“Revolution devours its own children” doesn’t apply here. It would if Jews were destroying other Jews in a mad frenzy of purity spirals. But Jewish Power, both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, tend to remain united through thick and thin. The Tribe remains intact. In this case, Jews all across the ideological spectrum closed ranks to denounce an uppity Negress who dared to point out that Jewish Power historically operated at elite ranks of society. The Holocaust wasn't about powerful white Germans oppressing weak Jewish whites but about powerful German whites versus powerful Jewish whites. But Jews are invested in portraying themselves as victims, all the better to justify their immense power and supremacist grip on the West, thereby the Rest as well. So, it's hardly surprising that virtually all Jews joined in solidarity to dump on Whoopie.
Indeed, it’s been the case that Jews generally don’t destroy other Jews(with some notable exceptions like Norman Finkelstein and David Cole). Jews stick together. In contrast, goyim tend to devour fellow goyim in radical times. Why? Because whereas Jews put identity before ideology, goyim(generally possessing weaker identities) tend to put ideology first and foremost, thereby getting sucked into purity spirals. So, Russian communists destroyed so many fellow Russians. Chinese communists destroyed so many fellow Chinese. In contrast, Zionism was the Jewish Left and Jewish Right united by identity over ideology. Jews are smarter that way. Also, Jewish communists were less likely to be outright murderous toward Jewish capitalists and vice versa.
Specifically, Goldberg, who is no critic of Jews or Israel and is as willing to submit to proskynesis before Zionist force majeure as anyone in the entertainment industry, said “Let’s be truthful, the Holocaust isn’t about race, it’s not. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man, that’s what it’s about. These are two groups of white people.”
Goldberg’s statement makes sense within the more recent American context where all peoples of European descent, including European-Jewish, have been categorized as ‘white’. After all, Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, Greek-Americans, and etc. all simply became ‘white’. And Jews counted as ‘white’ too, though with special exemptions(like the burden of 'white guilt'). So, Whoopie’s American-centric view failed to appreciate the significance of ethnicity in the Old World. Ethnic distinctions also mattered in the American Past, but most peoples of European origin just melded into ‘whiteness’, just like black Africans of various tribal origins simply became 'black', which also includes mulattos.
Of course, this poses problems of its own. For example, it means even white Americans of Polish origin with no history of colonizing Africa, practicing the Atlantic Slave Trade, and owing slaves in the South — if anything, Jews were more involved in that — must bear the burden of ‘white guilt’. Also, there's no sense of Poland's history of oppression under Russians and Germans. Or, you could be of Lithuanian origin, but there's no special regard for Lithuanian tragedy in the great wars and under Soviet domination — most Lithuanians, like many Europeans, had a far more difficult time in the 20th century than most blacks in America. The moment any Lithuanian's foot sets down in the US, he too counts as 'white' (in the American sense of the term) and is associated with 'white privilege'. You could be a recent immigrant from Romania, and you too would be stained with ‘white guilt’ despite having no roots in America. In contrast, you could be an African immigrant whose ancestors actually captured and sold black slaves to white slave ships, but your blackness automatically becomes associated with cotton gins, Jim Crow, and Civil Rights Movement. So, your identity is aglow with special consideration merely for being black and instantly showered with all sorts of Affirmative Action advantages. THAT is the real idiocy of racial politics in the US. Recently arrived black Africans whose ancestors massively profited from the slave trade are lumped into the Black American Narrative, and white ethnic groups(with tragic horror stories of their own) who arrived post-Civil-War and had nothing to do with the oppression of black Americans are lumped in with America's 'racist' past. And it's almost always about blacks. Take Scandinavian-Americans in Minnesota who, if they have some blood on their hands, played a role in the expulsion of the American Indians. One thing for sure, they had nothing to do with black American history, yet, their primary moral responsibility is toward blacks, much like the people of Sweden have been goaded into playing savior for all of Africa, even at the risk of losing their native land to migrant-invaders.
At any rate, as Whoopie is ignorant of European History, her 'provincial' black-American mind lumps all peoples of European origin into the generic category of ‘white’. She’s unaware of the powerful ethnic hatreds and resentments throughout European History, which ebbed since the end of WWII but flared up in fracturing Yugoslavia of the 90s. Worse, ethnic hostilities have recently been stoked in Ukraine, pitting one bunch of Slavs against another. Jewish-controlled US that controls EU made it fashionable for Western globalists to hate Russians(and Hungarians) for rejecting the cult of Globo-Homo and for reinvigorating traditionalism and ethno-preservation.
In a way, the deracinated ‘deracists’ are now the most hostile people in the West toward other whites. ‘Deracist’ whites in the US hate white patriots(deemed as 'racist') for having retained or revived some semblance of ethnic or racial identity and pride, and ‘deracist’ whites in Europe hate nationalist whites who regard mass immigration and great replacement as existential challenges.
Of course, deracination or ‘deracism’ is really a tool of Jewish Supremacism as it's directed at goy whites, not at Jews. Though white dummies or whummies take it to heart as virtue, most Jews are careful not to drink the 'deracist' kool-aid themselves. After all, even as white ethnic identity has been shamed and subverted, Jewish identity has only been further emboldened. But then, Jews will opportunistically encourage ultra-ethnic politics among goyim IF it can be directed against another bunch of goyim on the shit-list of Jewish Power. So, even as Jews denounce moderate Hungarian nationalism, they fan the flames of ultra-right nationalism in Western Ukraine against the Russian population in Eastern Ukraine. It's also why Jews, who generally deride goy nationalism, support Kurdish nationalism as it is useful against Arab, Persian, and Turkish rivals of Israel. There is no principle to Jewish Power. It’s always a matter of “Is it good for Jewish Power?”
While the Shoah was clearly about man’s inhumanity to man, it was also an extreme reaction to Jewish inhumanity to goyim. If Jewish behavior hadn’t been so excessive, would the National Socialists have come to power in Germany? No, one-third of Germans bit the bullet and voted for National Socialism in 1933 because they just about had had enough with bad Jewish behavior. (Some may argue George Soros and his ilk act destructively toward the West to avenge their fallen tribesmen in the Holocaust, but many Jews acted the same way BEFORE World War II, which is what paved the way for men like Hitler in the first place. Furthermore, Jews act the same way toward non-Western goyim. Soros sure raped the economies of Asia, and Neocon Jews concocted foreign policy to rain down maximum pain upon the Arab World.)
Of course, even those who voted for Hitler didn’t vote for war and genocide. The fact that the Nazis went out of their way to hide the horrors in the killing fields and certain concentration camps is proof that they understood all too well that mass killing was too much even for most ‘anti-semites’. Likewise, the Soviets and their useful idiots denied the Great Famine. Even as millions of Ukrainians perished, the official line was the New Order resulted in bountiful harvests and more food for everyone than before.
That said, both National Socialism and Communism were extreme reactions to real problems. Jewish Power was understandably hated for its exploitative, subversive, parasitic, and supremacist ways. And the appeal of communism owed to real problems of class exploitation under either aristocratism or capitalism.
Still, there were more rational and sensible ways to deal with the problems, as opposed to the radical way, which ends up committing great evil in the name of fighting a great evil. Sadly, when people are driven to the edge, they tend toward extremism. A good lesson would be “don’t drive people to the edge”, but it's a lesson self-aggrandizing Jews never seem to learn as, time and time again, they're hellbent on driving goyim to the edge once again, whereupon goyim can submit and fall into the abyss and take the last stand with zealous fury. It must be said rational, moderate, and sensible opportunities were often lost in addressing the Jewish Question/Problem because Jews refused to meet the other side halfway. If one side does wrong and infuriates other sides, it's usually helpful if the former acknowledges accountability at least in part. Then, a series of negotiations can take place where lessons are learned and the problem is settled more or less. But when Jews refuse to admit any wrong and are utterly intolerant of any criticism of Jewish abuses, the wronged party may conclude there is no rational, moderate, or sensible option when dealing with Jews. It becomes a zero-sum game of Jews win and take all OR goyim win and take all. The radical will of Jews had a way of radicalizing the other side. Will Jews ever admit that German radicalism under National Socialism owed in part to utter lack of Jewish accountability in regard to the woes of Weimar Germany and Bolshevik conflagration in the East? If anything, Jewish sense of moral culpability has grown only worse following World War II. Full of themselves as the Holy Holocaust People, their every abuse is laundered as a righteous expression of "Never Again".
So, there's no discussion of the murderous Jewish role in communism. Jews whine about Joe McCarthy and HUAC but ignore Jewish role in Soviet espionage. Jews pushed a total lie about USS Liberty and never came clean. They pull every trick in the book to get the worst Jewish crooks pardoned by puppet-presidents. Jonathan Pollard for one is sitting warm and cozy in Israel giving a big fat middle finger to the US. There's been zero accountability about Nakba and the Neocon Wars that killed so many. Or, what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s, which led to Putin's rise. Jews never admit any wrong and blame everything on 'Russian aggression'. No Neocon Zionist, whose foreign policy proposals have turned out to be disastrous, has paid a professional price or expressed any contrition. If anything, they've been placed in elite positions in the media to spread more lies in service to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews act this way, even those who desire a moderate, sensible, and rational solution to the Jewish Problem is pushed to extremes because Jews themselves are extreme. If someone burns your house down and admits no guilt(and if anything sends you the medical bill for the burns he suffered while torching your house), the chances are you're going to become 'anti-semitic' and counter-extreme against the vile extremism of the Jew.
The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it assumes that Jews were wholly innocent pure-as-snow angels but set upon by crazed Anti-Semites for no reason at all. This is utter BS, rather like arguing Japan and Germany were smashed in WWII just for the hell of it.
If another Jewish Holocaust were to happen now, it’d be a horrible crime, BUT once again, it would have been an extreme reaction to vile and obnoxious behavior by Jewish Power: financial shenanigans, murderous foreign policy, medical tyranny, political subversion, cultural degeneracy, and etc. One may argue NOTHING justifies genocide, but people driven to the edge tend towards the extreme. It's just part of human nature under duress or in a state of outrage. Take the Morgenthau Plan. Henry Morgenthau the Jew was understandably appalled by Nazi atrocities and wanted revenge on the Germans. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. US went crazy from the war. Palestinian terrorism has been reaction to Jewish Nakba, and Israeli bombings of Gaza are extreme reaction to Palestinian harassment via constant rocket attacks.
In his autobiography, Woody Allen wrote of his sympathy with black rage and commendation for any amount of black violence against whites, however extreme. Blacks have the right to attack whitey. (Predictably, the book was much praised by cucky National Review.) Allen’s moral logic is hardly different from that of antisemitism. If blacks, feeling so terribly aggrieved, are justified in committing extreme violence on whites(even indiscriminately), then one could argue Germans and their collaborators felt similarly justified in their anti-Jewish violence in reaction to Jewish perfidy.
The lesson of the Shoah should not only have been “genocide(especially of Jews) is a great evil” but “try not to act in a manner that stirs up great hatred against your kind.” The tragedy of the Holocaust Narrative is it taught one lesson at the expense of the other instead of emphasizing both. Paradoxically, it has effectively turned Jews and their cuck-collaborators into the New Nazis as the Holocaust Narrative unwittingly(or maybe wittingly) became synonymous with Jewish Supremacy. If Jewish-Gentile History is about totally innocent Jews being set upon by totally loathsome goyim, it means Jews are innately noble and therefore could never have done wrong, which further indicates that any anti-Jewish expression or action among goyim must ENTIRELY be their fault and never the fault of Jewish attitude or behavior. The presumption that says Jews can be wronged but can never do wrong is essentially supremacist because it stems from the conceit of Jewish moral perfectionism, as if every Jew is a little jesus.
Such outlook can only further Jewish arrogance and supremacism. After all, Jews would feel that they, as a race of Anne Franks, must always be right while those at odds with their identity or interests must be 'anti-semitic' reprobate scum. Then, is it any wonder that Jewish Power in the 21st century has waged wars that have led to the deaths of so many? Jews, being a race of Anne Franks, feel they have the license to judge, sentence, and kill, and it's the way things should be because Jews are never do wrong and can only be wronged.
Palestinians sure know how this game works. Jews can encroach ever more into remaining Palestinian territory, but Jews have the total support of US and EU under the spell of Anne-Frankism. As for Palestinians, they are a bunch of ‘terrorists’ and ‘anti-semites’ for resisting Jewish occupation and colonization.
And in the US, Jews, as the Perfect Race, can wage endless wars on whites and whiteness. As Jews are deemed to be morally perfect, their murderous hatred toward whites not only gets a pass but underpins the national narrative and curriculum as a 'moral' imperative. Jewish supremacist contempt is deemed as 'justice', whereas white desire for identity and heritage are condemned as 'far right' hatred. But if you call out on Jewish hatred against your kind, YOU are an ‘anti-semite’ who deserves to be dehumanized and destroyed.
The Holocaust Narrative would have done real good if the lesson were, “Jews must act better because bad behavior can lead to the rise of demagogues like Hitler.” Instead, Jewish Power led Anne-Frank-worshiping goyim to concur that Jews have always innocent(and right and noble), and all tensions between Jews and goyim had entirely been the fault of the latter. But without criticism, bad Jewish behavior only becomes worse. And today, it is utterly rotten. Who would have thought US foreign policy would come to be dictated by harridans like Victoria Nuland and US domestic policy would be directed by lawfare gangstoids like Merrick Garland who pushes anti-white CRT down the throats of white school children?
“The Holocaust was about the Nazi’s systemic annihilation of the Jewish people — who they deemed to be an inferior race. They dehumanized them and used their racist propaganda to justify slaughtering 6 million Jews. Holocaust distortion is dangerous.”
While it’s true that Nazism was rife with contempt and hatred for the Jewish People, there was also fear and anxiety about Jewish superiority. While Nazis were loathe to admit Jewish superiority in anything, they had genuine trepidations about predatory Jewish Power. Germans had a strong dose of Jewish Craziness in the Weimar Period. Germans learned of what Jewish Bolsheviks had done in Russia. Also, Germans hated the fact that World Jewry gained considerable influence over Anglosphere and steered its peoples toward intense animus toward Germans, their racial cousins. Also, speaking of racial supremacy, Anglo World was hardly different from the German one, and World Jewry worked hand-in-glove with Anglo global supremacism to penetrate all corners for the world for control and exploitation.
Nazis most likely wouldn’t have pushed for outright genocide IF World Jewry hadn’t declared war on Germany. Indeed, the preferred policy was mass expulsion than mass extermination. But as Jewish Power had used its influence to turn Anglo World against Germany and as German war efforts seemed doomed in Russia, Nazis decided to pull all stops in their war on Jewry as revenge and last chance at 'victory'. Fated for defeat, Germans would take down as many Jews as possible with them, a kind of Nazi Samson Option. (Jewish mentality isn't all that different. Israel has hundreds of nukes and is dedicated to nuking all of Europe if Israel were to fall, EVEN IF Europeans didn't cause the fall. The way Jews see it, whites exist to serve Jews and ensure the survival of Zion. So, if whites fail in this, Jews should wipe out as many whites as possible as Israel falls, presumably to Arabs/Muslims.) Same happened in Rwanda where the genocide got especially heated it seemed Hutus would be defeated by the Tutsis. Kill as many Tutsis before the Tutsis wipe the floor with the Hutus.
Little Marco denounced “upscale liberals who control the media” in a tweet and was immediately attacked for “the anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the media,” which of course they do, but an ardently pro-Israel Rubio surely was not suggesting anything like that.
If the perception of “Jews control the media” is ‘antisemitic’ and if Jews do indeed control the media, isn’t Jewish Behavior ‘antisemitic’ as it fulfills an ‘antisemitic trope’? If “Jews controlling the media” is antisemitic, then Jews should relinquish their control of the media because it’d be ‘antisemitic’ for Jews to control the media.
It’s like, if the statement “Italians are prominent in organized crime” is anti-Italian, then Italians are ‘anti-Italian’ because they are indeed disproportionately involved in organized crime, thereby fueling an 'anti-Italian trope'. But then, none of this is about truth or principles. It’s about power. Jews got the power and decide what we can and can’t say. That’s about it.
(Sarah) Silverman has been on a roll complaining about the paucity of “Jewfaces” displayed playing obviously Jewish characters on television or in movies…. she is particularly incensed that a non-Jewish woman Helen Mirren is playing Golda Meir in an upcoming movie. Silverman is enraged that anyone but a Jew should be cast in roles “in which Jewishness is an inherent and substantive component.”
Her outrage is fake, and she knows it. She’s feigning outrage to portray the Jews as poor little victims. She knows Hollywood has been Jewish-controlled and that goyim have often been cast as Jews for pro-Jewish reasons. One reason is ‘Aryan’ types are deemed more attractive. It was more glamorous to have Charlton Heston play Moses and Ben-Hur. Indeed, even big Jewish stars often looked rather ‘Aryan-ish’, like Kirk Douglas, or was half-‘Aryan’, like Paul Newman.
Jews figured their public image would be improved by Aryan-types playing Jews. If Jewish characters look more Aryan, goy whites are more likely to identify with the Jews. Like Aidan Quinn as a Jew in Barry Levinson's AVALON. Ingrid Bergman played Golda Meir in an earlier TV show. Jews worry that Jewish characters played by very-Jewish-looking characters will elicit less sympathy and identification on the part of goyim. So, goy-playing-Jew, far from being a marginalization of Jews, has been a calculated move to make Jewishness more attractive and palatable to goyim. Silverman surely knows this, and so her complaint is full of shit. Take the film JULIA directed by Fred Zinnemann based on the life of Lilian Hellman. Hellman wasn’t an attractive woman, and guess who played her? Jane Fonda. But this decision was made by Jews, not by goyim. But will Silverman blame the Jews? Of course not. The vile Jewess only seeks to create the impression that poor little Jews are being denied roles in Hollywood because of… ‘anti-semitic discrimination’. ROTFL. Never mind the only roles that Arabs got from Hollywood were as subhuman terrorists.
Director Tony Kaye’s anti-skinhead morality tale American History X (1998) is proof that propaganda is far from an exact science. Just as Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket caused a surge in Marine recruitment, American History X actually increases audience sympathies with neo-Nazi skinheads, despite its best efforts to present them as hateful hypocrites and losers.
Art or entertainment takes on a life of its own. Especially in cinema, the visceral elements often override the cautionary tale. This is no less true of art as of propaganda. Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS is a work of art, so revealing about the world of Italian-American hoodlums, but the riveting style and wall-to-wall music make it a thrilling experience. Tommy(Joe Pesci), though clearly a loathsome psychopath, is colorful and entertaining. Even as we reject Henry Hill's worldview about 'wiseguys' who live it up and the suckers who work 9 to 5, we can't help reveling in the sheer audacity of the criminal world. John Boorman critiqued this aspect of the film and made a corrective with b/w THE GENERAL that features relatively dour Irish goons. Art can make the 'bad guys' sympathetic or even 'cool'. Entertainment even more so. Audiences LOVED to hate the Terminator(a 'bad boy' as a well as a bad guy), who was made into the 'good guy' in the sequel. Hannibal Lecter the sociopathic killer is admired for his taste & class(unlike the crude and gross 'Buffalo Bill') and superhuman brilliance(which makes him to humans what humans are to sheep).
DOWNFALL is a work of art, and it features the Nazis facing doom as all-too-human characters not without qualities of honor and courage.
The audience has a dual attitude toward the Bad Guys. On the one hand, the audience roots for the Good against the Bad. The Good represent the viewers' superego. And yet, they are fascinated by the Bad because it represents their Id, their repressed darker nature. So, fiction narratives serve as a kind of psycho-therapy where the audience is allowed to indulge in their dark fantasies(via the bad guys) but have them snuffed out by the forces of light(the good guys). Have the cake and eat it too. Alfred Hitchcock understood this aspect of art/entertainment, especially in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where the villain is detestable but also irresistible in his unrestrained egotism. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants.
It poses a question as to the true nature of the Good. Is it an innate glow within every soul allowed to radiate or simply a matter of repressing the darkness in every heart? Some believe men are innately good but corrupted by society, whereas others believe men are innately bad(or beastly or animal) and, therefore, what we call 'goodness' is really a matter of repressing and regulating the worse devils of our nature — keeping the birds in the cage because, otherwise, the scenario in Hitchcock's THE BIRDS. Judaism and Christianity say man is tainted with the Original Sin, and goodness is a constant struggle in devotion to the Torah(Judaism) or acceptance of Jesus as the final arbiter and savior.
At any rate, it's misguided to see AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda. It's better to see it as failed art. If Tony Kaye simply wanted to make a piece of propaganda, he could have gone the route of Alan Parker with MISSISSIPPI BURNING or made something like FRIED GREEN TOMATOES where blacks are aglow with sanctity whereas Southern Whites are mostly semi-neanderthal rednecks. So easy to do. Or, consider all those anti-Muslim movies where Arabs are little more than screaming terrorists who blow things up along with themselves. Making a propaganda about the evils of skinheads would have been the easiest project, especially as even most members of the White Right consider skinheads to be demented morons. (Are skinheads even around any more?) Tony Kaye certainly fancied himself as something more than an entertainer or propagandist. He wanted to rise above the business of advertising(that made his name) and be renowned as an ARTIST, and art has to seek and reveal the truth. Art is simply more demanding than entertainment or propaganda.
Entertainment is usually about sticking to the tried-and-true formula that pleases the audience. Propaganda is about pushing a certain dogma, agenda, or worldview regardless of truth. It's more about faith or interests. Catholic Church pushes pro-Catholic propaganda, corporations push advertising(commercial propaganda) to make profits(though, of late, the PC 'woke' types use ads to push the idolatry of globo-homo and ideology of diversity regardless of their commercial value). In contrast, art calls for an inner struggle. It's like there are two meanings to Jihad. One is a physical war against the infidel. It is Islam as war propaganda. But there is another meaning, a wrestling with one's own soul and conscience to arrive at the higher/deeper truth. A writer or filmmaker working as propagandist merely needs to push his favored agenda/ideology or that of his employer. He's either an activist or hired hand. His main objective is to win the game than to know the truth.
So, if Tony Kaye merely wanted to make a piece of anti-white propaganda, it would have been easy. But Kaye most certainly wanted to work in the mode of an artist, and this pushed him to probe deeper and look further; he chose to consider angles he could easily have avoided as a mere propagandist. It's like Oliver Stone's egotism as an artist has fueled some remarkable works or, at least, remarkable moments. He was never an admirer of Richard Nixon, but he produced an empathetic portrait of the man that only an artist could have delivered. Stone has pro-black sympathies but was artist enough to show the ugly side of black behavior in PLATOON and especially in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY where the VA hospital run by blacks is a hell hole. He came to sympathize with the communists in the Vietnam War, but he showed how the Viet Cong could also be brutal and atrocious in HEAVEN AND EARTH.
Oliver Stone is perfectly capable of being a propagandist, as with the insane JFK, a work so over-the-top and contradictory — a paranoid fantasy made with Capraesque earnestness — that it amounted to little more than tabloid-cinema. Sometimes, Stone couldn't make up his mind whether he was an entertainer/sensationalist or artist/investigator. This was especially true of WALL STREET, supposedly a condemnation of Greed but, to any honest observer, a celebration of unfettered egotism. Who cares about Martin Sheen's wooden symbol of the Honest Working Man when Gordon Gekko steals the show from beginning to end? A work about financial fraud that comes closer to art is Scorsese's THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, though its over-the-top comical tone results in something closer to Animal House + Stock Market. Unlike GOODFELLAS that perfectly set the knob between the alluring and the appalling, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET mostly works as an amusement park for vice. (Also, it is dishonest in de-emphasizing the Jewish aspect of the gang of thieves, indeed far more egregious than the pimp not being black in TAXI DRIVER. It just goes to show, even those committed to art must tiptoe around certain matters in any given order with its sacred cows and taboos. It's been said many artistic-inclined Chinese film-makers chose to make works about the hinterland or non-Han ethnicities due to fewer taboos associated with such subjects. HORSE THIEF is a prime example.) A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is another film where the sheer visceral elements overwhelm the theme. For many viewers, Alex was more like a rock star than lowlife punk, and not surprisingly, Mick Jagger was considered for the role.
Now, the cult of the artist spans from conviction to conceit. Because the artist gets more respect than there mere entertainer or propagandist, many in the business strive to be one, if only for vanity-sake. There's more money in entertainment, but your average film-maker would rather be a Kubrick(or even a Tarantino) than a Michael Bay. Ambition says, it's all about the 'motherfuc*ing money', but vanity says it's about respect, and artists(or at least 'auteurs' like Hitchcock) own the veneration.
No wonder Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg aspired to make 'serious' works as well. Allen wanted to be more than a clown or comic. And for all his movie-making magic as entertainer, Spielberg wanted to be the next David Lean(though some would question Lean's credentials as an artist). But then, is the desire to be an artist a matter of virtue or a matter of vanity? Art comes naturally to some people. Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni were no fakers. Scorsese was born to be an artist. Even as a young man devoted to Catholicism, he wanted more than the official dogma. He had to find his own truth and meaning about God and goodness through through the Mean Streets of life. In contrast, Spielberg was a born entertainer. From a young age, he loved fantasy and escapism, and this accounts as to why even his serious works go only so far. Even when Spielberg dons adult glasses, his heart beats with the rhythms of a child. SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are artful in their brutal depiction of history but almost childlike in their moralism and sentimentality. It's like watching MR. SCHINDLER GOES TO WASHINGTON and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS FIGHT THE NAZIS. The violence in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is powerfully authentic and infinitely more brutal than anything featured in the works of John Ford or Sam Fuller, but the emotions are from Norman Rockwell and the Muppet Movie.
There are some people with genuine artistic souls but have an allergy to honesty, or openness. David Mamet is such an artist. He is obsessed with Jewishness but worried about giving the game away with too candid an approach. David Cronenberg is in equal parts natural entertainer and natural artist, but his artistic side shares the same neurosis as Mamet's. He too is obsessively Jewish-centrist but worried that goyim might get the 'wrong idea' if he shows too much. And yet, they turned this limitation into an advantage. They ply their art as games in which the audience must actively participate. Thus, their films are more engaging and provocative. Also, there is plausible deniability as the truth is pieced together by the audience. Mamet and Cronenberg can say the audience came to such-and-such conclusion on their own. In a way, Mamet and Cronenberg are less dishonest than cryptic. Instead of telling lies, they play hide-and-seek, also true to a lesser extent with Stanley Kubrick, especially with THE SHINING. Indeed, one might argue that it is this very hide-and-seek game of clues-about-Jews that make their works more rewarding.
Then, there are fakers posing as artists, and Aaron Sorkin really takes the cake. He has talent, a knack for elevated hackwork. But Sorkin's 'art' is all surface and no substance. His talent is for dressing up propaganda with the look of 'truth', rather like those people who turn plastic into items on the menu. It looks like food but is for the eyes, not the stomach. SOCIAL NETWORK has the look of a serious work about Mark Zuckerberg but is nothing but an apologia for Jewish Power. MARGIN CALL and THE BIG SHORT are similarly phony baloney, 'serious' works for unserious people. Upon closer inspection, they are essentially Jews blaming everyone else for the mess in which they played a prominent role.
On the evidence of AMERICAN HISTORY X, Kaye doesn't seem the out-and-out faker like the Sorkins of the world. Sorkin is actually worse than a honest propagandist who, at the very least, doesn't hide what he's doing. Sorkin, a tribal propagandist in artist's clothing, is a real slimeball who doesn't even have the conceit of an artist. Sorkin operates like Neil Simon in pretense of being another Mamet. He's just a con-man. In contrast, Kaye, though clearly lacking the true conviction of an artist(like Scorsese, Shohei Imamura, Jan Troell, Emir Kusturica, etc.), at the minimum exhibited the conceit of an artist, and that conceit drags him to uncomfortable truths in AMERICAN HISTORY X. Glorifying himself as an artist than mere entertainer or propagandist, Kaye didn't want to fall back on tired PC cliches about 'racism' and skinheads. (Also, it was clever as self-promotion because an overly simplistic movie would have been less controversial, thus less a topic of discussion.) Kaye wanted to show that he at least tried to understand, even empathize. As an artist, he felt an obligation to see the world through eyes of those he loathes. After all, there is good in everyone, and the world isn't made up of angels and demons.
Furthermore, he might have felt that the film would be more convincing and moving if it showed a character struggling to break out of his comfort zone. After all, it's natural for a man in a desert to look for water. He wants to find an oasis. Derek(Edward Norton) feels at home with his skinhead neo-nazi crew. There is a sense of place, a sense of belonging. In a way, they are more his family than his mother is. And yet, Derek must rise above that to attain a higher grace. It's like the final segment of THE LAST TEMPATION OF CHRIST. Jesus on the cross is in a hell of pain and suffering. An 'angel' arrives and offers him respite and relief. Jesus doesn't have to suffer and sacrifice himself for mankind that taunts and jeers at him. He can be a normal Jew with wife and family with a sense of belonging. And yet, at the end, Jesus rejects all that and seeks pain on the cross.
Likewise, for AMERICAN HISTORY X to make sense, one must consider its neo-spiritual element. It is a quasi-christian tale told by a Jew. Derek becomes like a christ-figure who must rise above family and race to stand for the higher truth. Now, why would a Jew do that? Was Kaye the Jew encouraging the deracinating aspect of Christianity on whites? Or, is there a hidden/repressed element within the Jew who dreams for the messiah that can bring an end to the tribal conflicts that have marked Jewish existence from the beginning.
In a way, the white vs black tensions in the L.A. of the film could be a reflection of the Jewish vs Arab/Palestinian conflicts in the Middle East. Many Jews, like neo-nazi skinheads, are totally tribal and territorial. They are Jewzis, and they see the world in terms of us-versus-them and take pride in that. But there is also a side of Jewishness that is deeply troubled by this seemingly never-ending conflict stemming from Jewishness's us-vs-them worldview. Despite all their wealth and power, Jews are outnumbered, and for how long can they carry on with these tribal wars and dirty tricks? On the one hand, Jews hate Jesus as the great traitor. But on the other hand, Jews can't help feeling that they missed the one great opportunity where Jews and Gentiles could have become one people through salvation offered by Jesus. (The second opportunity was with communism that sought to erase distinctions between Jews and gentiles, as among the classes, but in the end, capitalism won out, and rich Jews chose Zionism uber alles.) In a way, the neo-nazi skinheads in the movie represent the worst nightmare of the Jews, but in another way, they could be metaphors for Jews, the much vilified and hated minority. Indeed, Derek sounds more like a white Zionist than a white nazi at times.
Another thing. AMERICAN HISTORY X offered a convenient way for Jews to express their own angers and doubts about blacks. Because of the political/symbolic alliance between Jews and blacks, most Jews toned down their real feelings about black problems. But many Jews have known all along about the blacks. Howard Stern, the Id of the Jewish Community, spoke of how black thugs attacked Jews. From the 1960s to the early 90s, many Jews were victimized by black crime or just plain loutish behavior. Crown Heights mayhem was fresh in the memory of Jews when the movie was made. And the L.A. riots dampened the mood of the new decade. In the 90s, Al Sharpton was still strutting around and howling about 'diamond merchants', and Louis Farrakhan had his Million Man March. Also, many Jews felt blacks were ingrates, and of course, many blacks felt exploited by rich Jews.
But because of the political alliance, Jews couldn't express their anger about blacks as Jews. So, why not make a movie like AMERICAN HISTORY X that offers a no-holds-barred depiction of blacks as the thugs, louts, hoodlums, and punks that they be? But as the movie is about white skinheads vs blacks, these possibly 'racist' views would be white than Jewish even though Jews shared many of the same fears and loathing about blacks. It's like how Jews used Archie Bunker on ALL IN THE FAMLILY. On the one hand, Bunker was a simple-minded bigot, but then, he also said what was on the minds of older Jews in regards to the boomer generation and the 'shvartzes'. But since goy Bunker said it, Jewish prejudices were laundered as 'white goy' bigotry. This way, Jews could have the cake and eat it too. Air their very Jewish grievances but through goy figures who took the blame. Just like 'privatize the profits, socialize the losses', 'spew Jewish rage, blame goy hate'.
Another black figure who pissed off Jews in the 90s was Spike Lee. While many Jewish critics highly praised DO THE RIGHT THING, others were troubled by such an incendiary film set in a city that seemed to be on the edge. Though DTRT doesn't have Jews, it threatened New York(aka Jew York) with riots and mayhem in the name of black rage. (Black and Jewish relations reached a nadir with Mayor Ed Koch's brazen remarks about black criminals as 'animals'. And there was the matter of Bernie Goetz in the mid-80s and the Central Park assault-rape in 1989, the same year DTRT was released.) No wonder Hollywood went with DRIVING MISS DAISY than DTRT for the Oscars in 1989. Spike Lee didn't improve matters with Jews when he praised Louis Farrakhan and featured Jews as swindlers in MO' BETTER BLUES. In the early 90s, NY Jews had enough of blacks and went with Rudy Giuliani than David Dinkins, the first black mayor of NY.
Indeed, there was a reason why Jewish Power favored globo-homo over black interests over the years. Even the presidency of Obama proved a bigger (ba)boon for the 'gay' community. If anything, Jews cleverly used Obama to mute the black community. With a Negro as president, many blacks thought they were winning when all Obama ever did was bend over to Jews and homos and pushed for more mass immigration. At any rate, as long as Obama was the candidate, black vote was overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, and Jews need not worry. But many black voters stayed home in 2016, and furthermore, Donald Trump was gaining black vote with his anti-immigration-stance and his swagger as the 'first ni**a president'. It was out of this desperation that Jews in 2020 favored BLM over globo-homo to keep blacks reliably on the Democratic side. Another reason why Jews revived black identity politics was out of fear of white populism triggered by Trump and the internet. For Jews, 'America First' and its railings against 'globalism' were code words for 'white people need to break free of Jewish control', and so, Jews decided to ramp up hysteria about 'white supremacism' to suppress white identity and interests. And what better way to attack White Pride than by using the Negro Card because the Narrative have long featured blacks as saintly victims of slavery & Jim Crow and as the Idolatry-Industry have celebrated blacks as top athletes & rappers? But this is now, and things were different then, when AMERICAN HISTORY X was made, a time when many Jews were worried far more about blacks than about whites, most of whom seemed rather restive and apathetic.
Tony Kaye and Spike Lee have one thing in common. The vain desire to be acknowledged as artists(or at least personal 'auteurs'), but when push came to shove, it was more conceit than conviction. DO THE RIGHT THING, for example, has the look and feel of reality but is full of BS on many levels. One scene has every group badmouthing every other group, but in reality, despite all the differences and distrusts among diverse groups, the overwhelming racial tension in NY or any big city is white vs black, brown vs black, yellow vs black, Jewish vs black, Arabs vs black, Hindus vs black, and etc. Even Jews and Arabs get along more peacefully in NY than do Jews with blacks or Arabs with blacks.
As with AMERICAN HISTORY X's empathetic treatment of Derek and skinheads, DTRT shows the human side of the Italian-American pizzeria owner and his sons(though it seems calculated than curious). They are not portrayed as simpleminded goombas or knee-jerk 'racists' and have their own rationales. So, their seemingly jaundiced views aren't entirely without reason, and Lee does show just enough of stupid black behavior to justify the prejudice. But when push comes to shove, Lee is a black tribalist first-and-foremost and sides with Buggin' Out and Radio Raheem when they are clearly the instigators of all that goes wrong. Buggin' Out's complaint that the walls of the pizzeria have pictures of Italian-Americans but no blacks makes about as much sense as a white guy complaining that a black man's rib or chicken joint has pictures of famous black bluesmen and sports stars. And yet, Lee in his interview thinks Buggin' Out has a point, which goes to show the kermitty-the-frog-lookalike-mofo is a real idiot. Lee is no Martin Scorsese. Though Italian-American with a deep feeling for his heritage and community, Scorsese cuts no slack for his kind, nor does he round up the narrative with some pat 'message'. Tony Kaye and Spike Lee do understand what it means to an artist, but it never carries over from conceit to conviction. As such, even as so many gritty details in DTRH and AHX ring true, the over-arching narratives and messages are unconvincing.
Derek is highly intelligent and articulate. He is also a natural leader. With Cameron’s help, he builds up a serious and well-organized skinhead gang.
It's possible that an intelligent man of some talent could be drawn to a movement of such idiocy. People naturally gravitate toward community, and if the only white-conscious one happens to be extreme, what choice is there? Also, it's easy to tower over idiots, which makes Derek's natural leadership qualities even more compelling.
Still, more interesting would be a story about a white-conscious community that isn't extreme or deranged. It's like what Aldous Huxley said in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED: The satire in BRAVE NEW WORLD offered only two extremes, savage authenticity and bogus artificiality with nothing in between. Likewise, movies about white identity tend to offer only two possibilities: 'Anti-racism' and radical racism, as if there's nothing in between. But the example of David Duke shows how white people can overcome this. Duke joined the KKK and dabbled in Neo-Nazism as a young man because he found nothing white-and-proud out there, but he later formulated a new movement of white identity/interests that paved a course generally free of Neo-Nazis and the KKK. And the saner elements of the Alt Right also represented this path. There are also Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. And yet, in the popular imagination, if you aren't a self-loathing white 'gulliberal' who waves BLM and sucks up to Jews, you must be a 'white supremacist', a KKK, a neo-nazi! And AMERICAN HISTORY X, despite its somewhat humanizing portrait of skinheads, falls into the same trap. There is no in-between option, no rational course that balances white identity/interests with respect for other groups. Rather, white identity must be synonymous with racial extremism.
It's like serving a menu where the soup comes icy cold or boiling hot but never warm. Goldilocks option is denied to whites. Unless whites are total self-loathing maggots, aka 'gulliberals' or 'cuckservatives', they are total 'white supremacists'. Sadly, many on the Dissident Right have internalized this dynamics and feel they must go 14/88 to be authentic as proud white folks when, if anything, they've fallen into the Jewish Trap of either/or for whites.
Derek refers to Murray as a “Kabbala-reading motherfucker” and reveals a huge swastika tattoo which he says means “not welcome.”
I wonder if the scene was alluding to the dinner in THE HEARTBREAK KID where the Jewish guy talks about honesty of the cauliflower. It's a powerful scene, and the hurt in Elliott Gould's character is convincing enough. He could be a nice guy, but Derek, so consumed with a race-war worldview, can only see him as The Jew, the enemy. Chances are the man never read the Kabbalah and happens to be a milquetoast secular Jew. And yet, there's a certain truth to Derek's attitude as well. Even though he, his mother, and the Jewish guy all share in the generic Americanism, there is a vast gulf at the deeper level, especially because Jews do have roots whereas most whites don't. Derek seeks to reconnect with roots but sadly connects with poisoned ones. To his mother, the Jewish guy is just another date. And on some level, he is just that, an American who happens to be Jewish.
And yet, even regular Jews are somehow different in their deeper sense of heritage and loyalty, in their stronger sense of grievance. So, in some ways, Derek knows the Jew better than the Jew knows himself. Derek knows that, when push comes to shove, even regular all-American Jews are Jews first and American second. And yet, Derek isn't fully honest about his feelings because, apart from the real animus, there is a certain envy. After all, if whites had a similar sense of roots and heritage, they would not have lost to the Jews. When Jews came to America, they remained Jews first, Americans second; they kept with their deep loyalty. When white Europeans came to America, they became Americans first, Europeans second(or none at all). Jews didn't abandon their Old World ties, white Americans did. But then, European betrayal goes back to the adoption of Christianity. For a Jew to be Jewish means to preserve heritage, memory, identity, and loyalty. For a European to be Christian meant thje rejection of indigenous cultures in favor of a cult of a Jew as Messiah. Furthermore, to be Christian means a white Christian must regard a black Christian, brown Christian, and yellow Christian as more his brother than a white pagan is. Thus, Christianity was the first Americanism that made Europeans reject their own for something Other.
This is why E. Michael Jones and people like Nick Fuentes are foolish to cling to Christianity as the source of Western identity and pride. While a proud white person can be Christian, Christianity must be treated as one's personal ideology than core identity. It's a matter of creed, not breed. Jewishness in contrast is creed wedded to breed. E. Michael Jones faults the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, and Kevin MacDonald finds problems with the Jewish Culture of Critique, but the problem is less that Jews have them than that goyim lack them, or at least they lack them as their own. Without revolutionary spirit, there is stagnation. Without the culture of critique, there is only dogma and conformism. The problem for the white race isn't the Revolutionary Spirit and Culture of Critique per se but that they've outsourced them to Jews.
Furthermore, is it even true that Jews are somehow unique in this revolutionary spirit? Didn't the Christian West try to revolutionize the whole world by spreading the Gospel to every corner of the planet? If Christianity is anti-revolutionary, why didn't it leave other peoples and cultures alone? Why introduce the Faith into non-Christian lands and try to turn the culture and values upside down? Long before Jews became communists and other kinds of radicals, Christianity in the West and then across the Non-West spread spiritual and social revolutions of far-reaching consequence. Furthermore, perhaps the revolutionary spirit owes more to certain factors in Northern Europe that made both Christians and Jews more bold, restless, aggressive, and impatient. After all, most Christian orders in North Africa and Near East were ultra-conservative and stagnant. And most Jews in the Middle East were hardly like the firebrands Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky. The real revolutionary spirit took off in Western Europe, especially in Northern Italy, France, Germany, and southern Britain.
Since the purpose of this film is to warn us against Derek’s ideas, one wonders what director Kaye and screenwriter David McKenna were thinking.
Yes and no. The film isn't merely an indictment of white 'racist' extremism but of the social conditions that make it fester and grow. To the film's credit, it doesn't shy away from the harsh realities that drive white kids into forming their own gangs. While the message is against white 'racism', it has the courage to admit that hatred doesn't exist in a vacuum. In a world of black and brown tribalism, whites have no choice but to band together, though whites in the film do it in a self-destructive way, though not as much as the fellas in ROMPER STOMPER.
Trevor Lynch is being disingenuous in pretending that Kaye set out to make a simpleminded anti-white and 'anti-racist' propaganda and only accidentally stumbled on some inconvenient truths. No, Kaye set out to make an 'anti-racist' work of art, but the truths dredged up by artistic commitment didn't sit well with the favored narrative. This has long been a problem with scholars who are at once committed to truth and ideology. David Puttnam who wrote BOWLING ALONE set out to gather facts in support of Diversity but arrived at the opposite conclusion, which was painful for him. He was scholar enough to admit his thesis was disproven but ideologue enough to have written another book expressing the hope that Diversity could somehow work. But then, as reality never fully jibes with any single worldview or ideology, there is always bound to be some degree of conflict between what one believes and what one sees(if he has any interest in the truth).
Thus, AMERICAN HISTORY X is partly right, partly wrong. It's true that far-right neo-nazi types of movements in the West have been toxic, useless, and self-destructive. And yet, the film falters in posing only two possibilities: Far-right extremism and wishful hope in the Dream. But why should it be so? It's like there is a middle course between militarism and pacifism, and one doesn't have to be a total hawk or a total dove. In a way, this whole left-vs-right discourse has poisoned the blood politics. The great promise of fascism was the left and right could be fused together constructively, and the early successes of National Socialism were a testament to that. But Adolf Hitler's radical racism destroyed the future.
However, if they are going to present Derek as fearsomely intelligent, then they need to match him with a more capable opponent, and they don’t. This means that Derek Vinyard can win any fair debate, which matters to some movie watchers.
Edward Norton seems to be very smart(though also overly eccentric), but is Derek really fearsomely intelligent? Or does he seem highly intelligent in contrast to the morons he hangs with? Even a hill seems pretty high in the plains. Derek is certainly far above average in IQ, but he doesn't seem to be a genius. And if indeed he was truly smart, he would have seen through the problems of Neo-Nazism on his own. Derek is smart but not smart enough to avoid falling into his own traps of ideological fanaticism and dogmatism. In becoming so hardline based on his rage, he creates his own stupidity instead of advancing an alternative and superior ideology and worldview that rejects both naive Liberalism(& spineless 'conservatism') and far-right nuttery that attracts losers and ne'er-do-wells.
In a way, he seems drawn to the skinhead world because he wants dominance, and it's easy to be a lion among hyenas. If you want to serve, you seek out the superior. If you want to lead, you seek out the inferior. Being the all-too-rare smart 'white nationalist' has gotten to his ego. But worst of all, he doesn't just adopt an extreme ideology but an extremely demented lifestyle of ugliness and degeneracy. In this, the skinheads weren't much different from Antifa, a bunch of druggies and degenerates.
Brooks(Sweeney_ has made a career reading lines in his resonant, well-modulated black man’s voice. But he doesn’t come off as particularly intelligent. Derek’s father Dennis dismisses Sweeney’s pontificating as “nigger bullshit,” impressive only to the witless and gullible. When Sweeney actually argues against Derek, it turns out that dad was right. Sweeney’s arguments are terrible.
Negro Sweeney may be a silly-ass jiver, but what makes a teacher special isn't necessarily his beliefs but his willingness to engage his students, encourage discussion, and provoke argument. So, the reason why Derek is impressed by Sweeney may have less to do with the Negro's brilliance(real or not) but his willingness to at least have a conversation with the 'enemy' that calls him a 'ni**er' behind his back. Today, so many Negroes want the 'conversation' to be monologues. Sweeney, at the very least, is willing to listen to 'racists'.
But Derek is a bit abrasive and autistic about “principles.” The Aryans tire of Derek’s preaching, so one day, their leader forcibly sodomizes him in the shower. This leads Derek to change his whole worldview. But that is just dumb and out of character. Derek keeps getting himself into trouble because he is a stickler for principles.
It's not just about principles but about authority. Prior to his prison term, Derek was always the alpha, and others looked up to him. Being part of the skinhead gang wasn't just about 'principles' but the pride of princehood. Derek spoke, others listened. He gave orders, others followed. They were his disciples. He felt he had the White Pride movement in the palm of his hand. No one among his peers dared to give him lip. He was the head wolf within the pack.
In prison, he continues to see himself as the natural leader, and other whites should look up to him. But he realizes that guys in prison are harder, tougher, older. They are seasoned veterans of thuggery and criminality. If Derek went to prison for over-zealous behavior while foiling a crime, other 'Aryans' are probably there for brazen criminal acts. Derek was a leader of boys and girls on the outside, but he's faced with real men inside the prison. And when he begins to look down on the 'Aryans' as unworthy of his attention, others feel offended and put him in his place. He is ironically made the 'bitch' by fellow whites.
But nothing that has happened challenges his basic principles. Lamont proves only that every group has likable outliers... As for the Aryans: they are not supposed to sell drugs and rape one another. But is it realistic to expect sterling characters in prison? Besides, when people betray their principles, couldn’t that be because the people are bad, not the principles?
All very true, but we have to remember that Derek is an extremist with hardcore view of the races. It all depends on one's starting point. Reality allows for outliers and variances, but Derek developed a fanatical view of the world where whites are his brothers and non-whites are his enemies, pure and simple. Derek began to reject Political Correctness because he came to notice reality for what it was — lots of blacks are scum, and white people have grievances too — , but then he went far beyond noticing reality by creating his own fantastic worldview based on the iron laws of race. He didn't go from social naivete to principled commitment to reality but to a rather delusional iron law of the Aryans vs everyone else, especially the Jews and blacks. And for that reason, it is plausible that he is disillusioned by the behavior of the 'Aryans' in prison and grateful for the Nice Negro. Derek got to hating blacks so much that he was unwilling to admit that not all Negroes are insane bunners.
Also, Lamont, buffoonish as he is, shows that decency isn't really about learning, intelligence, or highfalutin stuff; it's about people connecting on the level of openness and friendship. So, it's not really about 'basketball and pussy' but about being honest and forthright. It's like Zorba the Greek isn't a learned man but wise in instinct. Of course, contra Zorba's argument, it's much easier to see the good-or-bad in a man when peoples have their own nations. It's true that Greeks shouldn't hate all Turks, and vice versa, but it's good for Greeks to have Greece and good for Turks to have Turkey. Nationalism(minus imperialism) is the best means by which people can judge others by their character than skin color or ethnicity. After all, a Greek in Greece feels secure and need not worry about extinction of his people, culture, and land. Greeks and Turks once butchered one another because of the insecurities and anxieties created by the Ottoman Empire.
...it is merely a shaming tactic to liken complaints about white dispossession to blacks blaming the white man for their own failings. It might appeal to an older generation of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” conservatives, but Derek would see through it. What matters is the question of truth. White dispossession is real. The solution is not to “try harder” in a rigged system but to change the system. Blacks who still fail in a system of objective black privilege can’t blame the system for that. They can only blame themselves.
Not quite. Sweeney is different from most Negroes who only blame whitey(with encouragement from Jews). Sweeney is saying it's not enough for blacks to blame everything on white because of 'muh history'. Blacks as individuals must examine their own behavior and ask what they've done to make the world a better or worse place. And this rule should apply to whites as well. While Derek is right about the social problems caused by blacks and non-whites, his solutions have been lousy. Adopting extremist views, turning hate into a virtue, and reducing the world into a Manicheanism hasn't done anything for him or his crew. Derek's extremism made him blind to even the good things about other races while blinding him to the failures among his own kind.
After all, Derek didn't suffer merely for his ideas. He's not a saintly martyr. He made his own life miserable by adopting a cartoonish view of the world where it all boils down to heroic skinheads vs everyone else. Blacks and Jews didn't make him get a stupid Swastika tattoo on his chest. With his smarts and ability, he could have served his race in more constructive ways, but he chose the lifestyle of a skinhead lout, and this rubs off badly on his younger brother. For all his superior intelligence and leadership qualities, he didn't try to elevate his racial comrades but descended to their level of crude thuggery. Ironically, skinheads are totally 'whigger' material.
...when Sweeney chooses to focus on his individual life rather than questions of social justice, this is not moving from the “wrong questions” to the “right questions.” ...focusing on your own life doesn’t make social problems disappear. It simply distracts you from noticing them. Individualism is just escapism. It is a form of cowardice.
I don't think Sweeney is arguing for individualism. He's not saying focusing on one's individual issues will make larger problems go away. Rather, a better world begins with yourself. So, even if one has a generally low opinion of blacks, it simply wouldn't do to act like a lout and blame the world for it. There are too many things that Derek and his mates do that are self-destructive. And this was certainly true of the Alt Right. True, Jewish Power has done everything it could to destroy white identity and interests, BUT did Richard Spencer and Co. have to indulge in drugs and alcohol and act like louts? Did they have to get together and give Hitler salutes while screaming Sieg Heil? Did Spencer have to mess up his marriage in the most spectacular way? Did Matt Heimbach have to boff his mother-in-law and beat up his father-in-law? What was that? Jerry Springer hour? Does Chris Cantwell have to be a cantaloupe-head? Hating 'ni**ers' is one thing; must so many white-nats act like 'whiggers'? Especially when Jews are out to get you and smear you as a 'white supremacist neo-nazi', how about not acting like cartoonish clowns? If Jews use the rain machine to make you wet, the last thing you want to do is break your own umbrella. But that's just what Spencer, Heimbach, and Cantwell did.
Jordan Peterson, goofy guy that he is, did have a good point about making-your-own-bed. The world has lots of problems, and they won't go away however a good person you try to be on the individual level. That said, making the world a little better has to begin with you. If the world is full of lies, you-as-individual must stop telling lies. Derek was right about the rottenness of race relations in the US, but he made things worse by not only regarding others as crude stereotypes but becoming a crude stereotype, as if to confirm the propaganda of SPLC: "Look, they are nazis!" The best way to combat Jewish supremacism is not to embrace white supremacism but to reject all forms of supremacism and call for a limited nationalism for all peoples.
The movie explains this miracle with a ridiculous deus ex machina: the spindly black buffoon Lamont somehow has enough credibility with the various prison gangs to “protect” Derek.
This is actually far more plausible than people might think. Having been around plenty of Jews and blacks, I know how they think and operate. Blacks are not only about thuggery and apelike behavior, though there's plenty of that. There's a scene in DO THE RIGHT THING where the usually unpleasant Radio Raheem has a soft spot for Mookie(played by Lee). And Mike Tyson, the lout and thug that he is, could break down in tears thinking of Cus D'Amato. So, it's possible that Lamont, a much-liked figure among the blacks, could have asked for favors among the brothas who, out of favor to him, left the white boy alone. Unlikely but far from implausible. It's like the scene in THE KILLING FIELDS where the skilled pleading by Dith Pran with the Khmer Rouge leads to Sydney Schanberg being spared. Things like that do happen. Negroes are craaaazy, but if you know their psychology and treat them like children-who-are-bigger-and-stronger-than-you, you can get along. It's like the meanest nastiest black biatch will melt in your hands if you tell her how she looks so lovely in that weave, shoo. They suddenly go from crazy gorilless to happy gorilless.
Danny gets in trouble when he writes a paper on Mein Kampf for the civil rights portion of Murray’s class on American history.
That is the funniest thing in the movie.
Once Derek is paroled, he does not want to get back into the gang. Instead he wants to get Danny out of it. This is irrational. Derek killed two Crips. They will be seeking revenge. He has a better chance if he has the gang behind him. If he really wants to extract Danny and break with the gang, then he needs to be diplomatic about it.
He did try to be diplomatic and walk away on friendly terms, but things fell apart. The problem is it's not easy to bid farewell to a lifestyle like that. It's like the system keeps calling Deckard back to be blade runner. It's hard to walk away from gang life. It's like a family, a brotherhood. Also, the gang hero-worships him and has no clue as to his transformation in prison. As for the crips being out to get him, if they really were they would have gotten him in jail. Crips, lowlifes that they are, know that Derek didn't kill the blacks in a gang war but in a foiled robbery. It's like the mafia make a distinction between 'business' and 'personal'. Negroes are like that too.
Also, it's not about being rational or irrational but being sensible. Derek has walked away from that life; he's outgrown it, much like Mark Wahlberg folded his career as a rapper. His priority is to save his younger brother from the lifestyle, and he knows they must go Cold Turkey. It's like when Lawrence of Arabia finally calls it quits, it's total and absolute. He's no longer a fellow Arab but a British soldier back on duty.
Also, whatever one thinks of Sweeney, he didn't have to do what he did. But he did it for someone who hates blacks because he believes that, on some level, there is something better inside Derek. So, on that personal level, he owes something to Sweeney who went the extra mile for an enemy.
In a way, it's like the reverse situation of RIDE WITH THE DEVIL. Why does the black guy ride and fight alongside the Confederates even though it's the North that promises freedom for blacks? Because the Negro's master, unlike typical white Southerners, has set him free and treats him as a dear friend. On the personal level, the Negro feel indebted to him even though he would rather be on the other side. Rationally, the Negro should use the first opportunity to run and join the Northern side, but his sense of personal indebtedness to his master/buddy keeps him fighting for the South. He is both grateful and bitter. Their bond of friendship is also like a bondage. And Derek feels similarly about Sweeney. Much of human nature is personal, not rational. Consider the sentimentalism that affects even the Dissident Right, especially among the boomer types. Why are they so incapable of naming the Jew?
Also, Derek's transformation is a testament to the power of pain. What finally breaks Cool Hand Luke in the end? The grueling agony. He simply couldn't take it anymore. Likewise, Derek's transformation owes as much to pain & fear as to better understanding. Thus, it is both noble and ignoble. Through prison experience, he did become wiser and more broadminded. But he also became more fearful and desperate. But then, so many choices we make are not pure but compromised, a blend of courage and cravenness. Take Puyi in THE LAST EMPEROR. He really did change but under considerable duress. The story of Jesus is an outlier because He didn't cave to the pain.
...Danny’s bloody murder in a school bathroom by a Crip. Again, I am not sure what the filmmakers were thinking, but this conclusion does not support their anti-“hate” agenda.
The ending would indicate that AMERICAN HISTORY X is not a simple anti-hate message. It is disturbed by the radical politics of hate but is aware that hate is not a one-way street. There is plenty of black hostility and thuggery. Why not give the film its due in addressing this truth instead of being so incredulous that a propaganda movie subverts its own message? While the film isn't entirely truthful and invokes certain PC shibboleths, it has just enough courage and daring to break free of ideological dogma.
Tragedy of history is that sentiments are rarely in sync. Jean Renoir made THE GRAND ILLUSION as remembrance of the tragedy that was the Great War and as warning against another such conflagration, but Nazi Germany banned the film and embarked on war-footing. So many in UK and France didn't want war, but Hitler regarded their decency or moderation as weakness. Likewise, so many whites wanted to bury the hatchet and be nice to Jews following WWII, but Jews decided to destroy the white race. Sentiments out of sync in history.
AMERICAN HISTORY X ends on a note of tragedy. Derek really did change and tried to turn his brother around, but the immediate world remained as it is, with sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It was the hard lesson learned by the lord in Akira Kuroawa's RAN. As an old man, he'd seen enough battles & bloodbath and wanted to retire peacefully in an orderly world, but war was still raging in the hearts of man. In EXCALIBUR, Uther wants to call it quits and settle down. He's 'weary of battle', but his enemies are ready for more. The ending of AMERICAN HISTORY X is well aware of this ironic tragedy, and it was intentional. It's like when the sun is in the east, the west is dark, and when the sun is in the west, the east is dark. Rarely are humanity and history in sync. The film ought to be lauded for the courage to end that way.
Derek bears some responsibility for his brother’s death: not for exposing him to “hate” but for pulling him out of the gang. As a member of the gang, Danny enjoyed some protection, because the Crips knew that attacking him would lead to retaliation.
Being a member of a gang is a double-edged sword. It can mean protection by your buddies, but it can also mean carrying a target on your back. Notice how blacks who joined the Bloods or Crips had a higher chance of getting killed than blacks who didn't. Same with Mexican gangs. Some may join as a survival strategy, but chances are it will reduce their chances of survival as gang life is about guns and knives, like in WEST SIDE STORY.
Memory will not heal the divisions between blacks and whites in America, because there was no common community before slavery. There is enmity all the way down. Memory only polarizes race relations in America, which in turn polarizes whites against each other.
It all depends on who controls the memory. When proud whites controlled American Historical Memory, there was something for everyone. Anglos and Europeans deserved respect for having conquered and settled North America, creating a great new nation. But American Indians were ennobled in time as brave and worthy warriors who'd put up a courageous war against the white man. Cowboy and Indians were both honored. Black American experience was recognized as one of slavery, struggle, resilience, and color. And yet, White South was also admired for its loyalty, courage in battle, honor code, and its rich heritage. Every group got its due. But then, Jews came along and took control of the Memory and Narrative; the result has been total sacralization of the Negroes and total vilification of whitey, especially Southern whitey.
True, even with white control of memory, blacks were bound to be problematic due to evolution. Having evolved for 100,000s of years in wild Africa teeming with gorillas, rhinos, elephants, hyenas, lions, hippos, cape buffalos, leopards, and wild hogs, blacks evolved to be tough, fast, strong, nasty, wild, and crazy. Black women emphasized butt-shaking, and black men emphasized dong-swinging, and that's why black culture is mostly about the beat and beating up people. What were whites thinking when they imported so many of these black savages? But because blacks were so tough, they could be made to pick lots of cotton and carry big bales on their shoulders. Going was good for whites as long as it lasted.
Even though whites and blacks came to co-exist only relatively recently, there is a strong bond between whites and blacks because whites are so into black-derived music, so admiring of black athleticism, and so into black-buns-and-dongs. White race is into serious jungle fever.
Just consider: Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, and etc. are all Slavs, but are Poles into Russian culture, are Russians into Polish culture, are Czechs into Serbian culture, are Serbs into Slovak culture? Chances are NO. But I'll bet they're all into rap music and 'twerking'. Or consider Japan, China, and S. Korea. They are all East Asian, but the chances are they don't much care about one another's cultures or histories BUT they are all into worshiping NBA Negroes and imitating rap music. What do UK, France, Holland, Poland, and Germany have in common? Jungle Fever. So, even though whites and blacks are racially different and even though many whites(including 'liberals') don't want to live with lots of Negroes, so many whites, cons and libs, are enamored of the rambunctious Negro. UK cheers for black athletes, France cheers for black athletes, Holland cheers for black athletes, and etc. Because blacks are so good at sports & hollering and because they excite whites with buns & dongs, whites have come to idolize blacks as the magical race, and this idolatry is what most whites have in common across entire continents. An Armenian may know almost nothing about Belgium, and a Belgian may know nothing about Armenia, but the chances are both are into worshiping Negro athletes and shaking their butts to rap music. What does a white Parisian have in common with a white Texan? They are both into black sports and black music. And they both celebrate ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs.
The most likely hypothesis is that the filmmakers were just smug. They thought that Derek’s views are self-evidently evil and that their own views are self-evidently good.
Or maybe Trevor Lynch is being a bit smug in thinking the Jewish Tony Kaye simply had no art in him and only propaganda in mind. Rather than seeing AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda, it makes more sense to see it as failed art. Like some of John Sayles films, it is willing to go further and dig deeper than your average Hollywood movie, BUT it doesn't go quite far enough and falls back on one too many time-worn formulas to fill in the gaps. Thus, it doesn't quite make it as art(which would be something like MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE), but the effort, even if half-hearted, is there.
Now, a failed work of propaganda would be Sam Fuller's ludicrous WHITE DOG that doesn't make sense even on its own grounds.
It’s a truism that the Alt Right and related causes/movements constitute a reaction to Identity Politics of Jews, so-called ‘People of Color’, Homos, blacks, and even radical feminists. There is some truth to the assertion insofar as a group must uphold the banner of identity to have a seat at the bargaining table in the Diversity Sweepstakes. After all, if Power is increasingly about what-you-or-your-people-are-owed-because-of-your-interests-based-on-identity-politics, then it’s only right that every group must have an identity. It’s like, if the rule says, "You must have an identity card in order to purchase a car and drive", you won’t be able to drive unless you have a license. You will notice that everyone who is driving has an identity card that grants them the right to drive a vehicle. No card, no car. So, it’d be natural for you to go through the process of obtaining an identity card of your own so that you will be able to drive. Then, why should it be any different in politics and social competition. If the Current West says those groups with specific identities will be celebrated and favored in the Diversity Sweepstakes, then a people without an identity won’t amount to a plate of beans. They must always step aside and make way for those with identities that make them the favored of DIOS(Diversity Is Our Strength) Ideology. In the US, non-whites are allowed and even encouraged to have Identities. In contrast, whites are browbeaten into suppressing their Identity. Or, whiteness is invoked only as a Negative Identity that must be denigrated, impugned, mocked, shamed, and discredited. So, while most groups are made to feel Pride in Identity, whites are made to feel either numbness or shame. The only Pride allowed to whites is if they rise above Whiteness(as a toxicity) to be cleansed and redeemed by serving the Noble Identities of the Other, mainly Jews, Homos, and Negroes. (After all, Jews would be plenty pissed if whites who abandon their Pride of Identity decide to champion Palestinians and Iranians against Zionists as Evil Jewish WHITES.)
Because of the Name of the Game in our Age of Political Correctness and Diversity-Mongering, it’s been tempting for some white people to raise their own banner of White Identity and even White Nationalism. According to people like Jordan Peterson, it’s just a case of disgruntled white people picking up bad habits from PC and what Harold Bloom called the School of Resentment. (Jews praise Peterson for his criticism of White Identity, but of course, Jews are the biggest Identity Politicians in the world and insist that whites, upon rejecting their own identity, do all they can to support and promote Jewish Identity and Interests to the point of Jewish Supremacism.) But people like Jordan Peterson are overlooking a crucial difference between the rising tide of White Identity and the way Identity Politics is used by non-whites and the LGBTQP — P is for Pedophile — Community.
For starters, White Identity isn’t about White Innocence. Unlike the Identity Politics of other groups, White Identitarians don’t go around saying whites were always victimized, pure-as-snow, innately noble, and blameless. There is an understanding that the histories of all of humanity have been a brutal, violent, and destructive process. So, yes, white people were involved in wars, mayhem, conquest, oppression, and exploitation. Whites brutalized fellow whites and other races. But so did other races. Black African savages were conquerors, killers, and slavers too. Mongols were a fierce nomadic tribe that caused havoc in Asia, Near East, and Europe. American Indians and Aztecs where hardly salt-of-the-earth or star-children living in harmony with nature. Even as White Identitarians show appreciation for the awesome achievements of their forefathers, they are fully cognizant of the fact that history has been a brutal process and that much of human progress was the result of aggression and violence. It’s been noted by historians that the advancement of Western Europe owed to constant wars among kingdoms that prioritized innovation in weaponry and technology to stay ahead of rivals. It’s like Space Technology greatly benefited from the competition between the US and USSR to send the first man to the Moon. Thus, the Space Race happened parallel to the Arms Race. The very rocket that sent men to the Moon could have targeted a nation for nuclear destruction. (Furthermore, the best rocket scientists were the product of Nazi militarism.) History has been like that Sergio Leone movie THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. The good, co-mingling with the bad and the ugly, wasn’t pure-as-snow either. So, except for extreme idiots on the White Right who revere Adolf Hitler and/or refuse to acknowledge the dark side of Western Imperialism(that discovered & united the World and unleashed new possibilities for all of mankind but also unloosed havoc and upheaval in every continent and even led to near-total extinctions of civilizations in the New World), there is an admittance and understanding among White Identitarians that (1) History has always been tragic and (2) White people did their share of killings and mayhem.
In contrast, most Peoples-of-Color, especially the blacks, pretend otherwise about their own bloody histories. Blacks act as if (1) they were totally great but white folks stole everything from them or made it impossible for Africa to have lots of Wakandas because European Imperialism got in the way of African genius and shi* and (2) they are innately noble & wonderful, therefore, everything that is wrong with blacks in the West or in Africa must be the fault of white folks. Worse, some blacks feel that they be so ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ that even the bad shi* they do is justified on account of awesome black folks done it. The logic goes, "Blacks be wonderful, so whatever they do be wonderful too." Blacks regard their own black bodies as Midas-like and shi*. It’s no wonder Ta-Nehisi Coates(aka The Nasty Coates or The Hissy Coates) be always yapping about Black Bodies. You see, black bodies got this talismanic soulfulness, so it was much worse to oppress Black Bodies than any other kinds of bodies since Black Bodies be magical and shi*. (According to GET OUT, White Liberals worship Black Bodies for their harder muscles and bigger dongs so much so that they are even willing to murder blacks to take over Black Bodies. So, if a Negro isn’t being chased by KKK who done hate him too much, he be chased by White Liberals who love his black body so much that they want to kill his ass and take over his black body.)
The jury is still out as to whether Jews are white or non-white. Jews find it useful to be white as they can launder their Jewish Privilege as WHITE PRIVILEGE and blame the White Community for having too much wealth and privilege(that are actually disproportionately held by Jews), but given the mindless vilification of whiteness over the years(not least due to Jewish control of academia and media), Jews are increasingly troubled by being thought of as WHITE. Many Jews are now tempted to emulate White Latin Americans, the descendants of Conquistadors, who masquerade as People-of-Color, benefit from Affirmative Action, and blame Gringo for all the history of White Oppression of the Other, conveniently forgetting that it was the Spanish and Portuguese who spearheaded the Conquest of the New World and the destruction of indigenous civilization of Aztec cannibals and Inca human-sacrificers. Anyway, whether Jews are white or non-white, they put on the biggest pure-as-snow & eternally-innocent act of all time. According to the Jewish Narrative, it is mental, moral, and spiritual sickness not to like, love, admire, respect, revere, and worship Jews. Goyim exist mainly to praise Jews, enrich Jews, protect Jews, fight for Jews, and massage Jewish ego(and suck the Portnonic puds of Jews). Apparently, the fact that most people throughout history didn’t treat Jews as god-king-saint-prophets is proof that humanity had been soul-sick with ‘antisemitism’ and must finally redeem itself by sucking up to Jews at every turn. What ethno-megalomania!
One thing for sure, except for diehard 14/88 Neo-Nazi moronic types, most of White Identitarianism is nothing like Jewish Identity Politics(or Identity Theology). White Identitatarians are not asking the World to revere or even respect whites. All they are saying is that Peoples of European Origin have traits, cultures, territories, and histories well-worth saving. They are NOT asking non-whites to serve white interests above their own interests. They are saying white people should primarily preserve their own identity and serve their own interests in their own domains just as non-white folks all over the world should do likewise for their own people, power, and culture. They are the exact opposite of White Supremacists who believe that the White Race(as the Master Race) should rule all the World and force non-whites to kiss White Butt. The position of White Identitarianism is, "You guys do your own thing, and we will do our own thing." Ironically, Jews, non-whites, and White Progs who condemn and denounce White Identitarianism as ‘white supremacism’ pursue an ideology that is predicated, upon closer inspection, on White Supremacist precepts. After all, whereas White Identitarians expect non-whites to be independent and capable of reforming, developing, and improving their own nations, the outlook of Jews, non-whites, and White Progs is the exact opposite. Their pro-Diversity and pro-Mass-Immigration(which is really Mass Invasion) argument is premised on the notion that non-whites must be with White Folks in White-Made nations to have a better life. So, don’t expect Somalians to fix their own problems in their own nation. They must be brought to Sweden and Minnesota(and Ohio and Maine) to have better lives. By themselves they are hopeless and helpless. So, even as Jews and Progs condemned Donald Trump for his ‘shithole nation’ remark, in their heart of hearts, they really do believe that certain non-white groups can’t do anything on their own. Those non-whites are like children who must be ‘rescued’ by Mass Immigration to the West where they can leech off White Wealth. Same attitude prevails in regard to certain Mexicans and Central Americans. Never ever expect those people to fix up their own nations. Their ONLY chance of a better life is to come to the US and partake of the civilization created by Whites. It’s just a variation of White Man’s Burden, the beneficent Master Race ideology of British Imperialism. The only difference between Then and Now is that White Man’s Burden(WMB) was once invoked to justify colonization of non-white lands by whites but is now subconsciously embraced to justify colonization of white lands by non-whites. You see, white folks must welcome such Diversity because those folks simply can’t have Nice Things unless they come to live in white nations. Therefore, the underlying principle of the Jews, non-whites, and Progs is actually closer to White Supremacist ideology than the core conviction of White Identitarianism is. The position of White Idenititarians — Whidens or Whidents? — is like that Bob Dylan song, "Most Likely You Go Your Way And I’ll Go Mine". Or "You Can Go Your Own Way" by Fleetwood Mac.
Even as Jews, non-whites, and White Progs defame whites as ‘toxic’ and wicked, they believe Jews and non-whites must always have access to White Worlds. If white race is infected with the toxicity of ‘white supremacism’, why do Jews and non-whites feel so dependent on whites and the White World? Why are Jews and non-whites so eager to follow whites wherever they go. If Earth were to blow up and if humans had to evacuate to a White Planet, Black Planet, Asian Planet, Brown Planet, Muslim Planet, or Hindu Planet, it's most likely that not only whites but non-whites will all try to head to the White Planet. Even when black or proggy celebrities threaten to leave the US because it is too ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’, their destination of choice is a nation even whiter than the US, usually Canada, Australia, or Germany. This attachment and dependence on Whiteness implies that Jews, non-whites, and White Progs really do believe Whites are superior. Indeed, whites are so superior that Jews have long preferred white nations over all others(despite all the complaints about 'antisemitism'). And non-whites prefer to leave behind thousands of yrs of history and culture in their own nations to resettle in white nations and live alongside white people, live under white laws & systems, and even have children with white folks. And the compassion of White Progs seems to be predicated on the notion that non-whites can only be rescued, taken care of, guided, and led by superior whites. Of course, PC ideology pretends that it’s all about Diversity-Equality-Inclusion, but if all the races are equal, why do non-whites prefer whites even over their own kind? And if Diversity is so great, why do non-whites run from Diverse nations in Latin America and North Africa to come to white-majority nations? Why do non-whites want to exclude themselves from their own nations and be included in white nations? The underlying assumption of Diversity is really the notion that Whites are the Best. Nobody-Does-It-Better than whites, and so, everyone, even in modern East Asia, wants to come to White Nations. ‘Diversity’ is really "I want to get away from my own inferior people and go live with superior whites." (Also, in order for Jewish Supremacism to be viable, Jews need the systemized support of the most capable race on Earth after the Jews, and that people happen to be whites. If Jews prize blacks most in sports, they prize whites most in management, bureaucracy, and leadership positions. The fact that Jews prize white talent above all others is sure sign that Jews don’t believe in the equality of the races despite their PC bullshit. Jews regard themselves as the most superior and want to be served-and-supported by the next-most-superior people who happen to be whites. This is why Jews obsess about shaming and taming White Identity. They want White Talent to serve Jewish Power than insist on its own power, White Power. Jewish Supremacism feeds on White Submissivism.)
At any rate, if the Identity Politics of Jews, non-whites, and Homos is essentially political, this isn’t true of the White Identitarian Movement. Granted, there are Real Identities in the School of Resentment — Jewish identity, Afro-black identity, Asian-Hindu Identity, and etc. are real identities with deep roots — , but the problem is a one-sided formulation whereby one’s own identity is whitewashed whereas everything about white people is tarred-and-feathered. And then, there are unstable and made-up identities in the School of Resentment, mainly because of the Rise of Gender Identity movement. While homosexuality is a Real Identity, it isn’t a stable identity because we never know from which couple the next homosexual child will be born. If a Greek man and a Greek woman produce a Greek child, a straight man and a straight woman can produce a homo child. And if a homo guy were to impregnate a homo woman, there’s no guarantee that the child will be homo; indeed, he or she is far more likely to be straight. Thus, there is a lack of continuity, certainty, and stability in homo identity. Still, homos are real enough.
In contrast, all this tranny business and related silliness have really mucked up Gender Identity Politics. Apparently, it’s Identity as Ideological Scrabble, a word game. Given that less than 0.5% of people are tranny, it shouldn’t matter that such folks cooked up 50 or more genders as a word game. The real problem is that this ultra-minority dysphoria has been promoted among impressionable children who are encouraged to gender-bend, not least with the enthused encouragement of their perverted teachers and wacky-proggy parents. So, the problem of Gender Dysphoria has spread like an epidemic among even naturally straight youths. Not only are boys told that if they feel a bit girlish, they might really be girls(and girls are told that if they feel a bit boyish, they might really be boys), but they are told it is a Great Sign worthy of celebration. (Proggy parents act as if giving birth to a homo or tranny kid is akin to Mary giving birth to Jesus. But then, Homomania was designed by Jews to be replacement faith for Christianity.) Just as people could be led to believe in witches and fairies, so many kids have been led to believe they may be something they are not. If you tell a roomful of kids that they may be afflicted with a certain condition based on vague symptoms, even kids without the condition could be made to believe that, gee whiz, maybe they have it too. Suppose you tell the kids about the symptoms of diabetes that, by the way, are NOT unique to diabetics. Then, many kids may be led to believe that maybe they too have diabetes because they have those symptoms like peeing a lot or feeling tired at times. Gender Fluid Identity works the same way. There are so many grey areas and vague suppositions that an impressionable child could easily be led to believe that, gee, maybe he’s really a girl or she’s really a boy... all the more so IF the authorities shower positive attention on the child who claims to be of the Other sex. This turned 21st century ideology in the Obama Era into a total farce. If Jews, blacks, and others(even homos to an extent) misused real identities for politics-of-resentment, trannies turned Identity Politics into a fantasy. Never mind misuse of identity; trannies just made up identities. And yet, globalists were fine with this because, as proponents of Mass Invasion, they waged War on All Real Identities(except Jewishness in Israel). The Idea was, If a man is a ‘woman’ if she says so, then anyone is anyone if he or she says so. Then, an African is an ‘Englishman’ or ‘Frenchman’ if he says so. An Afghani is a ‘Swede’ if he says so. The Proglob(proggy-globalists) went from misuse of real identities to mischief with false identities. Bruce Jenner claiming to be a ‘woman’ is really a form of Identity Theft.
At any rate, something like Jewish Identity or Black Identity need not belong to the School of Resentment. Jewish Identity is rich in history & culture and could be valued as such. And even though Alex Haley turned out to be a plagiarist and fraud, the idea behind ROOTS was a noble and moving one. And it is this kind of identity that White Identitarians are primarily interested in. Though all identities have no choice to be politicized in the Current Year, White Identitarianism is essentially cultural than political. In other words, it would be deemed necessary EVEN IF white people in the modern world weren’t challenged by Jewish globalism, Homomania, Black Rage, and non-white Mass Invasion. Even if white nations were demographically stable and secure, White Identitarians would stress the need for conscious identity because modernity alienates people from their racial roots, cultural heritage, historical consciousness, and mytho-legendary narratives. Even if whites were not demographically or territorially threatened by non-whites and Jews, White Identitarians would argue that the Modern conception of meaning, purpose, and existence is not enough to lend real meaning to birth, life, and death.
Indeed, White Identitarians would argue that white people(and non-whites in their nations) must now make a SPECIAL effort to retrieve/recover, revitalize, maintain, preserve, and hand down their sense of family, community, blood, culture, and history because it cannot be taken for granted in the modern world that has no use for anything but materialism, consumerism, individualism, hedonism, utilitarianism, and profiteering. Whatever value McDonalds or Walmart may have, it has no concern for where you came from, who you are, or what you will leave behind.
In a traditional community steeped in a particular culture, one doesn’t have to make an effort to have an identity or roots. One is always reminded of who he is, what his values are, what traditions & customs he must follow, and how he must behave. He is surrounded, indeed saturated, with culture. There is no need to be consciously cultural because he has no choice but to be habitually cultural because he’s surrounded by the trappings of his people’s culture from morning to night. If anything, a person in such an overtly cultural community must make a conscious effort to be free as a thinking individual. And the general trajectory of Western Civilization has been to break out of the confines of particular culture & community and gain independence & agency as free individuals. And this is why the West achieved so much more than other civilizations in which people were mired in strictly ordained decrees & demands of their fixed and particular culture. For example, Islamic and local tradition permeated every facet of life in the Arabian desert. And a samurai or peasant in pre-modern Japan conformed to the particular cultural norms and duties of his community. He had no individual freedom to say no and do his own thing. Indeed, he was so deeply enmeshed in his culture that he could hardly imagine an alternative.
In contrast, the West developed the concept of individual conscience, freedom, and initiative on the basis of reason, evidence, creativity/inspiration, and personal morality. Instead of merely conforming to the larger culture, the secret was to confirm one’s individuality, free will, and potential as a thinking & feeling being. And this development led to explosions in science, technology, enterprise, philosophy, and the arts. Therefore, instead of being submerged in a Permanent Culture(like Ancient Egyptians were over millennia), the West underwent accelerating changes in styles, expressions, ideas, values, and means/methods. And these developments eventually led to the Rise of Modernity. Even so, until relatively recently, Western Folks didn’t, at least for the most part, revile or reject their identity, culture, and history. Instead, they steadily evolved from one mode to another, changing profoundly but also remembering and appreciating the organic links between the present and the past. Progress meant building upon the past than rejection of the past.
Furthemore, in some ways Modernity necessitated a strengthening of cultural-and-national identity. In the old days of Kings and Aristocrats, most people were mere subjects, barely educated, often semi-literate(or even illiterate), and knew little of the world beyond their local community. Their lot in life was to obey and serve their lords and masters. But with the emergence of the Modern World, especially with the French Revolution and great transformations in Britain, the People began to matter. They were no longer mere subjects or servants but the citizens of the nation. As such, they needed to be educated and instilled with a sense of national purpose, cultural identity, and historical continuity. So, even though one facet of Modernity promoted individualism, another side of Modernity promoted unity of identity and purpose. And in the case of socialism and communism, there was a sense of solidarity and unity based on economic justice and working class dignity. Indeed, Karl Marx had written on the alienating effect of capitalism where the workers toil away in factories in which they have no direct stake; they are mere wage-slaves who might as well be cogs in the machine.
Anyway, even though we can all appreciate the freedom, individuality, and sense-of-agency made possible by modernity, we must also recognize that there is a serious problem of meaning-of-existence in the 21st century, in many ways far more troubling time than the earlier century. At the very least, even through most of the 20th century, the atomizing and deracinating(albeit personally liberating) aspects of Modernity were balanced by the unifying influence of nationalism. Frenchmen and the British became freer and more individualistic but also prouder and more unified as members of a nation-based civilization. For most of the 20th century, a Frenchman knew what was or wasn’t a real Frenchman, and a Briton knew what was or wasn’t a real Briton. Japanese had a clear sense of who was Japanese and who wasn’t. On the one hand, modernization infused greater individualism among the Japanese. But the effect of nationalism as a modern organizing principle was to instill all Japanese with a sense of shared blood and history. Prior to modernization, a Japanese peasant may have mainly identified as human property to his samurai lord. His cultural consciousness would have been local and village-centered. He was Japanese but had a weak sense of being part of the Japanese nation, history, and civilization. But modernity, in freeing the masses from their traditional stations in life(in which their forbears were bound to over many generations), needed to raise national consciousness in order to lend the uprooted and displaced masses a new sense of belonging and purpose. It was a huge challenge for someone to make the adjustment from a local agricultural community to a mobile industrial economy. Nationalism was the remedy for alienation resulting from one’s ‘exile’ from one’s local community.
But that balance of nationalism and individualism has been lost with the rise of globalism. Some may argue that nationalism was discredited because of WWI, Nazism, and WWII, but this is total nonsense. WWI was the result of clash of empires. Had the problems been resolved on the local-national level, there never would have been the Great War. Also, Nazism went truly wrong when its emphasis went from National to Imperialist. Also, it was nationalism that was the main motivator against both German and Japanese imperialism. Polish and French Resistance were nationalist. Russians fought for the Motherland. Chinese resisted Japanese aggression for national preservation. And after WWII, the Third World struggles were all nationalist and anti-imperialist. And it was nationalist pressures that made the USSR give up on empire. The Soviets knew their imperialism over Eastern Bloc nations was unpopular among the native folks. Soviets got away with crushing the nationalism of Hungarians in 1956 and Czechs in 1968 but grew increasingly anxious about maintaining hegemony via force of arms. Poland could have exploded in the 1980s, and the Soviets didn’t send in tanks only because the Polish communists managed to clamp down(mainly to avoid full-scale Soviet invasion). When the Soviet Union broke apart, the world breathed a sigh of relief and welcomed the emergence of newly liberated nations. So, the main theme of the 20th century was as follows: Universal Nationalism as the primary force of freedom and dignity against Imperialism.
But then, Jews took power in the West(especially following the end of the Cold War) and rewrote history to make Nationalism the main culprit of the 20th century. As the new rulers of the US(and the EU and even Russia for awhile in the 1990s), Jews became addicted to supremacist hegemonic neo-imperialism and strove to undermine all nationalisms(as obstacles to the Empire of Judea or EOJ). Jews even promoted Homomania as the New Globalist Ideology and even crusading neo-religion. Thus, the West(and other nations emulating the West) grew weaker in national, cultural, and historical themes. No longer was there nationalist consciousness & solidarity to counter-balance the individualism and atomization of modernity. In time, Pop Culture became the main culture. History was simplified to vilify whites and paralyze them with ‘white guilt’(to make them subservient to the Noble Victim Peoples such as Jews, Negroes, and Homos, aka the Holy Three). White Submissivism is necessary to serve Jewish Supremacism. Religion was distorted into Zionist warmongering among Evangelicals or Homo-worship among Mainline churches. National identity kept eroding with Mass Immigration, the effect of which was really Mass Invasion or Demographic Imperialism by the Other. In time, Parasitism was the New Normal while Classic Patriotism was vilified as ‘far right’ and ‘hateful’. So, an illegal invader is a ‘dreamer’ in the US while a gung-ho patriot is a ‘populist deplorable neo-nazi far-right hater’. So, a Briton who wants to keep Britain British is a deranged ‘hater’ and ‘racist’ whereas newcomers from Africa or Pakistan WITH ZERO ROOTS in the U.K. are welcomed as wonderful New Britons. When Parasitism is the New Patriotism, you know something is terribly wrong. Meanwhile, the globalists assure everyone that all will be fine because of... More Restaurants, More Exoticism, More Sex-with-the-Other, and More Vibrancy.
This is why white people(or any other people) must now make a conscious effort to cultivate, reinforce, and preserve their sense of identity, roots, and history. A Briton living in the U.K. in the 1930s needed not have made such a conscious effort. From a young age, at school and church, in the home, and serving in the military, he was educated, indoctrinated, conditioned, and encouraged to identify as British, share in British glory and pride, and defend British might, territory, and honor. He didn’t have to make a conscious effort as all the institutions, big and small, worked in concert to imbue him with national identity, spiritual sense, and ethics-manners-honor thought to be particular to British folks. But now, all such are gone. If anything, the Jewish-Homo-Cuck-dominated institutions & industries of media, academia, finance, entertainment, sports, and the state all conspire to tell British kids that Africans-and-Muslims-are-the-real-Britons-because-UK-has-always-been-a-nation-of-immigrants, Homos-and-Trannies-are-holy-and-the-Christian-church-exists-primarily-to-bless-fruitkins-and-other-deviants, Jungle-Fever-and-the-Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs-are-the-greatest-thing, White-males-must-cuck-out-and-become-wussy-servants-of-Jews-Blacks-Muslims-and-Homos, and Pop-Culture-is-the-main-culture. When this is the reality in the U.K. and in the US, people are no longer possessed of meaningful identity, culture, or history. They must now find it on their own. They must ‘home-school’ themselves on what they are really about. The Jewish globo-supremacists who control the US use all their means to persuade white Britons and white Americans that their nations were always ‘nations of immigrants’, always about ‘universal values’(though one must always, for some odd reason, favor Jews over all others), and always harmed most by ‘racism’ that prevented sufficient Diversity that will really do wonders for UK and US. It’s all a crazy lie.
In fact, Race-ism was one of the best, soundest, and most essential components of what made UK and US great and outstanding in the past. Race-ism assured racial integrity, unity, continuity, and solidarity. A people who drop their race-ism either become confused/alienated or ‘cucked’ to serving other peoples who continue to cling to their identity. Is it any wonder that whites, who’ve been pressured to lose their own identity, are now so servile to the powerful identities and interests of Jews, blacks, and homos?
Identity and what might be called ‘culturality’ is like Morality. When and Where they are not remembered, reinforced, and preserved by institutions and community-at-large, they must be salvaged and secured by individuals themselves. It’s like, if there are no schools to teach you, you must educate yourself. If there are no established churches or temples to preach the faith, you must do so on your own. In a community with a strong sense of right-and-wrong, one doesn’t have to be consciously moral. In such a community, moral values are written into the codes of everyday life and being. If you’re a member of the Amish community, you are reminded by everyone and everything what it means to be Amish in identity and values. But in the modern world of individuals and decadent/deracinated elites(who offer no guidance, leadership, and protection), every person must consciously think of right and wrong because he is surrounded by freedom and choice than by moral instruction and social pressures. (Granted, PC does exert much pressure on modern people, but it’s not about morality but about Power by supremacy-of-sanctimony. PC tells us to unquestioningly defer to Jews, Homos, and blacks. But morality is NOT about blind obedience to certain groups deemed divine. Also, true morality must apply to everyone. PC can’t be truly moral because it blames whites even when they are innocent and exonerates Jews, Homos, and blacks even when they are clearly wrong or problematic. Consider the Starbucks Negroes who were treated as saintly victims by the company and the media even though they violated Starbucks' policy... that, by the way, was soon altered to appease the black community. If blacks want to occupy a table without buying anything, it must be justifiable, even inspiring and noble, because they are black; therefore, the company must now allow ALL peoples to hang out at Starbucks without purchasing anything.) Just like one must be consciously moralist in a world devoid of clear moral instructions, guidance, and pressure, one must be consciously culturalist in a world that no longer provides clear guidance and meaning in the identity, culture, and history of a people. And this is where White Identitarianism is different from mere Identity Politics so common among the Progs. With Progs and their allies, Identity is simple. It comes down to feeling good-and-noble if one is Jewish, Homo, or black. If one is non-white but not one of the Holy Three, he or she must latch onto one or all of the Holy Three to gain Pokemon points. At the very least, non-whites of all stripes are at least not scapegoated for all the problems of the world. That ‘honor’ is reserved for the Wicked Whites who, unless they suck up to Jews-Homos-Negroes, are defamed as ‘far right’, ‘neo-nazi’, or ‘white supremacist’. So, that is Proggy Identity Politics in a nutshell. It’s so easy. Feel good and noble if you’re of the Holy Three or non-white. Feel bad and bow your head in shame if you’re white, especially straight white male. It’s really hardly more sophisticated than a game of Tag, ‘You got the cooties’, or Pin-the-Donkey(or Honkey as the case may be). Jews got the looties, homos got the tooties, blacks got the booties, and whites got the cooties.
In contrast, notwithstanding the political dimensions of White Identitarianism, it is essentially a cultural project of ‘home-schooling’ oneself of his or her true origins, history, and culture... and, based on those factors, forging a sense of destiny for one’s own people independent of the globalist project of subverting and destroying all nations and cultures(except for Israel that gets Passover privileges). In a world where white kids are raised on trash & degenerate Pop Culture as the Main Culture and on vapid & shallow Political Correctness as the Main Credo, there is a need for white individuals to think consciously, critically, and seriously of what it means to be part of a Real Folk, Real Culture, Real History, and Real Tradition. If someone who does the cooking serves you healthy and balanced meals, you don’t have to think consciously about nutrition. It’s all done for you. You merely need to arrive on time and enjoy the meals. But if there’s no one to cook for you OR if the cook just serves you sugary & greasy junk food, you need to learn to cook for yourself and gain personal awareness of what real nutrition and healthy eating are. And the conscious will of ‘preparing our own meals’ is at the core of White Identitarianism. When the globalists just feed white people junk and garbage that lead to diabetes and cancer of mind, body, and soul, it is about time white people learn to ‘home-school’ and ‘home-cook’ their own servings of culture, history, and identity.
