Notes on An Essay on "Jewish Themes in THE GRADUATE(1967, dir. Mike Nichols)" by Brenton Sanderson

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/07/26/jewish-themes-in-the-graduate-1967/

The Jewish Angle in THE GRADUATE has been much discussed. But whatever its implications and meanings, there's no denying the brilliance with which Mike Nichols made the movie, something that eluded him in later works... though CATCH-22 has its moments and CARNAL KNOWLEDGE is pretty compelling as an arty take on the Sexual Revolution. So, the talent has to be discussed in relation to the film's impact. THE GRADUATE would likely have failed with critics and audience in lesser hands, whatever its message. It's like almost no one talks about GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER or just about anything by Stanley Kramer. Though Nichols ultimately didn't turn out to be a great director, he made one great movie, THE GRADUATE, much like Ridley Scott surpassed his limitations one time with BLADE RUNNER. Likewise, other key works by Jewish directors of the period must be considered(even in criticism) with an appreciation of their power as artists, wits, dramatists, expressionists. Even if there is a Jewish angle to THE GRADUATE and other works by Jewish artists, there is much more than mere ethnic propaganda. Stanley Kubrick made 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Roman Polanski made ROSEMARY'S BABY. Stuart Rosenberg made COOL HAND LUKE. Arthur Penn made BONNIE & CLYDE. Arthur Schlesinger made MIDNIGHT COWBOY. Richard Brooks made IN COLD BLOOD. Earlier in the decade, Blake Edwards made BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. Though Sidney Lumet would come to greatness in the 70s and 80s, he was emerging as a force as well. (Norman Jewison, who made IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, isn't Jewish despite the name.)
Now, not all the above-listed directors attained greatness. Rosenberg made one great movie, COOL HAND LUKE, but was mostly a journeyman director. But for whatever reason, it was the Jews(and then some Italian-Americans) who were most adept at hitching onto the new sensibility and conceiving new possibilities for Hollywood. Of course, many new or newer talents were not Jewish. Sam Peckinpah, Robert Altman, Hal Ashby, and the like. But Jewish film-makers were among the key figures in the development of New Hollywood. They were bolder, hungrier, more curious, more radical, more hip to trends. They were also among the most admiring of the great European directors(most of whom were not Jewish) and some Japanese ones. Their impact on cinema was somewhat akin to Bob Dylan's on Rock Music, though it's arguable that the only Jewish film-maker to match the cultural significance of Dylan was Stanley Kubrick who struck a chord with both critics and the audience. To be sure, cinephilia of the Film Generation was somewhat different from the attitudes of Youth Culture. Whereas Rock fans had close to zero interest in pre-Rock music and foreign music — though Folk Rockers were more reverent of the past and other cultures — , Film Culture was about remembrance and international curiosity. So, the seminal film critics of the 60s didn't just discuss the latest trends and hottest hits but wrote extensively about foreign cinema and classic Hollywood. College kids who had no interest in music prior to Rock might nevertheless look up to Howard Hawks and Orson Welles as cultural heroes and icons.
Still, despite the respect accorded to the Old Hollywood greats by Andrew Sarris, Peter Bogdanovich, and their acolytes, the fact is the culture was changing fast. So, while even young cinephiles might marvel at a John Ford Western or Frank Capra comedy, they no longer believed movies could or should be made that way. There was a new spirit in the air, and Jewish film-makers were among the first to run with it. And yet, the Europeans and Japanese had been ahead of American Cinema in personal expression and experimentation. In a way, the new batch of Jewish film-makers had a greater affinity for non-Jewish-controlled foreign cinema and were rebelling against the Hollywood System controlled by old-fashioned Jewish executives and careerists. And they had their chance because the Old Studio system was either dead or moribund, just barely hanging on, as the result of Hollywood's loss of theater monopoly and the rise of TV.

One can socially critique movies like COOL HAND LUKE, THE GRADUATE, BONNIE AND CLYDE, and many others as hostile and subversive, and there is certainly a Jewish angle to this. Still, the real power and effectiveness of these works owes to their artistry, brilliance, and deeper implications than their apparent message, be it blatant or esoteric. It's like Shakespeare's HENRY V is more than a 'nationalist' piece of propaganda. Also, they were refreshing because there is a bit of anarchist in each of us that roots for the oddball, eccentric, maverick, outsider, or underdog. (The audience rooted for Sylvester Stallone in ROCKY because whites had become underdogs in boxing.) And the similar strains could be found in European and Japanese movies that were, if anything, even bolder in thumbing their noses at the established order and social norms. Nagisa Oshima, Shohei Imamura, and Hiroshi Teshigahara were not Jewish. Neither were European directors like Alain Resnais, Jean-Luc Godard, Bo Widenberg, Fassbinder, Gillo Pontecorvo, and etc. So, in some ways, the Jewish American directors were following in the leads of European and Japanese cultural pioneers and enfants terribles, though one could argue that modern radicalism anywhere in the world was inspired in part by Jewish Influence.

At any rate, Jewish Power of Propaganda cannot be understood apart from the talent and visions that go far beyond whatever the original 'political' intent may have been. In some ways, David Mamet is an unpleasant Jewish chauvinist, yet he is also artist and thinker enough to raise questions and face truths that challenge his ethnic biases. (In contrast, Aaron Sorkin is a mere propagandist-hack, albeit a talented one.) Sergei Eisenstein's propaganda films are crude as message but works of genius as experimental formalism. ROSEMARY'S BABY would likely have been a third-rate movie in the hands of someone other than Polanski, just like JAWS would have been one more dumb monster movie if not for Steven Spielberg. (Polanski and other Eastern European directors are a special case. Whereas most of the great Western European directors were non-Jewish, many of the Iron Curtain's 'new wave' directors, especially in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, were Jewish. Though the White Right generally sees Jews as radical leftists, many of these Hungarian and Czech 'new wave' Jewish film-makers were problematic to communist authorities for their espousal of individualism, irreverence, satire, and/or something approaching libertarianism. Most were liberal than leftist, highly problematic as communism regarded liberalism as a bourgeois conceit. And even if not pro-capitalist, they leaned more towards social democracy than communism. Polanski detested communism, and Milos Forman, the Czech Jew in exile, found great success in Hollywood with ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, which would be very un-PC today, and AMADEUS, a work that is, at once, subversive of authority and defensive of genius as natural hierarchy.) Talent goes a long way, and whatever ideological agendas or ethnic biases may have shaped the works of Jewish directors, the top Jewish talents were not only born with natural intelligence but grew up with a genuine appreciation of arts/culture. As such, Mike Nichols' main objective was to make a popular but personal art film inspired by the cinema of Europe. (Nichols was especially impressed with Fellini's 8 1/2. THE GRADUATE also has nods to Michelangelo Antonioni and Francois Truffaut.) But if some American directors miserably failed at making Art Films— THE SWIMMER had all the elements to be a great piece of personal film-making but suffered from strained uneven direction, and Lumet's PAWNBROKER is an embarrassing assemblage of obvious homages to European Art House — , others found their own stride, and THE GRADUATE may be the most significant work in this spirit. At first glance, it seemed a Hollywood movie riffing on European Art film mannerisms, and yet, it was so genuinely American and Hollywood. Moreover, Nichols, unlike Lumet before him, totally made the work his own. Instead of imitation, he drew inspiration and found his own beat and rhythm. As such, while THE GRADUATE may resemble a work like BLOW-UP by Antonioni, it has a uniqueness all its own. Also, the great appeal of movies like THE GRADUATE and MIDNIGHT COWBOY owed to American Jews being less hung up with intellectual conceits. As much as they admired European cinema, they also loved humor, effect, and fun. Increasingly with European Cinema, there developed the purist notion that true art cannot be much fun or rely on time-tested conventions. Also, theory began to dominate practice. For instance, Pier Paolo Pasolini began his film career with lively works with expressive actors, but along the way, he got this idea that actors shouldn't act dramatically. Godard's films got increasingly self-conscious. Ingmar Bergman's films grew colder. Now, an artist who really knows what he's doing can make it work, as in the case of Robert Bresson. But too many aspiring auteurs in Europe became allergic to doing anything that might violate the monastic or radical mission of cinema as art or commitment.
In contrast, Nichols had far fewer such hang-ups. So, even as he drew certain ideas from European cinema, he was mindful to lots of humor along with the songs of Simon and Garfunkel, whatever worked. Such use of songs might have aeen deemed as cheating or relying more on non-cinematic expressions than on the pure possibilities of cinema. But the use of songs did wonders for THE GRADUATE, just like the use of classical music added another dimension to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. So, Nichols and others like him had the best of both worlds: The new language of Art Cinema as personal expression but also the eagerness to please and win over the audience with timeless tricks of entertainment. And that is why THE GRADUATE, like HAROLD AND MAUDE, works on so many levels. It is seriously committed to cinema as art but also shameless in presenting a good show. New Hollywood was closer in spirit to Serious Rock — Later Beatles, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, CCR — than Modernist Music that took out all the fun from music.

So much of PC mentality is reductionist in evaluating works for their 'toxicity' level, e.g. 'racism', 'misogyny', 'sexism', 'homophobia', 'antisemitism', and etc. It's too bad that this tendency exists on the Right as well. Now, it's fair game to notice socially or politically problematic ideas and messages in any work, but the question still remains, why do certain works, regardless of their moral or political content, have such power and influence on the audience? And here, we have to address the matter of talent, brilliance, originality, and/or genius. While THE GRADUATE isn't the work of a genius, it is a brilliant piece of film-making, one where everything clicked together. (It both supports and subverts the cult of the 'auteur' as its miracle couldn't have been possible without Mike Nichols' guiding hand but also depended so much on the chemistry among the assembled cast and crew.) And also a poetic one, even if it amounts to pop-poeticism, like the songs of Simon and Garfunkel. Likewise, THE GODFATHER movies would likely have been nothing special and soon forgotten but for the understanding, knowledge, and skills brought to it by Francis Ford Coppola. There's no point to condemning or praising an entire work because of its said politics.

Turman bought the rights to the book for $1,000 and sent it unsolicited to Jewish director Mike Nichols (born Mikhail Peschkowsky) who signed on to the project. Turman’s search for financing led him to Jewish film mogul Joseph E. Levine—“the schlockmeister of the world”—who put up $3 million... Nichols assigned Jewish screenwriter Buck Henry (born Henry Zuckerman)... Songs by the Jewish duo Simon and Garfunkel were used for the soundtrack. Given the many Jews involved in the film’s production, it’s hardly surprising that Jewish sensibilities and ideological fixations pervade the final product.

But Jewish finance and Jewish producers had long been a dominant force in Hollywood. Also, Jewish writers had been embedded in Hollywood since its inception. And many music composers were Jewish. So, THE GRADUATE is hardly different from works of Classic Hollywood in the preponderance of Jewish money and talent.

In the hands of director Mike Nichols, however, the story became a scathing critique of bourgeois WASP American culture and the oppressive burden it purportedly imposed on young Americans. Nichols employs two recurrent visual metaphors to symbolize this oppressive culture: black-and-white stripes and water.

Many people saw the movie that way, but I'm not sure Nichols meant it that way. When pressed about Elaine and Benjamin by a young female fan of the movie, he answered that they'd probably end up just like their parents. Also, even though there is gentle mockery of upper middle class life, it's hardly hateful. (If anything, even as the audience is glibly laughing at the 'shallow' people in the movie, they are attracted to displays of affluence and the good life, also true of works like LA DOLCE VITA and LA NOTTE. Would THE GRADUATE have been as successful if it were about a working class guy living in a tenement? MARTY with Ernest Borgnine proved to be more or less a one-off thing.)
Benjamin's woes have less to do with social oppression than loss of youth. He's worried about the future, i.e. it has arrived, he's living in it, so it no longer exists for him. This is a universal problem faced by people all over the world. When you're young, the future is always something in the distant horizon. It's always a day ahead, like the song from ANNIE. Or consider how Scarlett in GONE WITH THE WIND always assures herself that 'tomorrow will be another day'. This procrastination about the future loomed larger among the boomer generation as more of them grew up in affluence, could attend college, and followed their bliss, that was as long as one was young and still at work or play. But school eventually ends, and one must be an adult with responsibilities and burdens. So, even though the movie is based on Charles Webb's novel, its spirit also flows from CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger. Braddock is not a victim of social oppression, that is made clear. His parents provided him with everything. He has a nice big room all to himself. He could attend the college of his choice far from home. His graduation gift is a fancy sports car. And as the movie makes clear, his parents pretty much allow him to do as he pleases. At one time, his father expresses displeasure with Ben's taking it easy, but he doesn't do much about it. Also, Mr. Robinson's advice to Ben is that he should sow some wild oats and have the time of his life(without realizing it would lead to an affair with his wife). Later, when his mother asks him what he does all night long and his answer isn't forthcoming, she just walks away and leaves him alone; she's a very understanding, even permissive, parent.

Ben also has no problem with job prospects. 'Plastics', he can make lots of money working for corporations. Or, he can continue with his education, especially as he got a scholarship. So, what is bothering him? His youth is over and thrill is gone. Whether work or more school, he feels his youth slipped by. It went from looking-forward-to-life to life-itself. He's going through what might be called the Beginning-Age Crisis, the crisis that befalls someone who realizes his youth is definitely over and his first chapter as an adult begins. He doesn't want to be like his parents or their friends, but it's not because he hates them. It's because it means just working, making money, and then growing old and retiring. Such is life, and there is no escape, and it's something everyone must accept at some moment, but Ben simply isn't ready yet to make the transition. (Perhaps, he feels especially cheated because his youth passed him by without him even having gotten laid or fallen in love or done something truly exciting.) And in the 1960s when youth itself became an identity in its own right, the boomers developed this notion of Forever-Young. They said stuff like "Don't trust anyone over thirty" without realizing they themselves would be over 30 sooner than later. So, Ben's problems are essentially personal and psychological(and generational) than social or cultural. The problem is not lack of freedom but too much freedom that he came to associate with youth. Finally, with graduation, he will have less freedom as a full-time worker who just grows older and becomes just another suburban man. Granted, there is a certain irony in his transition from student to full adulthood. On the one hand, he has more freedom after graduation. He doesn't have to attend classes anymore. He's his own man and can do whatever he wants. And yet, it's a freedom of responsibility, a kind of drag and burden. In contrast, while as a student he was more under the control of institutions and his parents who paid his tuition, he wasn't responsible for himself. As a son and student, his sole responsibility was to attend school and get good grades. He was taken care of, and furthermore, he could focus on knowledge and learning than on mundane matters of life. And he could always look to the future as something special. But the day finally arrived, and it just proved to be another day, and all the days following that day will turn him into just another suburban man. His life will be comfortable and affluent but not particularly meaningful, as only a tiny handful of people actually get to pursue their dreams.

The water metaphor is less about societal weight on Ben's shoulders than about Ben's emotional state of melancholy and confusion. In a way, the watery depth is more a solace than a prison. Notice how he keeps running back to his bed room from the graduation party full of admiring friends of his parents. These people are full of affection and praise for Ben. Hardly oppressive, but he finds the situation insufferable because they all remind him of what he will be in two or three decades. So, he would rather be in his room staring into the aquarium. Thus, he feels comfortably numb. The fish, like the ducks in THE CATCHER IN THE RYE, may stand for a more ideal existence. Unlike Holden Caulfield who doesn't know what to make of his life, the ducks naturally know to fly south for winter. The fish in the aquarium need not worry about anything as the tank is cleaned by humans and as they're regularly fed. Having graduated, Ben is out of the fish tank of childhood for good and in the river of adulthood. Later when we see Ben having a good time with his affair with Mrs. Robinson, we see him floating on the water glinting with sunlight. There's the memorable moment with the rain, but I think it was more for effect and mood than symbolism. It also foreshadows his desperate race against time later in the movie. Of course, as he sweats up a storm, he's his own rain-maker.
A special thing about THE GRADUATE is it finds a special beauty in the melancholy. In a way, Ben wants to break out or break on through to the other side, but the meaning is in the struggle, not in the victory. He studied hard all his young life to be a top student and graduated with honors, but it seems hollow once it's behind him. Same with his 'second graduation' with Elaine as trophy wrested from the church wedding. His greatest desire is to win her heart and make her his. It becomes an all-consuming passion and obsession... but once he has Elaine with him in the bus at the end, he begins to feel somewhat empty again. The dream is always sad, even a bit depressing, because its realization seems so elusive, even impossible. The dreamer hopes the dream will become reality, but per chance it does, the result is always bound to be anticlimactic. So, Ben is caught in a psychological trap. A neurotic-romantic, he's given to aching for what's beyond his reach. And yet, upon attaining his dream, he realizes that he was truly happy when he was in yearning. It's like hunger calls for satiation but, once satisfied, soon fades in pleasure.
Once he gets it, he realizes it's just one more trophy and life goes on. It's like the scene in BLOW-UP where a bunch of guys tussle over a broken guitar neck, but it is tossed aside soon after it's taken by one guy. It's the curse of a dream coming true. It just becomes more of mundane reality and loses its luster as future vision.

In a way, Ben's problem isn't all that different from the personal crisis of the young man in BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES. War was hell, and he dreamed of returning home alive in one piece. But as a civilian, he's just another Joe, just another guy working 9 to 5 to make ends meet. As horrific as war was, he was a hero and felt more alive precisely because death was everywhere. But back in the States, where life is everywhere and so humdrum, he feels empty. And when he sees the many bombers rusting in the airfield waiting to be scrapped for metal, he senses another kind of death. End of war means life, but the airfield looks like a graveyard of heroism. Feeling alive isn't the same thing as life. There can be lots of life but no sense of being alive, feeling alive. In contrast, one could feel most alive around death. While Ben hardly had to worry about death, the experience of growing up and graduating from school to school was a kind of adventure of mind and spirit. Every year meant he was rising another level, growing into adulthood. But once an adult, there is growing older but no more growing up. It's like once peak height is reached, there is advancement in years but not in inches(except around the waistline).

Ben's situation in the final part of the movie is like David and Goliath. It’s the same reason we root for Tony Montana who defies the chief kingpin in SCARFACE and takes on all-comers. Ben is the scrappy fellow who pursues his dream come what may and runs off with the girl. But what he does isn’t normal. It’s not normal to expect a relationship with a girl whose mother you had sex with. It’s not normal or very honorable to come between a woman and her prospective groom. The scene where he informs his parents about the marriage says it all. They assume Elaine and Ben came to an agreement, but Ben says he decided on his own and that Elaine doesn’t even like him. And unbeknownst to his parents, there is the problem of Mr. and Mrs. Robinson. (We are not sure when exactly Mr. Robinson found out about the affair.) Ben's father says his plan is half-baked, and Ben says, no, it’s completely baked. And it is. The normal and honorable thing would be for a guy to accept the reality of the girl being betrothed to another. The proper thing is to walk away, but Ben just won’t. To be sure, he decides to call it quits after Mr. McClusky(Norman Fell as landlord) threatens him with eviction, but then, Elaine tells him not to leave until he has a definite plan. And then, Ben is back to his crazy dreamer self.

Things can never be normal with Ben and Elaine even if they do eventually get married. After all, she made her wedding vow and is legally wed to Carl Smith. So, she must go through the whole legal rigamarole of filing for divorce. And if Ben and Elaine were to tie the knot to make it official, they will still be estranged from their parents, especially the Robinsons. Ben’s father can’t be too happy either as his partner in the law firm is none other than Mr. Robinson. In time, Ben and Elaine as married couple will likely end up like their parents, but their lives can never be normal due to strained situations with their parents(and perhaps the scandal of the wedding crash).

That said, THE GRADUATE had an almost universal appeal because it was as sentimental as it was cynical. It was like the Beatles and SGT. PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND, an album beloved not only by youths but older people and even highbrow types. It was a Rock album pandering to Summer of Love and Youth Culture, but it was also arty and even a bit old-fashioned, with tunes like “When I’m Sixty Four” and “She’s Leaving Home”, a song that is rebellious in message but traditional in delivery. (A HARD DAY’S NIGHT was also a winner with both young and older audiences.) Young people regarded Ben as a rebel-hero who says hell to ‘plastics’, experiments in free love, seeks authenticity, and takes action to realize his dreams. And yet, even non-radical or non-experimental boomers could relate to him because he initially comes across as something of a square and stuff-shirt, someone who focused more on books than all the groovy things happening around the period. Charles Webb's novel came out before Counterculture happened, whereas the movie was made in its midst. The scenario feels all the more alienating for that reason. It's like an early 60s mindset time-traveled to the latter-60s. Now, one might say that those were just a few years, but SO MUCH happened between 1963 and 1967. That sudden sense of change was the subject of FUTURE SHOCK by Alvin Toffler. If Ben were graduating from high school in the movie, he might be ecstatic. Alas, he graduated from college and officially became an adult just when the culture of youth was taking off to new dimensions. He's too young to identify with his parents generation but just old enough to feel out of sync with the youth culture. Thus, he feels alienated from old and young. And yet, he feels attracted to Mrs. Robinson who, though twice his age, seems defiant of growing older by making up her own rules. And part of the reason he may feel such attraction to Elaine is she's still in school and therefore symbolizes the youth that has passed him by, at least in official capacity. Ben was following the track of being an Organization Man than a Creative Soul. Or, at the very least, he's like an Early Beatle with suit-and-tie who suddenly finds himself transported to the Age of Aquarius. For older or more traditional audiences, it was a story about a guy who initially finds escapism with easy sex with an older woman but then falls in true love and wants commitment and marriage. As for the ending, it can be seen as a rebellion against social norms(as how many people crash weddings?) or confirmation of true love, the classic fairy-tale of a hero saving a damsel from distress.

Now, why would Elaine be attracted to Ben when Carl Smith is taller and more handsome(and has good prospects as a doctor)? Ben has personality. Also, Elaine has a soft side and feels for others. Carl Smith is so sure of himself whereas there is a passive/aggressive boyish side to Ben that needs mothering. So, her maternal instincts kick into gear in the presence of Ben. (She is actually more mother-like than Mrs. Robinson who seems bitter that her youth was cut short by pregnancy and marriage.) Also, Ben is a funny guy, and humor goes a long way. Furthermore, love isn’t only about sexual attraction but the feeling of being appreciated. A person can fall in love with the love shown him/her by the other. For Carl Smith, Elaine may be a good catch but not the only one. If she slips from his grasp, he will likely find another good catch. But for Ben, Elaine is the ONLY ONE, and she senses the depth of his passion for her.
And it’s also what happened between them at the night club. Ben was acting like a total ass but later confesses that he went against his nature due to parental pressure. Of course, that’s not really true as the real reason he tried to sabotage the date was because Mrs. Robinson had forbidden him to date her daughter. Anyway, something clicked in that moment. Elaine is a physically a fully blossomed woman, but there is still something of the little girl inside. You can tell she hasn’t yet lost her innocence, and she lives in something like a paper doll world. Ben realizes how much he hurt her, and he does everything to make amends and this creates a special bond between them. With the kiss, Elaine goes from weeping girl to a real woman, and Ben goes from a confused adult without direction to a man who finally understands what gives his life meaning: Elaine as his true love. (At the same time, there is a quality of puppy love.) With Mrs. Robinson, he was toyed with and used, and he used her in turn. It was just about sex and to stave off boredom. An escapism from life. But with Elaine, there is no guile and gamesmanship. He feels natural in her presence. His plan was for a short date where he’d act the jerk, make Elaine dislike him, take her home, and be done with it. But Elaine’s reaction in the night club is more that of a vulnerable girl than an angry bitch. He sees a side of her he never expected, and in turn, he feels born-again when he tries to console Elaine. It's as if he's finally found his true self and no longer feels so alienated. Thus, the problem was less social alienation than auto-alienation. It suggests that an individual is only half-a-person, therefore a person can only be complete when he meets one's soulmate. It lends a mythic overtone to the movie — Greek mythology says Zeus separated men and women from their embrace, therefore life is about men and women trying to reconnect with their lost mates. Much has been made of the Christian and Jewish angle of the story, but perhaps the main appeal is closer to Greek mythology and Western fairy tales. Earlier in the decade, there was a hit French movie called BLACK ORPHEUS, the telling of the Greek myth with black actors. THE GRADUATE is like the Jewish Perseus. At any rate, it was this ‘subversive’ and multi-faceted blend of cynicism and sentimentality that made THE GRADUATE so special. But the same could be said of THE GODFATHER, which is both a heart-warming family story and a cold & ruthless gangster tale.

The perennial theme of Jewish alienation from a WASP-dominated mainstream American society played an important role in how the character of Benjamin Braddock—and the entire film—were conceived by Nichols—though this only became fully apparent to him after the film had been made.

But it works in the movie because even the character in the novel is alienated. Indeed, many leading characters in novels and movies are outsiders, eccentrics, oddballs, or mavericks. We find such characters more interesting. Even Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan is alienated from the System he works for. John Wayne's character in THE SEARCHERS is something of a misfit, at odds not only with Indians but with fellow whites. Marlon Brando and James Dean became famous as malcontents. Orson Welles said he cast homosexual Anthony Perkins because his closeted neurosis might add something to the character of Joseph K. in THE TRIAL, and it seems Nichols had something similar in mind in having a Jewish character play Ben. I think it works better than it would have with Robert Redford, though a younger Paul Newman, as half-Jew and half-Aryan, might have been even better. Redford, though a capable actor, was rather colorless and inexpressive. The movie wouldn't have been half-as-funny with Redford as Benjamin. Dustin Hoffman was an actor of limited range but fantastic at his best. His Ratso Rizzo in MIDNIGHT COWBOY is genius-acting.

Also, Hoffman-as-Ben has an ambiguous presence in the movie, making it all the more interesting. He's both Jewish and Wasp. Boy and man. Awkward and aggressive. Timid and bold. Calculating and chaotic. The Jew/Wasp tensions within the character intensifiy the contradictions within Benjamin who is both eager and afraid to be free. Hoffman is short but physically fit. Topless, he does have the physique of a long-distance track star. Also, while not handsome, the young Hoffman is rather attractive from certain angles. There is also something of the 'cute' quality that Ringo had. And then, there's the timing and intelligence in his acting, something truly rare in cinema as most actors aren't known for brains.

Ben’s scream in the church is so reminiscent of Rod Steiger’s wailing at the end of THE PAWNBROKER. As for Wasps trapped in the church, that has nothing on the ending of DIRTY DOZEN where Nazi officers are barricaded in the basement and roasted alive with gasoline and grenades. That is one cynical movie. Nazis are so evil they deserve to be slaughtered like animals. But American heroes are a bunch of crooks, criminals, thugs, and psychos. It’s like an insane hashing of BRIDGE ON RIVER KWAI and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Truly a dirty movie.

Nichols cast Hoffman, “despite the fact that he was virtually unknown and looked nothing like the leading man described in the script, which called for a tall, blond track star, not a short, Jewish guy with a schnoz for the ages.”

But in the end, we must judge by results, and I think the success of THE GRADUATE is inseparable from Hoffman's shell game of drama and humor. While an actor like Redford or Ryan O'Neal might have been closer in looks to the character in the novel, Hoffman had that blend of straight man and clown that made the role so different and unique. Also, the final part of the movie when Ben is speeding back and forth from LA and Berkeley has something of the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin, the tales of underdogs who overcome all obstacles to end up with the girl. Robert Redford running off with the girl would seem less amazing and outrageous than Dustin Hoffman doing so. Buster Keaton was a short guy but one who out-maneuvered the competition and usually came out ahead. Same goes for Harold Lloyd, and especially as Nichols came from comedy background, he was looking for the most comic as well as dramatic actor, and he hit gold with Hoffman.
Now, take Jack Nicholson in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. The character in the novel is much stronger, a tough Irishman who takes on three Negroes in the shower and beats them all up. Nicholson's McMurphy is smaller and weaker and no match for the Negroes, but it's a masterly performance, and he came to own that role. Many, indeed most, movies deviate from the novel or the original screenplay, but at the end of the day, the only question that matters is "Does it work"? Hoffman made it work. But then, Victor Mature played Samson and Charlton Heston played Moses, and they made it work, at least as entertainment.

Hoffman’s anti-heroic character gave the green light for Hollywood to promote “the ethnic Jewish matinee idol and youth icon in the forms of George Segal, Elliot Gould, Richard Benjamin, Charles Grodin, and Gene Wilder.”[9] These Jewish romantic leads were invariably paired onscreen with beautiful non-Jewish actresses like Marsha Mason, Candice Bergen, and (in the case of Dustin Hoffman) blondes like Mia Farrow, Faye Dunaway, Susan George, and Meryl Streep.

It's been said that THE GRADUATE changed the rules of who can be a star in Hollywood, but this is a gross exaggeration. Hollywood always had lots of room for Jewish, ethnic, different, ugly, short, and weird actors, even among Wasps. Alan Ladd was a short guy. Humphrey Bogart, though Wasp, looked ethnic and could have passed for Italian, Greek, Spaniard, or Jew. But he was a big star. Short and funny-looking Mickey Rooney was one of the biggest stars of the 40s. James Cagney was no looker but a tremendous star. The Jewish Paul Muni was in many prestigious roles. Peter Lorre and Edward G. Robinson, both Jewish, became world famous. Short actors were nothing special in Hollywood. Many actors, if not downright short, were hardly tall. James Dean was 5'7. Marlon Brando was 5'9, not exactly short but far from tall. It could be that shorter men gravitate to acting because they have to be more expressive to gain the kind of attention that taller men usually get. How tall is Tom Cruise? Long before Dustin Hoffman became a household name, Frank Sinatra was a big movie star. He was only 5'7, had pocked face, and was Italian. And movie stardom was often less about looks than the hook. Certain actors and actresses, even if not handsome or pretty, had a certain screen presence, an allure. Take Charles Bronson who could even be said to be ugly. But he had a great movie face. Same was true of Telly Savalis and Anthony Quinn. Tony Curtis the Jew played a Norseman in THE VIKINGS and did a pretty good job.

As for George Segal, Elliot Gould, Richard Benjamin, Charles Grodin, and Gene Wilder, they usually starred in lesser or more 'independent' productions. Among the new batch of Jewish actors, the only one whose success matched that of Hoffman in the 70s and 80s was maybe Gene Hackman(though Henry Winkler hit pay dirt as the Fonz on HAPPY DAYS, but that was TV). Richard Dreyfus seemed to be on the up and up but soon faded. Of course, one could count Harrison Ford as Jewish, or half-Jewish. Woody Allen might qualify but he was appreciated more as 'auteur' than actor. (Correction. Gene Hackman doesn't seem to be Jewish.)

Hoffman won the role over Charles Grodin, another Jewish actor who was no model of conventional WASP good looks.

Grodin, though no heartthrob, had a certain goofy charm. And unlike in THE GRADUATE where everything is 'crypto', THE HEARTBREAK KID is very much a public airing of the Jewish Male obsession with the 'shikse'. It is in satirical than romantic mode(as in the case of THE GRADUATE) and, as such, cinematically less interesting but even more revealing of the Jewish sensibility. Hilarious stuff.

Such overt anti-Christian imagery jarred with the film’s first audiences—but was only the start of Hollywood’s disparagement of Christianity, and seems tame by today’s standards.

Maybe Jews are doing white people a favor by bashing Christianity, a religion that originated from renegade Jews. In a way, what is more 'crypto-Jewish' than Christianity? Though Christ is often depicted in Western Art as an Aryan-looking fellow, He was actually Jewish and probably looked more like Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky. And speaking of neurosis, how about the story of a Man who claimed to be the Son of God and got Himself killed over it? Western Civilization is founded on Jewish Neurosis. So, even though Hoffman the Jew plays a Wasp in THE GRADUATE, white people over the eons have been worshiping a Jew with a big nose in the image of European whites. And look at the sculpture of David by Michelangelo. I'm thinking that David, being Jewish, looked more like Jerry Seinfeld or Sean Penn, but the statue resembles something out of Greco-Roman mythology.

At any rate, when will whites find their own covenant with the ultimate power of the universe? As long as whites keep with Christianity, it means they are forever beholden to the imagination and vision of Jews. Also, Christianity, if followed to the letter, is a death cult as we are now seeing in the West. If Christian West was powerful in the past, it was because it heeded only about 1/4 of Jesus' teachings. Go beyond that, and you end up dead. And if you don't, you get blamed for hypocrisy, preaching 'turn the other cheek' while using violence to conquer and control the world. Christianity has been a great religion, but it is now dead. It's very sad in a way, but it means the white race must finally GRADUATE toward a new consciousness with prophets of its own that can meditate on the ultimate power and receive the covenant that has meaning to whites and whites alone.

By the way, thing in the church happens so fast that it hardly registers as an anti-Christian screed. And, whatever the significance of Ben wielding the cross as a weapon, it is funny as hell, and as the characters in THE WILD BUNCH say, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.” The outrage element is part of the fun. A little irreverence never hurt anyone.
Also, just look at the church. Its design is so Californian, so modernist and soulless. It looks like a bleached shell devoid of spiritual meaning. A church as status-symbol of the affluent and modern. So, it’s less a Christian ceremony than a matter of custom. They get married in a church because it’s just what people do. And who are among the attendees? None other than Mrs. Robinson, hardly a virtuous character. And there’s Mr. Robinson who pressured his daughter into marrying Carl Smith out of his seething rage at Ben. We don’t know much about Smith the ‘make-out king’, but he doesn’t seem the spiritual type. So, even without Ben’s presence, the wedding is just an empty show, a ritual devoid of spiritual or even much moral meaning. Elaine is getting married to console her father. Her heart is really with Ben.
Ben’s wielding the cross as a weapon could be seen as a desecration of Christianity, but it could also mean he’s the christ-like figure for true love. He’s willing to sacrifice everything, even sanity and limb, for the girl he loves.

The problem with clinging to Christianity in our age is it no longer provides the answers. As such, people need to seek out new visions and find new directions. It’s like a horse. It is highly useful when strong and hardy. But what use is a dead horse? Christianity is now a dead horse. In Europe, it’s totally dead. They say America is still religious, but no one gets fired or blacklisted for insulting God, Jesus, or Paul. But you may be fired and blacklisted even at a so-called ‘conservative’ Christian institution if you criticize Fentanyl Floyd or Jewish promotion of globo-homo. For many Christians, even those on the ‘right’, the highest holies are Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Indeed, many churches would have us believe that god and jesus serve Jews, homos, and blacks than anything else.

Christianity has become a suicide pact. If Christianity still had martial spirit, it would be in much better shape. In the past, Christianity served the West well in the form of 'hypochristianity'. Christianity had to be hypocritical in order to survive and expand. The teachings of Jesus, such as ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘meek shall inherit the earth’, don't do much for worldly power. Jesus urged people to give away all their wealth, live in righteous poverty, and meditate on spiritual matters. But people who act that way end up dead or oppressed. If they believe in Heaven, they may expect something better in the afterlife. But most people are attached to the real world, and power is about money, weapons, hierarchy, and violence. So, the Christian West at its peak preached one thing but practiced something other. Now, the West wasn’t purely hypocritical and much of its values & practices derived from Christian morality. Still, the kindly side of the West relied on the hard side that kept and expanded power by ruthless means.

But such kind of hypocrisy is no longer tenable, especially as Jews gained power in the West and never lose sleep pointing out all the hypocrisies of the West. This shame has been internalized by most whites. This has led to whites either rejecting Christianity or trying to practice a Christianity that is closer to the spirit of Jesus’s teachings… which can only serve as a death/suicide cult. Worse, there are so many idiots or opportunists who seek to use the church as a club for other agendas, often satanic in nature, like globo-homo and worship of savage Negro as Magic Negro. And of course, many non-religious and anti-religious people are possessed of a zealotry derived from puritanical strains of Christianity. If the church in our times is an empty shell devoid of spiritual passion, post-Christian passion of radicals is like fanaticism without a meaningful vessel. Shell without flesh and flesh without shell are, of course, both doomed. Form without content and content without form are both ultimately useless. Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic, is dead as a useful and virile creed. When the Vatican has Pope Francis as top leader, what does that say? What is Mainline church in the US but promotion of globo-homo and Magic Negro? What is Evangelicalism but about More Wars for ‘Muh Israel’? There is the Orthodox Church, but it has no meaning to most Greeks who are secular. And in Russia, it is a museum culture than a living one despite all the new cathedrals built.

In the first scene of the film, Benjamin rides to the left on an airport conveyor belt as everyone else accedes to the airport’s public announcement system’s request to “Please stay to the right.”

I think 'stay on the right' in that moment meant stay to the right on the conveyor belt or in walkways, which is conventional rule in all places. It's like people usually walk on the right side no matter which way they're going.

In One Dimensional Man, he argued that advanced industrial societies like the United States repress their populations by creating false needs via mass advertising, industrial management, and modes of thought which resulted in a “one dimensional” universe of thought and behavior which stifled people’s capacity for critical thought and oppositional behavior.

Even if we disagree with Herbert Marcuse's solutions, was he wrong in his critique of consumer-capitalism? Look all around today, and corporate-consumer-capitalism is a big part of the problem. The rise of Pop Culture as Main Culture has led to the one-dimensional idiot. And we need critical thought and oppositional thought more than ever.

In the end, the real problem of whites was not 'authoritarianism' but complacency. Post-war boom made white people lower their guard and care mostly about the good life. They became passionless with crass materialism. The boomer generation rebelled against such complacency with utopian dreams and commitment to authenticity, but they too came under the power of materialism as their main inspirations came from pop music and TV. Like Peter Fonda said in EASY RIDER, 'We blew it'. If the Greatest Generation drowned in alcohol, the boomers failed to find nirvana in pot smoke, which is now just more big business.

Reich claimed the role of traditional “repressive” Western sexual morality was “to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order.” Marcuse agreed with Reich that the “liberation of sexuality and the creation of non-hierarchical democratic structures in the family, workplace and society at large would create personalities resistant to fascism.”

There is obviously some truth to their claims. Any form of repression, sexual or otherwise, is to create a more stable order of unity and consensus. And it is true that 'sexual liberation' will undermine fascism as each boy and girl will be more into hedonism and self-gratification than suppressing one's individual desires for the good of the whole, the volk. If German youths in the 1930s had mostly been into sex, drugs, and rock & roll, would they have paid any heed to Hitler? And same could be said for youths under communism, which is why communist nations did all they could to suppress individualism as expressions of capitalism.
More interesting is why Marcuse and others blamed capitalism for the repression when it was obviously the forces of capitalism that were leading to the triumph of hedonism, 'sexual liberation', individualism, and youth culture of impatience. Maybe, it was difficult to immediately abandon the ideology, Marxism, that had shaped them for so long. Consciously or subconsciously, maybe the Frankfurt School was seeking to serve as the bridge that would allow the left to go from communism to capitalism as the more useful ideology.

The Frankfurters were right that 'sexual liberation' would be bad for fascism. But they overlooked how 'sexual liberation' would lead to the rise of new barbarism. After all, sexual politics is hardly egalitarian as alpha males usually win and as women prefer winners over losers. Some women seek out long-term winners who gain success in professions, but other women seek out short-term winners: the thugs, studs, and athletes. So, instead of resulting in the peaceful eternal summer of love where everyone is happy with good vibes, it has led to the rise of demented heavy metal culture, rap culture, pornification of even kiddie culture, and countless displays of narcissism & vanity, indeed as if everyone is a diva, his or her own 'hitler'. Fascism represses and channels virile barbarian energies in the service of civilization whereas the raw barbarian energies of 'sexual liberation' has led to the degradation of family and society, resulting in lots of violence and stupidity. Black African savages demonstrated that sexual licentiousness is no immunity to ultra-violence. Being sexually far less inhibited, blacks were generally unable to repress their wilder energies for the development of civilization, but they were murderous just the same. And the European barbarians long long ago were less hung up about sexual morality(before the coming of Christianity and its stricter ethos), but did that prevent them from rampaging other communities and raping and pillaging, i.e. acting like Alex and his droogs in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE? Indeed, people like Marcuse seem blind to the fact that National Socialism gained in popularity precisely because Jews pushed the most demented kind of anti-values in the Weimar Period, leading to a new barbarism. Degenerate personality leads to social chaos, which leads to people demanding an authoritarian personality to clean up the mess.

Frankfurt School was right to critique capitalism-consumerism and its mind-numbing and conformist influences, but its proposed solutions were useless because people like Herbert Marcuse were not honest, not least with themselves. Marcuse wailed against fascism, but he meant goy fascism. As he was pro-Zionist, he was for Jewish fascism. This is a key truth about Jews. They are so virulently anti-fascist precisely because they want fascism only for themselves. It is through fascism that both the right wing and left wing of a people can unite into a combined force. Fascism serves as the bridge and bond between left and right. Don’t make them fight one another but work together. This was the basis for National Socialism and Zionism. Where both ultimately failed morally is they went from nationalism to imperialism. Just like Jews hated Christianity and Islam for passing the secrets of the Jewish God to goyim, they hate fascism because it allows goyim to develop the kind of power specialized by Jews. Leo Strauss was a ‘rightist’ while Herbert Marcuse was a ‘leftist’. But what did they have in common? They were proudly Jewish and Zionist. For all their ideological discourse, identity came first. Zionism was created by Jewish socialists and Jewish capitalists working together. So, even as whites should give credit where it’s due — Frankfurters made useful criticism of capitalism and consumerism — , they must forge their own answers and solutions to problems, one that prioritizes the needs of whites. Jews are often interesting in their critique but useless in their proposed solutions, at least for goyim, as the utmost priority of Jews is to maximize Jewish power, not to make goyim more powerful. Frankfurt School is like a doctor that diagnoses the disease but advises the wrong cure.

In a way, much of modern form of Jewish Alienation derived from acceptance by White Society. Jews were both ragging Wasps for not being sufficiently accepting of Jews AND fretting too much assimilation may lead to loss of Jewish identity.

So, even as Jews felt alienated from Wasps, they also felt increasing alienation from their own roots. The more they became modern and Western, the less they felt traditionally bound to Jewishness. It’s one reason why Jews cooked up ersatz-form of being Jewish, such as being fixated on the Holocaust or celebrating Globo-Homo. Barbra Streisand’s YENTL is both celebratory and critical of Jewish Tradition, and it features a woman posing as a man to be accepted into the world of Rabbis. Around the same time, Blake Edwards made VICTOR/VICTORIA and soon after, there was TOOTSIE where Hoffman plays a ‘woman’. And Woody Allen made ZELIG. Paradoxically, Allen’s film seems to imply that the thing that Jews most fear as being harmful to Jewishness, which is assimilation, is also what most defines Jewishness. In other words, Jews have developed remarkably adaptive strategies of assimilation. And yet, even as Jews morph and blend into goy societies, at the end of the day, they revert back to Jewishness; they don’t really transform into the other. It’s like an octopus can take on all sorts of shapes but returns to being an octopus. But if an octopus is so fluid and flexible in its shape and structure, is there a core structure to octopus-ness? Or is the essence of the octopus to have no definite form? It’s no wonder Jews are so into trans-business where there can be infinite number of ‘genders’. It’s like sexual Houdini-ism. ZELIG is almost like a satire of an intellectual Nazi movie about Jews.

Tug-A-Gro — Why Leftism, Jews, and Negroes grow More Powerful in the Clash of Civilizations and Empires — Jewish Media Domination elevated Jews, Homos, & Blacks uber alles, and so, All Nations, rightist or leftist, globalist or anti-globalist, use the Moral Currency of Rhapsodizing over Jews, Blacks, and/or Homos

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russian-libs-owned/

Nonetheless, it was also something of an aha moment along the lines of what I encountered in Berkeley c.2013, as more than ever I realized that Russian SJWs do exist and not just on Twitter.

One reason why SJW-ism spread all over the world isn't merely due to Jewish Media Global domination. It's because even anti-American and anti-globalist governments and nations employ SJW talking points as counter-propaganda against the US(and the West).

Consider Chinese who say 'black lives matter'. Why? Because it's an easy talking point to shame the US that is always criticizing, excoriating, and condemning other nations for its 'human rights abuses'. So naturally, to get back at the US, even anti-American nations will strike at America's Achilles Heel by invoking 'woke' tropes. In a way, most criticisms of other regimes, societies, and nations tend to be 'leftish' in character regardless of the political orientation of the regime in charge. Why? Leftism is about complaints, whereas rightism is about appreciation and reverence. While leftism does have its heroes and saints to revere, it is fundamentally founded on discontent with reality, the system, the order, and etc. It is naturally more polemical than the right. So, the easiest way to discredit or undermine another system is by pointing out all the flaws. And in this, even right-wing regimes end up playing the 'leftist' game. Whether the Soviet Union or reconstituted Russia, an easy propaganda coup to smear the US has been by pointing out its racial problems, especially pertaining to blacks. Soviets made it seem like USSR is the land of the free and equal whereas the US was a nation of rich and poor, white power and black misery. And watch some RT news today, and it often pushes 'leftist' talking points. Of course, not so much about Russia but about the West. It hires Western 'liberals' and 'leftists' because they make the most reliable attack dogs against the West itself. Like Chris Hedges who sees the US as one big penal colony and something out of the movie BRAZIL.

Now, one can criticize a nation, people, culture, or system from the rightist perspective, but rightist energy isn't about complaining 24/7. Even the purity spirals of Christianity are more 'leftist' in character. Conservative Christianity is more about acceptance and resignation and preservation of the status quo. It's Radical Christianity that is 'triggered' by how much the Church has fallen or isn't doing enough. In Martin Luther's time, this had a salutary effect as Protestant Reformers were serious theologians on the meaning of Christ. In today's world, with Christianity remaining as a mere shell in the West, most so-called Christians are really post-Christians who believe the church has relevance merely as a homeless shelter or outpost for various causes with higher 'spiritual' prestige(as decided by Jewish Power that controls the Narrative). As the main faith in the West is now Jews-Homos-Negroes and Diversity(though secondary to Jews-Homos-Negroes), so many churches feel they must accommodate to serving those holy themes. The 'conservative' churches tend to stick closer to the traditional faith but even they are more into Jew-worship than God-worship. What is the #1 theme of Evangelicalism? 'Muh Israel'. And as even Evangelicals are beginning to soften on the Homo issue and get all worked up over 'racism', it's becoming just another kind of SJW church.

Who are the main beneficiaries of all this? Jews and Negroes. On Jews, the argument between Russia and US isn't about pro-Jews vs anti-Jews but about pro-pro-pro-Jews vs pro-pro-pro-pro-Jews. It's a game of which side is more pro-Jewish. Russia will say it defeated Nazism, saved Jews, protects Jews, and has close ties with Israel. US will say it is about loving Jews, remembering Holocaust, and protecting Jews from 'antisemitism'. Now, given that Jews have really messed up Russia with both communism and gangster capitalism, Russia should be anti-Jewish. And US should have woken up by now that Jews are a hostile minority. But as Jews have such media and financial control, all sides feel they must justify themselves as the biggest enemy of 'antisemitism'... or else be condemned as 'nazis'. So, even as the Jews went about undermining Trump and Russia, all we hear from both sides is 'we love Jews'. Tug-of-Schwarz.
And Negroes are also great beneficiaries. From the US side, so much is made of how the nation has come a long way from the dark yrs of slavery and Jim Crow. US uses the black issue as a huge point of pride. "We were once bad to blacks, but now, we see how magical they are and elevate them to demigod status. We love Negroes!!!" But as blacks continue to be socially mired in poverty and complain so much about 'white supremacist' America, nations like Russia, China, Iran, and others jump at the chance of saying, "WE CARE ABOUT THEM POOR HELPLESS NEGROES who are so oppressed, exploited, and mistreated in the 'racist' and 'white supremacist' US." As a result, both white Americans and peoples abroad come under the spell of Negrolatry. White Americans want to take pride in having come a long way and rolling out the red carpet for the Negroes. And 'enemy nations' of America want to take pride in standing up for Negroes as the perennial victims of American 'racism' and white supremacy. Indeed, whether a nation is rightist or leftist, what easier way to rhetorically strike back at the US than by invoking the Black Issue? After all, whereas Jews are super-rich and homos are very privileged in the US, many blacks are still doing poorly. Now, we know why. Blacks are tougher, more impulsive, more given to psychopathy, and less intelligent. That means black frustration with life will often turn to crime and violence and scaring whitey. But many Russians and Chinese only know about Black American Reality through Western Propaganda.

The current West(led by the US) is the most schizo kind of empire ever. Traditionally, empires totally took pride in their imperial glory. This was true of British Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Soviet Empire. Granted, the British Empire did have second thoughts and something like a conscience, as it eventually worked to end the slave trade and the sale of opium. Still, for most of its existence, it was about power and glory. The Soviet Empire was based on leftist ideology, but under Leninism-Stalinism, it allowed no criticism of the Revolution and the System. As such, it was about total revolutionary pride and almost zilch self-criticism.
In contrast, the US empire, though extremely aggressive and arrogant, has as its foundation a kind of self-loathing. US has the most powerful military, biggest economy, and the most aggressive financial imperialism around the world, but so much of US narrative is "US history sucks cuz of 'racism'", "Christianity sucks because of 'homophobia'", "white men are rapists of coeds", "white people are a**holes, white privilege is evil, white fragility is problematic, etc." White America has been the Core America from the beginning, but it is constantly attacked, berated, demeaned, insulted, and humiliated. And as youngsters are impressionable, so many white kids have internalized these propaganda points pushed by Jews.
In a way, one might say US is a very proud and robust empire in that there is no criticism of Jewish Power, the top power that rules. US is about Jews, Jews, Jews and 'muh Israel' from the elites of both parties. In that sense, US empire is like empires of old: It is indeed about the power and glory of Jews. But the neo-imperial narrative is rarely about what the US is really about: Jewish Hegemonic pride. But then, Jews are only 2% of the population and very nervous as rulers. Can an empire sustain itself by elevating the 2% over the majority of whites? Or, are Jews fixing to use Diversity as New Majority as its loyal servants? But can Diversity be as reliable as white cucks and as competent? An empire that glorifies the great majority is surely more stable than one that glorifies a tiny minority. After all, British Imperialist prestige was more stable in the mother country of UK than in India where the British elites had to keep Hindu identity and pride suppressed as a 'national identity'.

But on the other hand, clever Jews may have come upon a formidable formula for empire. After all, what was one of the major reasons for the fall of empires? The subject peoples eventually tired of the occupying power and began to resist. So, the British, French, and Ottoman empires fell apart. But what if an empire erases all notions of conquering people and subject peoples? In other words, while the US military may invade other nations and dominate much of the world, peoples from all over the world can come to the US and become 'Americans'. Or they can go to Europe and become 'Europeans'. Thus, if old empires were a one-way street in the flow of power, the new empire is a two-way street. 'Invade-Invite' means both worlds get transformed. US changes the world with bombs and money, but the world changes the US as immigrant hordes and new elites. In time, they join in the metropole, enter the military, become professors & journalists, and etc. Indeed, consider how so many Third World elites are now pro-imperialist than anti-imperialist. They figure more Western access to their nations means more access to the West on their part. "They take from us, but we take from them." Also, there's the sense that "they criticize us for our human rights problems, but they are also busy criticizing themselves for their human rights problems. Indeed, white professors teach our children to criticize and condemn white supremacism and white racism." (Now, one may argue that the Soviets pioneered this kind of empire, one where Russians had no special privileges over other peoples. A Russian could lord over others, but others could lord over Russians. It was an empire of ideology than identity. Ethnicity mattered less than dogma, i.e. a Lithuanian communist had more power than a Russian reactionary. But as communism was so repressive, it failed to capture the imagination of the world. Who wanted to emigrate to communist nations?) So, this kind of imperialism seems truly 'enlightened' and fair. Unlike old imperialism, it's not about one people conquering and dominating another but ALL THE PEOPLE coming under liberal hegemony. And within this New World Order, whites are just as likely(if not more so) to come under criticism on grounds of 'racism' and etc.

Of course, it's far more complicated than that. Empire of Enlightenment is really a ruse, an illusion. After all, if indeed it's true that ALL peoples should come under criticism and scrutiny, why is there so little talk of Jewish Power, the most powerful power in the West and thus in the world? Why are Jews praised and 'protected' all over the world, from Russia to the US? Why does even Iran go about making a case that "We take good care of our Jews?" How come BLM and Antifa activists hardly go after Jews, and when they do, they get crushed like a bug? Empire of Enlightenment or EOE is really a Jewish Supremacist World Order that creates the impression of New Western Values of 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' by making it seem like the West is still marked by White Supremacism. Thus, all good peoples — Jews, Muslims, blacks, yellows, browns, Hindus, 'good white liberals', tolerable white cuckservatives, homos, trannies, feminists, and etc. — must all join forces to fight this evil scourge. This creates the impression that all is fair in the New World Order. (Besides, Jews push Diversity on grounds of "Is it good for Jews?" More goy diversity means Jews can play divide-and-rule among bickering goyim.) Gee, the West may invade and bomb other nations, but it is NOT in the service of White Supremacism but 'spreading democracy' and 'fighting terror'. How can it be about supremacism when the West is most committed to stamping out 'white racism' and even 'white privilege'? If anything, the West invites tons of non-white migrants to Europe and immigrants to the US to join forces with 'good whites' to combat White Supremacism. The children of immigrants are taught by good whites to hate 'white racism' as the greatest evil. But, this is to totally overlook the fact that Jewish Supremacism than white supremacism rules the West. It overlooks the fact that Jewish Supremacists are using white mercenary soldiers to destroy other nations, mostly Muslim, and not for 'spreading democracy' or 'fighting terror' but for the interests of Zion and Jewish Power. And it is blind to the fact that Jews invoke 'white supremacism' to deflect attention from Jewish Supremacism as the true master of the West. Even BLM is a ploy on the part of Jews to keep blacks hating whites and to keep whites being paralyzed with 'white guilt'. And what is globo-homo-mania but a Jewish agenda to replace Christianity and natural normality with Queertianity and minority-elite privilege?

In all this, blacks may be the greatest beneficiaries, indeed even more so than Jews. After all, whereas Jews must work very hard to maintain the current World Order, blacks need only sit back and bask in all the love from all the world. Some worthless Negro, Fentanyl Floyd, dies of drug overdose, and all the world loves blacks. Democrats cheer on black rage, GOP doesn't object. Donald Trump says Fentanyl Floyd is an angel looking down on us. European nations broke out in BLM protests. (Some of this was naive and sincere in the spirit of Negrolatry. But it was cynical in some cases as knee-jerk Anti-Americanism. What easier way to justify Anti-Americanism than by mentioning the Black Problem, especially as the universally accepted narrative says black problems are mostly the result of 'legacy of white racism'?) So, blacks can just sit on their ass while both pro-American and anti-American forces around the world chant BLM. After all, BLM is both a form of US imperialism and a form of anti-US imperialism. It is promoted even by US embassies. BLM has officially been declared as the new anthem of America. Americans should take pride in it as the Second Civil Rights. The fact that so many Americans care about Black Lives and condemn 'white supremacist' police brutality means US is a progressive and conscientious nation. So, kudos to America!! (It is also a good way to unseat the white supremacist literally hitler Trump who isn't a real US president but Putin's Puppet or Siberian Candidate.) But BLM is also useful for the 'enemies' of the US. Iran and China are having a field day, watching American cities fall to SJW insurrections that paint the US as an evil nation. The shaming of America taints its image around the world.

In either case, it becomes a game of Tug-A-Gro(Tug-A-Negro). US and its allies tug on the Negro as their darling race, and anti-American nations tug on the Negro to show their love for blacks who are oppressed by US and the West. So, blacks get everything from all sides from this. They not only get adulation in the West but from the Anti-West. The West says, "We are so sorry for the legacy of racism, and we are doing everything and much more to make things so much better for Blacks or BLACKS", and the Anti-West says, "Oh boo hoo, we weep for those wonderful magical innocent Negroes being mistreated by Evil White Racists in the US and West." So, blacks can just sit pretty(or ugly) and receive alms and accolades from all sides. The typical US-China insult-fest goes like this: "Look how those evil Chinese are so 'racist' and treating black Africans like animals whereas we good Americans care so very much about blacks" vs "Look how 'racist' America is oppressing those noble innocent blacks whereas we Chinese are committed to justice and invest so much in Africa to help out the poor blacks." Pure Tug-A-Gro. With Negroes gaining so much from conflicts among non-blacks, they may inherit the world as they are now above criticism from all sides. It's like J. Wellington Wimpy gets all the food while Popeye and Bluto fight one another. It's like Negrollar is the Moral Currency of the World. Because blacks were slaves in the US(the most powerful nation on Earth), black nations/communities are the poorest & most pitiable, blacks tend to be shamelessly vocal(thereby gaining the most attention), and blacks have cool-cred as athletes and rappers(and dong-butt folks), they are both objects of sympathy and fascination.

How JUSTICE really functions in the IDOLATRY POLITICS of the Jewish-Supremacist West — The Immorality of Moral Immortality — US is a Theocracy of 'Idolocracy', a mindless worship of Jews, Blacks, and Homos

Justice, especially political justice, is a matter of who/whom: Who has the power and which groups have 'sacral' worth? This is also true of individuals — notice how certain Jews tend to get pardoned more than people of other groups, and consider how the Law pretty much allows black thugs and shoplifters/looters to walk free — but especially true at the political level. In Central America during the Cold War, the white-led right-wing regimes could employ 'death squads' and mow down countless indigenous brown folks suspected of being sympathetic to Marxist guerrillas. That was 'justice' in those parts, with the acquiescence of US power. In communist nations, the secret police could arbitrarily arrest anyone and charge him of treason, espionage, or 'bourgeois' thought crimes. The accused could be sent to prison camps or shot dead in basements. That was 'justice' under communism. So, justice is usually the tool of the power. It is what the Power wants and says it is.

Under liberal systems, there developed the idea that justice should be impartial, fair-minded, based on strict adherence to laws(applicable to all), and protective of the 'universal rights' of all citizens, rich or poor, regardless of color or creed. Though liberal systems were far from perfect in the practice of administering justice, it could be said that, more or less, the West was moving toward greater impartiality and fairness up to the 1960s. This mode of justice was based on individual rights. But the Civil Rights Movement wasn't just about the right of blacks as individuals but as a group, and that agenda, along with other trends, provided the groundwork for a different kind of justice. If traditional rightist justice favored the upper classes and certain races over others and if the radical leftist justice favored the notion of 'social justice' that trampled on individual rights in favor of the supposed good of the collective, the classic liberal notion of justice emphasized the rights of individuals. But the New Liberal theory tended to be both more collective-utilitarian(though not to the extent of communism) and special-interest-oriented in the name of reversing past injustice. Collective-utilitarian notion of justice was at the heart of the New Deal. And special-interest notion of justice animated the Great Society program of LBJ and the rise of Holocaust Cult. By emphasizing the problems of black history, the idea was that blacks as a group deserved special recognition. And because Jews suffered the Holocaust, supposedly the greatest evil act in all of history, they were deserving of special sympathy and consideration. (Initially, pro-black & pro-Jewish attitudes and policies were based on sympathy, but the rising cult of their Noble Suffering and their spectacular success in 'idolic' fields of brains & brawn led to idolatrous worship of them as the Truly Superior Races.)

This came to function as a template for other groups as well. Noticing how blacks and Jews gained so much by pushing for justice on grounds of special interest than individual rights, many groups in the US began to develop their own form of Identity Politics. Identity Politics was different from national chauvinism of old that was premised on the conviction of one's own people being somehow superior and/or more powerful than others. In contrast, Identity Politics was based on the cult of victim-hood. Your people could be said to be more special if they suffered more than others. As Identity Politics emerged when the white West pretty much dominated all the world — even the Soviet Union was mostly white, something Red China exploited in its appeal to the non-white world during the Sino-Soviet Rift — , the general impression was of White Dominance and Non-White Victim-hood. Still, as the scales of victim-hood were still determined by the Power, it all came down to who/whom/when/where as emphasized by the Narrative, the product of media & academia.
Victim-hood mattered more if the villains were white and if the victims were non-white or Jewish. And it mattered MORE if the oppression happened IN the West, especially the US or Northern Europe. And it was mostly about the 19th and 20th century. As blacks were oppressed in America by whites, they had a good claim. As Jews suffered in Europe in World War II, they too had an easy claim. But much less sympathy goes to non-white victims of whites in non-white lands. More blacks and Hindus were mowed down by whites in Africa and India, but there is far more outrage about far fewer number of blacks who were killed by whites in the US. As for all the violence among non-whites, they don't matter. Who cares about what's been happening in Kashmir? Even as anti-whites claim to call for 'de-colonization of the mind', they are hopelessly 'West-centric' in emphasizing what happened/happens in the West uber alles. (Furthermore, these 'de-colonizers' are desperate to depart from their own native lands to go live in the West. It's as if they still consider the West to be the only Metropole that matters. And of course, even most anti-Western rhetoric has been cooked up by self-hating Westerners whose minds were colonized by Jewish Power and fueled by post-Christian need for absolution by some other means. So, anti-white politics is essentially about non-whites adopting the politics of white self-loathing, and as such, non-whites are still under white mind-control, albeit that of self-loathing whites. And the fact that many of these non-whites prize Jews, blacks, and/or homos over their own kind suggests that they're still totally 'colonized' by Western Powers that now happens to controlled by Jews.) A truly de-colonized mind would stop seeing the West as the source of all good and evil — the paradise to emigrate to and the hell to denounce — , but such is the state of your average non-white & anti-white mind.

Because of the Rules of Identity Politics, various non-whites groups must demonstrate their worthiness of sympathy by emphasizing their victim-hood at the hands of whites in the West, especially in the 20th century(and maybe 19th century). But as many of these groups are relatively recent immigrants, their experience of oppression under whites happened mostly in non-Western lands, and that means their suffering counts for less than that of Jews and blacks. (Even as globalism attacks the notion of national territorial rights, the tragic worth of any history is largely determined by WHERE it happened, i.e. if the police kills a black man on US soil, that is an outrage, but if the US military kills scores of innocent civilians abroad, it doesn't matter. The logic of Tragic Dirt.) Shoah happened in Europe, and black slavery happened in the US, and as such, they matter more. (Oddly enough though, their cults of suffering are transferable to all others of their kind. So, even though American and Anglo Jews were safe during WWII, indeed infinitely more so than white goyim in Europe who died in greater numbers than the Jews did, they too can invoke 'muh holocaust' as fellow Jews. Likewise, recently arrived black African immigrants in US and Europe can also invoke BLM nonsense and 'muh slavery' even though their ancestors captured and sold black slaves to Arabs & whites and even though black-on-black oppression & violence in black nations are far beyond anything whites have done to blacks in recent years. Also, the fact that American Indian experience doesn't count for much in the Narrative shows that the rules of Identity Politics are not set in stone. If a certain group tends not to be vocal and exhibits no special talent in the 'idolic' fields, it is mostly ignored regardless of its tragic history at the hands of whites. Today, American Indians, the people with the biggest claim to victim-hood in American History, get less attention than Asian-Indians who are always talking and balking.) Identity Politics is based on victim-hood points, but over time, it has fused with the All-American culture of winner-takes-all. Jews and blacks began their Identity Politics by wailing abut their victim-hood but, in good ole American fashion, gained special consideration because of their success with money, humor, arts & culture, athletics, & entertainment. So, over time, Identity Politics became more like Idolatry Politics. In other words, 'muh victim-hood' wasn't good enough. What really mattered was 'muh victor-hood to accentuate muh victim-hood'. In other words, if a group could demonstrate superiority in some key field, its victim-hood was to be considered MORE TRAGIC on account of injustice having been done to something better. It's like it's deemed worse to kill a gorilla than a baboon or to kill a giraffe than a gazelle.

So, what we now call Identity Politics is essentially Idolatry Politics. We don't have mass parades in favor of Palestinians where everyone shows up and waves the BDS flag. But we do have 'Pride' Parades where peoples of all colors sing homosannas to fruits and trannies draped in 'rainbow' colors. Of course, Jews want it this way because an Identity Politics where all groups have equal worth — or where all non-white groups have equal worth — would be threatening to their Zionist-globalist supremacist agenda. Indeed, what would happen to Jewish Power if Americans were to give equal hearing to Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians as to Israelis and their Jewish-American enablers? Also, so many groups around the world have had unpleasant experience with Jews, be they blacks in South Africa or the peoples of Latin America. And European History wasn't only of Antisemitism but Jewish chicaneries, some of which came to do great harm. This is why Jews are wary of all-out Identity Politics. It's like Ben Shapiro denounces it because it means groups such as Palestinian-Americans can have their day in the sun as a victim group as well.

As far as Jews are concerned, the only kind of Identity Politics that is acceptable is an Idolatrous one where Jews get to decide the who/whom. So, Jewish Identity and Jewish Suffering are special and must serve as the basis of goyim making amends to Jews by doing whatever Jews demand. And Jews have especially chosen homos and blacks as fellow Idolatrous Groups, not only because both are highly profitable to Jewish industries in fashion & entertainment but because blacks can be used to bait 'white guilt' and homo-celebration can be used to replace Christianity with Queertianity. (Deep in their hearts, Jews still regard Jesus and Paul as renegade Jews, and there is no 'hate symbol' more 'triggering' to Jews than the Christian Crucifix. Of course, as the West was overwhelmingly Christian for over a millennia, Jews couldn't say that outright, but their big dream was always to destroy Christianity and banish the Crucifix. They tried this by destroying churches in the USSR, but it didn't work, and so they are now working to spiritually corrupt Christianity with Anno Sodomini and worship of Magic Negro or Fentanyl Floyd.)

There can be no true justice or impartial justice with idolatry, which is a cheap form of theology. Idolatry may not be deep, but like religion, it is about blind or mindless worship/faith. As such, US justice system is essentially theocratic or 'idolocratic'. Just like religious folks cannot question, blame, or condemn God or gods(no matter what), the idolocratic US cannot condemn sacred Jews and holy blacks(and homos) no matter what they do. The ONLY time Jews, blacks, and homos come under fire is when they insult or attack one another. So, Donald Sterling the Jewish oligarch had to be denounced because he said unkind things about blacks. So, Nick Cannon has to be bitch-slapped back into 'sense' for having said nasty stuff about Jews — never mind what he said about whites. It's perfectly okay for Jews to insult, defame, and smear whites. It's okay for blacks to denounce whites as the devil. No matter how much abuse is heaped on them, whites must keep their mouths shut, do nothing as their symbols & monuments are vandalized by mobs or removed by the establishment, take the knee, and cuck out. Or, whites can go into brainwashed Janissary mode like Antifa goons or the likes of John Bolton & Dan Crenshaw and join with Jews against the Culture War on whites and nationalism. How can true justice operate in such a world?

The fate of Arabs and Muslims in the current order is a sure sign that Idolatry Politics has rendered Justice into a tool of special groups, namely Jews, blacks, and homos. BLM means black lives are precious, white lives are not. And, it's always who/whom. When blacks kill blacks, never mind. As blacks are special, they may kill other blacks, just like gods may fight gods. But how dare these inferior low-life white mortals dare to kill a black god like Fentanyl Floyd or Gentle Giant Michael Brown? Blacks have been robbing, raping, assaulting, and murdering whites in alarming numbers since the 1960s, but who cares? The god-race may attack the mortal-race. Gods are deemed immortal, and blackness has been immortalized in the sense that the black tragedy of American Slavery has been essentialized to apply to all black folks and all of black history. (Also, electronic recording means that all future generations of whites get to worship Otis Redding and Bob Marley as immortal gods of pop culture.) After all, the so-called 1619 project applies even to black African immigrants, the descendants of blacks who captured and sold slaves. So, all of blackness from time immemorial to all the future is to be defined by tragic suffering at the hands of whites. So, never mind Bantu genocides against other Africans. Never mind Zulu atrocities. Never mind the likes of Idi Amin and all those nasty black thugs in the US and elsewhere. All of blackness through the eons is now about 'muh slavery' and ennoblement by suffering under white 'racism'. 100,000 yrs of blackness is to center around 200 yrs of slavery in America. And Jews have done the same with 'muh Holocaust'. All of Jewish Identity and History are to be associated with that tragedy. It's as if all of Jewish-Gentile history led up to that point and all of Jewish-Gentile future must revolve around that memory that condemns whites while consecrating Jews. So, it doesn't matter if Jewish history is full of bad Jewish behavior and if Jews do terrible things now or in the future. Jewish Identity has achieved Moral Immortality via the Holocaust Cult. Of course, in practice, Moral Immortality can only be a monstrous immorality as it's downright demented for any human group to act like they're eternally hallowed and sacred, thus above the rules that apply to other groups.

What does Moral Immortality for blacks and Jews mean in practice? Consider the fate of Muslims and Arabs. There was the photograph of the Muslim man whose business was destroyed in the aftermath of the Ferguson riots. He'd done no wrong. He was strong-armed and robbed by Michael Brown, and later big bully Brown attacked a police officer and got killed in the altercation. But the ONLY narrative that mattered was 'black lives matter' or Negrolatry. The livelihoods or the lives of Muslim businessmen didn't matter at all. The Jewish Media pushed Idolatry Politics of blacks uber Muslims. And one wonders how many Muslim businesses were destroyed this time around following the death of Fentanyl Floyd? To the New American Mind, only Jews, blacks, and homos have starring roles as the good guys while whites have the starring roles as villains. All other groups have supporting roles(at best) or exist only as blurry extras in the background. In movies, we don't care how many people get killed as long as the main characters survive. In INDEPENDENCE DAY, who cares if the entire city blows up as long as the key characters are alive and well and get all the glory?
I'm assuming many more Muslims had their lives ruined as the result of riots following the death of Fentanyl Floyd, but no one cares. So, blacks have a righteous right to riot, burn, loot, and attack people. Their lives(and lusts) matter, but others don't matter. This proves the utter hollowness of all this 'liberal' yammering about Diversity and Equality. Not only are immigrant groups being slated to pay the bulk of 'reparations' to blacks but all these 'nice white liberals' show no sympathy for people such as Muslims who were attacked by black violence.

But it is even worse with Jewish Power and its use of Mass Murder Inc, aka the US military. When Neocons smeared the 'Arabists', what were they really attacking? An American policy of blindly favoring Arabs over Jews? No, so-called 'Arabists' were calling for a more fair and balanced approach to the Middle East by considering Arab/Muslim interests as well as those of Zionists. If anything, your average 'Arabist' was nevertheless more pro-Zionist than pro-Arab. Still, he wasn't 100% pro-Zionist and willing to lend an ear to the other side, especially in service to American Interests. But, that wasn't good enough for Jews, for whom it had to be 100% pro-Jewish and the hell with Arab/Muslim interests. In other words, US foreign policy must be totally JEWIST, but of course, all the cuck-shills of Zion aren't called that. Idolatry Politics means Jews are special, wonderful, and oh-so-admirable in every way. Jews being so great, how can anyone oppose any Jewish demand?
So, whatever the problem or consequence, the US must always favor Jews EVEN IF these policies lead to wanton destruction of countless Arab/Muslim lives. Jewish Lives Matter, Arab Lives Don't. Jews can wipe out Palestine off the map, but never mind, and Long Live Israel. Instead, focus on paranoid fantasies of how Iran is going to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Israel ignores international standards and has 300 nukes with stolen technology and material from the US while Iran has no nukes and has caved to every international demand. But never mind. Shower Israel with billions in aid while starving Iran and subverting its economy, making millions suffer. And if Jews cheer on Saudi Arabia's genocidal war on Yemen on grounds that it's good for Jews and bad for Iran, that's great too. And even though Mossad is carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran(and aiding the most demented terrorists in Syria), ignore all that and just accuse Iran of being the #1 terrorist nation, as worthless Donald Trump does all the time as the pathetic dog of Zion.
So-called 'liberals' are so into idolatry(of Jews, blacks, and homos) that they are incapable of fair-mindedness. And for all their bleating about injustice, they are such craven cowards who dare not offend Jews lest they lose their precious jobs in elite institutions and industries. As for 'conservatives', their hierarchical mindset means they will kneel before whomever has the most power and privilege. Whether it's Sean Hannity praising Amazon or Rich Lowry cucking before his Jewish donors, 'conservatives' are following in the grand tradition of sucking up to the royal court. As for some others on the right, cheering for White Jews over Brown Arabs is a subliminal way of White Pride. It's ironic of course. Jews prohibit white identity and white agency, but Jews wink-wink urge white rightists to cheer for white Jews and Israel(as outpost of Western Civilization) against those Sand Ni**ers. If you can't have Apartheid and Jim Crow anymore, you can at least cheer for Jim Crowitz and IDF death squads mowing down those brown women and children. The likes of David French will virtue-signal by denouncing Old America but cheer on Israelis defending the border and shooting women and children in Gaza. A truly surreal case of whites, having had their own 'racism' canceled by Jews, must outsource their 'racist' fantasies to 'white' Jews who, being Moral Immortals, have the license to mow down brown people in the old ways of colonialist-imperialist wars.

Moral Immortality means Jews and blacks get to loot the world. Jews, being smart, used financial trickery to rape the Russian economy. Jewish banksters in Wall Street got massive bailouts and grew even richer during the Great Recession at the expense of Main Street. Ever more billions are poured into the coffers of Israel while coffins multiply in the Muslim World. The likes of Paul Singer and George Soros can loot entire nations.
Blacks, being stupid and childish, loot in the savage-barbarian way of smashing windows and running off with the goods. And beating up or shooting anyone in their way. Outwardly, blacks seem to do far more damage, but the amount they steal is a pittance compared to cargoes of Jewish Booty. At most, blacks will destroy a part of town. Jewish oligarchs and sharks loot entire economies. Not for nothing was George Soros called 'the man who broke the Bank of England'. But just like most black looters get to walk away scot-free with their loot, Jewish globalist sharks are allowed to keep their ill-gotten loot and look to steal more and more.

But, Jewish Power isn't only about white collar crime. By controlling cuck-politicians of the US, Jewish Power gets to employ Mass Murder Inc, aka US military, to wage Wars for Israel, thus destroying entire nations with invasions, bombings, drone attacks, and blockades. The death tolls abroad from such ventures are far beyond the murder and mayhem committed by blacks. But what do Jews and blacks care? Even when they are caught doing bad stuff, they usually get a slap on the wrist or get pardoned. Most black looters will walk free, and so many bad Jews are never investigated, and even those who get convicted serve in minimum-security prisons or get pardoned. Such is justice in Idolocratic America. Justice follows the theocratic mode of worshipful attitudes toward certain groups who can almost never do wrong even when they do wrong, whereas certain other groups, especially whites, Palestinians, Russians, and Iranians, are always deemed wrong even when they do right. But what would be right-and-wrong in a world of 'gay marriage' and 'trannies are women' logic that has inverted all sense of reality?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/UZaI1ZqikkNH/