“Before disco, this country was a dancing wasteland. You know the Woodstock generation of the 1960s that were so full of themselves and conceited? None of those people could dance.” – Charlotte
Whit Stillman’s films are mainly known for their dialogue and have been compared with the works of Eric Rohmer. And yet, music plays a key role in their themes of civilizational anxiety. If some artists focused on the cracks of desperation on the facade of bourgeois respectability or social conformism(like in FAR FROM HEAVEN and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD), Stillman traced the lingering remnants of conservatism in a world committed to ceaseless change. And especially given the character of American Conservatism — to conserve the engines of free enterprise that facilitates nonstop constructive destruction — , there’s hardly any respite, let alone sanctuary, for the true conservative.
William F. Buckley held a stop sign to a locomotive moving at full speed but was in love with its very engine. Therefore, true conservatism is hopeless in America(and modern West in general) as everything is in constant flux amidst vast changes beyond the control of any individual or institution. And yet, vestiges of conservatism remain at the margins as part of human nature, more so among those with certain dispositions. Thus, for Stillman conservatism is less a political philosophy than a style and approach to life. It’s telling that the socialist in METROPOLITAN fits in very well with the hierarchy. At the very least, he has the manners and a sense of honor(that even leads him to call out the dragon to save the damsel). And in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO, the 70s music scene associated with shameless homos, salacious blacks, and tasteless goombas(mainly due to SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER) is presented as something like neo-camelot for the well-heeled and privileged.
Some of the songs in METROPOLITAN are by black singers, not exactly a marker of high society, but there is royalty in any kind of excellence. And, despite the story being set in 1969, the songs featured are of an earlier period, as if the Summer of Love and Woodstock never happened. (Keeping with tradition can be regarded as behind-the-times but also timeless, and the casual viewer could be forgiven for thinking the story is set in another time, earlier or later. In this, METROPOLITAN has something in common with David Lynch’s BLUE VELVET that seems set in the 80s but stuck in the 50s, or early 60s. When the film came out in 1990, the initial impression was of an upper crust variation of John Hughes brat pack movies. Given budget limitations, Stillman didn’t dwell much on period details and one could almost believe it was about some hidden socialite corner in the here-and-now. Stillman could be mistaken for a youngster himself when, in fact, he was a boomer born in 1952, nearing forty when he finished his first film. But then, John Hughes was even older and faked his rapport with 1980s youth.)
Since the Jazz Age, it’s been commonplace for whites to draw inspiration from black music, which had both a sharpening and loosening effect, like a strange drug. In one way, it could mean getting down and dirty, crude and vulgar, all nasty and shit. And yet, there was also hopeful desire to encourage or elevate blackness toward finer sentiments and higher passion. Some blacks internalized this, becoming self-consciously arty and turning jazz from popular idiom into bona fide art music. It was as if blacks had the voice and energy, but whites(many of them Jewish composers) had the finer sensibility.
For METROPOLITAN, Stillman chose black songs that are kinder and gentler, with emotions not so out-of-place in the world of Jane Austen. From Stillman’s quirky perspective, perhaps, there’s an overlap between the black world and the WASP(or UHB) world. Both exist in the margins, privileged or not. It is the late Sixties, when blacks were making the climb while the Wasps were beginning to feel the slip, but with neither commanding the center of American Life, up for grabs and soon to fall into the hands of Jews. (Even today, Wasp elite sentimentality toward blacks and hostility toward white ‘deplorables’ may derive from such mindset. If Wasps are to relinquish power and privilege, then blacks, with their soulful history of injustice and just being soulful, are more deserving than the ‘insensitive’ masses of ‘redneck’ truck drivers and ‘white trash’ with MAGA hats.)
METROPOLITAN is somewhat like AMERICAN GRAFFITI for high society youth. If George Lucas’ film depicts the more ‘innocent’ Sixties before everything blew up with drugs, race riots, and the Vietnam War, METROPOLITAN is like the last hurrah(or final whimper) of the socialite culture. Higher up in society, they could afford to be somewhat aloof and remain less affected by events on the ground; still, social changes have seeped into this world as well in lifestyle and attitudes — Nick Smith(Chris Eigeman) hallucinates to mescaline, albeit gazing at a Babar comic book. It’s also like a minuscule version of THE LEOPARD(by Luchino Visconti) though with comic than tragic overtones; it’s as if they’re doing it for appearances for maybe the last time before their world becomes a museum piece.
Though we don’t see much dancing, the gatherings often center around debutante balls(or whatever such are called). These gatherings are in stark contrast with the kind of dance usually associated with the late Sixties where hippies, high on drugs, moved their bodies anyway they felt like(in tune with the cosmic groove?) On the evidence of GIMME SHELTER(The Rolling Stones film), maybe drugs-and-dancing should be avoided like drinking-and-driving. Though a key event in the Summer of Love billed itself as the Gathering of the Tribe, there was little that was tribal(in the real sense) among the hippies who were too loose to establish a lasting community. After all, tribal societies tend to be rather rigid and demanding, than trivial and libertine. Dancing in a primitive tribal setting serves a purpose. It could have spiritual significance or serve as a rite-of-passage. It’s not something youths do just for the hell of it. Even though the world of high society is far removed from primitivism, there is a link between the tribal village and high civilization in their observances of rites and rituals, in their insistence on cultural significance regarding certain acts. In METROPOLITAN, the young men and women aren’t just hanging out for fun but keeping with a tradition that has been handed down(and ideally should go on indefinitely). They aren’t merely of the whims of the moment but the bonds of history, which is perhaps why the betrayals of parents(though hardly seen) are especially painful as they failed in their duty to the graceful transition between generations.
For Stillman, dance-as-ritual is key to civilizational health. Without dance, society is stuffy and repressed, its vitality stifled. But then, dancing also poses a threat to civilizational order with its summoning of animal spirits and sensual delights. John the Baptist surely got nothing out of Salome’s dance. For this reason, Stillman prefers a kind of philosophy of dance, a compromise or even a compact between the exciting animal spirits and the sensible man-made rules.
The dance cultures of METROPOLITAN and THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO are light years apart but have in common a sense of form and standards. The young men and women go about their lives in METROPOLITAN mostly oblivious to the cultural upheavals of the Sixties(rather like the mafia guys in GOODFELLAS), and the characters who frequent the club in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO act as though the Sixties never happened. The most memorable dance moment in METROPOLITAN is a casual cha-cha-cha, a much forgotten number. The characters are hopelessly but charmingly are out of time. In contrast, the boys and girls in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO are very much with-the-time(though to realize at the end that disco vanished as quickly as it appeared, and they are suddenly find themselves out-of-time), but what the older forms of dance and disco have in common is a sense of definition and criteria. No wonder SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER was about a dance contest. Can anyone imagine a hippie dance contest?
Though disco was no one’s idea of conservatism, it did come with a set of standards and hierarchy. It wasn’t just about dancing anyway you felt like but dancing well. And even though the disco look soon became the look, there were do’s and don’ts. You couldn’t be sloppy like the people at Woodstock. Not for nothing did Mike Royko write a column about confusing a hobo with a hippie.
Not that THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO has much in common with SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. (The John Travolta movie was the biggest thing associated with disco, but Josh is disdainful of it. If anything, the characters seem to cherish the exclusivity of their favorite haunt. While the club in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER is open to anyone, even an ex-priest and fat girls who can’t dance, the very appeal of the club in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO it’s so damned hard to get in. Even the self-designated socialist can’t believe his good fortune.) Stillman seems to have a natural aversion to Deplorables and isn’t a true conservative but a conservatoid. For him, conservatism is less a matter of core values than style, look, and feel. It’s the kind of ‘conservatism’ that might argue ‘gay marriage’ is ‘conservative’ because some homosexuals dress well, maintain well-kept lawns, and salute the flag(while serving in the deep state). Just like Stillman would rather not think about the messy and slovenly Sixties, he almost never touches upon the white working class. Even though his films are mostly about well-heeled whites(mainly wasps), there is a nod to blacks(at least in music and as dancers); also, the honest working man is depicted by Negroes in DAMSELS IN DISTRESS. Just about the only reference to the white working class is the image of rough looking types with ‘Disco Sucks’ T-shirts and TV footage of proto-deplorables who took part in Steve Dahl’s DISCO DEMOLITION, a precursor to the 1/6 ‘Insurrection’, or Deep State Demolition.
Stillman is about hierarchy, and he appreciates the world of style, manners, and knowledge. Even the socialist in METROPOLITAN may be egalitarian in thought but elitist in manners and erudition. As for blacks, Stillman regards them as the royalty of popular music. Of course, we’re not talking of gangster rap and the like, which Stillman most probably doesn’t care for. But there was a time when black music aspired to higher emotions than just wallowing in the morass of ‘muh dick’ and ‘muh booty’. Back then, they were the Duke of Earl(at least on stage) than Da Kang of Bling. Whiling away in a hospital(over what turns out to be a trifle), Charlotte Pingress(Kate Beckindale), the most amoral and conniving character(though rivaled by Des McGrath), begins to sing “Amazing Grace”, either exhibiting her softer side or her self-delusion(that she has any redemptive bone in her body); still, if she’s a phony, she’s a ‘real phony'(like Holly Golightly in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S) because she sincerely believes in all her self-justifying rationalizations. But on another level, the use of the song could be an allusion to the slave trade and the complex relationship between whites and blacks, though disco is too fun and happy for anyone to think about anything.
THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO is mostly apolitical — the only explicitly ideological character is the IQ-conscious socialist Dan Powers(aka Departmental Dan), an object of mild mockery — , and the characters could be Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or depends-on-the-issue types. What matters is status, prestige, and position, which back then were possessed or accessible through many more options, which is no longer the case. In our time, just about the only path to elite prestige/position is through the Democratic Party and globalist ‘values’. The GOP is still well-represented in government but only electorally through the votes of the white middle and working class(and even the poor). All other pathways to privilege and power require one to be a Democrat, a self-abasing RINO(who caves to Democrats at every turn), or a Neocon(who has the backing of super-rich Zionists who take care of their attack dogs). Even though Democratic domination of elite institutions has a long history, one could gain position and respectability as a conservative in the Cold War era. Many more views were acceptable and tolerated on a host of controversial issues. There were holdouts in academia and media for people with views that could get anyone ‘canceled’ in an instant today. One could even be an ‘Arabist’ and hold high position. There was a time when Pat Buchanan was one of the most widely read columnists in America. One could admire Robert E. Lee and hold critical views of nonwhites. And of course, the Cold War reserved a place for the American Right. Today, they tear down Robert E. Lee monuments, and even whites in the South just hunker down in shame or cowardice.
This sad state of affairs for the Republicans might be traced back to Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon who played hard for the white working class and southern white vote(even though neither man was a strong social conservative). While rank-and-file Republicans may be about core values, the elites of the movement always put status and social approval above all else. They figure, what’s the point of being conservative if one can’t enjoy the fruits of privilege and respect, which nowadays only come by the way of globo-homo and the like. If the problem with conservatism in the past was it couldn’t win over enough ordinary people, the problem today is it offers little to snobs and social-climbers. The biggest problem for the GOP is it’s toxic to the elitist-minded.
Country Club Republicans and the moderate wing were okay with someone like Dwight Eisenhower who didn’t take a particularly strong stand on anything. This way, the Republicans could gravitate toward whatever was fashionable among the movers and shakers. Increasingly, the white working class and southern whites were falling out of favor among the elites, but Nixon appealed to both hard in 1968 and 1972(though his policies ended up stabbing both in the back). Fast forward to the future, and the GOP is downright apologetic about its two electoral pillars being the white middle and southern whites. If American politics were genuinely democratic or populist, this wouldn’t matter, but the real power is held by the elites, and GOP’s appeal to them is hampered by its reliance on the two most disreputable groups in America: The Deplorables as lowlife losers and Southern Whites as ‘redneck-white-supremacist-racists’. Why does this matter? Because in winning over those groups, GOP became radioactive to the elites and wanna-be-elites whose values came to be directed toward homo-celebration and black-worship under increasing Jewish domination.
While the characters in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO could still conceivably be Republican, all such well-educated urban types today in New York and other big cities would certainly be Democratic. In the short run, the loss of the white working class to the GOP was a big blow to the Democrats, but it was also cut the party loose from deference to corrupt Labor Unions and economic nationalism. By adopting ‘free trade’ and deregulation, Democrats could be more acceptable to Big Capital that relished the moral high-ground held by the Democratic Party. And, end of the Cold War meant the Democrats could no longer be accused of being ‘soft on communism’, and the shift from Big Labor to Big Capital meant the Democrats no longer needed to pander to losers and could finally bank on the winners of society. And over time, immigration would diminish the electoral power of the white working class at any rate. And now, we are told the American middle class has less wealth than the top 1% that is solidly in the Democratic aisle.
Of course, even as GOP depends on Deplorable votes, it does little but pander to the super-rich even more than the Democrats do. Why do the successful lean heavily to the Democrats? It’s because the elites are nothing without conceit of superiority, not only economically and culturally but morally. And as the post-ideological America re-conceptualized morality and values in terms of special identities, mainly centered around Jewish, black, and homosexual, the elites and wanna-be-elites naturally go along. Of course, education played a key role in this, and there are plenty of people with no elite aspirations who nevertheless spout the same nonsense coming from the ivory tower. Still, the main reason why kids of elites study so hard has less to with love of truth and knowledge than want of success and acceptance, though they’re too self-deluded to realize this.
The reason why many white haute-conservatives went over to the Democratic Party is mostly about status. Take Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Why did he vote for Obama? And why did National Review magazine turn into National Disgrace? How come the new ‘conservatives’ are so eager to flash their pro-homo credentials? Some on the Right believe hierarchy = conservatism, but elitism can come in many flavors, especially if the elites don’t have to practice what they preach. Christianity had a long run among European nobility because they didn’t have to act very Christian. They only needed to signal their sanctimony once in awhile. And it’s usually enough just to show that you support BLM and globo-homo(and got many covid shots) without actually having to live in da hood or take it up the arse as a badge of honor in the Current Year. Whit Stillman, a conservative by sentiment than core conviction, is mostly about sniffing for the vestiges of conservatism(real or delusional) in a world where conservatism is all but dead.
The elitism in METROPOLITAN is plain to see(however doomed it may be), but it takes a special kind of mentality to maintain the facade of conservatism/hierarchy in the post-60s age. Then, it’s no surprise that the theorists of dance in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO and DAMSELS IN DISTRESS are borderline cuckoo. Most people into Disco never gave it much thought. Thinking about disco is like bringing a book to a rock concert. Disco just happened. And soon, even non-disco acts got into the act, with the Rolling Stones releasing SOME GIRLS and Rod Stewart singing about people wanting his body. And given its Afro-funkery and homo-narcissism, it was no one’s idea of conservatism or respectability. But for Josh Neff(called ‘loon’ by on/off friend Des), it’s more than the latest trend or fashion in music. “I love the idea that there’d be all these great places for people to go dancing after the terrible social wasteland of our college years… I still consider myself a loyal adherent to the disco movement.”
Now, ‘movement’ implies something radical, like the French Revolution, and there is a morally zealous and reformist side to Josh that evokes Robespierre. It could be his zeal to fight corruption is an extension of his own struggle with inner demons. However, in his need for form and order, there is a semblance of conservative sensibility as well. There are facets to Josh’s character that can lean radical or conservative. Depending on where his mood, he could be a hardline crusader or a defender of propriety.
If this is conservatism, it is of oddballs who don’t quite fit into the normal world but don’t want to surrender to anarchy either. Perhaps, a kind of paradox comes into play among certain natural weirdos. While some weirdos are happy in their weirdness, others are acutely aware that something about them is off and is in need of balance & stability. The character of Des takes his normality for granted, indeed so much so that he plays loose and gets reckless at times. Why not take chances when he can easily go back to being boringly normal again? In contrast, normality is something Josh has to constantly grasp for through mental discipline, medication, dedication to rules, and the philosophy of disco(perhaps as only he sees it)… but then, there are some who see ‘conservative’ messages in THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, so he’s not alone. Thus, oddly enough, the ‘loon’ is the most righteous and ‘normal’ character in the film.
Some critics dumped on the film for being rather staid and square for a disco movie, but they missed the point. It’s not about disco but how members of a social class one wouldn’t naturally associate with disco nevertheless find their own existential meaning from it. Stillman is a sort of disconservative, or discon.
DAMSELS IN DISTRESS, one of the funniest films I’ve seen, has a similar character, both funnier and more disturbing. If Josh is borderline ‘loon’, Violet(Greta Gerwig) is a functional nutter. Granted, the film is a comedy whereas THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO is drama with comedic touches. Several roles in DAMSELS IN DISTRESS are caricatures than characters, and the situations are often set up for laughs. And yet, pathos also come into play. Violet, though pleasantly goofy and upbeat in her helpfulness, is really quite fragile and walks a mental tightrope, and we stop laughing when she spirals into depression and contemplates suicide.
One reason for her eagerness to help others is as a distraction from her own problems. And she’s obsessed with dance forms(as opposed to mere dancing) as a mediator between chaos and civilization. Dancing brings out the animal spirits, but dance-forms give them shape and erect fences around the barbarism inherent in music/dance. She’s like Nurse Ratched and Randall McMurphy(of ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST) rolled into one. If the vulgarized form of Foucaultism says to let loose your inner craziness, Stillmanism says to strive for normality and clarity through the mental fog even if it is an insurmountable Sisyphean feat. The nobility is in the struggle than in the surrender.
There is nothing to suggest POLITICAL conservatism in DAMSELS IN DISTRESS, but as in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO, there is a conservatoid yearning for form and meaning rooted in tradition. While Violet’s fixations may not be a red-blooded right-wing patriot’s idea of conservatism, it is distinct from the liberal tendency of letting go and abandoning oneself to the ‘liberation’ of senses. Even as she’s drawn to the sensuality and excitement of dance, she needs the security of rules and standards. She’s open to change, the evolution of dance, but feels most at home with dance forms requiring technique and training. (The flamenco-inflected dances in BARCELONA are also big on proper form and technique. Sensuality contained in tradition.)
I haven’t paid much attention to dance trends over the years, and I’m sure one can find plenty of young ones doing impressive things in countless music videos, but dances that come to my mind over the years are the retarded punk dance(where people just pile onto each other like the demolition derby), 80s club dancing(without any distinct form), bumping-and-grinding(especially with the rise of hip hop), heavy metal hair-shaking & beer-burping, and of course, ‘twerking’ of late where women, especially black ho’s with big booties(though some homo men seem to get into it too) pump their asses up and down like they’re having sex. Stillman is obviously too much of a gentleman(or craven coward) to touch to on the black problem — he’d rather swoon about early 60s black songs and philosophize about the disco era — and falls back on associating barbarism with Steve Dahl’s Disco Demolition crowd or the beer-can frat boys who don’t bathe enough(at least with the proper soap) and wage inter-frat war on those aspiring toward better taste. Still, given what has happened to the culture of dance — mostly skankass ho’s ‘twerking’ their asses or simulating sexual motions than being seductive — , Stillman’s philosophy of dance may seem quaint, but it is also like an oasis, the last refuge of some semblance of sentiment, manners, and form in a world gone totally sheboonic.
What a philistine list by hack ideologues with no sense of culture. Works like THE LEOPARD weren't listed. Instead, there was PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS, THE PATRIOT, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, and BICYCLE THIEVES.
PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS and PATRIOT, which I haven't seen, are surely crap. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and BICYCLE THIEVES are great works and one can find conservative elements in them, but it's disingenuous to call them 'conservative' because IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has too much that could be called 'liberal' and the script of BICYCLE THIEVES was by a Marxist-Humanist. One can say the family values element is conservative(but back then, the left wasn't anti-family like it became under increased Jewish, family, and homo influence), but its social critique is essentially leftist.
As for LIVES OF OTHERS, its anti-communism isn't necessarily pro-conservative. If anything, it is an example of Liberal Anti-Communism as the real message of the movie is that inferior hoi polloi like you and I should risk everything, even our lives, for the well-being and privilege of cosmopolitan artists who are surely our superiors.
The National Review list was petty, predictable, partisan, and jingoistic. It lacked imagination, movie knowledge, and bigness of heart. Hardly different from 100 best list you'd find in Premiere magazine if published by GOP hacks.
A genuine list should not favor films simply because conservatives tend to like it. Nor should a movie be chosen because it was made by a conservative, a rare breed in cinema. Movies that could just as easily be labeled liberal should be excluded, like WONDERFUL LIFE. (Indeed, the most ridiculous aspect of the National Review list is the tortured logic that deigns certain works as 'conservative' because of their social policy implications in the Current Year, e.g. if the movie has a high-spirited individual go-getter, maybe it's about libertarianism and lower taxes. There is an air of exaggeration and even desperation in National Review's list because there are so few card-carrying conservatives, let alone Republicans, working in the movie industry here or elsewhere. So, National Review twists logic to argue that certain apolitical or even liberal movies are really 'conservative'. As for films with genuine conservative pedigree, National Review has no interest because, being a hack journal of establishment conservatism, it dares not go near a work that might displease its donor base and philistine readership. Notice there is no mention of Andrei Tarkovsky, the greatest rightist film artist of the 20th century. Too Russian for the NR crowd, it seems. And of course, no mention of THE BIRTH OF A NATION by D.W. Griffith, the father of cinema, because NR is afraid of being called 'racist'. Maybe Dinesh D'Souza can argue that THE BIRTH OF A NATION is really a communist movie.) We must keep in mind that a leftist can make a conservative film just as Jew or atheist can make a Christian film. Some of the greatest Westerns have been made by Europeans who knew little about the real West. Each film need to be judged on its own merit. One must also dispense with the notion that a movie is deserving simply because it's conservative. Too many movies on the NR list aren't all that good but overrated for their presumed(or imagined) ideological content. For a list that bills itself as the BEST Conservative Movies, the works have to be conservative and excellent.
Also keep in mind that because some of the sentiments in the movie are conservative or sympathetic to the conservative viewpoint, it doesn't follow that the movie was conceived or intended to be conservative. Indeed, this applies to THE LEOPARD as well. Luchino Visconti was not proposing the restoration of Sicilian aristocracy. He made it as an elegy to the beauty and majesty that were lost with progress and development; for every gain, there is a loss.
We need a clearer meaning of 'conservative', especially when we are dealing with something as multi-faceted as the Arts. Firstly, it mustn't be confused with reaction or fascism. Both reaction and fascism are activist whereas a certain gentlemanly or dignified passivity is at the core of conservatism. Reactionaries single-mindedly seek to turn back to clock, to reclaim what was lost. They see the past as a golden age. They seek to destroy or suppress innovations whether they be economic, political, technological, or whatever.
Fascism is trickier for it incorporates elements of both right and left. It combines reverence for the past with excitement about the future. It fuses the virility of primitive nature worshiping paganism with transcendental aspirations of higher civilization.
While reaction, conservatism, and fascism can be said to belong on the right of the social or political spectrum, they are not synonymous. This gets even trickier in our age because what passes for conservatism is free market capitalism, the most dynamic and transformative force in the world. Marxists can dream up utopias all they want. In truth, all truly lasting revolutionary economic, social, scientific, and political innovations and changes have arisen from capitalist forces. Even social-democratic nations have economies mainly fueled by capitalism.
So, how odd that today's 'conservative' espouses the most dynamic and uprooting force the world has ever known? A modern conservative basically conserves the most powerful engine of socio-economic change. Take China and India. Since they've adopted global capitalism and free markets, their societies have been changing and growing at breakneck speed. Ideologically, they can be said to have gone 'conservative' in having abandoned their socialist or communist ways. But, capitalism is changing those nations like nothing ever before.
More meaningfully, one can define conservatism thus: The outlook that stands for reverence for the past, preservation of cultural heritage, longing for what may be lost, and etc. A conservative is different from a reactionary in that the former ultimately accepts change even while mourning what will be lost. Reactionaries doggedly cling to the past or struggle to restore it. A conservative understands that change is either necessary or inevitable even as he is threatened by it.
Now, what sets a conservative apart from a liberal(despite the conservative's acceptance of change) is that the former is less willing to simply dump or forget traditions or established conventions as the world changes. His feelings are more invested with the past or the status quo; it's not just a matter of his own power or privilege; he may actually be a poor person but sentimentally attached to the 'old ways'; in this sense, a poor Evangelical in America or poor Italian Catholic woman who feels a sense of loss from change(even though it may economically benefit him or her) can be said to be conservative; he or she doesn't define meaning of life simply on basis of materialism but on cultural norms of what constitutes virtue, sacredness, nobleness, etc. Even if a liberal says "I'll give you $1,000 a month in welfare if you support 'gay marriage'", a poor Evangelical or Catholic will refuse. For many people, a vision of society is as or more important than economic status or power.
Another way to define conservatism would be a search or longing for some core values(in the absence of such), a desire to set down firm roots, to possess a moral compass in life. In this sense, 'Amores Perros' can be said to have conservative themes — though it's certainly not blatantly so and is questioning of globo-capitalism(that prior to 'woke capitalism' was associated with the 'right') — in its rejection of moral relativism and a world defined solely by radicalism or materialism. This isn't to say liberals are immoral or amoral vis-a-vis conservatives. The difference is liberals are less interested in the idea of Core Values. They often take core values as stuffy and rigid or 'essentialist'; they favor fluidity of truth(albeit with rigidity of self-righteousness of the Current Year) in moving away from what society has traditionally deemed as core values, though they tirelessly establish new faddish orthodoxies via political correctness. This venturesomeness can be daring and useful, but it can go off the rails and lead to a world where there is no strong core meaning to guide the individual or unite a increasingly alienated people. Therefore, there lingers a longing for firm values, which is what conservatism(the real kind) offers.
Also, conservatism, though antithetical to relativism, gains special meaning within a relativistic context. In a way, a nostalgic communist in the Russia of the early 1990s could be said to be conservative in the sense that he sought to preserve what had been built up and passed down during 70s yrs of communism. At one time, Christianity was a peripheral and defiant(and even radical) faith; then it became the official dogma and thus 'conservative'. So, conservatism isn't merely about ideology. It can also be a state of mind, a sense of not wanting to let go of what has defined a community and individuals within it. A man can be of leftist ideology yet of conservative personality/mentality/temperament or of rightist ideology yet of liberal personality/mentality/temperament. The mother in GOODBYE LENIN is a diehard communist but also an emotional conservative who clings to what has become familiar to her.
We are largely defined by the ideology we grew up under, yet our personalities and inclinations define how we deal with handed-down spoon-fed values. Newt Gingrich is ideologically conservative but has a somewhat radical personality. Even when conservatives adopt something radical-crazy like 'gay marriage', they try to give it a trad-moralist spin. i.e. "It's conservative cuz 'gays' are adopting family values."
There were Democrats like Richard Daley who were ideologically liberal but had the personality of a conservative family man and head of Irish clan. A conservative is less likely to look down on the past and feel smugly superior; of course, he may feel smugly righteous with established norms(like Archie Bunker). Some conservatives feel it's their duty to counter the rapid pace of change demanded by liberals. As such, they aren't so much anti-liberal as anti-accelerationist. At their best, Liberalism is the accelerator pedal, Conservatism is the brake pedal. There are times when history must be slowed down to make change more cautious and palatable. When Liberalism and Conservatism work together, history works well. Obviously, a car doesn't move forward with its brakes. But then, a car without brakes will soon crash and burn. Today, when Liberalism puts pedal to the metal and Conservatism just cheers it on, we have the currently crazy West of degeneracy and Great Replacement. Of course, most of today's so-called Liberals are white dupes of Jewish supremacist globo-homo power.
In more respects than one, modern conservative reacts against the official ideology of the so-called 'Right'. Though a free market capitalist, he may realize that his favored economic system is overly dynamic and uprooting, therefore needs to be balanced by core values, timeless themes, and even a bit of socialism. (Consider how Tucker Carlson is sounding lately.) He values conservatism precisely because he values change. Because change + change is too much for humanity, he opts for change + balance. He may feel that a counter-power system is necessary to tame the bull-like nature of capitalism. In this sense, a modern conservative is at war with his own party. It's like sailing. To harness the shifting winds to move from place to place, the mast has to be strong and steady. A conservative may feel that extreme liberalism is eager to surrender to the winds whereas his own kind seeks to use them for the ship. He appreciates the power of winds but as something that serves the ship than vice versa. Today, those on the Right want to use the international system for the good of one's own nation, whereas the so-called 'progressives' want to offer up one's nation to the global system. It's 'use the world for the good of our nation' versus 'lose the nation for the good of the world'. (Granted, 'progressives' are really tools of Jews whose secret motto is 'use all the goy world to ensure Jewish supremacist rule forever.') Western Expansion could be said to have been an artful combination of liberal and conservative principles. There was the curiosity to find new lands and go where the winds carried the ships, and yet, there was also mastery of machinery and methodology to ensure that the forces of nature served man than man surrendered to forces of nature. Thus, the West could expand far and wide but still maintain their ways, manners, and values far away from home.
Conservatism has a certain sentimentality for the past, traditions, established conventions, long standing rituals. But, conservatism doesn't have a clear agenda like reactionary-ism nor does it have the quasi-radical edge or the fighting spirit of fascism. Conservatism in the modern era is essentially bourgeois(especially in Europe) or about the Common Man(especially in the US). Conservatives come in different shapes and colors. Some resemble reactionaries. Some tend to be liberalish. But even liberal-ish conservatives who realize that change is necessary may lament that something grand, beautiful, or meaningful will be lost, perhaps for good, with the necessary change. There is a sense of elegy with the resigned acceptance of progress. It's there in MAKIOKA SISTERS and MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. Neither film suggests the past was preferable, but they do invoke a sense of what's been lost, forgotten, and paved over by progress. Also, there is a subjectivity to nostalgia. Those without memory of what had once been won't understand the poetry and melancholia. It is why the ending of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is doubly sad. Not only is something lost but there is no one around to share the character's sense of loss.
Conservatism is also a matter of personality, i.e. some feel the loss with greater sensitivity than others do, just like some people mourn the death of their loved ones more strongly. Conservatism isn't merely a preference for previous power-arrangements but nostalgia for how it used-to-be, even if what-had-been was far from ideal. In more ways than one, THE LEOPARD(the film) is more a work of nostalgia than conservatism. It doesn't long for the past in terms of power-politics but acknowledges the regal splendor that passed away with change and modernity; it's like what Ruth Gordon says in HAROLD AND MAUDE: "I don't regret the kingdoms - what sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings. Also, those who knew nothing of this past, culture, and order could hardly miss it as nostalgia is about what one remembers but no longer has. As most people weren't aristocrats, they could hardly feel nostalgic for the aristocratic order, of which they have no memory. For the hoi polloi viewers, their impression of THE LEOPARD will be less of nostalgia than of fascination with a world of riches and grandeur. Still, even the hoi polloi may feel a certain shared-nostalgia because fiction allows the audience to empathize with the characters. To the extent that the viewers come to intimately participate in the life of a prince(especially in a work as masterly as that of Visconti's), they do feel some measure his grief and quiet tragedy.
Libertarian movies shouldn't count as conservative because there is little sense of love or reverence for the past or tradition. Libertarianism is free-market-'fascism'-of-the-individual. If Italian Fascism said there is one and only Il Duce in the form of Mussolini and all Italians must gather around him, Ayn Randism says each person should be his or her own Mussolini(and since she knew everything, every individualist-Mussolini would really be her mental minion; Rand was a radical mono-individualist who decreed how all individuals must think and feel in order to be 'free' and 'rational': Like Her). Rand, as we know, had little respect or love for American or Russian heritage(or for the Jewish one for that matter though she certainly had a Jewish Personality & radical will and supported Zionism against Arabs whom she denigrated as 'barbarians'). What she liked about America was the opportunity for growth, riches, and change fueled by radical individualist freedom. She couldn't have cared less about American folks lived in prairie towns who wore Sunday best for Church attendance.
List of conservative movies should be chosen based on merit alone. Suppose some Homo-Marxist made a movie with noticeable conservative themes. His inclinations shouldn't negate the work's content. But suppose an inferior work was made by a prominent someone known to be 'conservative'. If it isn't good, there's no sense pretending it is just because he happens to be in the 'right' camp. No sense lauding something just because it was made by Mel Gibson or happens to be pro-family or pro-Christian. PASSION was underrated by its detractors but way overrated by hardcore Christian types and Conservatism Inc., which also dutifully wet its pants over BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT. Furthermore, no special consideration should be given to crowd-pleasing movies. It's dubious that FORREST GUMP is really a conservative movie, but people like Pat Buchanan slurped up its cheap sentimentality.
It's worth noting that some of the greatest films ever are conservative-themed(or right-wing) yet made by liberals. Why would that be? Maybe because liberals are artistically more curious, open-minded, and experimental whereas conservative themes are meatier and/or more substantive: The bond of blood or triumph of spirit runs deeper than ink of justice. It's rightness vs righteousness. The Right feels right, whereas the Left has to feel righteous. 'Being' itself is right enough for the Right, whereas only 'being right' is right for the Left. We see this in the dichotomy of the White Right and White Left. White Right is content with being white and would be happy to have their own homelands and be left alone. White Left feels justified only when it feels righteous about something, and if opening white nations to the world is deemed the 'right thing to do', they must hysterically go about realizing such vision... if only to feel more self-righteous.
Also, art works through friction and tension, and the tension between liberal curiosity and conservative density makes for interesting dynamics. APOCALYPSE NOW is more interesting for the creative tension between Francis Ford Coppola's liberal leanings and John Milius' right-wing vision. A liberal making a liberal movie might be comfortable with the material; he merely has to endorse it. The element of friction would be absent. However, a liberal working with conservative themes must struggle with them; this makes for creative tension and dialectic sparks.
Also, power, privilege, sanctity, spirituality — the favored themes of conservatism — are ultimately more interesting and resilient than do-goodery and social consciousness. Would most people rather see a movie about Don Corleone or a do-gooder social activist? A leftist revolutionary can be an interesting material for a movie, but he has to be hyper-charged with action. A leftist is interesting for the way he tries to change the world. A conservative is interesting simply for being a part of the world. A leftist must transform the world to have meaning, whereas a conservative already has meaning in his world. The prince of THE LEOPARD merely needs to be an aristocrat to be regal and majestic. In contrast, a leftist revolutionary has to throw bombs or make speeches to be somebody. The king is interesting because he lives in a castle and HAS power. The rebel trying to overthrow the king is interesting because he WANTS power. To the extent that all rebels eventually want power and to rule, they are working toward what eventually becomes the New Conservatism. In the end, it's about power than ideals, and all leftisms become rightisms. Indeed, leftism is essentially the wanna-be new rightism. Look how the Jewish 'Liberals' became the new ruling class in the West and will go about doing just about anything to conserve their power. Granted, Jews aren't merely conservative because they aren't content merely with keeping with what they got but salivate for more and more. They are conservatives with what they have and expansives with what they don't yet have but crave.
Despite being mass entertainment and perhaps the most democratic of art-forms, cinema may essentially be a very conservative art form in one sense: Nearly all movies create larger-than-life-heroes. Rightism is distinct from egalitarian leftism in the acceptance of hierarchy. To be sure, there are different kinds of hierarchies — based on blood, merit, or gangsterism. The thing is, even a movie about leftists like Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin would mythologize them as a Special Higher being, a king-like or even godlike figure. Presence of larger-than-life figures runs against the ideal of leftism that is egalitarian and says NO ONE should be bigger or larger than anyone else.
But, movies make the heroes and main characters larger-than-life, larger than ordinary mortals. They give us heroes who dwarf the hoi polloi both figuratively and literally(as they're magnified on the big screen). So, 'Michael Collins' isn't just an Irish revolutionary but something like a demigod. Even a whacko like Travis Bickle in TAXI DRIVER becomes a mythic anti-hero. This wouldn't necessarily be the case with drama or novel. Both work on the human level and proportions. They don't present giants on the big screen, whose moments are further heightened by music. Opera's exaggerated vocals may be the closest thing to the exaggerated image of cinema.
Movies almost always create mythic heroes; it's largely due to the size of the screen but also the power of editing and the sped-up narrative(that takes us all over the map across time and space). Now, this isn't the case with the films of the Dardennes Brothers or Jean-Luc Godard. Or with something like Ermano Olmis' TREE OF THE WOODEN CLOGS where the realist-setting and the way of life are more important than any single character. Still, especially with the impact of the Auteur Theory, we do feel the personal signature of the star director as a near-godly presence. Most movies have this power over us. Even a movie about leftists or leftist ideals become rightist or even 'fascist' in its presentation. A profound sense of hierarchy is unmistakable. Take V FOR VENDETTA(a terrible movie to be sure) where the hero becomes not just a warrior for justice but a demagogic super-duper-man of awesomeness. Or take MALCOLM X. He is elevated to silver screen aristocracy, and all the Negro kids in the audience were supposed to stand up and say "I's Macum X."
Now, some genuinely conservative films:
The Leopard, Makioka Sisters, Tokyo Story, Apu Trilogy (boy grows to manhood, seeks freedom, but realizes he's part of something bigger, part of a continuum), Music Room (leading character is a decadent aristo BUT the film captures the seductive allure of leisure and privilege), Andrei Rublev, Stalker, Tree of the Wooden Clogs(critical of social inequality of Old Italy BUT a paean to the virtues and decency of simple god-fearing peasant folks), Diary of a Country Priest, Time Regained, Sunshine(by Szabo, conservative at least in its insistence on importance of Jewish memory), Ride the High Country, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander Nevsky, Nixon, The Godfather, Six Moral Tales, Fanny and Alexander(for family and liberalism), High and Low, Magnificent Ambersons, Chimes at Midnight, Barry Lyndon, An Unfinished Piece for a Mechanical Piano, Burnt by the Sun(revolution destroys a national hero and devours the family unit), Siberiade, Ugetsu, The Long Riders, Birth of a Nation, Once Upon a Time in the West, Farewell My Concubine, Earrings of Madame de, Christmas Story, Radio Days, Man Who Knew Too Much, The Birds, My Father's Glory, My Mother's Castle, Age of Innocence, Time of the Gypsies, Great Expectations, Amorres Perros, Notre Musique, The Return(Russian), Nostalghia(Tarkovsky), Metropolitan, Last Days of Disco.
Words matter, and in the contest between ‘liberalism’ and ‘conservatism’, both have taken on the cachet of political labels. ‘Conservatives’ see ‘Liberals’ as the bad guys, and vice versa. As such, Conservatives reject the notion of ‘liberal’-ness along with the so-called Liberal Camp. ‘Liberals’ do likewise with ‘conservative’-ness. The end result is something akin to a community divided between those who believe only the left hand/arm should be used and those who think only the right hand/arm should be used. Of course, a person needs to use both left hand/arm and right hand/arm. The binary mentality in Western Politics is one of the most toxic and indeed idiotic developments in the World. So, to be liberal means you must be anti-conservative, and to be conservative means you have to be anti-liberal. A more sensible approach would be to ask how liberalism and conservatism can fit together like two pieces in a puzzle. It’s like Yin and Yang are complementary in Taoism, and the meaning of life and life itself are founded on the complementary unity of man and woman. Current ‘liberalism’ is like feminism, a stupid ideology that appears to regard women as a separate ‘race’ apart from the men when, in fact, neither men nor women would exist if not for the unity of men and women. (Of course, Jewish Power that rules the West is all for man-woman union when it comes to ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. What Jews really hate is the sexual unity of white men and white women. Jewish men see white man as rivals for power and see white women as their sexual commodity to buy and sell. And Jewish women are so envious of white 'Aryan' beauty that they want it to be destroyed via race-mixing with blacks.)
Now, when so-called Conservatives decry Liberalism, a good many of them know that they are not opposed to liberality per se. Even most Conservatives will admit there are positive and beneficial things about liberalism: Greater tolerance, curiosity, creativity, openness to sensory delights, intellectualism, willingness to take risks, and etc. Indeed, even much of the canonical ‘conservative’ ideas and values of today were once considered ‘heretical’, ‘radical’, or ‘dangerous’. Who can deny that the reason why the West move ahead of the Rest owed something to the rise of the liberal spirit for adventure and discovery? The Rest wasn’t held back by too much liberalism but by too little of it. The Ottomans, the Chinese, the Hindus, and Arabs were far more conservative than the West that caught the spirit of movement, exploration, discovery, and revolutions in thought. One of the reasons why the arch-conservative Byzantium East fell into stagnation, stasis, and then utter ruin had to do with the lack of liberal spirit for change and revitalization. Excessive conservatism is like a mausoleum with decay and stale air. It's like a algae-infested pond without inflows of fresh water supply. Arch-conservatism can only sustain itself by freezing the status quo. But frozen things are barely alive. It’s like the Ancient Egyptian civilization became one big mummy. It was so obsessed with preservation of the status quo and 'sacred truths'(invested in the ruling dynasties) that it lost the sense of time, backward or forward. While there are timeless values, timeless existence is rather like being stuck in a forest without a compass or sense of direction. Forward and backward become one and the same. Byzantine civilization may have considered itself in harmony with timeless truths, but such mindset sucked the vitality and virility from the empire. It lasted a long time but died a sure, steady, and dreary death as it lacked the foresight to awaken from its doldrums and speak the truth.
A useful metaphor for arch-conservatism is the Chinese practice of foot-binding where a girl’s feet weren’t allowed to grow beyond a certain size. This kind of Conservatism is anti-natural and defies the organic process of birth, growth, death, and rebirth. Even though it claims to defend and preserve the sacred, it breeds a kind of sick decadence because it goes on and on like a broken record with the same mantra and same set of memories, as with the father & the sickly child in THE SECRET GARDEN and Ms. Havisham in GREAT EXPECTATIONS. (In SECRET GARDEN, the father cannot let go of his late wife's memory, and his son is confined in the house for the sake of his health when, if anything, fresh air would do him some good. In contrast, the young girl, though orphaned by a tragedy of her own, has the will and spunk to carry on with life. Holding dear of one's memory is good but not to the point of shutting oneself off from life and future. The good side of liberalism is it has the audacity to forget to forge ahead or has the curiosity to revisit the past to understand it from a different angle.) Ironically, communism was brought down by its own dogmatic ‘conservatism’. What had energized a generation with hope and promise grew wearier by the year with the same chants, catechisms, songs, spectacles, rituals, and etc. The Party, once dominant in power, wouldn’t allow much in the way of change and renewal. Just like no one wants to eat the same thing morning, noon, and evening day after day, year after year, people grow weary and enervated in a culture that insists it has everything it needs from the dominant theology, ideology, and/or iconography. It’s human nature to want to experience new and different things. It’s like dogs and cats feel especially alive when they are allowed to venture outside the house to see, smell, and hear new things.
This is why ORGANICISM is a better concept than ‘conservatism’. While conservatism emphasizes the need to keep things the way they are, organicism is about regulating the natural processes of change and development that are a healthy part of every system, biological, social, spiritual, and conceptual. Just like religions have changed over time and sciences must develop with new findings, it is natural for society to change and grow. In organicism, both conservatism and liberalism have their place, sometimes in conflict but ultimately complementary IF the organic whole is to survive and thrive. Conservatism is the grip/cling principle, and Liberalism is the release/leap principle. A mountain lion is always anxious to cling to the rocks so as not to fall off cliffs. And yet, an extreme scaredy cat that only clings(like the Cowardly Lion in THE WIZARD OF OZ) wouldn’t be able to do anything. So committed to self-preservation against all risks, it will fear any movement lest it might lead to falling off the cliff. But, such a cat will likely starve to death because it can’t run around to catch the prey. But then, a mountain lion that is utterly released from fear and leaps around dangerous cliffs will likely fall off sooner than later and end up dead. This is why cats are optimally calibrated for grip/cling mechanism and release/leap mechanism. They have the artful balance of caution and daring.
Now, the ‘liberal’ principle gets more attention and admiration because it seems more exciting. There is always more thrill in the Risk than in the Preservation. At the end of PAPILLON, our hearts are with the eponymous character who takes the leap off the cliff even though our sober heads know that the character(played by Dustin Hoffman) who chooses safety and security decided more sensibly. Many sensible Western folks chose not to go on ocean voyages to the unknown as there was a good chance of horrible death in the high seas. (To be sure, in some ways, the conservative principle can be more adventurous, at least in the physical sense, because it is more masculine and dominant. Many men have been known to participate in risky endeavors to prove their manhood. Even if lacking in liberal curiosity, they were fired by the need to play out their traditional role as tough dominant males. In some ways, liberalism can be risk-and-action-averse due to its higher levels of anxiety and ambiguity. The liberal-mind is more likely to empathize with the Other side and question if 'our cause' is always right. Also, many liberal types tend to be more cerebral than physical, thereby limiting their spirit of adventure to the world of ideas and institutions than physical risks. Of course, liberals can also be more aggressive and war-oriented when they fall into the save-the-world crusade mode. Conservatives generally like to fight for what-is-ours, whereas liberals generally get the biggest war-fever over what-is-right, which is why they will often support wars premised on 'just causes'.) But the glory belongs to those who managed to break through the unknown and discover new lands. It’s like we are more fixated with our senses than with our inner organs. Even though or precisely because our organs such as hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, bladder, and etc. silently and steadily work to keep us alive, we hardly think about them, that is unless they begin to grow sick and begin to malfunction. No one thinks about his/her bladder until he/she gets bladder stones. No one thinks much of his/her lungs unless he/she gets lung cancer or emphysema. At most times, people are fixated on their senses such as eyes, ears, tongues, and nose. The more sensually-oriented liberal types care more for genitals, and the more cerebral-oriented liberal types care more for the brains. Jews are a strange group in that they seem equally obsessed with matters of the pud and pen. Philip Roth, one of the most highly regarded Jewish-American writers of the post-war era, wrote thoughtfully but also obsessively about the life of his pud.
We tend not to appreciate what we take for granted even though they are the most essential factors for our existence. Because people take the health of their lungs for granted, they turn to smoking for sensual pleasure. So often, sensual pleasure of the surface overrides organic health of depth. Because even the lungs of a heavy smoker tend to be hardy enough to last for a long time, the smoker disregards what is good for the lungs and inhales toxins for pleasure. Most of what we FEEL operate on the surface-senses of sight, hearing, taste/smell, and touch. We FEEL the 'cruciality' of the inner-organs only when they grow sick. It is only when the smoker comes down with cancer that he or she is finally reminded of how foolish it had been to fill up the lungs with tobacco smoke. Especially in our electronic-sensory pop-cultural world, ‘conservatism’ is seriously disadvantaged against ‘liberalism’ because we are bombarded with more sensory stimulation than ever before. Indeed, many kids now grow up with electronic gadgets as their first ‘toy’, and it’s not unusual for black toddlers to learn to ‘twerk’ by watching Youtube even before they understand what sexuality is. Part of the reason why globo-homo-mania is taking over christian churches is because it is so sensory-directed whereas Christianity’s spirituality is deep and essentialist. The deep conservative aspects of Christianity is too boring, dark, and heavy for those in our age who are addicted to sensory overload. Homos with their shameless flair and flamboyance sure know how to get the crowd going with shameless fanfare, celebration, and spectacle, and given that so many people(even old people nowadays) grew up with electronic media, their highest value is associated with glitz, distractions, and celebrity. Since homos are the masters of pop cultural vanity and narcissism, their self-worship has become the object of worship for so many people whose main culture is now really pop culture. It's like a world where amphetamines have become the New Vitamins.
The important question for us shouldn’t be a matter of Conservatism versus Liberalism but how the two may complement, support, and serve one another. If we come to an understanding of this equation, then there might be less feuding between those who call themselves ‘conservatives’ and those who call themselves ‘liberals’(especially among whites who have foolishly put ideology before identity, the very opposite of what Jews do). In a way, the most admirable aspect of American History(before it finally went off the rails under the power of Jews) was the careful balancing act that allowed the rise of US to benefit from both the conservative imperative and liberal impulses. Whereas ‘Latin’ civilization in both Spain and New World empire became overly conservative and reactionary, the Anglo-American Civilization of the United States found a way to form a social order that both emphasized continuity, memory, & tradition AND dynamism, liberty, and innovation. It was in this way that American Civilization grew big and sturdy like a great tree. The founders of the American Civilization were aware of the need for roots in the ground and leaves reaching for the sky. Look at any church, and there is a need for both foundation and spire. Only an idiot would argue as to whether a church should be about foundation OR spire. Church obviously needs both but has to know which goes where. Using the spire as foundation and foundation as spire would be most ludicrous. It’d be like planting a tree upside down by putting leaves in the grounds and the roots on top. Such a tree couldn’t last long. In a similar way, what is called ‘conservatism’ must serve as the foundation of any stable social order, and liberalism must be the spire on top. Given its libertine spirit, achievements of liberalism often soar higher than the properties of conservatism, but just like the top of the pyramid needs its main body, liberal heights must be founded and rooted on conservative grounds. Liberal elites may believe themselves to be better-educated, more intelligent, and more creative, but just like the brains cannot function without the body, high-achieving liberals cannot last long without the solid foundation in deep identity, core values, and moral populace.
Jack London was a leftist and socialist but also a most excellent race-ist who loved his own white people.
Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery, but he was also an awesome race-ist who said, "Slavery is bad, and we should free the slaves, but as blacks are tougher, meaner, and could kick our white butts and take our white women, we need to give them a separate nation after Emancipation."
When the US was a white-ruled and white-populated nation, this was more-or-less well-understood, but ever since Jews took over as the new elites, the US has faced the problem of being ruled by a people who feel little or no organic connection to the masses below them. Jews are ‘white’ but don’t really regard themselves as part of the European race because their own identity is deeper and more ancient than any European identity or culture(especially those of Northern Europe). As such, Jews don’t seek to connect with white goyim as racial brethren(if only out of fear of losing their Jewish Tribal essence by excessive assimilation) but regard white goyim as an alien body that might reject Jews as New Elites like the host body often resists the implantation of another person’s organ. Jews are like wandering brains without a body. They seek to take over the brain centers of a Goy Order, but the problem is they don’t feel organic unity with the goy majority. Jewish immigrants to Palestine didn't strive to be New Palestinians or leaders of the Palestinian people. Jews felt that the Palestinians would reject the Jews, and they in turn resolutely rejected the Palestinians as long-term national brethren. In the US, Jews did everything possible to take over as the New Elites by toppling the Wasp elites(who were traditionally the brain-center of America) but feel no organic connection with white goyim. They feel as conquerors than as consecrated with the task of serving as the new leaders of the white race, not least because Jewish history in the White World has often been contentious, troublesome, and problematic, even leading to traumatic events like Jewish role in communism(that led to deaths of millions of Christian Slavs) and the Shoah(in which Nazi Germans killed millions of Jews). But then, white people were also stupid to allow Jews to take over as the new elites. To be sure, MOST white people had nothing to do with the transition of elite power to the Tribe. Jews took over because the Wasp elites lost their will, confidence, and resolve to keep power for themselves in the name of the greater white race. Just like the horse doesn't decide whom it belongs to, the great white majority didn't choose Jews as new elites. Rather, Wasp elites sold or surrendered the title to the Jews, and that key decision put ALL OF AMERICA under the control of Jews.
Of course, Jews had artfully manipulated the rules of the game set forth by Anglo-Americans so that they would benefit most with their higher IQ, pushier personalities, deeper identities, and tribal networking. Anglo-Americans had made a big deal of America as the land of freedom, fairness, justice, and meritocracy, and this was something Jews could toy with to mess with Wasp minds. Jews or BUGS(busy urban globalist semites), with their higher IQ, sensed that they could use the Anglo-American-made system to expose the failings, hypocrisies, and contradictions of Americanism. Jews, by hyper-idealizing Americanism as a Utopian vision, de-legitimized White Power by demonstrating that it had failed to turn the US into a ‘perfect union’. It’s like how Ayn Rand hyper-idealized American capitalism and threw tantrums about how it failed to live up to the ideal of perfect private enterprise and total individualism. Jews of all stripes, from left to right, effectively damned White America by praising it. By praising it as the New Eden founded on shining principles, they had reasons to find fault everywhere as no society can come close to perfection. A nation is real before ideal, and most white Americans had known this as they weren’t radicals. They took pride in America being an improvement on the Old World in many ways, but few believed that America was or could be a Nation of Perfection. In contrast, Jews came to the US with fulsome praise, and initially such flattery made a positive impression on the Anglo-American elites. In some ways, these enthusiastic dreamy-eyed Jews seemed to love America even more than white Americans did. Jews seemed to idealize and romanticize America beyond what it was about. What Anglo-Americans failed to realize was that it was a Jewish Hustle, conscious or subconscious. By overly praising America as an ideal nation, Jews were laying the grounds for exposing the myriad ways in which White Americans(especially the Anglo-American elites) had failed to create heaven-on-earth. And as Jewish criticism got ever more vicious and venomous(especially after World War II when Jews felt that immigration-restriction and FDR's foot-dragging had prevented the saving of more Jewish lives from the European conflagration), successive generations of white elites lost confidence and pride in their history. They would have been less upset with faults found in a Real Nation, but as Jews pushed the template of America as an Ideal Nation, every American failing became magnified as especially tragic, sinful, and unforgivable. Thus, the Anglo-American elites were softened up for the kill.
It’s like an octopus injects enzymes into a crab and turns its flesh into liquid before sucking it up. Likewise, Jews injected a ‘tenderizing’ substance into the crab-minds of white elites, and once white minds were turned to mush with ‘white guilt’, the Jewish octopus sucked it up and took over. It’s like that film UNDER THE SKIN in which space aliens lure humans into a trap where their inner flesh and blood are sucked out. Jews are expert-hustlers and con-men, and one needs to be especially vigilant when they come bearing gifts and favors. Jews never give just to give for the sake of generosity or magnanimity. Jews give to take back much more. It's like the fisherman offers worms to fish only to catch the fish. It’s like business of money-lending. You are not really giving the money but only loaning it to get back More Money. When Jews shower you with gifts, aid, or flattery, it is almost never out of good-will, compassion, or respect. Jews are acting with expectations that you will be hooked to their scheme and end up forking over much more back to the Jew. When Jews sold opium to the Chinese, did they really care about the well-being of the users? No, the users were offered visions of bliss and peace, but they were really being addicted to the drug and thus willing to hand over all their money to the Jews to get a another dosage of false paradise. So, one must be most wary and suspicious when Jews act kindly and generous. Such Jews are really up to no good. If anything, one reason why even genuine goy goodwill toward the Jew makes so little impression is because Jews think (1) the goyim must be like us Jews and offering gifts merely to trick us OR (2) goyim must be really dumb to waste sympathy on a people as cunning and sneaky as us Jews. A most useful rule of thumb is NEVER TRUST JEWS. Remember how Google hustled all of us? Google Jews said they would never do evil and would be fair and neutral. Trusting the Jews, so many people around the world opted to use Google as the best, most honest, and fair-minded search engine. But once Google gained monopoly position, it began to rig algorithms and manipulate results so that the entire world would be shaped by Jewish supremacist and globo-homo bias and agendas. What a vile people: A bunch of vipers and hustlers. No wonder Jews came to be loathed in so many nations. It is about time for Americans to wake up and admit that they also made the mistake of giving Jews a chance because, as recent history has shown, when Jews get the upper-hand, all principles go out the window in the game of "Is it good for Jews?" Just ask the Palestinians if Jews act with any decency or principle on matters regarding what they really want? If Jews want it, they will do just about anything, no matter how lowdown and dirty, to get it. Long ago, Jews settled on 'gay marriage' and pulled every shtick to bend the laws and subvert the culture to make globo-homo-mania as the new reigning faith of the West. Sadly, dirty Jews lead, dumb goyim follow.
Often in life, what really matters is not Either/Or but Which/Order. While some things must indeed be discarded, with other things it’s really a matter of which goes where. For example, sardines don’t belong on a hamburger, but there is a place for the buns, burger, lettuce, pickles, tomatoes, and onions in an hamburger. So, making a good hamburger is a matter of putting the ingredients in the right order and in the right amount. Should the hamburger patty go between the buns or should the bun go between the patties? Should the vegetables go on top of the patty or below? When it comes to liberalism and conservatism, a similar dynamics apply. We need both, not one or the other. The real question is what goes where? While a horse in front of the buggy and buggy in front of the horse have the same components, one will work while the other will not.
The problem with our current world is what might be called Inversionism, i.e. the natural order of things have been inverted. Liberalism must be like the horse that pulls the buggy, but we have a situation where the buggy is expected to pull the horse. Or imagine the solar system where the planets are at the center while the Sun is expected to revolve around them. In a sane and sober world of both conservatism and liberalism, the sexual deviants should be at the periphery of society and culture. As most people are normal-straight-male-female-real or NSMFR, they should constitute the CORE of society. Still, as some people are indeed born with weird deviancies, a society should be liberal and open-minded enough to accept them for what they are. At this point, it should be obvious to all that some people are born homosexual and have tendencies at odds with most people. Conservatism must insist on the dominance of straight society as the backbone of life and morals. But liberalism should urge people to be open-minded and tolerant enough to accept that some people are born with sexual deviancies, and it’s not their fault. But we have now gone way past that. In our Jew-run Globalist World Order, we are to believe that homos and trannies deserve the central place in sexual politics, morality, and even spirituality. (We went from 'God hates fags' to 'god loves fags'.) Under globo-homo regimen, all of straight society must revolve around such deviants and freaks.
We must elevate homos and trannies as the true paragons of virtue. According to the new globo-homo theology, instead of homos seeking redemption by repenting their sins before the eyes of God, we are to believe that god and jesus value nothing more highly than a bunch of men who indulge in fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. But then, the domination of Jews is itself the central problem of the Current West. In the US and other Western nations, Jews are just a tiny minority. Proportionately, the US has more Jews than most European nations, but even in the US the Jewish population constitutes only 2% of the population. And yet, we’ve been told that the principal purpose of America is to serve Jews, obey Jews, admire Jews, appease Jews, and worship Jews. Is it natural for a society that is only 2% Jewish to hyper-emphasize Jewish interests, Jewish power, and Jewish privilege to such degree, especially when Jews are known to have a 'jealous' personality for whom enough is never enough(just like the Jewish God could tolerate no god before Him)? This is especially galling since the US bills itself as a liberal democracy of equality under the law. If so, why does American Power operate in the Imperial mode, not unlike the British minority elite rule over India and other parts of the world? Why are Jews above the law, rules, and principles? Indeed, Jews even piss on the very rules that they push on everyone else, especially whites.
Jews say whites must forgo and even denounce any semblance of white identity because there is no place for such mindset in a nation that is all about individualism and universal values. And yet, the FIRST thing that Jews demand of whites once whites give up their own identity is: "You whites must do everything to serve us Jews, our Jewish interests, and secure our Jewish supremacist hegemony around the world." Once again, it’s the con-game of the Jewish Hustle. If indeed whites must abandon their own identity and interests as deracinated individuals committed to ‘universal’ and/or ‘cosmopolitan’ values, why are they then pressed upon to support Zionist tribal-supremacism against Palestinians, Israeli imperialism against Iran, and Jewish globalist hegemonism against Russia? Just think about this. Imagine if the Jew and you both have a gun. The Jew calls for disarmament, and so, out of goodwill you put your gun on the ground... but the Jew still holds the gun and then orders you about. THAT is how Jews play the game. Jews tell others to lose their tribalism while clinging to their own tribalism even harder and demanding that all goyim serve, obey, and worship the Jews as god-men.
This is why white people need to conceive of and forge their own formulas for conservatism and liberalism. Don’t let Jews decide what ‘conservatism’ or ‘liberalism’ should mean for you. In the US, Jews got to define the meaning and purpose of both through their control of media, academia, think-tanks, and the Deep State... and guess what? Both the GOP and Democratic Party tell us that Americanism, ‘right’ or ‘left’, is essentially about praising Jews, serving Jews, obeying Jews, promoting Zionist imperialism, and worshiping Israel.
But then, why should it surprise anyone that Jews defined ideologies in such manner? As a people who put identity and tribalism before ideology and values, Jews were bound to mold either ideology, ‘left’ or ‘right’, to mainly further the agenda of "Is it good for Jews?" Then, the most important thing for white people is to define their own ideology and values as being grounded in their own identity, heritage, and culture. Letting Jews define your politics and values would be like the US letting the Soviets build the US embassy(or the Soviets letting the US build the Soviet embassy). Jews are going to rig the game, just like the US embassy built by Russian workers in the Soviet Union was bound to be riddled with bugs and espionage devices. Would you trust your rival or enemy to design your weapon, vehicle, or fortress? Of course not. He will surely game the design not to serve you but to serve his own advantage is getting the better of you. Even if YOU may not see the Jews as the enemy, the fact is Jewish Power sees you as the enemy. You can love the enemy all you want, but if the enemy insists on seeing you as the enemy, you will be marked for ruin and all your love would have been wasted. Jews see white goyim as either enemy or slave. Any free, independent, and confident white person is regarded as an enemy because such a person may notice Jewish power and challenge it. Such a white person must be destroyed in will, mind, and spirit. He must be eliminated or turned into a slave, and then and only then can the Jew accept his existence.
Anyway, is it natural that Jews, who are only 2% of the US population, should rule the US? Isn’t it an inversion of the natural way? Shouldn’t the goy majority have power over the Jews? In a way, Jewish rule in the US is both natural and unnatural. It’s natural in the sense that quality often beats quantity. It’s like there are many more community colleges than elite Ivy League colleges, but the latter make far bigger impact because they attract the top talents. And a handful of humans can control entire herd of cattle. In a similar way, Jews have lots of power in the US due to their talent, will, and power of personality.
And yet, Jewish Rule is also unnatural because Jews have power beyond what their talent would merit. Lots of Jews have been favored up the ladder by nepotism, tribalism, and gangsterism. Also, too many criminal Jews have been let off the hook by other tribesmen in high places. More problematic is the fact that Jews are dishonest about the extent of their power. Unlike Wasps in America and British imperialists in India, Jews don’t admit that they have the ruling power in the US. So, we have a situation where the most powerful group in the US acts like the most pitiable victim group. This is very unnatural and very unhealthy for the state of the nation. Not only power but truth itself has been inverted. Once lies become cancerous, they spread and spread. Then, it is any wonder that New Feminism has come to prioritize the ‘needs’ of tranny men who claim to be ‘women’ over the needs of real women? We are now to believe that a man-pretending-to-be-woman should be allowed to compete in women’s sports even though, on the bio-physical level, women cannot compete with men in any meaningful way. How did such lies become the ‘truth’? Because fish rots from the head, and the culture of lies emanates from the Jewish elites who now govern and disgrace the once great US of A. In EXCALIBUR, Merlin says, "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world." When Jewish elites lie, they indeed murder the world in more ways than one. And much of the murder is literal as so many innocent lives have been wasted by Wars for Israel cooked up by vile and disgusting lies of Jewish supremacist cretins.
Finally, liberalism must emanate from something. On its own, it loses in value real fast. It’s like aroma must be attached to something. Smell of coffee without coffee is useless. Smell of bread without the bread leaves people hungry. And even the spirit must emanate from the human body. While Christianity believes in life-after-death for the soul/spirit, each soul/spirit is brought into the word in the first place with the emergence of the body. Just like sensations cannot exist without the body, liberalism will soon wither and die without conservatism to serve. Why have Western universities become such a joke? Because their liberalism has become detached from conservatism. Universities are by nature both a conservative and liberal institution. It is the repository and conveyor of the best of human knowledge, histories & narratives, and ideas & values. Every generation of students learns about the past, heritage, and history in college. But if colleges only stuck with existing knowledge, they wouldn’t broaden one's horizons and come upon new ideas and possibilities. Thus, universities offer conserved knowledge in constant discourse with new critiques and perspectives(often liberal in spirit). But in recent times, the universities(especially with the advent of Jews, boomers, and radicals) have mostly dispensed with respect for history and heritage — apparently, there are too many ‘dead white males’ among the giants in the history of ideas, inventions, and creations — , and the end-result has been a liberalism that has been severed from conserved knowledge and the culture of respect. Such liberalism may initially feel liberated but soon feels confused and listless as it has lost a particular perspective from which to broaden its vision. For there to be subjectivism, it must be grounded in objectivism. Each of us has our subjective view of things because we objectively exist. So, even though our subjective reality stumbles upon new things, it is always through the objectivity of one’s existence and biography. Likewise, Western universities used to be about the Western perspective. They were about learning more about the wider world and deeper reality, but it had a sense of its own origins, interests, vantage point, and experiences rooted in the Western Experience. It’s like every idea has special meaning because each person comes to it in his or her own way. It isn’t merely the idea that matters but how it’s come to have meaning for each person with his/her own realizations and reasons. Because the Western university is the product of Western history, it was only natural that it has been about the story of the West gaining knowledge of the bigger and wider world. Then, it made sense to trace back into Western history to understand why the West came to believe what it did and how those beliefs shaped its historical adventure in the discovery of more about humanity, the world, and the cosmos. It's like the study of space and the universe has special meaning to us only from the vantage point of our human-ness. While objective reality of the universe is independent of what WE think about it, the fact is mankind came up with stuff like mythology, science, and astronomy because it is the nature of man to ask questions and seek the unknown to better understand the world around us. Universe doesn’t need us, but astronomy has no meaning apart from mankind’s need to know the universe. Universe pre-existed mankind, but astronomy developed from mankind’s perspective on the universe. It’s just the way of things.
Likewise, liberalism is the curiosity or sensuality that extends from the core conservative essence of man. In a way, every life is conservative in this way: Everyone tries to remain alive by doing what is necessary to self-preservation: Food, clothing, shelter, and etc. Even the most proggy ‘liberal’ expends most of his or her energy on self-preservation, on conserving himself or herself(even if he or she may not be aware of it).
Now, if it’s natural for an individual to prioritize self-preservation, it’s only natural for a particular society to preserve its characteristics because it is a unity of individuals bound together by shared identity, culture, and/or history. And until recently, what gave Western liberalism meaning was as a furtherance and expansion of a people, culture, and heritage whose roots extended back to Europe. Just like, no matter how adventurous and far-traveling a man may be, he is nothing more(and less) than what he is, liberalism has meaning only as the extension of a particular entity rooted in and shaped by its own past, memory, and perspective. Take a mountain. Suppose there’s a man who’s always lived near it and another man who came upon it from faraway. Objectively, it’s the same mountain to both individuals, but it has entirely different subjective meaning to each. For one, it’s the same old mountain he’s known since childhood. It is part of 'home'. To the other, it is a great discovery, a thing of thrill and excitement. To understand the ‘meaning’ of the mountain, we need to understand the perspective of those who know or come to know of it. This is why it’s stupid for people to complain that Western Liberalism has been Eurocentric. No kidding. Even as the West came to seek the objective truth via hard sciences, the story of knowledge is necessarily the story of how a people came to know the world, themselves, and the universe in their own way. Perhaps, because the West has done the most to unite the world and dominate so many fields of knowledge for all of humanity, much of humanity came to expect white folks to have something akin to super-human powers to rise above all particularities and subjectivity. Therefore, when they realize that Western Knowledge has been shaped by the ‘Eurocentric’ story of discovery, they see nothing but fault.
What this illustrates is that we need to realize that, while there is an objective world out there independent of what we think, all people are bound by their own stories and perspectives. In this way, every society has a core conservative component in its self-definition. No society can be expected to conserve or preserve everything. Just like it’s up to Hindus to preserve Hinduism, white people must preserve and defend what is uniquely theirs. (Liberal impulse can be either objectivist or subjectivist. It can be about breaking free of one's particularist/narrow culture & customs and examining the world with reason, logic, and facts to arrive at an objective materialist understanding of the world. But it can also be 'romantic' in its subjectivist insistence on the need for the individual to follow his bliss and seek his own personal truth based on creativity, imagination, and dreams regardless of limits imposed by morality, materiality, and logic. The latter kind of liberal impulse is especially fascinated with Nietzsche and Heidegger who favored subjectivism over objectivism.) Also, liberalism has long-term value only as an extension and expansion of something with a core. Liberalism is like the atmosphere around the Earth. It is vital to life, but it cannot exist without the Earth’s core and main body. Atmosphere envelopes the planet; it cannot be the core of the planet. Often, liberalism is a feeling, an impression of things. It isn’t merely about dry knowledge but a want of release, a love for adventure, a certain curiosity. All such are passions of sorts, and passion emanates from life itself. Even though passions seek to go beyond the norm & mundane, they are doomed unless they preserve the life from which they emanate. One may have a passion for sky-diving, but he better be sure the plane and parachute are all in order. In the end, the passion must serve the life, the body, not the other way around. While passion takes risks, it can lead to new sensations and knowledge that enrich the life of the body. But if it takes risk to the point to grave self-harm or death, it will perish on the altar of its mad whimsy. In the current (dis)order, liberalism is so decoupled from conservatism that it has become, for so many, the game of passion-for-passion’s-sake or pleasure-for-pleasure’s-sake. It’s fallen into a tailspin of its own delirium. It’s sort of like the Burt Lancaster character in THE SWIMMER who spent his life chasing after fun after fun, delight after delight, joy after joy, until he has lost everything and doesn’t even have a home to return to... but he’s so divorced from reality that he fails to even realize that he no longer has a home and family.
Liberalism without anything to serve becomes a kind of nihilism. It’s like passion run free. Passion for passion’s sake. But without anything to serve, passion loses its nobility. (It's also like youth that fails to understand
that it is a stage in life and a learning process for adulthood and more meaningful & maturer existence. The youth-centrism of the 60s has been especially damaging as so many boomers failed to grow up and remain stuck in their youth-centric mentality. Thus, youth has gone from a time of learning and basis for future growth to the cult of forever-young. Is it any wonder that there are now so many pathetic men and women who age disgracefully and seek to remain or regain relevance with youth-centrism by dyeing their hair green, getting tattoos, or jumping on the latest faddish bandwagon wheeled out by the powers-that-be in media and entertainment? Among the Pussy-hatters were so many older women in vagina-suits who should have known better. So many people seem to be aging backward, growing more childish and insipid as they grow older. Unable to handle maturation as they are stuck in youth-dom, they desperately try ever harder to be forever-young. It's like the now sorry sight of Mick Jagger still romping on the stage as hot stuff. In the end, boomers were far less dangerous as youths than as elders. When they were goofing around in the 60s, the US still had many people who were older, sober, and mature enough to maintain the core culture and values of the nation. But as they died off over the years and boomers took over as the Old Generation, we have immaturity across the age demographic from youths to seniors. A truly sorry sight.) In a way, it even loses its reason for passion. Passion is exciting because of the sense of release from our limitations. It’s like flight was marvelous when mankind had been bound to the earth. Perhaps, because so many people take so many essential things necessary to life for granted and don’t worry about survival or self-preservation, their liberal energies have grown decadent: No longer in service of the essential core but merely a means to have fun or seek thrills. This is true of all modern peoples, but Jews and Hindus have been able to somewhat counter the decadence of liberal energies by constantly reminding their members of the absolute importance of preserving the Covenant or Dharma.
Just like a soldier has to serve a nation or cause, liberalism has to serve something. Also, it cannot serve everything as nothing can. Even universal ideologies demand that its adherents stick to a narrow and specific set of values and principles. Islam is open to all, but all must submit to Islamic dogma. Communism was a universal ideology but insisted upon all comrades to conform to the ideology of class struggle as the central force of history.
We can have a world where each people stick with their particularist identities/cultures OR we can have a world where all peoples agree upon a narrow universal dogma. In a way, particularism can be universalist in the sense that all of humanity can mutually agree with the principle that each people have its own culture, mythos, narratives, and land worth preserving. Thus, the various peoples remain distinct but universally respect and acknowledge these differences. Or, universalism can be particularist in the sense that all of humanity may come to agree that all peoples must submit to a narrow set of ideological or theological principles.
After all, universalism is impossible as unifying political system if every group insists on believing their own stuff as one unified people. Rather, all peoples must be forced to adhere to the a set of shared icons and narratives, and in order for those themes to have the power to unite all, they must be narrow and rigid, compulsory and mandatory. Whether Christianity, Islam, Communism, or PC(with its neo-trinity of Jew Worship, Negro Worship, and Homo Worship), the universalism that is disseminated is not an anything-goes mind-set but the unity of minds in their submission to rigid set of doctrines, iconography, and/or narratives. One can universally tolerate a world of distinct & separate paritcularisms, or enforce a particular dogma as a universalism upon a humanity forced to live as ONE people. Universalism simply cannot allow all ideas for all peoples as there would to be too many differences and dissensions.
Liberalism is useful as an extension of conservatism, as something that emanates and expands outward from conservatism. It must not serve as the central defining principle of any society. Just like a diver needs a diving board and a rocket needs a launch pad, liberalism needs something from which to spring. And even as it leaps high, it must come back to ground. It’s like astronauts go into space but only to return to tell us about what they learned about what is OUT THERE. Atmosphere, as a periphery, does wonders for Earth, but we know the center of Earth cannot be made of atmosphere. The whole thing will just implode as gases don’t have the power and mass to support the structure of the planet. The fatal mistake of the West has been putting liberalism at the center of its organizing principle. Liberality must serve something that is deeper, harder, and more stable. It's like the experiments in space in the movie GRAVITY are possible only because humanity is grounded on Earth that is hospitable to life. There is a will and drive within us to venture further and know more, but we must ultimately come back down to ground, and that sense of 'home' is conservatism. Just like a person feels most at ease and peace at home, a people and culture need a place to call home where they can feel as the makers, owners, and claimants without apology or justification. Jews sought to regain their lost homeland because they'd been 'neuroticized' and even traumatized by having no place where they could lie down and relax with the sure knowledge that it's their home. Now, Jews have such a place, but their greed isn't content with homeland and must totally erase what is left of the Palestinian homeland. Also, Jews not only want a world of their own in Israel but want the World as their oyster and go about fulfilling this mad vision by undermining the claims of homeland for goy nations.
So, while all societies have much to gain from liberalism, liberalism must serve what is particular to that society. So, liberalism for Germany, liberalism for Japan, liberalism for Turkey, and etc. will all differ. While all societies, despite their differences, will gain something from an attitude of tolerance, curiosity, creativity, adventurous spirit, and even a bit of radical will, the ultimate question rests on, "How can we use greater freedom and tolerance to ultimately serve OUR people and enrich OUR culture?" Jews understand this, which is why Jewish Liberalism ultimately serves Jewish identity and culture. The problem is not Jews being mindful of their own identity and interests(to the point where their use of ideology is molded to serve identity/interests) but (1) Jews urging goyim to forgo their identities & interests in total commitment to absolute liberality and pure universalism, ALL THE WHILE urging the then deracinated goyim to support Jewish supremacism & Zionist tribalism and (2) so many goyim falling for this BS shtick, which only convinces Jews further that goyim are so stupid that they deserve to live as mental-chattel of the Jews. What is worst about the Jewish peddling of ‘liberal cosmopolitanism’ and ‘culture of tolerance’ is the sheer dishonesty and hypocrisy, the ONLY underlying consistency being "Is it good for Jewish Supremacism?"
While placing liberalism at the center of worldview and value-system is unwise, we could at least appreciate Jews for their honesty and commitment IF INDEED they themselves practiced what they preached unto others. Jesus preached and then practiced what He preached, dying a terrible death as sacrifice for the redemption of humanity, or so the Christian theology says. But Jews never practice what they preach to others. Surely, many have observed that Jewish moral logic revolves around goyim being mindful of having wronged the Jews and Jews being mindful of having been wronged by goyim; there is precious little about Jews being mindful of having wronged the goyim; it's almost as if Jews regard themselves as a perfect god-like race that never does wrong unto others while always being wronged by others. With their god-complex, Jews feel they are above the law, and therefore, their violation of decency against goyim is okay because anything that makes Jews feel good must be good because Jews are godly in relation to filthy goyim; in contrast, nothing the goyim do for the Jews can be good enough even when they go out of their way to appease the Tribe because Jews, being god-like, always deserve more and better. Jewish Morality is a Master Morality whereby they are owed everything by the goyim who, however, are owed nothing by the Jews. Jews own, goyim owe.
Jewish idea of universal moral consensus is both goyim and Jews being conscious of goy guilt. You see, then Jews and goyim can 'universally' agree on something: Goy Guilt and Jewish Innocence. Notice there is NOTHING about Jews, let alone goyim, being mindful of Jewish Guilt. That being the case, how can we expect any kind of truth & sincerity from Jews? Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, Jewish individuals who are mindful of the problems of Jewishness and Jewish power, but by and large, most Jewish Power is incredibly disingenuous. Brother Nathanael is one righteous Jew.
If you try to point out their hypocrisies, Jews either throw tantrums or act like they have NO IDEA what you’re talking about when, in fact, they damn well know deep down inside. "Jews control the media? Hollywood? Wall Street? Deep State? Huh? Where did you get that idea? Why... you must be a paranoid, delusional, and crazy Anti-Semite." It’s like Jews brag about how they push for agendas to replace white people in Western nations, but if whites finally bring up this issue, Jews act like they never heard of such idea.
Jews may be smart and intellectual, but all those years of haggling as merchants and hair-splitting as Rabbinical scholars didn’t do much for their integrity and honesty. Most merchants will lie and cheat to maximize profits, and Rabbinical scholarship rested on trying to figure out the mind of God who was never really straight with humanity. In being so obsessed with the mind of God, Jews developed a god-complex when it came to goyim. (But then, what is the Jewish God but the projection of the difficult Jewish personality onto the entire universe? Jewish God is the reflection of the Jewish ego onto the sky as mirror.) What God is to Jews, Jews are to goyim... or so the Jews think. So, just as, no matter what Jews think of the difficult & mysterious God, they must honor, trust, and worship Him at the end of the day; it follows that no matter what goyim think of the difficult & deceitful Jews, they must honor, praise, and obey the Tribe at the end of the day.
Anyway, because liberalism is too thin, flimsy, and shallow as a central thesis of society, it only creates conditions for its own implosion and demise once it becomes detached from its conservative foundation. Now, when I say liberalism is ‘thin, flimsy, and shallow’, I don’t mean it is inherently bad or useless. Rather, the worth of something depends on how and where it is used. It’s like icing has value on top of the cake, not on the bottom. Same goes for liberalism. Because liberalism-as-centrism is a weak formula, it craves for something more substantive, tangible, and ‘hard’ to serve as support system, anchor, or new foundation; it's like dandelion seeds may float around freely but ultimately seek moist soil in which to spread its roots. This is why, in the West, the so-called triumph of Liberalism as the ‘end of history’ has led to what is really an illiberal order where the central themes are Jew-Worship, Negro-Worship, and Homo-Worship. As Liberal ideology was too weak as guiding, governing, and organizing principle, the real power came to be defined by Jews who formulated the ideology of ‘liberalism’ toward mainly serving Jewish Identity. (Even Negro-Worship and Homo-Worship have been engineered by Jews to indirectly and ultimately serve Jewish interests. Jews use blacks to push ‘white guilt’ and white cuckery, and Jews use vain & narcissistic homos to concoct globo-homo-mania as substitute for Christianity and goy family values. For those in the know, it’s no mystery that the ‘gay agenda’ has been the proxy tool of Jewish supremacists from day one. Jews set their eyes on a long-term target and then go about doing everything, by hook and by crook, to get what they want. Long ago, Jews decided that Queertianity would replace Christianity, and day after day, year after year, decade after decade, they changed the goal posts until they finally got what they wanted. What is truly pathetic is not only the silence among Christians who are too afraid of Jewish foulness but their numbnut embrace of globo-homo as the highest value of christianity, indeed as if jesus died on the cross to elevate homo-fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting as the highest values.)
What is called ‘liberalism’ in the West of the End-of-History is anything but. What now defines the West is not universal liberality(that too many people find confusing, alienating, and overly generic) but identity politics centered around Jewish Power. Even in the field of Identity Politics, we know some identities are ‘more equal’ than others. Just ask the Palestinians in the US and Europe. They will tell you that all these so-called ‘liberal’ white politicians almost always favor Jewish power and Zionist agendas over the most basic human rights of the Palestinians. So much for End-of-History where liberalism is triumphant against all forms of tribalism. And if the New Liberal Order is about freedom of individuals over the interests of the Tribe, why is blackness prized over other identities? Why does the West make such a big fuss about Mandela while ignoring the lifetime of struggle of Yassir Arafat? Why so many narratives about blacks in America while almost nothing about American Indians who suffered the greatest tragedy by far: Whereas blacks still have Africa as their homeland, American Indians truly lost their homeland forever to whites, Jews, and masses of immigrant-invaders. If End-of-History is all about individualism, why do the Jew-run media make a big fuss about black thugs killed by cops while enforcing near-total silence about so many whites and non-blacks who’ve been robbed, raped, and murdered by blacks? And why are homos favored over incest-sexuals and other degenerates? Why makes homo-and-tranny perversion so special and precious compared to other forms of sexual deviance?
Francis Fukuyama is really just a shill of Jewish Tribal Supremacism. He's hardly different from Fareed Zakaria who cheerleads the Zionist supremacist destruction of much of the Middle East.
So-called End-of-History is not about the triumph of individualism in the sense that every individual is regarded equally. No, it’s about the Power of Individuals who achieved the most in money and influence, and as many such individuals happen to be Jewish in many elite fields, blacks in sports & pop music, and homos in various fields of design & creativity, the End-of-History has resulted in the elevation of three particular identities above all others. Now, it’s theoretically possible that successful Jews, blacks, and homos could have just acted as individuals than members of particular groups, but that is NOT how the game panned out. Successful Jewish individuals colluded with other Jews to lobby for Jewish and Zionist interests. Blacks in sports and music don’t merely regard themselves as successful individuals who happen to be black but as BLACK individuals whose success represents cultural prestige for the black community. And homos are never about mere individualism but how all the fruitkins of the world must work together to spread Globo-Homo-Mania as the mass cult of every nation.
Francis Fukuyama the fool may think and act like an absolute individual, a cosmopolitan with no allegiance to anything in the world but freedom, liberty, and rule of law. But that is not how Jews, blacks, and homos regard themselves in the New World Order(or Jew World Order). Also, even Fukuyama is really just a shill and tool of the Jews because his shtick is full of hypocrisy in remaining silent about Zionist oppression of Palestinians, supporting Israel’s supremacist agenda against Syria & Iran, and pandering to Jewish tribal animus against Russia(that was economically raped by the Jews in the 90s, something Fukuyama almost never discusses). Indeed, the case of Fukuyama perfectly illustrates how liberalism, being too generic and directionless, ends up serving the New Boss of strong identity.
Liberalism is like a world with so many pathways. All those choices may feel liberating, but they're also perplexing and disorienting. The human body can take only so many paths, and the human mind can hold only so many ideas. In a world where a hundred schools of thought are allowed, most people will eventually settle on just a few and then maybe just one as the human mind simply cannot hold 100 different contending and/or contradictory ideas. And more often than not, the strongest idea is one that happens to be attached to a powerful identity with the will to spin a persuasive narrative. For example, the theme of freedom, justice, and liberation can be found among any people. Palestinians surely dream of freedom, justice, and liberation. But how come we care more about those themes as related to Jews? Because Jews got the more powerful personality and got the more power of intelligence & imagination to spin and spread their narrative-of-identity far and wide. Or take the Immigration Narrative. On matters of justice and freedom, one can associate immigration with brutality, imperialism, and genocide because, after all, masses of immigrants from the Old World came to drive out and replace the American Indians who were indigenous to the land. But one can also associate immigration with opportunity, growth, and freedom because so many immigrants in the US found better material lives and more freedom. The issue of Justice can be applied to both narratives, anti- and pro-immigration, but how come it is currently more associated with pro-immigration triumphalism than with anti-immigration tragedy-ism? Why do we care more about how Jews benefited from immigration to America than about how American Indians experienced 'genocide' at the hands of immigrants? The answer is the same as the one that pertains to Zionism. Why does America favor what Jews gained from immigrating to Palestine(that was turned into Israel) than what Palestinians lost as the result of Jewish immigration? Why do we care less about justice for Palestinians than freedom for Jews? It's because Jews amassed the power to attach certain positive themes to their identity and narratives.
Identity is essentially conservative. It is far less mutable than ideology, which is essentially liberal. Even conservative ideologies are ‘liberal’ in the sense of their abstraction, i.e. they can apply to any people. And even identities associated with liberalism are ‘conservative’ in the sense that they’re about ‘us versus them’, the ‘immutable us’, and ‘our unique experience’. When blacks yammer endlessly about justice and freedom, they are not only speaking as liberals in favor of more social equality for all of humanity regardless of race, color, or creed but as 'conservatives' who insist upon the BLACKNESS as the main owners of the themes of justice and freedom in America, thereby implying that BLACKS deserve more recognition and rewards as a people of unique identity and narrative.
In the end, as Identity-centrism that unites a people is more powerful than individual-centrism that atomizes members of any given group, the End-of-History has led to the triumph of powerful identities over weak individualities. For example, compare Jewish-Americans and Japanese-Americans. Jewish-Americans have succeeded as individuals but hold Jewish identity as more important than any single Jewish individuality. Thus, at the end of the day, Jewish individuals unite to serve Jewish identity. In contrast, Japanese-Americans, despite having done well for themselves as individuals, have no sense of greater Japanese-American identity. Indeed, Francis Fukuyama is a good example of this. So, who wins in the game of Jewish-American Identity-centrism vs Japanese-American Individual-centrism? The former of course, but what is truly amusing is that Fukuyama also mainly serves Jewish Identity than his own generic individuality. (Jews, despite having been separated from the Holy Land, feel a stronger connection to
Israel than the likes of Fukuyama feel toward Japan even though Fukuyama himself is separated from his ancestral homeland by just a couple of generations.) Despite all his liberal yammering about ‘end of history’, his heart is with the strong horse of Jewish Identity that controls all the institutions that can make or break someone like him. You won’t hear from Fukuyama about how Jews must forgo their tribal identity in favor of generic individuality, thereby allowing true justice for Palestinians. Fukuyama put liberalism at the center of his world-view, but the end-result has been his servility to the powerful Identity of Jews(and to Homos as proxies of Jewish supremacist Power).
The sudden implosion of Wasp power is a good indication of how liberalism and individual-centrism lose out to the crypto-conservatism of identity-centrism. It’s been said Episcopalians have IQ equal or even higher to that of Jews. So, why did their power and prestige fade so fast vis-a-vis Jews? They acted as mere individuals under generic liberalism, whereas Jews bonded together as a Tribal Identity that furthermore justified its hunger for more power on the Narrative Hegemony of Special Tragedy. Identity is powerful, but one that is consecrated by tragic sympathy is even more so. Justified Identity has decisive moral advantage over Judged Identities. In the West, Jews have made themselves, blacks, and homos the three most Justified Identities, whereas white goyim became mired with the most Judged Identity, and that explains why even rich and powerful white goyim are loathe to do anything for their own race and culture that are under judgement. Even Jewish Liberals are crypto-conservatives in insisting on the importance of their identity uber alles. Indeed, notice how these Liberal Jews berate Donald Trump for his ‘racism’ but complain least about where Trump is most bigoted and hateful: Preference for Zionist imperialism against the hapless Palestinians living in poverty under Jewish supremacist-imperialist tyranny.
The reason why Liberalism ends up betting on the strong horse is because only such a power can hold the peace in a world of so many divergent liberties and contentious individualities. Only such a force can generate enough gravitational pull to create some semblance of order, structure, and pattern. Identity unites by adulation and animus. In the British Empire, the diverse non-white subjects were united in their awe & reverence for the mighty Great White Man and in their sanctioned hatred against whatever the Empire deemed to be the Bad Guy. British Identity decided what the diverse subjects must respect and revile. So, when the British Empire said the Germans are the BAD GUYS, plenty of non-white subjects fought for the Queen against the 'Huns'. The current Jewish globo-homo empire operates in much the same way. It unites the various goyim in their awe and reverence for the Jews and in their hatred against what the Jewish Power deems as especially evil: White National Liberationists, Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, and Christian Conservatives.
We know order is impossible in a classroom where every student is allowed to do his or her thing. The only way to ensure any order is by having a teacher lead the classroom or by having the top bully terrorize everyone until all the classroom looks up to him as the defacto ‘leader’(like how the alpha kid anoints himself leader and enforces his will in LORD OF THE FLIES). The big lie of liberalism is that its triumph will create a world of freedom where every individual will have his say and do his thing. In truth, it will result in excessive disorder than hankers for any kind of order. Furthermore, most people are incapable of thinking for themselves and need to be told what to think, how to feel, and what to believe(and whom to follow). Sad but true, which is why so many 'dittoheads' relied on Rush Limbaugh to be their voice while so many others looked to Rachel Maddow to speak for them(even when it came to something as ludicrous as Russia Collusion Hoax). Also, in a world of individual freedom, some individuals will gain far more wealth, power, and influence than other individuals; and in cahoots with other powerful, influential, and/or well-positioned people, the super-successful individuals will create an agenda that is pushed on the entire population via media, academia, advertising, and other organs that are mostly monopolized by the oligarchs and their agents.
The closest that the so-called Liberal West came to something like true liberality was with the rise of the internet that allowed so many different voices to have their say and speak truth to power. But when the Powers-that-be felt threatened by such liberal freedoms, what did they do? They used their monopoly muscle of social network, finance, and distortions of the law to shut down BDS and counter-Jewish-supremacist voices as ‘hate speech’. In the current West, courageous white people and goyim speaking truth to Jewish supremacist power is ‘white supremacism’ or ‘hate speech’. When it comes to Jewish feelings, even blacks will not be spared if they dare to speak about the Jew. https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/marc-lamont-hill-politically-lynched-telling-truth-about-palestine I wonder... did cosmopolitan liberal Francis Fukuyama raise his voice in support of Marc Lamont's right to speak up on behalf of the much-maligned and oppressed Palestinians?
So much for End-of-History being the triumph of Liberalism. Even though Jews gained top position in the US by taking full advantage of liberal freedom and meritocracy ensured by Rule of Law, once ensconced as the ruling elites, they were more than willing to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to consolidate, keep, and further expand their power. And even though most liberals should be angry with such power-play on the part of Jews, they mostly go along with Jewish power because (1) they prefer any strong horse in a world of excessive disorder & chaos wrought by liberalism (2) they’ve been bribed by Jewish power & don’t want to lose their sinecures & prizes or (3) they are so stupid and shallow that they've sincerely swallowed the Jewish BS that true liberalism is about sucking up to Jews, blacks, & homos at the expense of the rest of mankind and silencing all voices that are critical of Jewish power, Black idolatry, and Homo deification as ‘hate speech’.
In the end, liberalism cannot tolerate everything as each and every idea is inherently intolerant. The monotheism of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are intolerant of atheism or polytheism. Also, true Judaism must be hostile toward Christianity, and vice versa. Jews believe they are the Chosen and that Jesus was a heretic traitor. Christians believe Jews killed the Son of God and refuse to share God with all of mankind. Muslims believe that both Judaism and Christianity were corrupted and it was Muhammad who laid down the final word on Allah. All three religions are virulently intolerant of sensual decadence of the kind found in the current neo-pagan West. They are totally anti-homo, and yet, liberals assure us that Christianity and Islam can happily co-exist with globo-homo garbage that now desecrates so many churches and even encroaches upon mosques via cuck-Muslim homos and trannies whose highest value is vanity and self-worship. If we sincerely and carefully consider every religion, every philosophy, and every worldview, they are intolerant because they must be. Every idea is, after all, a proposal for a Better World, and in order for its agenda to be realized, counter-ideas must be crushed, banished, criminalized, or sidelined. At best, counter-ideas could be tolerated but they must also be marginalized, like in the current US where criticism of Zionism is officially tolerated but effectively muted by the sheer power of the Zionist power bloc. You can decry Zionism in the name of free speech, but you will be denied entry and success in most fields and occupations by Jewish neo-gangsters of ADL and SPLC that threaten any business or institution with defamation and ruin if it were to harbor 'anti-semites'.
Zionism could not prevail in the US if BDS & Palestinian Rights got equal hearing from most Americans, especially the powerful ones. Thus, even if liberalism allows a hundred schools of thought, one or few schools invariably come to dominate and effectively silence other schools either through suppression or marginalization. The White Identity School of Thought in the US is not yet illegal and it has the protection of liberal tolerance. But it’s been effectively sidelined because Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, control most of the channels of information and discourse and made it very clear to all would-be successful people that THERE IS A SERIOUS PRICE TO PAY for those who dare to consider the validity of white identity and interests especially in relation to the demands of Jewish Supremacism(that pretends to be ‘liberal’ and for ‘equality’). Well, just ask the Palestinians how fair-minded Jewish power is.
