Jared Taylor ponders, ‟Black Crime: Why Our Rulers Hide It‟. He should also ponder, ‟Jewish Power, Why I Won‛t Address It‟

Black Crime: Why Our Rulers Hide it.

Hiding the truth is an essential part of this colossal fraud of pretending that this multi-racial society is going to work and — worst of all — that if it isn’t working it’s *our* fault. We’re supposed to believe that blacks and Guatemalans and Muslims would be just like us if only we would be nice to them. You can’t build a nation by hiding the truth. You destroy a nation by hiding the truth. And that is exactly what’s happening to the United States.

BLACK CRIME: WHY OUR RULERS HIDE IT - American Renaissance

"Black Crime: Why Our Rulers Hide It"

Okay... but how about "Jewish Power: Why Jared Taylor Won't Name It"

So much truth and untruth. In the above remark, Jared Taylor's standing as a bold critic and his reputation as a craven cuck both come into focus. In the video, he goes on and on about black violence and crime, something all of us in the racial-reality-sphere is well aware of. I suspect plenty of Democrats, mainstream Republicans, and 'censorals'(which are what so-called censorship-crazed 'liberals' really are) know the actual facts on the ground as well, but as 'Blaconography' and 'Blacrements' are of the pseudo-spirituality of the age, it would be neo-blasphemous to speak the obvious.

How could anyone fail to notice that black violence and criminality are the main causes of urban decay? But then, even as people's gut feelings are informed by raw reality, their deep sense of Good vs Evil and the Sacred vs the Profane are instilled and cultivated by indoctrination, narratives, rapture, & idolatry/iconography; and the academia & media that offer glowing images and moving tales are in the hands of the Anti-Whites. So, even as one may be rattled as a witness or victim of black street crime, such is an animal response. It's intense and powerful but hardly inspiring or uplifting. At the very least, if race-ist(meaning race + ism = belief in the reality of race and racial differences) realities were accepted as common knowledge, people could honestly process instances of black violence they've either witnessed, heard about(from friends, family members, or co-workers), or experienced. But, because what should be a matter of open knowledge and discussion is suppressed by the taboo mechanism of Negrolatry, mental processes simply fail among many who feel dirty and 'sinful' for their negative emotions and fears(about foul Negro behavior).

So, they draw themselves even nearer to the narratives and idolatry of Black Sacredness to repress their inner 'racist' doubts about the project of racial integration and America finally realizing redemption and true greatness through the Sacred Negro Heart. After all, MLK is now bigger than all the white men of US history, and Harriet Tubman than all the white women. 'Good' whites have been taught that white 'racism' once denied justice and opportunity to innately noble blacks(who have real souls whereas whites got 'holes' instead), and therefore, whites must profusely beg forgiveness and mend past wrongs by making ever bigger gestures of atonement.
No wonder then that one of the great white fantasies is to root for black success, triumph, and riches, indeed to want blacks to succeed more than oneself and one's people. Take Michelle Obama, an affirmative action fool, but she is the idol of so many urban-gentry white women who feel personally invested in her success(despite bogusly acquired) on account that Michelle Obama represents what Harriet Tubman could have been had she lived in a just society.
Now, there's nothing wrong with rooting for past underdogs to do well in the present, but the sheer exaggeration of black achievements is way out of proportion, what with so-called 'well-educated liberals' solemnly intoning about Neil DeGgrassie Tyson as a great scientific mind or pretending Tehinisi Coates or Ibrahim Kendi X are 'intellectual heavyweights' and our moral betters. In just about every white American heart, there is a tug-of-war between the reality of black thuggery and the myth of black nobility, with no resolution in sight(except in sports and rap, where the thug-factor is a big turn-on for jungle-feverish whites in awe of black toughness). For one to accept the reality, one must do away with the myth of Negro Nobility, and to maintain the myth, one must suppress the facts of black thuggery. Generally, people like warmth more than cold, and facts are often cold and hard, whereas myths glow with hope and dreams. Unless the facts are overwhelming and inescapable, people generally favor the myth, and this is why so many whites are so hopeless in their fantasies of the Negro as a figure of divinity, like with Morgan Freeman dispensing hickory-smoked wisdom long-forgotten by whites and retrievable only through the Negro soul.

So many people, including plenty of so-called ‘conservatives’, willfully or disingenuously disregard the facts about race, and people like Jared Taylor certainly have a leg-up on them on matters of racial truth. But, Taylor’s blind-spot blocks him from realizing he’s guilty of the same failing that he accuses the ‘woke’ and cucky whites of. Perhaps, it’s not a blind-spot but a sensitive issue he is very much aware of but overlooks for the time being for strategic reasons, i.e. eventually the ultra-rich and high-IQ Jews will see the light and realize their future can only be secured in an alliance with whites.
But, it seems less a strategy than a matter of desperation, like the Hail Mary pass in the last seconds of the fourth quarter of a football game. After all, the clock is running out for the white race, and there are no signs that Jews will ever regard whites as equal partners or even junior partners. Jews must have their ethno-supremacist hegemonism over the world, and whites are acceptable only as servants, agents, managers, and soldiers(or dogs and horses).

Perhaps, Jews are gravely miscalculating their future odds by pinning their supremacist dominance on the subjugation and humiliation of whites(though, of course, the white collaborators, or House Honkeys, are fulsomely rewarded with carrots), but that’s how they think and operate. At the very least, Jewish forecast of future events, however misguided it may be, is nevertheless far less delusional and demented than the white race-realist hope that there will one day be a secular conversion of the Jews towards a defense of the white race and civilization.
In other words, Jewish delusions are still less nutty than those of Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, and the like. In the 1980s and 1990s, whites on the American Right may have felt encouraged with their inroads into the Jewish Community, but what they ended up with were the Neocons. Besides, it wasn’t so much a case of the American Right winning over the Jews but Jews worming into the American Conservatism to remake it into yet another vehicle(and battleship) for Jewish Power.
Indeed, the ONLY racial angle that Neocons ever cared about was Jewish identity and interests embodied by Zionism and Yinonism. Neocons, insistent upon whites serving Jews, worked with Neo-Lib Jews to suppress any last vestige of white identity, pride, and interests. Neocons weren’t Jews allied with white conservatives against Jewish so-called Liberals but Jewish ‘conservatives’ working with Jewish ‘liberals’ behind the scenes to manipulate white conservatives into serving Jews, much like how Jewish ‘liberals’ had manipulated white liberals for the same purpose. Neocons fulfilled the Jewish Dream of gaining total control of both political parties. Democratic Party had traditionally been the base of Jewish Power, and the GOP became yet another Jewish tool through the machinations of Neocons who ran circles around the likes of Bill Buckley who proved to be weak men.

Over time, patterns emerge, and one can't help but notice Taylor has been willfully leaving out the Jewish Factor in his criticism and commentary. This seems odd when the group most responsible for his marginalization and deplatforming has been Jewish. Is Taylor fearful of Jews? They’ve done much to destroy his life and reputation, but can they do even more to totally break him? Or, is Taylor’s last conceit of ‘respectability’ — “At least, I'm not like David Duke or Richard Spencer” — , which gains him access to a few venues available for American Renaissance conferences, so precious to him that he won’t go all the way and name the Jewish Power, whereupon he will be shut out from absolutely everything?

At any rate, there are parallels between the Jewish Strategy and the Taylor Strategy. Jews(who control academia, media, deep state, and whore politicians) remain silent about black thuggery, criminality, and pathology for the same reason that Taylor remains silent about Jewish subversion, gangsterism, and pathology. An ulterior motive is at work in the tactical silence about certain topics to gain a bigger advantage. Jews-in-the-know(and most Jews know far more than they let on to the dimwit goyim) privately understand what Taylor means about racial differences and black problems. Jews have long done business with blacks, and they have as many gripes about blacks as blacks do about Jews. It’s true Jews fleeced many blacks, but blacks were often obnoxious, derelict, and unreliable(and whatever they earned, they blew on bling like idiots); and wherever possible, blacks stole and grabbed whatever they could from Jews. Jews know racial differences are real and all that. But that knowledge, if made public and acceptable, could undermine Jewish Power that relies so heavily on white cuckery to the Tribe.

Granted, even without whites cucking to Jews, Jews could be successful and wealthy on meritocracy alone, but Jewish Chutzpah-ism isn’t content to live with whites as equals or partners. No, Jews must have power over whites, and that means control. As it’s nearly impossible for Jews, a mere 2% of the population, to physically conquer and subdue the much larger white goy population, whites must be manipulated emotionally and ‘spiritually’; their hearts must be played like a violin. Jews figure they tried peaceful co-existence with white goyim, but it led to the Holocaust. (Of course, Jews omit the reasons as to why Germans and the like were driven to such hatred. If anything goes wrong between Jews and goyim, the Jewish Narrative would have us believe pure-as-snow Jews were suddenly pogromed by goyim-gone-mad, just like Mad Vlad Putin happened to wake up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to invade Ukraine.) And so, Jews have decided they must rule over whites, especially Anglo-Americans and Germans.
With the latter, it’s easy as Germany has been the whore-puppet of the US since the end of World War II, and there’s also the Eternal Holocaust Guilt, which obliges Germans to suck up to Jewish demands at every turn, even if it means, ironically enough, lending material and moral support to Sub-Nazi elements in Ukraine being employed by Jews against Russia. With Anglos, the trick has mainly been to guilt-bait(and jungle-feverize) them with blackness for two reasons: Black Slavery in the South(and Jim Crow) and Black Stardom in popular music and sports. White Americans, amazed and dazzled by blacks in sports and music, are prone to feel guiltier about whatever wrongs were done to them. (Of course, Jews did their share in Western Imperialism, slave trade, and exploitation of blacks, but never mind.)

So, even though Jews know blacks are exceedingly problematic, they also see them as black gold as a leverage against whites. If Jews had to choose a white world and a black world to live in, they’d obviously choose the white one. With whites, they could have civilization and order. With blacks, they’d be surrounded by savages who would drive Jews crazy. But, the danger of living in an all-white world is that whites may come to resent Jews out of envy and/or aggrievement, and the worst case scenario for Jews is explosions of ‘antisemitism’ followed by exile(yet once again), or even something like the Shoah. So, ‘diversity’ is ideal for Jewish Power, especially one that involves whites and blacks as Jews could play one against the other. Blacks, for reasons stated above, are optimally useful to Jews for their over-representation in the visceral fields(which fills whites with admiration and awe) and in poverty(which can be blamed on ‘white supremacism’ or ‘systemic racism’).

Anyway, that is why Jewish control of academia/media is so invested in suppressing the facts about black pathology, thuggery, and criminality. Jared Taylor once surmised that once whites become cognizant of the real sources of black problems in the civilizational setting — combination of lower IQ, higher aggression, and jive-ass nature — , the power of ‘white guilt’ will begin to fade. They will realize most black problems stem from nature rather than history.
Now, we can understand why blacks would object to such knowledge for reasons of pride and grift. Black egotism or Afromania is too vain and boastful to admit there’s anything wrong with blacks or blackness, and blacks know a good thing when they see one: ‘White Guilt’ is the golden goose for black race-hustlers.
Of course, there’s also the element of fear as whites are frightened of black riots and rampages, but then white fear doesn’t lead to (re)action precisely because of the paralysis of ‘white guilt’. After all, whites have long feared black thuggery and red savagery(out in the Western frontier), but they reacted with equal or greater violence in the past because whites weren’t burdened by the ‘guilt’ thing. But because of Negrolatry and white reverence for blacks(even for a lowlife scum like George Floyd), white fear doesn’t burn as white rage and reaction but shrivels into flaccidity at the feet of BLM charlatans.

Taylor has acknowledged how blacks exploit ‘white guilt’, but why won’t he discuss how Jews are also invested in it for their own interests? Why is Taylor so chicken to name the Jewish Power? Or, does he tell himself that it’s really just a matter of strategy because, as things surely get worse, the smart-and-rich Jews will have no choice but to come over to the white side, and the Ju-White Alliance will seal the deal for the future of the hu-white race?
Whatever his reasoning or motives, the fact is Jews have the intelligence of Episcopalians but the character of Sicilians. With Jews, the Rule of Law becomes a matter of Lawfare(or Jewfare), or manipulating the law as a political and/or racial weapon. Too many Jewish judges and lawyers(and of course journalists) act like mafia dons, bosses, and hitmen without any sense of principle or honor(unless absolute loyalty to the Tribal supremacism counts as some kind of higher value).

Perhaps, Jews are just as deluded in their Jewish-Black Alliance as Taylor is in his dream of Ju-White Alliance, but there it is, incontestably so, and only a fool, liar, or coward would claim otherwise. Taylor’s running cover for Jews when Jews beat him with a stick is downright pathetic, up there with Donald Trump sucking up to Jews while they ram him in the arse. It’s all the worse because Taylor, a totally vilified figure with zero respectability in mainstream circles, has nothing to lose by naming the Jewish Power.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily true that naming the Jewish Power will lead to the fate of David Duke who, by the way, ruined his reputation for life not so much by criticizing Jewish Power but by playing silly games with the KKK and the like. Nicolas Fuentes, despite being banned from just about everything, has been gaining in popularity because he’s a straight shooter on matters of power and how that power is often used for tribal purposes. Noticing and criticizing Jewish Power need not be associated with KKK or Neo-Nazis or such tomfoolery.

Perhaps, as the saying goes, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and Taylor is simply of a generation that can’t break free of the spell. They remember a time when Anglo-Americans ruled and Jews were ascendant(yet not dominant), when a Jewish-White alliance based on mutual respect and understanding was a possibility. That ship sailed a long time ago. As such, when the likes of Taylor and Pat Condell go on and on about Muslims, it’s worse than delusional; it’s downright pathetic.
Besides, even as Jews find anti-Muslim feelings among whites to be politically advantageous — Jewish ploy is always make-goy-fight-goy, and it sure comes in handy for Neocons when white dummies are led to fight Wars for Israel against Arabs/Muslims — , they also find it a bit unnerving. The way Jews see it, expressions of ‘Islamophobia’ are eerily a variation of ‘antisemitism’ of yesteryear. Today, it’s hate-the-Muslim-Semites, but it wasn’t all that long ago when Western hostilities were directed at Jewish Semites. Jews have opined numerous times that they dread to live in an all-white society as there is always the chance that whites will turn against Jews. Perhaps, Jews are being paranoid, but the history of Jewish-White relations hasn’t always been easy or pleasant, to say the least. Also, despite endless warnings about ‘antisemitism’, I suspect many Jews know full well that anti-Jewish feelings often result from anti-goy deeds by Jews. But, just as the cult of BLM always makes blacks out to be the victims, the current orthodoxy holds that Jews are never in the wrong vis-a-vis goyim(especially whites) and no blame must ever be placed at the feet of Jews.

If Taylor were honest, he would admit he is guilty of the very same thing he accuses the elites of academia/media/government of. He too is selective with facts and omits certain issues from the discussion. Jews know their power rests on white submission, which is secured via ‘white guilt’ mainly about blacks(and so, we have endless media lamentations about Emmett Till). In addition, as Jewish Power and Wealth are now so excessive, Jews sensationalize the bogeyman of ‘white privilege’ and ‘systemic racism’ as misdirection from the fact that the West is ruled by Jewish Supremacism and Zionist Exceptionalism. When it’s not Evil Whitey, it’s Russia-Russia-Russia, with some side servings of China-China-China and Iran-Iran-Iran. Any trick to make goyim in the West bark at anything other than Jewish Power(and its key allies, homos and blacks). Frame it all on whites.

But, Taylor plays the same game. In a kind of battered-wife-syndrome, cucky Taylor is like a wife who clings to the hope that her abusive husband will return to her, and they can live happily ever after. People like Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire long ago concluded that Jews are not only rich and powerful but indispensable because whites rely on Jewish brilliance, wit, and genius to make Western Civilization work. So, just like the father awaiting the return of the Prodigal Son, the likes of Taylor pray for the Prodigal Jew to finally see the light and embrace their fellow-whiteness and use their genius, influence, and wealth for the security of white folks. And so, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are never to be expected from people like Taylor. They will mention blacks, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, and etc. but they will ignore the 800 lb Jewish Gorilla in the room because their strategy hinges on the change of the Jewish heart.

JARED TAYLOR || PHILADELPHIA: DESTINATION FOR LAWLESSNESS

Murder of Linda Frickey by Black Criminals and What It Reveals about the Lack of Racial Immunity for Self-Preservation & Resistance against Existential Dangers — Defeating a Nation, People, or Culture by Robbing It of the Will to Resist

Vincent James on this horrible news: WHITE GRANDMOTHER HAS ARM LITERALLY RIPPED OFF BY BLACK TEENS, MEDIA IS SILENT - The Red Elephants - Vincent James
James focuses on the reluctance of the media, especially national media, to either report the news or discuss its racial dynamics. Of course, if a bunch of white teenagers had done this to an old black woman, it'd be world news spread by Jewish-run media, and Biden would made several speeches about it, and Twitter would be lit up with a zillion comments on 'racism'. Indeed, Jussie Smollett's obvious 'hate hoax' got 1000x more sympathetic attention than this horrific news story, which is all too characteristic of the nature and extent of crime in the US. Not only are the Jewish-run media remaining mostly silent about this news story but the FBI, under the control of JAB(Jews-around-Biden), decided not to publicize crime statistics, of course for ONE REASON: Black crime, already and always so high, went through the roof as the result of the fantasy of BLM that led to the 'defunding' of the police. What is truly amazing in all this is the general white silence and wimpery. Worse, so many white dummies or whummies(even highly 'educated' ones, but then that is precisely the problem as education today = indoctrination = communion into 'woke' PC) still chant the BLM slogan or put up BLM signs on their windows and front lawns, as if doing so imbues them with spiritual righteousness — apparently, for post-religious Jaberals, their spiritual void has to be filled by SOMETHING, and when it's not the 'rainbow' sodomy, it's the myth of St. George Floyd(though, of late, Ukraine is the new crusade, but I don't see that lasting too long). However, even those who haven't fallen for the BS of BLM and Floyd Fantasy dare not speak the naked truth about blacks and crime. Even those who blame BLM for the rise in crime and deaths dare not talk about how crime is linked to blacks due to evolution and genetics. And even though blacks feel ZERO sympathy for the nonblack victims of black crime and thuggery, even anti-BLM voices frame their arguments in terms of lamentation for increased black deaths. Imagine a war in which the men of Army A are rejoicing over the deaths of men of enemy Army B, but Army B pleads to end the war because, boo hoo hoo, too many men in Army A are dying as well. Never mind their own men, for whom Army A feels zero sympathy. It goes to show that being right isn't the same as feeling righteous. Ones who are factually wrong but righteous in passion often dominate those who are factually right but defensive, apologetic, and gutless in emotion. On the eve of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, a free market economist with better statistics and arguments would have been useless against true-believing Bolshevik fanatics. Maybe Bolshevik economic theory was based on false stats and wrong notions, but their adherents were extremely righteous in their conviction and willing to kill/die for their beliefs. So, in the absence of social and political order, the most strong-willed and impassioned were likely to come out on top.

All the correct statistics and the rightness in assessing reality are on the side of anti-BLM people. They are right in their knowledge that blacks commit the most crime, blacks routinely kill blacks, blacks also kill lots of non-blacks, and that white police 'genocide' of blacks is a total fantasy, despite the general 'liberal' belief that 10,000 blacks are killed annually by the police. They are also right in pointing out that increased police presence significantly reduce black deaths. But that's about being right, not about being righteous. It doesn't challenge the prevailing idolatry in the West that blacks are somehow sacred, that their bodies are special, their souls are nobler, and etc. Indeed, even anti-BLM voices often make their arguments in service to Negrolatry, i.e. they argue against BLM to save sacred black bodies that have been killed in larger numbers due to BLM policies. Righteousness can be founded on rightness in facts and reality but not necessarily, as facts often get in the way in the way of a narrative of heroes and villains, saints and sinners. More often than not, righteousness is divorced from rightness because emotions and spirituality often don't comport with facts and reality. It's like romance doesn't always choose the right or better person based on objective criteria. No wonder women fall for dangerous but dashing men, and men fall for femme fatales. Righteousness can be sentimental, or it can be furious, even murderous. Often, it starts as a gentle glow but then burns hot and threatens to set the world on fire. Consider how Christianity began as sympathy for Jesus the Good Man but turned into a worldwide crusade that destroyed countless pagan temples and persecuted so many as witches and heretics(and also led to countless sectarian violence). And, consider THE PLANET OF THE APES series, especially ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES where the apes in the first movie find themselves transported to an earlier time on Earth when humans still ruled. A man figures out what happened and realizes that the presence of the talking apes could begin to fulfill the prophecy whereby apekind eventually supersedes mankind as the masters of the planet. So, based on his calculations in regards to the future, the talking apes must either be killed or, at the very least, sterilized. But the movie audience, presumably all human, is likely to side with the apes despite the knowledge that the talking apes' presence threatens the future of mankind. Why would the audience feel this way? Because even though the correct 'math' is on the side of the man who sees the need to kill or sterilize the apes, the heart of the audience feels for the apes. They don't want to see the madonna ape and her baby be killed by Neo-Herod man. The movie ends with the baby ape going 'mama, mama'. So, 'mama' wins over 'math' because it feels more righteous even though the right thing to do, in order to secure mankind's future, is to kill or sterilize the apes. If the righteousness in ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES was on the level of sentiment, it turns into inflamed passion in CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, the hero of which is the ape-baby grown into the messianic Ape Avenger. (Of course, the religious-conservative orangutan elder was also right in THE PLANET OF THE APES as to the danger posed by humans to the ape world. Still, he was better-positioned than his human counterpart in ESCAPE because the ape world was tribal, traditional, and communal in their antipathy toward humans, whereas the thinking/talking apes in ESCAPE arrive in a liberal human order that, especially in the post-WWII and Cold War atmosphere, goes out of its way to be enlightened, tolerant, and compassionate. Thus, if the orangutan elder served the general will of the ape order, the human 'villain' in ESCAPE must act on his own against public sentiment.) Even when factually wrong, the righteous possess the drive to assert their will and go on the attack. Jussie Smollett pulled the insane 'hate hoax' because of his sense of righteousness. Being black, there's obviously more natural egotism, but our culture instills blacks with angry righteousness via academia, media, and official pronouncements. Indeed, the Civil Rights Movement narrative now counts for more than all other events in US history, and MLK is deemed greater than all great white historical figures combined; his only rivals are Harriet Tubman and George Floyd. For the righteous, it doesn't matter if something is factually correct or incorrect. What matters is they are on the 'right side of history', on the side of angels, and/or war with the demonic(as currently defined). So, stuff like facts are secondary to the cause, the agenda, the crusade. If facts are inconvenient, ignore them. If lies are useful, use them. As righteousness trumps all, reality exists to serve one's sacral vision of the world. It's like biology is a mere inconvenience to a tranny who insists he's a woman. As globo-homo has been sacralized, the homo or tranny's feelings are next-to-godliness, and reality must take a backseat to the passion of globo-homo. Likewise, no matter how many 'hate hoaxes' are exposed for what they are, the phenomenon continues because they aren't about facts but the faith of Negrolatry, Globo-Homo, or Jew-Worship. So, even when the latest 'hate hoax' is factually shown to have been the work of some lowlife Negro, Homo, or Jew, what matters is that it was for a good cause, to push the holy narrative, just like the Catholic Church, knowing full well that miracle sightings were bogus, pretended otherwise to keep the flock faithful. Such mentality now affects the entire media, even academia. Not that journalists and scholars aren't interested in facts and details, but they believe that the holiest of the holies are Negrolatry, Globo-Homo, and Jew-Worship, and therefore, even falsehoods that prop up the idolatry and narrative are preferable to facts that belie them. But then, there's another trick, that of 'prestige'. The establishment media and academia posture as being rational and factual by abusing their brand to dismiss any inconvenient fact, data, or idea/theory as 'discredited', thus persuading the less knowledgeable that certain things have been rejected by SCIENCE. New York Times uses its prestige to repeat over and over that Charles Murray's Bell Curve theory has been 'discredited' but without showing any scientific proof. For many people, official prestige is enough to sway them. (By the way, Murray is a perfect example of the weakness of rightness in the face of impassioned righteousness, like at Middlebury College. He may be right about lots of facts, but he's bloodless and passionless about his knowledge. At times, he's even defensive and lamenting, like Robert D. Putman who wrote BOWLING ALONE. Both scholars operate on the basis of, "I wish it wasn't true, but it is." It's impossible to be righteous with the right data with such wussy attitude. If rightness is to prevail, it must also be righteous and grow a pair.)

As a matter of factuality, BLM is a lie, which means policies based on it are nonsensical, and as such, they can only do harm as reality is willfully misunderstood and mishandled. It's like misdiagnosis in medicine can be harmful, even fatal. Imagine a lung cancer patient being ordered to smoke more as a cure. (Just think of what the lies about Covid-19 did to the world.) Despite all the lies, so many people in the US still chant BLM slogans and even put up BLM signs. They are saying and living the lie, but they do it anyway because they feel righteous. In contrast, even though anti-BLM people are on firm ground as far as reality is concerned, they are anxious or afraid to speak the truth. A few may defend the police and even put up support-the-police signs, but virtually NO ONE in the US puts up signs saying BLACKS MURDER BLACKS, BLACKS RAPE WHITES, BLACKS ATTACK NON-BLACKS, etc., all of which are infinitely truer about reality than the fantasy of BLM. Furthermore, any sane person should know by now that BLM policies led to even more black deaths, but BLM still remains the righteous position whereas critics of BLM are still apologetic about the truth. 'Black Lives Matter' is like China's 'Great Leap Forward', which was actually a great leap backward. More black lives were killed as the result of BLM, but such facts are secondary to the righteous rage of 'social justice' where blacks are saints and whites are demons. But white people weren't always this way. They used to be rationally race-ist and have a far more realistic assessment of group differences. Sure, there was also more bigotry of the stupid sort, the gratuitous nastiness of a**holes, but there was also a good deal of common sense, as well as a sure sense of white worth, white pride, European heritage, and historical meaning, all of which kept whites believing that they were of a race, culture, and civilization worth preserving and defending, even expanding. Fast forward to today, and many whites feel as though they're diseased with a 'sinful' and 'racist' identity that must be expunged somehow. There are still many whites feel otherwise, but even many of them lack the guts to stand up and speak up for their race. Furthermore, despite their lack of white self-loathing, they tend to give special consideration to Jews and blacks over their own kind, as if they feel they must prove they are not 'racist'. It's like Donald Trump relied heavily on white support but was always yammering about how his policies are so great for Jews and blacks. All of this is a powerful demonstration of the effect of undermining resistance in a people. It's like a person with severely compromised immunity can fall seriously ill or even die from a mild disease. A healthy person's body fends off all sorts of germs, even the nastiest ones, but an unhealthy person can succumb to even the common cold or mild case of flu. For him, it could be totally debilitating or even fatal.

Jews understand this very well. One way to destroy a powerful system is to assemble a powerful counter-force and go on the attack. All throughout history, a powerful domain was defeated by an even more powerful domain. In World War II, it took the combined might of UK, US, and USSR to destroy the powerful Nazi Germany, which had been unified into a powerful industrial fighting force. It's like it takes a powerful boxer or wrestler to defeat another powerful boxer or wrestler. To amass a powerful force and hurl it against another powerful force is no easy feat. It's like it's nearly impossible to fell a tree with one blow. So, what did people do through the ages? They took an ax and slowly chipped away at the tree. Then, when enough of the tree was chopped away at the base, it would fall from its own weight. Just leave it up to gravity. Indeed, no matter how big and powerful someone is, anyone(even a child or old lady) could beat him if he was debilitated by drugs or disease. It's like naturalists in the field can work on bears, lions, rhinos, and other dangerous animals once they'd been tranquilized. White America used to be united and powerful. What made it so? Racial consciousness, historical sense, pride of achievement, sense of community, and spiritual conviction(that its faith was the best one). There was no chance that Jews or any people could bring down such a power. Politically, economically, technologically, and militarily, the White West was the most powerful entity, invincible as a united force. Nothing even came close. Yet, even if it couldn't be beaten from the outside, it could be weakened from the inside. Anti-whites could enter into institutions and rewrite the laws. They could enter the academia & media and alter the narratives and idols/icons. They could use entertainment and leisure to make the white masses prioritize hedonism and decadence over morality, family, community, and nation. They could take over medicine and promote all sorts of drugs on which people become dependent. They could use education and communication to instill whites with feelings of 'guilt' and 'sin'. Information and Media could also be used to promote non-white, anti-white, Judeo-centric, Afro-centric, and/or homocentric idols/icons and narratives over pro-white, normative, and Eurocentric ones. Also, language and terminology could be used to turn certain words into incantations and truisms that were to be accepted as 'self-evident' than debated. "Diversity is our strength, diversity is our strength..." or "black lives matter, black lives matter", "white supremacism! white supremacism!" "Migrants Welcome, Migrants Welcome", ad infinitum.

Over time, despite still being the dominant majority in the West, despite having suffered no military invasions, despite continuing to hold lots of wealth, and despite having lots of people with talent, the White World came to be near-fatally weakened on the tribal, racial, communal, moral, spiritual, and national level. Forget about European pride when you've been told that a recently arrived Arab or African is just as 'European' as a European(if not more so) with ancestry going back 10,000s of yrs. Never mind racial unity when 'racism' is the greatest sin, and 'white racism' is the worst of all 'racisms', especially against blacks even when blacks act like thugs and louts. Forget about community when individualism is all that matters; your hedonism and pleasure matter more than family and society. Besides, if a community must be formed, it has to be around stuff like globo-homo or BLM as any theme with the slightest hint of being pro-white, genuinely Christian, or truly European is anathema in the Current Year. And what is morality when right-or-wrong is a matter of mindlessly praising and serving Jews, blacks, and homos? And forget about spirituality in a world where churches fly the homo flag or care more for the Negrolatry of George Floyd than about God and Jesus. With the White World degraded to such level, forget about nationalism. What nation is left to save or defend? It's been said the US defeated the Soviet Union without firing a single shot in the Cold War. World War III was averted but US nevertheless won over the communist system. Actually, this isn't really true. Soviet Union defeated itself because communism wasn't a workable system in the long run. Even if there had been no Cold War and even if the US and USSR had just ignored one another, USSR would have lost anyway(even without US hostility) because the economic system was too confused and inefficient, and without incentives. Soviet Union defeated itself, but the US took the credit. Imagine if someone you hate drinks himself to death, but you take credit of having beaten him. In contrast, the defeat or the fall of the White World is truly amazing. Unlike the USSR that practiced a deeply flawed economic system, white people in Europe, Canada, and the US had everything, most of them right. They had freedom and democracy, they had capitalism, they had social safety nets(a bit of socialism), they had national identity and pride, and lots of other things that make society work. And yet, whites have become increasingly defenseless against problems and challenges that should have been obvious to the naked eye and could have been handled with a bit of good sense. The fate of the Soviet Union was the failure of failure, whereas the fate of the White West is the failure of success, i.e. people with so many good ideas and systems failing to secure and strengthen them and instead, meekly and weakly, letting themselves to be nudged, prodded, pushed, and attacked with ever more ridiculous demands.

The White West was the most powerful force in the world. So powerful that even after WWI, it dominated the world. And even after WWII, the white-dominant US was the biggest power in the world by far. (And even the Soviet Union was white.) There was no force that could challenge or defeat it. And yet, its mechanism of self-preservation and resistance grew ever more compromised from the inside. Instead of being defeated outright in the physical/material/military sense, its inner sense of worth, confidence, meaning, and value came to be eroded over time... until there was a critical mass of whites who called for the outright destruction of whiteness and whites who were too spineless to stand up and say NO. In a way, what happened to Russians and White West during and after the Cold War is like the mirror opposite. During the Cold War, the America-led West grew richer and more abundant and developed the most powerful military. In contrast, the Soviets with a far smaller economy strained to keep up militarily and couldn't even fill up store shelves with basic items. By every metric of material success, the American-led West beat the Soviet Union by a mile. But, despite all such gains in the West, there was a ceaseless decline in patriotism, national identity, cultural heritage, civilizational confidence, communal unity, and racial sense. White Americans had more, ate more, and had more fun, but they increasingly became defensive about their identity lest they give offense as 'racists'. In contrast, while material conditions worsened in Russia under late communism and then truly hit rock bottom in the 1990s, Russians never felt there was anything wrong with being Russian, that Russians were burdened with special 'historical guilt', or that they were soul-sick for their ethnicity or nationality. Even when material conditions were at their worst in Russia, Russians didn't feel bad about their history, country, culture, and identity.

In the end, who wins out? A rich man who hates himself or a poor man who likes himself? Such a rich man, for all his wealth, begins to work against himself, whereas the poor man, despite his poverty, works for himself, to build himself up. In the long run, a man robbed of his soul is worse off than a man robbed of his possessions. It's even worse if the man robbed of his soul is told that hating himself is the highest good, or the new soulfulness. White Californians had it so good. In the same period, Russians had it so bad. But today, Russia is asserting its national will and taking back historical parts of Ukraine. In contrast, white Californians, over several decades, have been unwilling, thus unable, to do anything to stop their decline and demise even though there has been no military invasion of California. While Russians were doing something about the globalist oligarchs, White Californians let Jewish oligarchs take over everything and demand and dictate as if the Golden State was their fiefdom. While Russia reasserted control of its borderlands, white Californians, once over 80% of the population, have been reduced to 35% and keep on losing. While Russia said NO to globo-homo, white Californians are always at the mercy of whatever fads and fashions pushed by Jews, indeed as if they have no minds or souls of their own. When the Cold War ended, white Californians had so much more than the impoverished Russians. But whereas Russians never felt bad for being Russian, so many White Californians had no ethnic pride or racial sense of pride left. They lost their sense of self-preservation and resistance because Jews gained the key into the control centers of the West and reprogrammed the White Mind via the academia and media with negative feelings about 'white guilt', 'racism', 'homophobia', and etc. (While the Soviet Union was also 'anti-racist', the policy didn't come at the expense of Russian-ness, which was not insulted and excoriated as being uniquely guilty. Jews pulled that number first on Germans, then Anglos, and then rest of Western Europe.) And this poison is the new white identity or anti-identity all over the West, from US to Canada to Australia to EU. Indeed, one reason why current Europeans hate Russians(and Hungarians) with such virulence is that their new identity is one of self-negation. A German believes it's wrong for a true German, a white German, to feel pride of identity. No, 'German-ness' has value only in association to 'diversity'. If a black African becomes a 'German citizen', then and only then does German identity have value. For true/white Germans, German-ness is a burden, a curse stained with Holocaust Guilt. Only when outsiders become 'New Germans' does German-ness gain value as newcomers(especially if non-white) are without Holocaust Guilt. But it's not just the Germans. Almost all Western Europeans now feel and think this way. Their national anti-identity is one of self-negation-and-abnegation, of welcoming the non-European world to take over as the New Europe.

Then, it's hardly surprising that such people would be terribly triggered by Russians who affirm their national identity and heritage and culture. How dare they? Don't Russians know that 'good whites' work to undermine their own national identity, national borders, national heritage? It's become customary in Europe to feature black actors in historical roles of Europeans. Whiteness is BAD and is made GOOD only through self-negation and cucking to others. When such mentality dominates the 'rules-based order' of the West, of course Russia proudly asserting its position and projecting its power to secure its existence and future is deeply offensive. Don't be like those barbarians! Be like the British, Irish, or White Californians whose highest notion of good is winning approval from Jews. So, Jews were very smart. They knew that the White West was mighty and impossible to defeat and take over militarily, but it could be rendered defenseless if its resistance mechanism were altered from within. Jews didn't have to fire a shot. Just get the key and worm inside to the inner workings of white institutions and media that control the thoughts and feelings of the white masses, especially true in the era of electronic media where virtually everyone's mind is tuned to the wavelength of those who monopolize key media centers. Then, why should anyone be surprised about the sickening silence surrounding the horrific murder of Linda Frickey? She's white, and whiteness is bad. Don't resist against black savagery! That's 'racist'! Gee, maybe those blacks(called 'teens') did us a favor by ridding the world of some of this shitty 'whiteness', of which Linda Frickey was a part. What a world we live in. White American cowards who don't lift a finger to protect their own from black savages and illegal invaders get all triggered over Russia finally pushing back against Jewish use of NATO as battering ram against Russia. Death Of The Jewish Pencil - Brother Nathanael

In an Empire of Lies, the Only Way to Truth is to be MUGGED BY REALITY — Why America Never Wakes Up to the Truth about Black Thuggery — How the Great Leap Forward Has Parallels with Current America that is under Psychological Maoism

GEORGE FLOYD POLICE INTERACTION - SPLICED DECENT VIDEO I COULD FIND START TO FINISH

In a Empire of Lies, only brush with reality will inform people of the truth, especially as lives have become more atomized. In the past, when people were closer to family and kinfolk, they might have heard of first-hand experiences of close ones. Now, many people just know their nuclear family or individual lives, and much of their view of reality comes from mass media controlled by Jews. Of course, social media can spread the raw unfiltered truth — visual evidence of black criminality and other social problems — , but then, that is why Big Tech enforces Censchwarzship and why the Zionic Big Media and Big Academia have gotter ever more shrill and hardline with Political Correctness.

In the 70s and 80s, there was the notion of being 'mugged by reality'. It implied that the US had become a country of lies. After all, if truth was readily available, one wouldn't need to be mugged-by-reality to know the reality. One would have heard of it even if one didn't experience it. Consider tigers, grizzly bears, and sharks. Most of us never saw a tiger or bear firsthand(except at a zoo). And most of us never got bitten by a shark. But even without having been mauled by those animals, we know they are dangerous. We know a tiger can kill you in a split second. A bear can tear you apart. A shark can have you for lunch. We know this because we were taught the truth about nature. Don't wander into a forest where tigers lurk. Be wary in bear country. Don't swim in shark-infested waters. So, we don't need to be 'mauled by nature' to know nature can be dangerous.
But the notion of 'mugged by reality' suggests a white 'liberal' will turn 'conservative' or more realist IF AND ONLY WHEN he comes face to face with grim reality, especially of black criminality. Otherwise, he will continue to be a 'liberal' for two reasons: The systemic deception of academia, media, & entertainment AND the conceit of being 'tolerant' and 'progressive'. There's too much mendacity and vanity involved in being a good 'liberal' or a 'good conservative'(aka cuckservative) for that matter as even conzos now fall all over themselves to demonstrate they are not 'racist'.

Now, things would be different if we were living in an Order of Truth than in an Empire of Lies. Even people who never experienced black crime(or had a friend or relative attacked or murdered by blacks) would know that blacks are a problematic race, mainly due to evolutionary factors: Africa is a dangerous place, and not only the black race but various species are more vicious there(for survival's sake). African elephants are bigger and more aggressive than Burmese elephants. African buffalos are more dangerous than those in Vietnam. African rhinos are bigger and even more bad-tempered than Indian rhinos. All such dangerous animals plus ace predators such as lions, hyenas, leopards, wild dogs, crocodiles, and etc. have made organisms in general(and that would include Negroes) more ferocious, aggressive, and muscular. Also, the non-black races, having experienced the Northern Cold(even if they later migrated downward to places like South America), had some of the impulsive traits weeded out of them whereas the impulsive oogity-boogity genes remained intact among African Negroes.

COLIN FLAHERTY PODCAST: THE DARKEST DAYS OF THE GREATEST LIE ARE UPON US.

In an Order of Truth, people would be informed and instructed as to the ways of Negroes. Just like one doesn't need to be mauled by a lion to know lions are dangerous or be bitten by a rattle snake to know it's venomous, one wouldn't need to be mugged-by-reality to know the truth of reality. But we don't live in an Order of Truth but in an Empire of Lies where 'truth' or 'falsehood' is defined less by actual ways and conditions of reality than by agendas, interests, and biases of Jewish Supremacists. In the Jew-World-Order, Iran is the 'terrorist threat with nukes' when it has no nukes. Israel has 300 nukes made with material stolen from the US. Israel aids terrorists in Syria. Israel uses terrorism to murder Iranian scientists. And Zionists in the US control US foreign policy to destroy entire Arab and/or Muslim nations. But, we are told 'Israel is our greatest ally' whereas 'Iran is the biggest sponsor of terror' and 'Assad gassed his own people'. And consider all the lies told about Jews and Palestinians. Jews stole Palestinian land and continue to occupy the West Bank(which is being prepared for full annexation), BUT we are supposed to worry about poor poor Jews. And even though US uses NATO to harass and provoke Russia, we are told Russia is the perennial aggressor. US instigated a coup in Ukraine, which is now totally owned by Jewish gangsters. But Russia is always the threat. US surrounds China with numerous military bases, but China is the big bad guy in the neighborhood. US has military bases all around Iran, but, in accordance to the same twisted logic, Iran is the 'aggressor'.
Fish rots from the head. US was never big on the truth, but with Jews at the helm, it's gotten worse. Just like the Color Revolutions finally came home with the Jew-Coup against Donald Trump, the Culture of Mendacity that characterizes US foreign policy is now indistinguishable from US domestic policy when it comes to news and information. It has come home to roost. But then, why not, considering that Jews don't look upon whites as Fellow Countrymen but as 'foreign goyim' to colonize and control? Jewish agenda toward whites doesn't work in accordance to the concept of National Interests; the only part of the world where Jewish Power operates on the basis of National Interests is Israel where Jewish leaders feel as one with Jewish masses, and this explains why the media in Israel are far more honest and truthful; Jews share truth with one another but generally resort to lies with goyim to control them. Jewish perspective on white goyim in the US is more akin to Jewish attitudes toward Palestinians, Iranians, Arabs, Russians, and etc. It is about 'us vs them'. Jews feel more like British Imperialists did toward the Hindus in India. When Hindu-based nationalism was on the rise in India, the British favored the Muslims as allies. (Initially when the British had taken control over India against the Muslim Mughals, they were more partial to the Hindus.) Jews now use blacks and nonwhites against whites in the way that the British came to use the Muslim minority against the Hindu majority in India. What Jews fear most is the reawakening and liberation of white consciousness. In the past, it was the fear of violent Anti-Semitic mobs or anti-Jewish discrimination that animated the Jewish agenda. Now, Jews are addicted to supremacist power and rely on white subservience to maintain Jewish Hegemony around the world. Jews know there are preciously few true-blue Nazis around. They don't fear the rise of New Hitlers. Jewish fear isn't that of the slave but of the master. The slave fears the master may no longer need him and sell him down the river. The slave fears the master will forever deny him freedom and dignity. In contrast, the master's fear is different. His first fear is the loss of power and privilege over others, something he's become accustomed to. It's like a rich man fears being poor more than a poor person does. Whereas a poor person is accustomed to being poor, it's totally anathema to the rich man who's come to believe he's deserving of the good things in life. When Jews had survival or basic rights on their minds, they had something of the slave mentality. Today, they are the rulers of the West and have a master mentality. They don't so much fear the potential for white mob violence against Jews as the possibility that Jews will lose their hegemonic status if whites refuse to play along as puppet-servants of Zion. Paradoxically, Jews bait whites with guilt over 'white supremacism' to ensure that whites will continue to aid and abet Jewish supremacism. It's pure bait-and-switch. It's not a campaign against supremacism per se but a selective targeting of white consciousness as 'supremacism' to perpetuate Jewish supremacism(and those of their allies, blacks and homos).

Things get tragic or tragicomic in a world where only one's direct contact with reality(or something close to it) wakens one up to the truth. It's worse if the danger is covered up or forbidden as a topic of candid discussion. It's even worse if the danger is lionized, sanctified, and extolled as if it's sacred. Imagine there's a button that is dangerous to the touch. If you press it, you get jolted really bad. Now, in an Order of Truth, people would be told, "Don't press the button cuz you'll be electrocuted." Thus, even those who never came upon the actual button would know it's dangerous. It's like the skulls-and-bones sign with the words 'poisonous' on certain bottles. You don't have to drink the stuff to find out if it's dangerous, just like most people know they shouldn't pick and eat mushrooms in the wild with proper knowledge. This way, you don't have to push the button, feel the shock, and learn the hard way to know that it's dangerous. But suppose it's taboo to speak about the button's danger. So, someone who comes upon the button may press it out of accident or curiosity. Not having been informed of the danger, it was the only way for him to find out. The hard way. And yet, he doesn't tell anyone about it because it's taboo to badmouth the button. But worse, suppose the powers-that-be spread the message that the button is a wonder-of-wonders, and there's nothing wrong with pushing it. Indeed, you SHOULD press it. Of course, you get the most unpleasant jolt. Then and there, you should be jolted or 'mugged' by reality. But what if, due to the incessant narrative pressure that consecrates the button, you feel 'sinful' and dirty to say that you were hurt by it. So, you pretend it was actually rewarding. Or, you say(in self-flagellation mode) that you deserved the righteous 'punishment' from the button because of 'muh guilt', also pushed by the powers-that-be on the button-pushers. If a river is polluted and toxic but also regarded as holy and divine, people may still choose to bathe in it and drink from it because, all too often with humans, irrational emotions override factual reasoning.

COLIN FLAHERTY: TEEN ON TEEN IS A LIE 2016 IT'S BLACK MOB VIOLENCE ON WHITES OR PIZZA IS THE CAUSE

This is where we are with blacks. People can only be 'mugged by reality' because the Jewish-controlled academia, media, and state spread mostly lies about blacks, pathology, and criminality. Facts tell us that less than 20 unarmed blacks are killed by the police in an average year, but the majority of 'liberals' believe the number is 10,000! Even though blacks are champion robbers, rapists, thugs, and murderers, so many people see blacks as hapless victims of 'systemic racism' and 'white supremacism'. Often, whites and nonwhites who live in unblack areas are often the biggest suckers of the Narrative. They see Magic Negroes on TV and movies; they are bombarded with news about blacks as victims. Also, as local news always describe black thugs as 'teens' or 'youths' or some such euphemism, the message gets out that it is taboo and unacceptable to mention the race of blacks when they do bad. Furthermore, the powers-that-be go boo-hoo-hoo over black deaths(when killed by whites) but totally ignore nonblack deaths, especially if the perpetrators were black. All such manipulations subconsciously instill the masses with the sense that black lives are more important than nonblack ones. While the ideology of America yammers about racial equality, the Jewish-controlled idolatry of America favors Jewish, homo, and black lives uber alles.
Under such conditions, many people are ill-informed about the black problem. Even the children of whites who moved to the suburbs in White Flight from blacks end up with the wrong idea. Instead of being grateful for their own safety and security away from black thuggery and crime, they come to believe, via education and news, that they have undeserved 'white privilege' while poor helpless blacks are being oppressed by 'systemic racism'. What about their parents who made the move to get away from black crime? In many cases, they dare not speak the truth that they know to their own children because people are naturally status-conscious conformists, and it's become 'unacceptable' for 'good people' to speak frankly about the race problem, especially pertaining to blacks. So, many white parents don't tell their kids. Also, in the safety of the white community, they gradually forget about the reality of black crime and become increasingly influenced by media lies and entertainment manipulation(where blacks are either presented as heroic/saintly, tragic/magic, or cool/badass if bad; so, even when blacks are presented as gangstas, they be idols to rhapsodize about).

One would think, with all the White Flight and Neo-Liberal hardline policies against black criminality beginning with Bill Clinton, most white people would know about the reality of race. Tragically, there is a huge discrepancy between general action and collective emotion. On some level, of course many whites knew. That's why even Jews and white 'liberals' joined in White Flight. It's why Neo-Liberals got tough on crime and locked up so many blacks and implemented stop-and-frisk. They also supported immigration on grounds that newcomers will make better employees and safer neighbors than the blacks. And yet, none of this could be said with any honesty over the years. Under Jewish control, blacks became ever holier and special in symbolism even as Jews and white neo-liberals pushed policies to clamp down harder on blacks to save cities from crime and blight.
And yet, this set the grounds for even more Afro-lunacy. After all, if blacks are so special as the children of MLK as the media/academia have constantly reminded us(especially as conzos are just as cucked as the libby-dibs on blackness), why were so many blacks locked up and pushed out via gentrification? Why was there so much talk of holy homos and wonderful immigrants that took attention away from black issues? Now, the hardline policies on black crime and the push for more mass-immigration were led by Neo-Liberals in the big cities. And many of these were Jews. Lest any blame fall on Jews, Libs, and the Democrats, the powers-that-be chose to blame all of US history for the black problem. So, never mind the new policy that New York Jews implemented since the 1990s to save the city from black thugs. Just blame it on Jim Crow in the South or even go back to 1619. Never mind 1992 and Bill Clinton and all those New Yorkers voting for Rudy Giuliani twice and for Michael 'stop and frisk' Bloomberg three times. The thing is Jews really needed blacks to defeat Donald Trump in 2020, and so they brought back blacks who'd been shunted to the back of the bus relative to homos and immigrants for special attention, lamentation, and celebration. Of course, even when blacks were getting less love than homos and immigrant-diversity, they were nevertheless glorified as a specially tragic-magic people, and besides, blacks always had lots of idolic star power via sports and music.

In the long term, the black problem shows it's useless to act on the truth if you don't speak the truth. So much of US policy from the early 1990s was based on the reality of black thuggery and criminality. To win elections(by gaining white voters anxious about rising black crime), Democrats had to out-Willie-Horton the GOP. But being cleverer, Bill Clinton and Jews pulled something sneaky. They got far tougher on black crime while, at the same time, covering up their 'racist' tracks with highfalutin talk of the Noble Negro! They walked one way, they talked another way. They figured all the talk would serve as cover for the walk. Maybe blacks will be too dumb to realize it with Clinton as the 'first black president', Bush II as the 'compassionate conservative' who gave tens of billions to Africa, and Obama as the real first black president. And maybe whites will be too razzle-dazzled by rainbow-homos to become aware of what total phonies they are. And this foolery might have continued but for the presidency of Trump. Jews and the goy-cuck deep state hated him so much and wanted him out so badly that they were willing to UNLEASH THE BLACKEN(which turned out to be more potent than the Kraken).

It's odd that black grievances mount with the passage of time. If the past was so bad for blacks, one would think they would be much better off with progress made through the years following the Civil Rights Movement. And yet, a large number of blacks remain mired in dysfunction, and in many cases, things have only gotten worse since the 1960s. A good number of blacks did make gains and progress, but they hold dear to outrage politics for two reasons. For street cred as their success might be seen as 'acting white' and betrayal of the brothas and sistas. And out of megalomania because successful blacks, like Jews and homos, just can't get enough spotlight as the magic-tragic people.

History is usually blamed for black problems, but what has happened since the 60s is also part of history. In less than 39 yrs, it will be 2060. So, what went wrong? In a way, the problem was freedom itself. Freedom is only as good as those using it, and too many blacks used freedom in bad ways. More freedom can mean more opportunity, but it can also mean more corruption, more degradation, more self-indulgence, and more crime. Blacks were prone to abuse freedom more than other races because they evolved to be oogity-boogity. But no one dare mention the connection between freedom and foulness when it comes to blacks... just like Jews and homos can't be blamed for anything; everything is blamed for the AIDS crisis EXCEPT the most obvious culprit, which was homo indulgence in depravity with new liberties. To say that blacks are naturally prone to act stupid and wild would be 'racist'. So, never mind that it is true. Truth must take the backseat to the Narrative. But then, it's perfectly fine to say blacks are naturally different and superior in POSITIVE ways. Interesting how that works.
It's always back to scapegoating History while ignoring that all that has happened since the 1960s is also part of history, and that blacks must bear much of the blame because they used their history of freedom and equality in the worst possible ways. While the odd innocent Negro lynched by whites is part of US history, so are all the white and non-black victims of black criminality, thuggery, and mayhem. But what does it matter? Did anyone take the knee for all the people beaten, attacked, or murdered by the mobs in 2020? No, the only approved and compulsory sympathy is for the creep George Floyd who died of overdose and was no victim of police brutality. (Given Jewish bankers funded much of European imperialism and profited greatly from the West's incursions into Africa, it's interesting how Jews never partake of 'white guilt' when it comes to blacks. If anything, Jews demand that whites unconditionally support Jewish tyranny over Palestinians and terrorism all over the Middle East.)

It goes to show history matters far less than 'thistory'(or this-story) as shaped by the powers-that-be. It was certainly true of Christianity. Even as Jesus's death receded into history, He became bigger and bigger because the clergy that controlled the Narrative put Him front and center of everything. And even as Christians gained in power and persecuted non-Christians, pagans, and heretics(and even as the story of Christians being fed to lions became a distant memory, if it happened at all), the Narrative of Christian victimhood grew only bigger. Whether an event happened long ago or recently, what is 'remembered' and resonates depends on whoever has the power the decide what is commemorated. This is one why dead Negro matters far more than millions of dead Arabs killed by Wars for Israel. Jews have the power of commemoration that defines the current 'thistory'. So, it doesn't matter how far back something happened. It is relevant now IF the powerful make it so with their means of commemoration, reiteration, and mythologization. That a lowlife punk like George Floyd could be anointed into the pantheons of the sainted goes to show (1) how powerful Jews are (2) how effective 'thistory' is and (3) how stupid the populace has become over the years under Jewish influence to fall for such nonsense.

At any rate, in an empire of lies where the only path to truth is to be 'mugged by reality', we should do all we can to make sure that PC libby-dibs and cucky-wucks learn about reality the hard way. Let them be 'mugged' by it. Those drugged on fantasy must be mugged by reality. People like Derek Chauvin should NEVER sign up to for police work in blue cities. Let Jews and white libby-dibs defend their own bodies and properties from blacks whom they purport to love so much. Of course, there are venal Jewish supremacists and fiendish deep state lowlifes who know all about the black problem but pretend otherwise to keep the power and push the agenda. It's like the Soviet authorities who willfully lied about grain harvests to keep the system going. But, there are plenty of suckers among the libby-dibs and the cucky-wucks. It's the difference between Jews who sold Obama as a new brand of soap and the suckers who bought it, fainting left and right in rapture. The world is made up of fuc*ers and suckers. In an empire of lies where the suckers willingly go along with the fuc*ers, let the suckers be 'mugged by reality'. So, people like Heather MacDonald and Ann Coulter need to stop trying to protect urban libs from black crime. If the libby-dibs are really into BLM and believe defunding the police will do wonders, let them follow such course and get mugged-by-reality. Stop trying to help or save people who hate you. This is why it was foolish for people like Rudy Giuliani to have cleaned up NY. By drastically reducing crime, it took away the one factor that 'mugs' libby-dibs into reality. Now, if the law-and-order types took pains to reduce crime with tough measures while, at the same time, changing the narrative to fit reality — "LOOK, CRIME WENT DOWN BECAUSE WE GOT TOUGH ON BLACK THUGGERY, the product of Negro evolution in wild and dangerous Africa" — , the policies would have been worth it. But just as the policies reduced crime, the narrative carried on with the same lies about Negro Victimhood and sanctity.
So, when the libby-dibs felt safer and more secure, they just embraced the Big Lie with greater gusto. Imagine someone who got sick from using bad drugs. For a cure, he's put on healthy diet and exercise regimen. But all through the process, he is never told he got sick from those drugs. Rather, even as he's recovering from the ill-effects of the drugs, his environment is filled with promotional material for the drug. So, what is the first thing he wants to do when he's healthy again? To use the stupid drugs all over again. The proper cure would have not only forced him to eat better and exercise but inform him of the dangerous drugs. But suppose the healer isn't allowed to speak the truth. He cures the person but doesn't inform of the dangers posed by the drug. (Or worse, the healer advises the usage of the drugs even though he saved the man from the drugs.) So, when the guy is feeling good again, he wants to go back to using the drugs. If the truth isn't allowed to be said, it's better not to treat the guy at all. Let him abuse the drugs until he gets so sick that he finds out the truth for sure on his own. It goes to show it's not enough to DO the right thing. One must also SAY the right thing, the truth. The word must be in sync with the world. It's like Merlin says in EXCALIBUR, "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world."

But the problem isn't merely with libby-dibs and cucky-wucks but even with the so-called Dissident Right, especially the boomers whose gushy sentimentality about Jews prevent them from connecting all the dots. So, they'll mention black crime and Muslim terrorism but hardly discuss the Jewish question. They are useless because the Jewish element is the most crucial. After all, it's the Jews who've decided which button to push and which theme/issue to highlight for the moment. Globo-homo yesterday, BLM today, Tranny tomorrow, and etc. Indeed, it's useful to distinguish between core power and favored power. It's the difference between the sun and the planets. Planets near to the Sun get plenty of heat, but this heat isn't self-generated but reliant on the Sun. In Hollywood, the big stars seem powerful, but they ultimately are not. Jews can make or break any of them. Jews are the sun, they are mere planets. Likewise, people who focus on tranny-mania but refuse to mention Jewish Power behind it are useless. They mistake planetary heat as auto-generated when it relies on the sun. Jewish Power is the sun that selectively chooses in the moment which group or issue gets the most light. There is hardly any action without traction made possible by Jewish levers of promotion and narration. Consider how the media was all about SAVE THE KURDS when Trump threatened to pull out of Syria. When Trump changed his mind, Kurds faded from view once again. Why did Kurds get a special boost? Because Jews aimed light at them. (Of course, Jewish Media don't mention Syria is a hellhole because of Judeo-Nazi-dominated US foreign policy and Israel's support of ISIS terrorists.)

What can result from the culture of lies or the cult of myth? Two obvious examples are the fates of National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. Without proper means for people to warn the leaders of the dangers of all-out war, doom was looming over horizon. And US foreign policy has been disastrous as the result of lies, except that Americans are fortunate to live in a country big and strong enough to fend off all attempts at retaliation. Japan and Germany declared war on the US and got totally smashed. But the US can spread lies, invade & destroy nations, and still stand tall at the end of the day as the lone superpower. Using the moral logic of WWII, the US surely deserves to have been nuked around 20 times.

An even more instructive case of the danger posed by the culture of lies is the Great Leap Forward, Mao's manic plan to accelerate China's transformation into a modern economy. So many deaths resulted from this, and it was all because of the culture of lies centered around the myth of Mao as an all-knowing god-emperor. Mao and his men didn't mean to starve people. They really thought they were doing good. And yet, it led to what may have been the biggest man-made famine in human history. (The death toll from the campaign is a major factor as to why communist death toll in the 20th century is so high.) Unlike the Cultural Revolution that began with an air of menace(with Mao planning to purge and destroy his perceived 'enemies'), the Great Leap Forward was launched with hope and optimism. Mao hadn't planned to kill a single person but ended up killing anywhere from 25 to 40 million people. How could such thing happen? It was because, by the eve of the Great Leap, China had turned into an empire of lies. Through series of purges, struggles, campaigns, nonstop propaganda, and education/indoctrination, Mao had sent a message to every corner of Chinese state and society that he is not only numero uno but infallible, invincible, all-wise, all-knowing, super-duper, and awesome... and anyone who even suggests otherwise is in for a big surprise. So, if Mao hatched a plan to catapult China from a Third World nation into a First World one in a matter of a decade(or less), how could anyone disagree? His wish was their command. How could it be otherwise in a country where Maoism was the sacred law of the land, where Mao cult was the new religion? So, when Mao said his plan would be a great success, it had to be a great success. There was no other way. So, almost immediately, various provinces announced tremendous gains under the new program. Wheat and rice harvests were said to be doubling, tripling, quadrupling... If some provinces were making such claims, others felt compelled to do likewise or make even more extravagant claims. World according to Mao trumped reality. So, if Mao had great hopes for the Great Leap, then it was up to the Chinese to make sure that reality conformed to Mao's vision. The provinces, having made big claims about increased harvests, had to ship the amounts stated to the cities. But in fact, there weren't great increases in harvests. The claims were mostly empty rhetoric to appease Mao's megalomania as the savior-builder-master of China. As grains were shipped to urban authorities in the exaggerated amounts, there was less food for the peasants doing backbreaking work. But being in tune with the spirit of infallible Maoism, the exaggerated claims continued and more grains were shipped to the cities. Even as the countryside had less food, China was sending food to other nations as aid. It did so because the government was convinced that the Great Leap was a wild success. In reality, things grew dire in the countryside. It was made worse by Mao's insane campaign to kill sparrows that ate grain. It never occurred to Mao that sparrows also eat insects that consume even more grain. (In America, the sparrows are the police. Police are blamed for black deaths, but when police step back, blacks kill more blacks and other victims. America, where 'pigs' became the scapegoated 'sparrows'.)

Now, the sane thing would have been for someone to tell Mao upfront before the Great Leap even started that it was a hare-brained idear. But who dared to say No to Mao? They were afraid even to say Maybe. It had to be Yes, Yes, Yes.
Or, Mao would have sobered up that it wasn't going according to plan IF the officials in the countryside did not exaggerate grain yields. But how could they not when they were expected to produce unprecedented bounties? After all, Mao was infallible, and you'd be a damn 'reactionary' to fail to fulfill Mao's dreams. Next, once the peasants started going hungry and dropping like flies from overwork and undernourishment, it would have made sense for someone to confess the grain figures had been falsified. But such a person would fear being purged and destroyed for having made up bogus numbers to fool Mao.
They were caught in a Catch-22. On the one hand, one dared not lie to the great Mao, but telling the truth could mean a death sentence. One felt compelled to lie in service of the Revolution as the Truth, but the lie could also be construed as treason. So, from all quarters, Mao heard nothing but happy news and glowing data. He genuinely believed China was advancing in leaps and bounds. Those close to him dared not speak any bad news. They existed in a state of fear and trembling. But eventually, things got SO BAD that the truth began to make its way to Mao in bits and pieces. When Mao asked about them, those around him denied the reports and insisted everything was going according to plan; and so more people suffered and died. But then, things got even worse, and the whole system began to break down. It's like, even if your nerves have been blocked from sending pain signals to your mind, you will eventually notice something isn't right when the body just feels wrong and isn't doing what it should. It got to the point where Mao ordered his men to tell him the truth. What was really going on? Mao had to forcefully order others to finally tell him the truth. Mao was upset that the truth had been kept from him, but he created this very culture of lies. After all, so many people had been purged, imprisoned, or even executed for having told the truth or shown any real courage and independence of mind. He surrounded himself with loyalists, true-believers, and flunkies. So, by the time Mao realized what a fiasco the Great Leap had become the damage had already been done. He blamed others for not telling him the truth — he had to pry it out of them — , but he'd created the conditions were only the approved dogma and narrative were allowed. And in the end, he learned nothing because a megalomaniac will always be a megalomaniac. Even as he assented to the reversal of the Great Leap policies, he blamed the people for complaining too much once the truth was out. So many peopled had died of starvation, but the concerns were mostly an annoyance to Mao. And tragically for China, Mao was allowed to remain god-emperor, and it wasn't long before he launched another crazy campaign, the Cultural Revolution.

There are parallels between Maoist lunacy and the insane Western Cults around Jews as new christs, homos as new angels, and blacks as new saints. Just like Mao remained mostly unscathed by the total disaster, notice how hardly any Jew connected with the insane Wars for Israel and Wall Street meltdown faced any consequences. Even after so many wasted lives, squandered trillions, and stolen gazillions, Jews are not only still in control of industries and institutions but objects of near-worship by both political parties. Even after so much black criminality and violence, it's always groundhog's-day-return to Noble Negro myths. And of course, US embassies now fly homo flags as the de facto new national symbol despite the cultural degradation unleashed by globo-homo, of which tranny-wanny insanity is a part. No matter what Jews, blacks, and homos do, it's as if they've been fixed as the permanent neo-trinity of the West.

Some on the Right have said the 'new left' is like Maoism, but it's not the case ideologically. Rather, something like Psychological Maoism has taken over the West. The current 'left' and its globalist enablers aren't into communism or class struggle and all that, the ideological components of Maoism. What they have in common with Mao is megalomania and the obnoxious insistence on the culture of lies to prop up their moral nihilism, which is worse than moralism or nihilism. While moralism can be overbearing, it can be a sincere effort to be more moral. While nihilism is dangerous, it is at least honest in its embrace of total freedom. In contrast, Moral Nihilism means owning the high ground of morality no matter how nihilistically you act. This is the Jewish Way now. Jews can do anything, but they're always right. They can lie, but it's always the 'truth'. Jews can kill, but they are always the victims. It's an empire of lies. Jews have mao-power, or mao-pao.

Report: Ga. fraud votes exceed margin of victory

Notes on Review of DIRTY HARRY(Clint Eastwood & Don Siegel) in Counter-Currents Publishing

DIRTY HARRY reviewed by Trevor Lynch: https://counter-currents.com/2021/02/dirty-harry/

Dirty Harry (1971), directed by Don Siegel and starring Clint Eastwood as San Francisco Police Inspector Harry Callahan, is a classic of Right-wing cinema.

It has some right-wing tropes but ultimately cops out and settles for a conventional scenario and ending. This is true of SUDDEN IMPACT as well. Early in the picture, Callahan takes out a bunch of feral black criminals who try to kidnap a white woman for gang-bang rape, but then the rest of the movie is about a white woman taking revenge on white men as rapists. So, the black rapist angle merely serves to foreshadow the rest of the story which is about revenge against White Male rapists. (Of course, those into subtext could argue that those white rapists are actually stand-ins for black rapists in an 'anti-racist' cultural climate that simply wouldn't allow a black-rapist story.) So, DIRTY HARRY movies tease us with white right-wing sentiments but ultimately opts for what is permissible. None of the Dirty Harry movies had the balls to go where THE BIRTH OF A NATION did.

Along with THE FRENCH CONNECTION and DEATH WISH, it appealed to Liberals at the time because black crime had gotten out of control. And, old-time Liberals had difficulty making sense of the so-called New Left of the 60s with drugs, degeneracy, and sex. My haunch is that the older Jews who made ALL IN THE FAMILY agreed with Meathead on talking points but with Archie Bunker at the gut level. Older Jews were confused by boomer Jews like Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies. And when Altamont and the Manson Murders happened, many older Liberals were shocked. They'd been sympathetic to the Youth Movement, but things fell apart. The fiasco of the 68 Democratic Convention pitted Old Democrats with New Radicals. Richard Nixon couldn't have won so big in 1972 with conservative votes alone. Many Liberals were disheartened by new trends.
Also, there was a divergence between ideology(especially foisted from above as most people don't think for themselves) and instinct(formed by personality, family, and community). Many whites had become 'liberal' largely due to the New Deal and WWII era. They weren't exactly culturally or ideologically on the left but voted for FDR and Truman because they'd been through hard times. And WWII defined American Patriotism as rising to its greatest hour against the far-right regimes of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Therefore, it got seared into their minds: Liberalism = Patriotism.
Still, many of these 'liberals' were ingrained with 'racist' attitudes and Eurocentric worldview. After all, 80% of Americans polled in the 60s were opposed to race-mixing, which means a good number of Liberals opposed it too. It was only when Jews took total control of the gods that attitudes began to fundamentally change. To be sure, there was the Cold War that revitalized the Right against Godless Communism, but (1) Jews soon took control of the Narrative and made the 1950s about bad ole Joe McCarthy going after leftists who prize civil liberties (2) Vietnam War made anti-communism seem cruel and even genocidal (3) capitalism, though anti-communist, could hardly be a bastion of the Right and Traditionalism as consumerism and idolatry at their core tended to upend society, indeed more so than communism could dream of.

Dirty Harry was hugely popular with moviegoers, spawning four sequels and a whole genre of films about tough cops whose hands are tied by the system and are forced to go outside the law in order to protect the public.

Ironically, the most obvious precursor of DIRTY HARRY was HIGH NOON, a work of some controversy at the time. Though considered a classic(and even right-wing by some), it was produced by arch-Jewish-Liberal Stanley Kramer, and its script was by a communist sympathizer. And its hidden message or subtext was a dig at craven America during the Red Scare. It didn't occur to these Jews and Leftists that most Americans supported anti-communism out of conviction, not out of cravenness. Most Americans regarded communists and their spies as the Frank Millers of the World. Sure, there were craven types who named names, but they were fellow communists or leftists who wanted to keep working, like Elia Kazan and Sterling Hayden. In HIGH NOON, the entire town is cowed by the news of Frank Miller's return. (Miller, like Scorpio, has been freed because of the technicality of the law.) The town is meant to be a metaphor for America that is too cowardly to stand up to the likes of Joe McCarthy. Never mind that, at least for a while, many Americans sincerely regarded McCarthy as the sheriff with the guts to take on the communists.

Anyway, the sheriff in HIGH NOON has no recourse but to go it alone as all the individuals and institutions of the town simply refuse to stand by his side for one reason or another. The sheriff goes defacto vigilante. It's like Donald Trump was effectively all alone in the final months though without the character of Will Kane(Gary Cooper). And both HIGH NOON and DIRTY HARRY ends with the lawman tossing away his badge as a sign of contempt for the system. (John Ford's revisionist Western THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE also featured a system either too weak, inept, or corrupt to maintain law and order for children and womenfolk. No one dares to take on Liberty Valance who isn't merely an outlaw but a tool of Big Money. James Stewart's character finally musters the courage to take on Liberty Valance but he's no gun-man, and John Wayne's character, as the third man, secretly 'murders' Valance.)

In a way, DIRTY HARRY is like a urban Western, but it seems worse because, whereas the Wild West was understandably a hotbed of outlaws, one would expect civilization to be more orderly. But as DIRTY HARRY shows — MIDNIGHT COWBOY and TAXI DRIVER do also in greater detail — , the problem isn't merely the system of laws and politics but the climate of culture and values. There was always the wild/savage side of man, just like there is the inner-wolf in every dog. Still, prior to the youth-centric Sixties(defined by sex and drugs under the influence of blacks, the most savage of the races, and of Jews, the most radical of the races), the wilder side had been put in its place by forces of authority, tradition, and community.
Those controls fell apart, and the character of Scorpio is like the worst manifestation/embodiment of unmoored youth mentality. While most hippies were not killers or psychos(not even close), they created a cultural petri dish from which some foul fungi grew. Indeed, this is where TAXI DRIVER and DIRTY HARRY are different. Whereas Scorpio represents the figure of both degeneracy and mayhem contra the straitlaced(relatively speaking) Callahan represents order and decency, the character of Travis Bickle exhibits characteristics of both Scorpio and Callahan. Whereas Callahan's arch-foe, Scorpio, is indeed a real killer, there is no proof that Sport(Harvey Keitel) in TAXI DRIVER is a killer. He may have killed someone, but we can't be sure. But even if Sport never killed anyone, he is a soul-destroyer. He's a spoiler of values if not a taker of lives. In contrast, Bickle is sickened by the rot and wants to save the girl, but he does have the instinct of a real killer. He's both ultra-normal and ultra-psycho.

So, there are two issues at stake here. Criminal violence and cultural decadence. DIRTY HARRY would have us believe they make a natural pair. EASY RIDER, of course, begged to differ. In it, the 'decadent' hippie bikers, though peddling in drugs and loose in sexual mores, are certainly not killers whereas the deep-rooted Southerners are. They first kill the civil liberties lawyer played by Jack Nicholson, and later the two bikers are blown to kingdom come.
If indeed cultural decadence = criminal violence, things would be so much simpler. We could lock up all the pimps, pornographers, freaks, drug-dealers, and etc. and crime would screech to a halt. Though cultural decadence surely creates a more hospitable environment for crime, it itself isn't necessarily violent. If anything, decadence is problematic in its defenselessness against violence, i.e. too dazed to register what's really happening in society.
In DIRTY HARRY, the authority seems less decadent(or even weak) than naive in its decency and commitment to the Constitution(and thus could be called almost 'libertarian', and of course, libertarians were the biggest critics of the Patriot Act after 9/11).

At any rate, if the main issue of DIRTY HARRY is the problems of urban crime, the problem owed less to hippies and dippies than to blacks. Indeed, many blacks who never took part in the counterculture were nevertheless arch-criminals. Also, Japan has had a pretty decadent culture for awhile, but it's not a crime capital(though it will soon be as it begins to import lots of blacks from Africa). The problem of crime is black, and this is where DIRTY HARRY is least honest. By fixating on a degenerate freak, it creates the false impression that serial killers are the biggest threats to society when the average black street thug was the far bigger problem. While there will always be serial killers, they don't destroy an entire city. Serial killers didn't destroy Newark, Detroit, or Baltimore. Blacks did that. DIRTY HARRY movies focus on freaks, terrorists, or some conspiracy. They hook with scenes of black criminals, but the bulk of the stories deal with fantasies. Sure, psycho-freaks are bad, but they are few and far between.
Consider the Deep State. In another Eastwood film, IN THE LINE OF FIRE, the good decent men of the FBI and other US departments are tormented by some rogue lunatic, but as recent events have shown, the whole Deep State is compromised from top to bottom. It's not the oddball psychos who pose the most problem but the fact that the entire system is entrenched with craven careerists who will do anything for their masters, the Jewish Supremacists of course, to be part of the power-game. John Brennan and Mike Pompeo aren't foam-at-the-mouth clinical-psychos but, in some ways, are more dangerous because of their 'respectability'. So, if IN THE LINE OF FIRE really wanted to get to the heart of the sickness, it would have focused less on some agent-gone-rogue than how the system itself is rigged to serve the rich and powerful, indeed to the point where even those who signed up out of idealism are little more than errand boys for the Jews. (Oliver Stone's NIXON came closest to that.)

Harry Callahan's 'vigilantism' is problematic because he is a cop who is sworn to uphold the law. But then, he's not the top cop but a street cop who takes orders. He's both a figure of authority and figure of rebellion. After 9/11, could we say the system went 'dirty harry' with the Patriot Act? Certain civil liberties were suspended to capture the 'scorpios' of the world, the dreaded terrorists. CIA used torture. The system trampled on the Constitution for the 'greater good' to keep us safe. Was this power-grab 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'? Many so-called 'liberals' lambasted Bush II as a Christo-Fascist who was taking rights from the people. But then, the very same people were utterly silent about Obama's even bigger push for the National Security State and relentless drone strikes to take out the terrorists. (Libs were silent even when Obama aided the terrorists to take down entire regimes deemed as the 'bad guys'.) In a way, Neocons have mastered the rhetoric of Dirty-Harry-ism. "We can't follow the letter of the Constitution because we must protect American lives and save innocents from foreign tyrants, the new scorpios." And under Jewpet Biden, we are now told the state must take extraordinary measures to clamp down on "Domestic Terrorists" who would be anyone who dared to speak truth to Jewish Power. Apparently, we are now all Scorpios. DIRTY HARRY was made by Jewish Don Siegel, and I wonder if he, on some level, sensed that the movie's style of rhetoric could be used to the advantage of Jews. DIRTY HARRY is a dangerous movie, for the right as well for the left, because it asks us not to think but just go with gut emotions(which can easily be manipulated). After the terrorist bombings of buses in London, many conservatives and rightists lauded the governments dirty-harry-like measures to clamp down harder on terrorism, but over the years, it has allowed the state to go after nationalists deemed as 'homegrown terrorists' or 'domestic extremists'.

The BOURNE movies came out during the Bush II presidency, and it had a deep state asset gone rogue(or 'vigilante') to take on the Secret Government. And yet, most people consider the trilogy 'leftist'. It goes to show that moral outrage is often colored by partisan politics. The very people who cheered Bourne against the Deep State were supporting Obama Administration's Deep State against Snowden. It also means vigilantism's ideology depends on the context. After WWII, bands of leftists went about lynching Fascists and collaborators in Italy and France. It was a bloodbath. Blacks in RAGTIME take the law into their own hands, and one could say it is 'right-wing' from a black nationalist perspective, but it's the sort of thing leftists would feel greater sympathy for. The Negro of RAGTIME was inspired by the story of Michael Kohlhass, whose vigilante uprising could hardly be called right-wing given the rebellion was against the aristocracy. Harriet Tubman violated the law to help runaway slaves, and National Review says she was a great hero because she was a Republican and carried guns.

Things are further complicated(or confused) because Scorpio is presented as both a rogue hippie lefty and a 'racist', 'sexist', & 'homophobic' white male. But then, Charles Manson, along with the Hell's Angels, was similarly contradictory as a hippie idol into drugs, sex, & rock-n-roll AND a white radical dreaming of a race war. (Hell's Angels were the darlings of the hippie movement, but they supported the Vietnam War and made made up mostly of druggy deplorables.) To what extent Scorpio's contradictions represent tortured psychosis or calculations on part of the film-makers to avoid controversy is anyone's guess. One thing for sure, in case anyone accused the movie of featuring a counterculture villain, the makers could say, "But, he's a racist!"

Anyway, if vigilantism is breaking the law for the greater good or one's personal sense of justice/vendetta, there's surely a difference when insiders do it and outsiders do it. When James Clapper lied about the surveillance state(and its violations of the US Constitution), was the system going rogue-vigilante for the greater good to keep us safe from terrorists? Or, was it violating the Constitution to amass more power for itself. And when Edward Snowden blew the whistle, was he the good guy for remaining true to the letter of the Constitution or a mush-head who thinks the world can run along libertarian principles? Who is the 'liberal' and who is the 'rightist' in that case? Was Snowden being overly idealistic in his commitment to the law, even to the point of endangering the US to terrorist attacks? Was Clapper and the Deep State justified?

One thing for sure, DIRTY HARRY isn't about a cop who violates the law because the system does so. It's about a cop who takes the law into his own hands because the system adheres to it because the law protects criminals with 'rights'. This is what makes Callahan a more disturbing figure. Now, if he discovered that the system is circumventing the law to favor criminals against decent people, his vigilantism might make more sense in a Machiavellian manner. When the system won't play by the law, why should the conscientious lawman? But DIRTY HARRY, while showing the system to be naive, does show its commitment to the Law. This puts Callahan at a considerable ethical disadvantage.

In current reality, the system is obviously on the side of BLM thugs and Antifa terrorists. Judges and lawyers, especially the Jewish kind, ignore the Constitution & ethical principles and take part in Lawfare to coddle thugs and louts favored by Jews while throwing the book at the likes of James Field whose crime was manslaughter than murder(and only because he was surrounded by people threatening his life). Under this scenario, one can understand an Oath-Keeper sheriff who takes the law into his own hands because the system is so corrupt and rigged in favor of certain groups over others. But that is NOT the ethical dilemma in DIRTY HARRY, in which, as far as we can tell, the system is committed to adhering to the law. A far more effective right-wing movie would have focused less on the fantasy of the gun — how many cops carry magnum 44's? — and more on the power of the law, i.e. what can conservatives, libertarians, patriots, and normal decent folks do to gain control of the law and use it for sane and sound policies based on truth and are fair to all? After all, while guns can kill bad guys, it is the power of the pen that decides the laws. If the current laws aren't working, it's because they are either unenforced or defective. If the former, they need to be enforced; if the latter, they should be changed. But too often, the Right falls for the fantasy of the gun, which can only be the last resort. Besides, guns don't win hearts and minds. Mao said, "Political Power grows out of the barrel of the gun", but he wasn't calling for militarism. It was just an admission of the brutal reality of power built on war and victory. Why did so many people want to follow Mao? Because Mao brandished a big gun? No, the Chinese Communists were effective in using words and propaganda to win hearts and minds in times of crises. So, while guns are crucial in any war, the art of propaganda decides how many people with guns are on your side. While American Right stockpiles guns, the Jews and globalists got the pens, cameras, mikes, and big tech. No wonder so many white Americans, who should be right-wing given their identity and interests, are soul-owned by anti-white enemies that control the pens and cameras. (THE ONION FIELD is more useful to the Right than DIRTY HARRY is. It shows what mastery of the law can do.) Also, in ZODIAC, it's the brainy guy who comes closest to solving the puzzle.

John Simon, in his review of PATTON(compiled in MOVIES INTO FILM), took issue with how the movie was promoted as a heroic tale of a general who was a counterculture rebel in his own right. Apparently, the ad campaign pandered to Youth and liberals. (The screenplay was by Francis Ford Coppola who claimed to be a Liberal.) Yet, Simon noted that if the general was a rebel, it was in the name of more war-mongering, more militarism, more mayhem, and more blood & glory. (I wonder if Uncle Victor in HAROLD AND MAUDE was a parody of Patton.) Patton may have taken war into his own hands, but it was to better serve the agenda of beating the Nazis. And after the war, he itched for another, this time against the commies. Callahan is like Patton in that he's part of the system but believes the system isn't tough enough to go all the way, later echoed by Rambo who's sure the gung-ho Americans would have won in Vietnam but for the backstabbing politicians. Thus, he's a rebel only because the Power isn't powerful enough for him. It's like an overseer berating the master for not allowing him to whip the slaves even more.

Also, like Will Kane of HIGH NOON, Callahan might even be called something of a fool. Why does Will Kane stick around to fight Frank Miller and the baddies when the whole town doesn't care? Why risk his own life to defend the honor of townsfolk who won't stand by his side? Likewise, why does Callahan care? After all, the good people of San Fran elected those officials who, in Callahan's eyes, aren't doing enough. So, if the voters of the city want those politicians and the 'liberal politics', the sane thing for Callahan is to walk away from the city not worth saving. And yet, both Kane and Callahan decide to fight. Why? In the end, it may come down more to sense of personal pride and vendetta than anything else. It's sort of what Jon Voight's criminal character says at the end of RUNAWAY TRAIN to the cop: "It's you and me."

DIRTY HARRY is, of course, a fantasy despite its New Hollywood credentials of heightened realism. It was discussed in the company of such films as THE FRENCH CONNECTION, but there were as many differences as similarities. Gene Hackman was very much an archetypal New Hollywood actor. He lacked the classic features of a movie star and looked very much like a hard-nosed New York cop on the beat, and that's what counted. Also, he's far from perfect. He cuts corners and often plays it dirty unlike Harry Callahan who, despite his reputation, is essentially a clean and even flawless cop. Popeye Doyle(Hackman) is trigger-happy and ultimately responsible for two dead cops due to 'friendly fire'. In contrast, Callahan is like an angel of death who never misses his target. And there isn't an hint of corruption or personal fault in him. Even his 'racism' is the ironic wink-wink kind, mere tough guy demeanor, whereas Popeye Doyle really loves to stick it to blacks. This makes him heroic and mythic but hardly believable.
More interesting are the compromised characters in TOUCH OF EVIL, PRINCE OF THE CITY, and INSOMNIA. The fat cop in Orson Welles' film is corrupt, but that's what makes him so good. He's so much a part of the swamp that he knows where the swamp creatures swim. His keen instincts cannot be divorced from his cynicism. He knows the heart of the crook too well because he himself has a crooked heart. He's one of the best precisely because he's one of the worst. He has some admirable qualities, but Welles regarded him as a tragic and evil character because, when the figure of authority violates the law, the foundation itself is corrupted. After all, what is the main difference between the cop and the crook? They both have guns and use violence, but the cop plays by the rules whereas the crook has no use for rules. But what happens when cops themselves ignore the rules? The cop in INSOMNIA is compromised but also virtuous in his own way. He's done shady things but sometimes to do what, in his mind, was the right thing. But using a lie to send a bad guy to prison means he had to cover up that lie to save his own skin, and then, the question arises, to what extent is the coverup(amidst new scandals) to keep the bad guy in prison or to save his own ass? Also, once cops can get away with doing their own thing, who's to say they'll always do so for reasons of virtue than vice? How many cops are saints like Harry Callahan?

In PRINCE OF THE CITY(the best film about police work), Danny Ciello(Treat Williams) gives his rationale as to why he and his partners break the rules: They can catch more criminals. And yet, what do these cops do with the money they take from the crooks? They keep some of it for themselves. Once adherence to rules begin to break down, there's no guarantee where it will lead. The characters in PRINCE OF THE CITY are recognizably human, whereas Harry Callahan is simply an Ideal. No wonder Pauline Kael called him something like a saint cop. Callahan breaks the rules only for the most laudable reasons and his gun always miraculously tags only the bad guys. Thus, DIRTY HARRY is a New Hollywood movie with Old Hollywood tropes. It's no wonder John Wayne was first approached for the role. A classic Western hero in the urban jungle. But then, that's not entirely accurate either as John Wayne and old Hollywood stars were recognizably human whereas Harry Callahan is nearly superhuman at times, especially the moment he jumps onto the school bus from a bridge. In some ways, he owes more to the nihilism of the Man with No Name of the Spaghetti Westerns than classic Westerns. For this reason, some have argued that DIRTY HARRY is about the hero and villain being two sides of the same coin, but that's pushing it. That's more like TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. Despite Callahan's knack for violence at opportune moments, he's totally a Good Guy whereas there isn't a single redeemable quality about Scorpio.

Liberalism holds that society can be ruled by impersonal laws, not men. Thus any film giving a favorable view of vigilantism—in which laws break down and individuals take justice into their own hands—is anti-liberal.

But that is the real problem with Liberalism. By the way, the emphasis on the Law has more to do with Libertarianism and its cult of 'Muh Constitution'. Liberalism failed in the late 60s and early 70s not because it upheld the law at all costs but because it undermined the (the rule of) Law with its sentimentalism, especially in relation to the Negro Problem. So, increasingly, the law was not applied to bad black behavior. And already by then, so-called 'liberal' Jews were manipulating the Law on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?"
Getting rid of racial discrimination was Liberal Constitutionalism, but Affirmative Action was not. Increasingly, so-called Liberals circumvented the Law to get whatever they wanted. Rule of Law became a game of Rule of Lawyers(backed with the Jewish-run media). However one may feel about abortion, Roe V. Wade was flimsy on Constitutional grounds, and of late, 'gay marriage' has NO standing in the Constitution whatever, but it became 'law of the land'.

So, it's wrong to characterize what goes by 'Liberalism' as a diehard commitment to the Law. Indeed, things wouldn't have gotten so bad IF so-called Liberals stuck by the Rule of Law.
Under Liberalism, Jewish crooks just got slap on the wrist. Today, while the FBI investigates signs "It's Okay to be White", Jews get to promote Jewish Supremacism at massive AIPAC rallies. Look how Jussie Smollett got off scot-free despite his 'hate hoax'.
So, the big irony of DIRTY HARRY is that the so-called Liberals(led by Jews of course) actually took the law into their own hands and rigged everything for their benefit. According to DIRTY HARRY, the mushy Liberals are sticklers to the law(despite the danger to the public) while Callahan is willing to bend the law to get things done. Actually, Liberals have been more like Callahan. Jews and Liberals play fast and loose with the rules to get whatever they want. They were for Free Speech when it served their purposes, but now, they are for controlling speech because 'hate speech' is the Scorpio of our age. We are all 'domestic terrorists' for daring to name the Jew or far less.

Harry Callahan is another one of Eastwood’s taciturn Aryan heroes, a physically imposing and highly capable alpha male who becomes a protector of public order.

Given the connotations, there was precious little that was 'Aryan' about Eastwood. He's too deadpan and too American to be 'Aryan' with its implications of the Nietzschean Ubermensch. While John Wayne and Clint Eastwood usually played the alpha type, they weren't hung-up on their superiority and got along swell with the rest of mankind. And even in HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER where Eastwood plays a low-and-dirty anti-hero, it's purely a personal vendetta whereas an 'Aryan' hero has a higher vision.
Charlton Heston, in contrast, had something of the 'Aryan' thing going despite having played perhaps the two most famous Jewish characters in cinema: Moses and Ben-Hur. Heston was always brazen, intense, radiant. Despite his height, Eastwood always seemed to be slouching; in contrast, Heston stands tall even when sitting, as if self-conscious of his Arno-Breker-like monumental status.

Like most of Eastwood’s classics, the world of Dirty Harry is divided into sheep, the wolves who prey on them, and the sheepdogs who protect the flock, to borrow a scheme from American Sniper. However, despite their opposed roles, wolves and sheepdogs have more in common with each other than they do with sheep, and the flock starts bleating nervously when the dogs bare their fangs at the wolves.

But is Scorpio really a wolf? He's more like a rat or weasel. A wolf is at least a proud and fearsome predator. Scorpio is like a parasite or scavenger. Wolves bring down animals much bigger than themselves. Scorpio goes after easy targets.
AMERICAN SNIPER is pretty good but deeply confused(or maybe genuinely complex). Many saw it as a patriotic movie, but the 'hero' seems a rather mindless gun-nut who's only good for shooting people halfway across the globe. The most admirable character is the guy who thinks for himself and begins to question his role in the Middle East. Sadly, he gets shot. Interestingly enough, the 'hero' of the movie is a sniper, not unlike Scorpio. Sniping is perhaps the least heroic of all military roles, especially when one is a part of an invasive force and must seriously consider shooting women and children who are resisting the Occupation.

He is a widower. His wife was killed by a drunk driver. He does not appear to have children. His work is his life now.

One thing I like about Eastwood's role as Man with No Name and Harry Callahan is the near-celibacy. Also true of Charles Bronson. (Supposedly, there's a scene with Eastwood and a woman in bed in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY but it was cut out.) I never cared for James Bond jumping in the sack with every bimbo and don't care for the hanky-panky in Eastwood's EIGER SANCTION. Women and action movies don't mix. Put men and women together in romance movies.

Dirty Harry didn’t just pioneer the loose cannon cop genre, it also established the convention of pairing these white alpha males with non-white sidekicks.

Hardly. There was the Lone Ranger and Tonto. And Robert Culp and Bill Cosby on I SPY. And Bruce Lee as Kato as sidekick to the Green Hornet. And it goes as far back as THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS where the white man has a trusty Indian by his side.

But a white alpha male mentoring another white man as a guardian of society would make Don Siegel hallucinate the sound marching feet.

Did Siegel decide on the Mexican sidekick? I think he just directed, though the original script seems to be by a Jew named Harry Fink.

However, if Harry hates honkies, he can’t be a white racist. And if his name is Callahan, that makes him a self-hating Mick. In truth, Harry is merely what today we call politically incorrect.

Of course, the guy was just joking as to why Harry is called 'dirty'. All he meant is Harry is a tough cop and shows no favor to anyone. It's like the opening of FULL METAL JACKET where gunnery sergeant Hartman hollers "Because I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me, the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless."

Harry has more than just a touch of sadism, which is brought out in the movie’s most quoted scene.

I don't think the scene with Buckwheat is sadistic. And it's even less so at the end with Scorpio. It would have been sadistic IF Buckwheat was taunted by Callahan for no reason. In contrast, Callahan is trying to defuse the situation(and putting his own life at great risk because, had the Negro been better at math, he would have realized the whitey done emptied his gun in the melee). Buckwheat, eyeing the shotgun near him, is tempted to grab it and blow away the whitey's mothafuc*in' ass. But after hearing Callahan's lecture, a crude version of Professor Kingsfield's in THE PAPER CHASE — "you lie there with a skull full of Negro Mush, which I can blow clean off" — , Buckwheat makes the wise choice.
If there's a hint of sadism about the scene, it's AFTER the Negro decides to give up the gun. Buckwheat, being ever so curious, just 'gots to know, sheeeeeeeiiiiit', whereupon Callahan gleefully pulls the trigger knowing the gun's empty. The empty guns means Callahan was playing a game of San Fran roulette. If indeed Buckwheat had grabbed for the gun, he could have blown away the 'honkey-ass mofo'.

In the final encounter with Scorpio, it's not sadistic at all. If anything, Callahan is giving the punk one last chance to live. If Callahan really had a sadistic streak, he wouldn't have said anything and just shot Scorpio piecemeal by piecemeal: a hand, a heel, a knee, the balls, etc.

You wonder how many times he has done this. He enjoys killing scum.

But throughout the movie, we sense he prefers it easy than hard. When pushed to the edge, he can get riled up and kill with a cold heart, but he doesn't enjoy the thrills of police work. The thrill-maniac is the guy in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. who lives for the adrenaline of chasing and being chased.

The plot of Dirty Harry is a standard neo-noir police thriller.

Lots of things have been called 'noir', but DIRTY HARRY doesn't really count as one. There is an obvious bad guy in DIRTY HARRY, and the basic focus is between good cop Harry and bad freako Scorpio. Thus, it's more like a Western than a noir. CHINATOWN is noir, a genre where the dark, corrupt, and venal are part of the mundane. Seedy corruption could be in the heart of your next door neighbor who could be plotting with your very wife to have you murdered, and you, dark soul that you are, either deserve it or have something up your sleeve as well. Good and Evil are too clearly demarcated in DIRTY HARRY for it to be noir.

Scorpio is a Dostoyevskyian criminal Untermensch. He’s physically weak, unmasculine, and cowardly, palpably seething with resentment. He screams like a pig, blubbers like a child, and develops a severe limp after Harry stabs then shoots him in the leg.

Andy Robinson did a terrific job, and the reason why the first DIRTY HARRY is the only classic owes to the villainy. Still, Scorpio is a cartoon, more Batman-and-Joker than Dostoevsky.

(Scorpio) pays a black thug $200 to beat him to a pulp, then blames it on Callahan. This sequence is a viscerally powerful critique of modern liberal slave morality which rewards and weaponizes victimhood, creating an incentive to fabricate police brutality and hate crimes.

Is the current liberalism about 'slave morality'? Slave Morality, as I understand it, preaches to the masses to submit to their allotted roles without complaint. To be a Dalit or Untouchable is Slave Morality in the Hindu Context. Jesus preached love and brotherhood, and He sympathized with the poor & the powerless and told them to be meek & humble, and if this is Slave Morality, it was advantageous to the Powerful because the meek accepted their lowly state in This World in exchange for Eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven. If Christian Slave Morality is so dangerous to the elites and the powerful, why did they support the churches?
What is often called 'Slave Morality' is actually the Slave Rebellion Morality, quite a different thing. Slave Morality is about people accepting their slave roles in society. In contrast, Slave Rebellion Morality is about slaves throwing off their shackles and demanding their freedom or demanding their share of the power.
It's when Serfs are okay with being Serfs that they are part of Slave Morality. When Serfs want to be free, they are part of Slave Rebellion Morality, and it is what distinguished the West from the Rest where the great masses internalized Slave Morality and mostly bowed down before the Master Class.

Who do we respect more? Slaves who remain meekly as slaves or slaves who fight back and want to be free and masters of their own destiny? If anything, White People now need Slave Rebellion Morality more than ever because a Neo-Slave-Morality has come to define white mass psychology. So many whites are happy-sappy to cuck before Jews, blacks, and homos as racial, moral, and even spiritual superiors. Instead of joining the White Slave Rebellion against the Jewgromo Plantation, too many whites are happy to be like Mitt Romney, the total cuck, or Donald Trump, who talks big but when, push comes to shove, takes it up the arse from his Jewish Masters.

And even though Scorpio exploits the talk of 'rights', those rights are the ONLY things that stand between us and the powerful. Jews got media, academia, law firms, courts, deep state, banks, big tech, and just about everything to crush us. Jews aim to take away our gun rights and speech rights. Are we into 'slave morality' for championing those rights or pointing to how whites are being victimized by Jews? Only if you're willing to submit to the Great Reset. If you want to resist, you're into Slave Rebellion Morality.

Also, the Master Morality is no better than Slave Morality. It should be obvious by now that the Master Class was never what it claimed to be. Most heirs to the throne were spoiled namby pamby brats. While those who gained power for themselves proved their will-power and mettle, their total obsession with domination blinded them to finer things. And just look at the so-called 'best and the brightest'. What a bunch of nasty Jews and craven cuck goyim.
Also, any system of Master Class surrounds itself with the Toady Class. The powerful don't want to be challenged, and so, they want pliable flunkies than honest and courageous people. Who did Bill Buckley choose? Rich Lowry. Who did Hilton Kramer choose? Roger Kimball. Second-rate toadies. This is the problem facing Russia. Vladimir Putin had what it took to maneuver himself to top position, but he chose too many flunkies, the kind of people who will always follow the strong horse without convictions of their own.

Now, one can argue that the current PC is a kind of 'slave morality' in that the liberated non-slaves still cling to their slave-identity, indeed as if past victimhood eternally defines who they are. So, blacks act like they're still slaves, and Jews constantly invoke the Holocaust, as if they're all a bunch of Anne Franks forever and ever. But this is clearly not the kind of 'slave morality' as preached by Jesus who told people to accept their miserable lot in life without complaint and look to Heaven for salvation.
If Jews and blacks were into genuine 'slave morality', they would be forgiving and resigned to the fallen state of the world. But, they are really driven by a fiery will-to-power to dominate, amass power, and be worshiped by others. They act like slave rebels who'd come into positions of the New Master Class, but they still yap about victimhood. But then, American History is about a people who built a new nation and became masters of the world but still invoke 1776 about how freedom-loving folks rebelled against British Tyranny. This kind of 'slavery morality' is merely a moral shield for the Will to Power. Ruthless Jews tell the 'slave' story to justify their master status over us. In a way, it's clever thinking. People naturally love power but also want to feel justified. "Our power was gained against tyranny" surely goes a long way to justify the new tyranny.

Harry has been living the zone of what Carl Schmitt called the “Ernstfall,” the emergency situation in which the reigning liberal norms are not capable of pursuing justice. Faced with the choice of law or justice, Harry chooses justice. It is the first step down the path to the vigilante—or the superhero.

Of course, the danger of tossing the Law is a people could end up with Adolf Hitler. Hitler did take on bad Jewish behavior and did bring some measure of justice to the German people with his restoration of territories, economy, and pride. But without independent due process of the law and rights of dissent, the New Boss can do whatever he wishes, and what if he's pathological beneath the respectable exterior? When individuals promising justice(in exchange for absolute power) replace the legal functioning of institutions, the cure can turn out to be worse than the disease. This aspect of DIRTY HARRY was called 'fascist', but the communists made the same promise: "The Liberal Bourgeois order is full of BS and only serves the rich. For true justice, give us communists the power to destroy the exploitative class and you shall have justice. Real justice than empty liberal-bourgeois promises." The result was Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism.

Whatever the current system in the West is, it is not liberal. It is Uberall, or Jewish Globalism Uber Alles. The White Right would be in much better shape if indeed the West was truly liberal and allowed free speech and open discourse for all under the protection of the law. But Jewish dirty harrys have decided to go rogue to destroy the 'scorpios' of the 'far-right' and of course BDS. Ricky Vaughn the 'domestic terrorist' is now in prison because of a prank meme. It's the time to be screaming about 'rights'.

Looking back, the 60s and 70s went badly not because of Liberalism's strict adherence to the Law but its selective application that increasingly favored Jews, blacks, and certain other groups over all others. The problem ultimately wasn't with hippies, a passing fashion. Or with serial killers, who will always be with us. The real problem was blacks whose rage Jews exploited to use against whites. But when Jews let out the panther to attack whitey, it also bit him in the ass. So, movies like DEATH WISH were both Hollywood's exploitation of white fears for profits and expression of Jewish disappointment that blacks dared to attack the Jew as well as Whitey.

The Dirty Harry Sequels: Deconstructing a Hero: https://counter-currents.com/2021/02/the-dirty-harry-sequels/

 The best way to appreciate Dirty Harry is to compare it to its four terrible sequels.

Sequels are reliably terrible. Still, DIRTY HARRY sequels weren’t as disgraceful as ROCKY and RAMBO sequels, among many others.

Sequels can be interesting IF a singular director has ample imagination to expand the material. No wonder FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY are even better than the first A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. Such sequels are unified by an ‘auteur’ vision.

Sequels can work if the material is formulaic to begin with. The success of 007 and Zatoichi movies owes to this. The fan base essentially wanted the same old or the same new. It’s like ordering from one's favorite pizzeria over and over.

Sequels are justified when the original movie is incomplete or open to further development, as with THE GODFATHER PART 2 and THE NEW LAND(which follows THE EMIGRANTS). As Part 1 traced the rise of Michael Corleone, part 2 could focus on his consolidation of power. And there was more in the family saga, as well as the story of Vito Corleon's origins.

Though George Lucas ultimately botched STAR WARS, the sequels were part of his original big concept. Still, it was meant to be a closed system(like Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle) than open-ended, which is why the Disney Reboot was so ill-conceived; it was driven by money(and the ideological agenda to de-Aryanize the material). STAR TREK was conceived as a open system for TV and could go on and on. STAR WARS was meant to unfold like a fairy tale, with ‘Once Upon a Time’ beginning and ‘Happily Ever After’ ending.

Another way sequels can be interesting if if the material is open to new interpretations and variations. This was true of the ALIEN franchise, at least prior to PROMETHEUS. First-rate talents were recruited to give new spins on the core premise.

Unfortunately, the only rationale for most sequels is More Money(like with JAWS and HALLOWEEN). Usually, the director of the remarkable original isn’t interested IF he has any integrity. He did the first movie out of conviction and doesn’t want to compromise himself and cheapen the material for quick profit. So, sequels are usually done by second-raters. Also, the power of certain movies owes to their urgency & topicality. DIRTY HARRY was the right(ist) movie for the right time. Later, it just became a nostalgia act.

DIRTY HARRY should have been a stand-alone movie. It ended like HIGH NOON, and who’d want a sequel to HIGH NOON? Sequels followed THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, and they were a bad idea.
Some stories say everything that needs to be said and MORE would simply be superfluous. This was true of ROCKY where the local palooka loses the fight but earns self-respect. Anything more would spoil the magic. (Sadly, the audience didn’t agree and kept rewarding Stallone for Rocky sequels while neglecting his attempts to do something different.)

DIRTY HARRY also has nothing more to say as it ended. Harry Callahan’s flinging the badge has double meaning. The system isn’t capable of dealing with criminals, and he wants nothing more to do with it. But, there’s also the sense that his way is unacceptable. It isn’t the Wild West anymore, and if every cop could just go around with a Magnum and blow away bad guys out of personal vendetta, cops would be the new outlaw class. So, Callahan is caught between a rock and hard place. The system is too soft, but then, he doesn’t want to be a mad killer cop. He did it against Scorpio whom he especially came to loathe, but it was so out-of-control. So, unwilling to serve a weak system and unwilling to be a monster, he walks away. It is a pessimistic happy ending. The killer is dead, but Callahan's heart is too.

There is a dark integrity to Callahan's methods — he risks his job and reputation to mete out true justice —, but it vanishes with the sequels because he’s back to doing the same thing with apparent approval of officialdom. As such, the sequels undermine the social critique of the original. If indeed the system cannot tolerate a man like Callahan, why is he allowed to remain on the job even as he piles up body counts in ever more spectacular ways? Hmm, maybe the system can use a man like Harry after all. In the original, we shared Callahan’s frustration when the system obstructed his actions, but in the sequels the System vs Callahan is just a wink-wink horseplay where he’s routinely reprimanded but let loose to fire off his cannon in every direction. Also, whereas Callahan was a beleaguered individual in the first film, he’s a celebrated institution in the sequels. Even the obligatory reprimands are part of the legend, elevating than degrading him. It’s like Godzilla was a terrifying monster in the first movie but a beloved national symbol in the sequels.

Dirty Harry was decried as “fascist” for making a hero of a vigilante cop who was also characterized as a racist, although the movie pulled its punches on this particular matter by making Harry an equal opportunity hater and partnering him with one Chico Gonzalez.

There are ‘racists’ and then there are ‘racists’. People love the soft bigot for three reasons: (1) Being less 'sensitive', he might blurt out the inconvenient truth — Mike Royko the famous Chicago columnist often played on this (2) bigotry is often funny, e.g. Dumb Polack Jokes and Jewish Jokes (3) there is the chance for redemption, like when the Negro in PHILADELPHIA comes to feel for the homo dying of AIDS. (And of course, Oscar Schindler goes from a war profiteer who dallies with Nazi stalwarts to a savior of Jews. Apparently, soft bigots can be turned, and this Damascus Moment is inspiring.) People don’t like hard bigots like the KKK guy on Howard Stern Show. They come across as too grim and extreme. But they love soft bigots who function like the hooker with the heart of gold in fiction. 

Soft bigots like Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, and Fred G. Sanford were always funny, even endearing. Despite their outward bigotry, they had a heart and, when push came to shove, could be expected to be on the side of sentiment. And sometimes, Archie Bunker was closer to the truth than overly idealistic and naive Meathead. Dirty Harry was a soft bigot, a role Eastwood reprised in GRAN TORINO.

At the end of Dirty Harry, Callahan looks like he is quitting the police force and going rogue.

No, it looks like he’s calling it quits for good. There’s no indication that he’s going rogue. He’s just walking away. System is soft, thugs are brazen, and he’s sick & tired of being a tough guy against rough guys in a system gone too soft. He’s not planning to be Judge Dredd.

It turns out that the culprits are four good-looking white motorcycle cops played by David Soul, Robert Urich, Tim Matheson, and Kip Niven. Of course the “real” Harry Callahan would have been mentoring young men like this, not trying to arrest them.

No, Callahan would never have mentored them to be vigilantes. He is above all an individual, something of a loner. He did it his way in DIRTY HARRY because HE felt it was right. He resents having his decisions(based on experience) blocked by some paper pusher, but neither does he want to be a ringleader forcing his agenda on others. Callahan is a case of pulp existentialism. He doesn’t claim to know the truth or the way for all times and all places. Rather, based on experience and intuition, he believes his way is best for himself in a town he knows like the back of his hand. But, he doesn’t believe his way should be The Way for the system or for others. Pauline Kael mentioned Ayn Rand in her review of DIRTY HARRY, and there is indeed something similar between Harry Callahan and Howard Roark. Roark believes his way is right for himself. He doesn’t want to be told what to do, but then, he would never tell others to do it his way. Everyone has to know himself and find his own right way.

The scenario of MAGNUM FORCE is a dark reflection of the system in the original. Whether too-soft-and-liberal or too-authoritarian-and-hardline, both systems are about some paper-pushing bureaucrat turning theory into practice with automatons who only know how to follow orders. So, if cops in DIRTY HARRY are expected to mindlessly follow the ‘liberal’ line, the cops in MAGNUM FORCE are trained to follow authoritarian dictates. Callahan sees both ways as mindless and faceless, an abandonment of individuality in total submission to the system.
Also, if the evil mastermind in MAGNUM FORCE is secretly building up a new police corp., he isn’t really going rogue but crypto-statist. And who knows how this power may be used in the future if it becomes the New Way? After all, conservatives assumed that the US military and US police are bastions of conservatism, but the US military is now the warring force of globo-homo and miscegenation(and war drums are sounded by progs and libby-dibs). And US police stand idly by while Antifa thugs attack American patriots and move into action to arrest the patriots who dare to fight back.

So, in a way, the concerns raised by MAGNUM FORCE are relevant. While the Holbrook character may be building up a new authoritarian police force to fight crime, once instituted who is to tell how it will be used? After 9/11, we were told the Patriot Act was to defend us from terrorists, but under Obama the US was working with Alqaeda, and worse, we are now told that half the nation are potential ‘domestic terrorists’. Patriot Act is now being turned on Americans as the enemies of the state.

Today, the libby-dibs wanna go ‘rogue’ with the Constitution and are cheering suppression of free speech by invoking ‘hate speech’ and thought criminals. Supposedly, we are so evil that lawyers and journalists must stop upholding age-old principles and use whatever means to shut us down.

And according to TIME mag, it was so inspiring for a cabal of Jewish oligarchs and elites to use extra-legal means to rig the election in favor of Joe Biden because Donald Trump is unfit for their idea of ‘democracy’. Whether it’s called going rogue or going gangster, it can be turned against you… like Germany’s use of poison gas in WWI. When the wind shifted, the gas came right back.

Clean Harry argues (1) that vigilantism is a slippery slope that will lead to shooting people over parking tickets, which is absurd, and (2) that the system may be broken, but it is the only one we’ve got, and we can’t let go of it, which is Republican

Harry’s argument isn’t really about vigilantism per se. Brigg(Holbrook) isn’t just an angry official lashing out at thugs and crooks in a city going down the sewer. He’s trying to institutionalize what is considered ‘vigilantism’ into a new system of law and order. He’s trying to create a deep state within the police system. But if such power becomes reality, there’s no guarantee it will be used only to fight thugs and criminals. It can be politicized. Vigilantes tend to be individuals than institutions. 60s radicals of the Long March through the institutions proved that what was once ‘radical’ and ‘seditious’ could become the New Normal and Obligatory Officialdom. The rogue can become the new vogue.

Over the years, the militarization of the police has taken place. Also, Charlottesville taught us about how the system can use an authoritarian police force to violate the rights of free speech and free assembly. The police didn’t stand by the Constitution but took orders from Jewish and black bosses to use magnum force against the Alt Rightists, pushing them into crowds of Antifa and other scum.

The current order of lawfare and militarized police force don’t shoot people for parking tickets, but James Field in sitting in jail for 500 yrs for what was, at most, manslaughter.
In our time, the question isn’t “Is the legal system too soft?” or “Is the legal system too tough?” but “Why is the legal system so soft on some people, esp. Jews, homos, & blacks, while so tough on others, especially white conservatives, populists, and nationalists?” If you’re a Jewish gangster who stole billions and support Zionist terrorism, you get pardoned and walk freely. But if you’re a white patriot, the banks deny you service, you get fired, and you can be dragged to prison for fighting back against Antifa.

Magnum Force was directed by Ted Post. I didn’t need to visit Wikipedia to know that he made his career in television.

Ted Post was a decent journeyman director who worked with big stars.

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/hang-em-high/Film?oid=1053493

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/movies/ted-post-director-for-film-and-television-dies-at-95.html

On its release in 1978, “Go Tell the Spartans” received respectful reviews in major newspapers and a few raves. Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called it “the best film I’ve seen about the Vietnam War.” But appearing in theaters at virtually the same time as the better-financed and better-publicized Vietnam films “Coming Home” and “The Deer Hunter,” it failed at the box office.
“Spartans” began receiving a second look when the influential film quarterly Cineaste published an article in 1983 comparing it favorably to “The Deer Hunter,” “Coming Home” and Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 epic, “Apocalypse Now.” The article, by the film historian Rob Edelman, helped spur the movie’s re-release in 1987.
Upon the re-release, the film historian Burt Cadullo wrote, “It’s time that this film received the recognition it deserves,” but “Spartans” still performed poorly in theaters.

The allegedly clever line that Harry repeats is, “A man’s got to know his limitations,” which is a far cry from, “Do you feel lucky?”

Most Dirty Harry lines mean little on their own. They have meaning within the context; they work like jokes, and the final line in MAGNUM FORCE does work in timing and delivery. It’s like Blondie’s line THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY.

It’s why some of the most famous movie lines are actually pretty dull or lame minus the context, like song lyrics without the music. Take the line “I’ll be back” in THE TERMINATOR. On its own, it’s hardly Shakespeare, but in that scene where the killer robot crashes the car through the station and lumbers down the hall with rifles, it’s classic.
Lines in a play must rely on the power of words alone, whereas words in movies often serve as mere counterpoint to the spectacle. Like John Wayne’s “That’ll be the day” that, on its own, is dull but takes on various meanings within the context ranging from comic to tragic.

Harry is paired with a female rookie (Tyne Daly), .. But her lack of experience gets her killed while rescuing the mayor. Thus The Enforcer actually amounts to a powerful critique of affirmative action and the political flakes who push it.

This is simply not true and you’re projecting your ideological bias onto the scene. The movie shows her to be quite capable, a fast learner. Also, her death isn’t the result of lack of experience(and if it were, it could be remedied with MORE experience) but of risking her own life to save Harry’s. When she yelled, “Look out”, Callahan’s back was turned to the killer who could have blown him away. Her warning saved his life, and she took the bullets meant for him. Thus, it is Callahan who owes her one. Also, she’s professional enough to tell Callahan to go save the mayor than concern himself with her. So, she dies with honor.

Harry suspects that Jennifer is the real killer, but since Mick has the murder weapon on him, Harry pins the other murders on him and lets Jennifer walk away. It is a bizarre ending. It is not really an endorsement of vigilantism, however, because Harry doesn’t actually know why Jennifer is killing these people. It is just a bizarre lapse of responsibility.

How could Callahan not know when she spelled it all out?

“Read me my rights? And where was all this concern for my rights when I was being beaten and mauled? And where were my sister’s rights when she was being brutalized? There is a thing called justice Callahan, and is it justice that they should all just walk away?”

 There have been three major arguments against vigilantes.

1. Even if the aggrieved go after the real villains, there is no due process. Thus, justice itself becomes criminal.

2. Even if the guilty are caught and punished, the vigilantes may go overboard in vengeful sadism and resort to cruel & unusual punishment. Like torture and horrible lynching. While prog-types condemn the lynching of blacks in the South(deemed ‘racist’ and cruel even when blacks were guilty), they seem to delight in their own torture-porn revenge fantasies. There was a nasty piece of work called HARD CANDY(though its pedo-gate vibes might appeal to the pizzagate crowd). Blacks and progs loved DJANGO UNCHAINED where a black guy and a German take the law into their own hand against slave masters and ‘racists’. Blacks reveled in the bloodbath, and there was a movie recently called MA where a fat black woman takes revenge on white kids. And a movie called INVISIBLE MAN had a white woman allying with a noble black man(LOL) to kill an evil white male. And blockbuster GIRL WITH THE DRAGON ASS TATTOO movies are vigilante movies as anti-Nazi fantasies. In a way, many Nazi-hunter movies are vigilante in nature. Jews go rogue to catch Nazi criminals and bring them to justice.

Atom Egoyan’s trashy and sleazy —how he has fallen as an artist — REMEMBER, like BOYS FROM BRAZIL, is about a 'Jew' who goes rogue to hunt down Nazis. (Actually, it has a twist ending, but you get the point.)

GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO might be called leftist, but are the revenge fantasies of Jews and blacks leftist or rightist? If they are about pursuit of justice, they could be called leftist, but if the rage is driven by tribal animus, they’d be rightist. Leftism is about Us over Them, whereas Rightism is about Us vs. Them.

The vigilantism in Clint Eastwood's THE UNFORGIVEN is closer to leftism because the men are motivated, at least ostensibly, by a sense of injustice over what was done to a woman. But the revenge fantasy of something like SWEEET SWEETBACK’S BLACK ASS SONG seems driven by racial animus, thus it could be called black-tribalist(if not exactly rightist).

Vigilantism becomes further confused when crime itself is regarded as a form of crude justice.
Some vigilantes are surely law-and-order types who venture outside the law to get the criminal. And yet, in going outside the law, they are nominally criminals themselves. But, what about those who turn to crime itself as righteous rebellion against society? Thus, crime itself becomes a kind of vigilantism. Black mentality works this way. They commit crime on the self-serving premise that they are OWED by a ‘racist’ society. A strain of leftism, especially in vogue in France in the 60s, encouraged acts of crime as revolutionary acts of justice.

3. The biggest problem of vigilantism is catching, tormenting, and/or killing the wrong person. If the system of due process can sometimes convict and execute the wrong person, a vigilante gang has a far bigger chance of hanging the wrong horse thief. Frontier justice was problematic for this reason, and movies like OX-BOW INCIDENT illustrated the danger of vigilantism. Three men are hanged but they turn out to be innocent of the crime. And in Henry King's THE BRAVADOS(starring Gregory Peck), the hero catches up to the villains and kills them… only to discover out he killed the wrong men. The men are bad alright but not guilty of the crime that obsesses Peck's character.

MAGNUM FORCE is actually consistent with the theme of DIRTY HARRY. Callahan is quintessentially American. He has a frontier mentality and believes in manhood and violence. But he’s all about freedom and standing on his own two feet. He will never sacrifice freedom and individuality in the name of Order. He’s not the enemy of freedom and liberty. He’s the enemy of naivete and political opportunism. Some legislators just don’t know the reality, and some politicians are more interested in public opinion polls. So, he feels he must go the extra mile to do what’s right on occasion. Still, he’s a defender of freedom, thus very much a John-Wayne-like character. John Wayne characters believe in toughness and violence but would never give up freedom and liberty. In THE SEARCHERS, he goes his own way and does it his way.

In contrast, the crypto-fascist cops in MAGNUM FORCE are about Order uber Freedom. They are committed to rooting out crime but their agenda goes much further. They have no use for freedom or liberty. They are about conformity, not individuality. They take orders from above and do as told, and they speak like clones. They are like Stepford Cops. Harry is somewhat like Gary Cooper's character in MEET JOHN DOE. 'John Doe' wants something better but doesn't want to be a tool of an power-mad organization that seeking to impose its will over the populace. It's part of the American Ethos of individualism and freedom, though it may have been more myth than reality where the real power was concerned. After all, while Jews were certainly for individuality, they were also for tribal-communal-unity. Jews feared German collectivism far more than Anglo-American individualism because collective unity leads to amassing of real power and could be used effectively against Jews.

And in a way, they were prescient of the national security state that really took hold after 9/11, what with Bush II saying, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” And Jewpet Biden intends to broaden the War on Terror… this time against ‘deplorables’. Of course, the insane Jewish power plays it both-ways-schizo. It will sometimes rile up BLM & Antifa mobs and call for ‘defunding the police’ in the name of combating ‘systemic racism’. This throws a bone to the radicals and black voters. But when Jews feel threatened by white populists, they will totally be for law-and-order and turn DC into an armed camp and hail the police as heroes.

This was the danger of National Socialism. True, there was a need for stability and order from the chaos and degeneration of Weimar Period, but should people have surrendered their freedom and individuality to radical authoritarianism? Could they be sure that the New Power would limit itself to national restoration? Hitler couldn’t stop once the goals of national renewal were met. He had bigger expansionist ideas that led to war, and by that time, Germans couldn’t do anything about it because they’d given up all their rights and freedom to the Fuhrer.

So, in that sense, DIRTY HARRY isn't really fascist. Upon release, it was a retro-Western in contemporary setting. It was about anger and violence, but it was never about surrendering individual freedom for order. If anything, it is a message of ultra-individualist rebellion against Liberal Statism premised on naivete and cynicism. Unlike fascism, it wasn’t calling for more statism as the solution but more individual freedom to deal with criminals.

So, Callahan of MAGNUM FORCE is very consistent with the incarnation in the first film.

Incidentally, Jews called Trump ‘fascist’ for asking the military to do something about BLM riots, but after the Capitol building was occupied for a couple of hours, Jews and Democrats went ‘full-fascist’ and turned the whole city into a military zone. So, as usual, it all comes down to “Is it good for Jews?” 

Jews are in heaven in the US. Just think. Jewish Capitalists use ‘commies’ to attack ‘nazis'(the deplorables), but the ‘nazis’ defend the capitalists from the ‘commies’. ROTFL. Jewish oligarchs use Antifa against Deplorables, but Deplorables gripe about ‘socialists’ who supposedly threaten the capitalism of the oligarchic class of Jews... who use Antifa against the Deplorables. Why, it’s like a man using dog A to attack dog B but dog B defending the man from dog A. Total Clown Show. If Deplorables had any sense, they would be for socialism of the national kind.