has argued that Affirmative Action suppresses black ability with the ‘bigotry of low expectations’. So, something like ‘school choice’ will fix the problem, and blacks will be acing tests in no time.
Meanwhile, the egalitarian ‘left’ has argued the notion of racial differences is just prejudice, therefore, the ONLY reason for black underachievement is ‘racism’.

Still, foolish as libertarians and egalitarians are, they are nevertheless principled in sticking to their guns. More individual liberty to encourage black initiative or more social programs to lend blacks a hand.
But what really prevails on the Black Issue is a kind of idolatry, or Negrolatry, that defies ideology. This idolatry looks upon blacks as magical, wonderful, and even superior, along with Jews and homos. Such idolatry has so many whites(and non-blacks) cheering for blacks to win in everything because they deserve more than the rest of humanity; or, we must make Wakanda come true because blacks are so badass. Suppose black IQ suddenly jumped by 50 pts and blacks became 70% of Ivy League schools based on meritocracy. The Negrolators wouldn’t complain about black over-representation and would be celebrating black domination, just like they see nothing wrong with black domination of sports.

Alex Jones contends that the real power is with institutions like WEF and individuals like Bill Gates and his ilk, many of them goyim. But ask yourself… has the WEF condemned Zionism, the rape of Russia in the 1990s(by mostly Jewish globalists), the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians, Israel’s aid to ISIS to destroy Syria, spread of globo-homo degeneracy, the use of BLM & Antifa to terrorize cities with anti-white pogroms, and the US aid to sub-nazi types in Ukraine? Isn’t it rather odd that all the policies of WEF are either aligned with Jewish Supremacist interests or, at the very least, not at odds? If indeed WEF is independent of Jewish power and interests, why is it always so mindful to be good graces with World Jewry?
Klaus Schwab did once spout a sentiment that was faintly pro-Palestinian, but he was soon groveling before the Jews like a sappy dog. As for goy oligarchs like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, sure they are rich and have immense pull of a sort… but they don’t control the ‘gods’, the themes and idols of what’s sacred and what’s profane. Also, we can bash goy oligarchs all we want. But say something about Soros, and you are attacked as an ‘Anti-Semite’. Indeed, the MAIN reason why Jews used the Sandy Hook controversy to destroy Alex Jones ws because he ragged on powerful Jews(even if he was careful not to name the Jewish Power and only attacked them as individuals).

Also, real power isn’t ceremonial. Bilderberg Group members may periodically convene at a gathering, but the real power is what happens every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week and in the direction decided by those who control the ‘gods’. It’s about non-stop communication and coordination, as well as a sense of unanimity, a totality of mindset and methodology most prevalent among Jewish elites across academia, media, entertainment, finance, law, government, and deep state(across many countries), not least because Jews are interconnected not only by ideas and professions but by blood: A Jew in finance related to a Jew in law related to a Jew in the State Department related to a Jew in Hollywood related to a Jew in Las Vegas and so on.

Alex Jones says Jews don’t constitute a monolith, but we aren’t talking of all Jews but the main thrust of Jewish Power, which, to any honest person, is monomaniacal in tribal supremacism and paranoia. There are genuine dissident Jews, but they only exist at the margins, much like German dissidents in the National Socialist era. Even the well-known Norman Finkelstein has limited reach, and most powerful Jews, ‘left’ and ‘right’ work together to suppress the likes of him. Jews who condemn prejudice against Jews are promoted, but Jews who condemn all kinds of prejudice, even the Zionist kind against Palestinians, are condemned.

Usually, powerful ‘liberal’ Jews work with ‘conservative’ Jews to silence and suppress genuine dissident Jews. Bill Maher is supposedly a ‘liberal’ Jew but cavorts with far-right Benjamin Netanyahu who, in turn, schmoozes with both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ in Congress. Most goy whores of Jews certainly know how the game is played. While ‘conservatives’ accuse Nancy Pelosi of being ‘far left’(LOL), she always flag-waves for ultra-right Israel. Netanyahu recently won yet another election by allying with ultra-right elements, but what chance is there that ‘liberal’ politicians in the US will cut off ‘aid’(which is really a tribute) to Israel? Just like Neolib Jews gave cover to Neocon Jews, Neocon Jews sided with Neolib Jews against Donald Trump even though Trump was a total pro-Zionist; his mildly anti-war stance was sufficient to make the Neocons work with the Democrats. Imagine that. Neocon Jews went over to the Democratic Party in the Trump years because it was more receptive to warmongering.

As for Hasidim and Chabad Jews, they are tolerated by Jewish Power to serve as emissaries of Jewish Hegemony. The Jewish Hegemonic Rule is as follows: If you don’t agree with the Jewish globalist ‘liberal’ agenda 100%, then at the very least kiss the ass of the Chabad or Hasidic Jews to prove that you still hold the Jews as holy. “If you won’t suck my d***, at least kiss my cousin’s ass.” Besides, even if Hasidim, Chabad, or Orthodox Jews are conservative, their worldview is predicated on tribal supremacism and contempt for goyim. It’s been said the biggest funeral in Israel was for an ultra-conservative Rabbi who said goyim exist only to serve Jews and it’s okay to kill a goy to harvest his organs for a Jew. It’s certainly (ultra)’rightist’ but makes even Nazism seem mild by comparison.

Indeed, rightism, premised on particularism, doesn’t make for compatibility on a large scale. Rather, rightists around the world get along best when they acknowledge their differences and respect one another’s borders, or “you do your thing in your space, we do our thing in our space.” Not that leftism/universalism always makes for world peace or mutual understanding. Christianity, Islam, communism, and libertarianism are all universalist but don’t see eye to eye. Multi-polar world order is essentially rightist as it calls for world peace and mutual understanding based on civilizations having different values, traditions, interests, and narratives. Does that mean globalism is leftist in seeking a universal one-size-fits-all world order? Only superficially. Scratch the surface, and current globalism is actually ultra-rightist as an instrument of Jewish Supremacism. Globalism deracinates whites only to make them submit to Jewish Master Race ideology. Globalism erases goy nationalities and borders but demands that all goyim honor Jewishness and defend Zion. So, the current struggle isn’t between ‘right’ and ‘left’ but between right and ultra-right.

Contrary to Alex Jones’ contention that Left-wing Jews persecute right-wing Jews in Israel, the fact is Israel has grown increasingly right-wing over the years. Indeed, the two main parties are both right-wing, and the Jewish Left has been going extinct in Israel. Besides, even the original left-leaning Zionist founders were National Socialists, not universal socialists. Their socialism was for the Jewish Nation, not for Jews and Arabs alike. Zionism was a synthesis of economic leftism and ethno-rightism. While Israel is officially a secular nation, it provides special privileges to religious Jews, not least because they have the most kids to offset the population growth among Arabs, thereby avoiding the fate of the white Afrikaners in South Africa who became outnumbered by blacks via birth rates and migrations.

Nick Fuentes says the problem with Jews is they are the ONLY people who came to America with a deep-seated hatred for Christianity. He says Muslims revere Jesus as a great prophet, and other cultures are either respectful or neutral. In contrast, Jews see Jesus as a punk boiling in excrement and semen for all eternity. Fuentes says the problem is rooted in the religiosity of Jewish immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But this isn’t true. If anything, the most problematic Jews weren’t the religious ones but the radical secular ones, usually associated with socialism, communism, or anarchism. It wasn’t the rabbinical Jews, whatever they may have felt about Jesus or Christianity, who led in political agitation, bomb-throwing, spying for communist Russia, and the like. As for the culturally subversive Jews, they too were mostly secular and materialist. And if they felt as Jews, it was mainly an ethnic badge of honor than about spiritual matters.

Nick Fuentes says he doesn’t care about the Holocaust because history is full of tragedies and sad stories. So, why all this talk of Jews, Jews, Jews and the Holocaust? Indeed, Norman Finkelstein has also argued that the obsession with the Holocaust Narrative has blinded the West to other tragedies and injustices.
Furthermore, the great irony of our age is that Jews invoke the Holocaust to push a Master Race supremacy of their own. Jews used to say ‘never again’, but Jewish-globalist war-mongering since the end of the Cold War amounted to ‘again and again’, except that Jews don’t care about goyim being destroyed in great numbers as long as the Jewish Agenda is served. It’s one thing to mourn the Jews killed in WWII but perversely quite another for Jews to use their dead in the Shoah as moral cover to kill countless others to serve what is essentially a Judeo-Nazi or Neoconazi program.

By the way, Fuentes is being somewhat disingenuous on the subject. After all, it was Christianity itself that perfected the art of eternal victimhood, replaying in sermon, song, and drama the death of Christ and the martyrdom of the Early Christians. Countless paintings, verses, stories, and compositions reminded Christendom of the crucifixion of Jesus(by Jews & Romans) and the persecution of the Christians served as cat chow to the lions.
If Christians kept this violin going for 2,000 yrs, why shouldn’t Jews cleverly turn the Holocaust into a secular religion and milk it the same way for all its worth? When Fuentes says “Christ Is King”, it’s not really all that different from Jews saying “Holocaust is god”. Christians like Fuentes can’t get over Jesus, the Son of God, having been murdered by the JOOS. And Jews can’t get enough of rubbing white/Christian nose in the mass-murder of the ‘six million’, or the Cru-Six-fiction.

And while National Socialism was essentially pagan(and Hitler had little use for Christianity), the fact remains that ‘antisemitism’ among Germans was rooted in Christian tradition(just as Jewish contempt for goyim is rooted in Judaic tradition). And plenty of Christian Germans supported Hitler out of nationalism, revanchism, materialism, and/or revulsion for Jews. Even Christians with grave reservations about National Socialism regarded it as the lesser evil, even a necessary evil, against Bolshevism and/or Jewish subversion. After all, whereas the commies were smashing churches and persecuting(and even murdering) religious folks, the Nazis at the very least tolerated the Christian community, as did the Italian Fascists with their Lateran Pact. National Socialism wasn’t Christian, and Christianity sure isn’t ‘nazi’, but they did make common cause in parts of Europe against communism and Jews. But given Jews are now working with sub-nazi elements in Ukraine, they’ve pretty much lost all credibility when it comes to ‘muh holocaust’.