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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What Anne Frank and Leo Frank teach us about Jewish Mendacity and where both Germans and White Americans failed with the Jewish Question — Why Jews cannot tolerate Free Speech and Facts & Reason of a Truly Secular Society

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/09/26/jasenovac-the-latest-holocaust-embarrassment/

The days of the “6 million” are numbered, and I suspect that Goldman, Goldstein, and friends know it. When that crumbles, so too collapses what little remains of Jewish credibility. When the orthodox Holocaust story goes down, the dominoes may well begin to fall. And when that happens, all bets are off.

I'm not too sure about that. Much of history has less to do with facts than the power of who gets to control the discourse. So, even if it's proven beyond a doubt that 6 million didn't die, the myth can go on as long as the Power decides if it must. The Power controls the knob and can amplify or mute whatever it wants — consider George Floyd, who died of overdose, has been canonized while Derek Chauvin will rot in prison for 22 yrs for merely having done his job of protecting blue city yuppie elites from black thugs. Most people don't do independent research and, as normies, just go with the Official Narrative. Now, there are surely historians and the like who know the 6 million figure is a gross exaggeration, but they fear being ostracized and/or blacklisted. Being labeled a 'denier' is tantamount to heresy in our so-called secular order with new gods, namely the Tri-Idolatry or Tridolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The Power will denounce you, and the normies will reject you as a 'neo-nazi', 'white supremacist', 'anti-semite', or some nutjob crank because they almost never look or think beyond what they got from public education and Jewish-run 'mainstream media'.

This is why honest people fear telling the truth. They are caught between the Power and the People. The Power is mainly concerned with control and will spin any narrative, push any lie, and suppress any truth to maintain its grip(and the Power operates likewise all over the world, no less so in China, Iran, and Russia with their own sacraments and taboos). The People, most of whom are 'normies', are easily manipulated by the Power. In some ways, they are more easily manipulated in so-called 'liberal democracies' due to the conviction-bordering-on-faith that the People are free. In truth, people in so-called 'democracies' get to vote for whore-pawns vetted and bought/sold by the oligarchs who also own nearly all the media that hire mostly flunkies, careerists, propagandists, and activists(in line with oligarchic agendas). Under communism, people were more skeptical because they knew everything was propaganda.

To be sure, in the so-called 'liberal' West, there was certainly lot more freedom than under Stalinism or Maoism, but the danger lay in the fallacy that better is best. If Bob the gangster is a better person than Tom the gangster, a real psychopath, it still doesn't mean Bob is a good person. Though not as terrible as Tom, he too is a criminal, a thug, and even a killer. The so-called 'liberal West' was undoubtedly freer than communist systems(or other hardline forms of autocracy) and more kinds of speech were allowed, but that doesn't mean it was the bastion of truth. But the cult of 'muh democracy' and 'muh free speech' fooled a lot of people that they are getting the truth from the media(because it's part of the 'free press') in a society committed to free inquiry, free speech, and freedom of conscience. But like the hare that took for granted its lead over the tortoise, people in the West have been complacent in the assumption that they are living in the best of all possible worlds in terms of freedom and truth(and prosperity). This has resulted in 'insouciance', as Paul Craig Roberts calls it, that has led to so much erosion of liberties and rights before our eyes. Even as people in the West keep losing more liberties and rights, they always assure themselves, "I'm living in a liberal democracy, therefore I'm free... unlike those living in autocratic Russia or China."

Of course, the West was always under some kind of oligarchic power, but it's getting worse because it's ruled by Jews who refuse to even acknowledge their dominant position(fueled by a tribal sense of supremacism & contempt), lack any sense of magnanimity, have intoxicated themselves on moral narcissism, and are caught in the web of their own paranoia. In the West, never has so much power been concentrated in the hands of so few who are so hostile toward and derisive of those they rule over. Why else would they push for the Great Replacement or White Nakba? It's because Jews don't regard white folks as their own people but as the Goy Other that must be kept in their place, and what better and more permanent way to destroy white power than by demographically eclipsing whites with non-white goyim. Jews say O Vey, whites better Obey. The current West is something like an 'oligomocracy', i.e. it's totally controlled by the oligarchy but within the framework of what appears to be a democracy.

Honest people find themselves caught between the Power that prioritizes control and the People who gobble up whatever slop they're fed. It's the Glob and the Mob. Consider how the Twitter Mob works. Them 'woke'(or Jewoke) idiots swallow all the crap fed them by the Jewish-controlled media and academia. They think they are more 'sophisticated', 'evolved', and 'hip' because they get their ideas and views from supposed 'progressives' with elevated elite credentials. Not that American 'conservatives' are much better as they wolf down all the crap fed them on Talk Radio which is mostly controlled by Neocon monopolists. (And even alternative voices like Alex Jones would have us believe Arabs own Hollywood and China has something to do with diminishing freedom in the West.) These proggies feel smarter because they hang around tonier parts of the city, attended fancier colleges, watch Young Turks, listen to NPR, and maybe have a subscription to the New Yorker. Now, one can get lots of valuable news and information from such sources — they sure beat the 700 Club and much of Talk Radio — , but all said and done, they dare not venture outside the boundaries of discourse as insisted by Jewish Power. Indeed, the sudden war on Free Speech by so-called 'progressives' has been instigated from above by Jewish supremacist opinion-makers.

They are not about free-ranging intelligence in search of truth but corralled and tamed 'intelligentry' in service to Jewish Power and the gods it controls. Jews fear true secularism where people are free to use reason and facts in pursuit of worldview that comports with reality. Such secularism favors no side as plenty of dirt can be dug up about any group. It could dig up lots of dirt on Anglos, Germanics, and Slavs but also plenty on Jews, blacks, homos, and etc. Mao Zedong soon realized his system couldn't be sustained by the principles of the Hundred Flowers Campaign. For a season or two, something like a real liberal spirit prevailed in China as people were allowed to say anything, even against the party. Few drips turned into a torrent that then threatened to break the dam of party authority. Likewise, the liberal experiments in Czechoslovakia in the mid 60s eventually led to Prague Spring that challenged the very authority of the Communist Party. Soviet tanks had to roll in to turn the tide. Mikhail Gorbachev had his own Hundred Flowers Campaign called Glasnost and, unlike Mao who soon reversed course, he allowed it to take root and grow. Result was a million complaints from the people and the utter demoralization of party members. It wasn't long before the whole edifice of Soviet authority crumbled. (Of course, by then, all of Eastern Europe had given up on communism and looked to the West for aid, guidance, and investment.)
In order for communism or at least communist party authority to remain, the Marxist brand of secularism had to enforce its sacraments and taboos. While lots of things could be questioned, certain things could not be. Marx and Lenin were gods, and communism was 'scientific materialism', and only a mentally ill person would dare question it.
Truth and facts are neutral. So, the Power wants truth and facts to shed light on the bad of the enemies and rivals but not of itself. The Power encourages the educated class to dig up all manner of dirt about the other side(s), even rewarding those who manufacture falsehoods(as with the Russia Collusion Hoax, Assad Gas Attack Hoax, and Jussie Smollett Hoax). The Power seeks flaws in the arguments and ideologies of competing powers but not in its own. Thus, secularism can never be totally rational or factual because the Power favors its own control than the general truth.
In a genuine liberal-secular democracy/republic, free speech and free discourse can boomerang on the Power as the educated class(often filled with resentment against the rich and privileged) may well critique the Power itself. Indeed, this is exactly what happened with the Anglo elites in US and UK. Even though they had plenty of educated men on their side, they also had to contend with the increasing chorus of criticism coming from within and without their own ranks, not least from Jews.
In regards to the Power, there are two natural tendencies among the People: Submission and Rebellion, and the two tendencies often co-exist. As often as not, rebellion is borne of resentment of not having been favored and/or approved by the Power than based on any real principle, though all rebels pretend they are motivated by higher values, and the same goes for submission, i.e. people join the Power and collaborate for personal gain, careerism, and peace of mind(as dissent can lead to harassment, purging, and even death) than out of any deep conviction. Most people are benders than standers.

At any rate, the Power is likely to attract as much criticism and pushback as cooperation and support in a free society. The opposition could be a matter of partisanship or personal conscience, as is true of compliance. When Anglo-Americans ruled the US, they had both lots of supporters and lots of critics. Of course, the influence of criticism altered the character of the ruling elites, in which case the once-supporters could become the new critics and once-critics the new supporters. Or, the change came about because the character of the support was altered by the influence of media and academia. After all, even the supporters of the Anglo-American Christian Order were bombarded by the Jewish-controlled media, and their children(groomed to work for the Power) were shaped by the increasingly Jewish-dominated academia. Consider the fate of the GOP. At times, the leadership came under Jewish influence and mandated a new set of 'values' for American Conservatives to follow, but at other times, the rank-and-file were altered by Jewish Influence and exerted pressure on the leadership to change course; or else, they threatened to leave the Party for the Democrats or the Independents.

No doubt, Jews understood this aspect of the secular-liberal dynamics of Power. Free Society meant free speech, and free speech meant the freedom of conscience and the free play of ideology to critique and challenge power and authority. Indeed, no group than the Jews did more to involve itself in taking apart, deconstructing, exposing, and invalidating the existing concentrations of Power, indeed so much so that, Jewish influence was seen almost as synonymous with social critique, dissent, ideological radicalism, and other modes of rebellion/dissidence, so much so that even anti-Jewish groups and those at odds with Jewish agendas developed grudging respect for Jews as standard-bearers of civil liberties. Now, we know it was either just a ploy or something Jews came to regret.

Secular freedoms can support and protect any side but also subvert and tear it down. One can use free speech to spread and defend Christianity or to mock and expose it as a delusion or hypocrisy. One can use free speech for or against Marxism. Secularism, in and of itself, doesn't have sacred cows, and that means ANYTHING can be critiqued, appraised, questioned, attacked, mocked, impugned, and etc.
Marxists understood this very well, which is why they made Marx and Lenin the new sacred cows. You could question, criticize, and condemn religions, capitalism, feudalism, traditionalism, liberalism, and etc. in a Marxist state but one could not question the 'scientific' and 'materialist' truth of Marx and Engel's ideas. After all, if secularism in a communist state could critique and diagnose Marxism like any other ideology or worldview, it could be delegitimized in the eyes of the public, not least because so many Marxist policies weren't working according to plan.

Jews are no different than Marxists in their grip on power. Though Jews today are super-capitalists and the LAST THING they want is communism, they know that the current Power Arrangement cannot allow total free speech founded on absolute commitment to secularism. They prefer a sacral-secularism, or 'securalism' whereby Jews get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. Jews know that official religions aren't possible in a secular order, and so, they use media and academia to generate sacral-emotions on certain topics. That way, Jews can have the cake and eat it too: Jews can maintain what is ostensibly a secular order without official religions but also have a population that feels, thinks, and behaves as virtual spiritualists on certain matters.
Under this order, there are three kinds of qualities: Holy, Material, and Unholy. 'Holy' are those subjects that command reverence & piety and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; one must idolize, mourn, and/or celebrate them. As the Michael Jackson and Oprah cults have shown, people can be made to feel 'holy-schmoly' about anyone or anything. 'Material' are those subjects that are unrelated to the Holy and, therefore, can be discussed freely: Like the science of dairy products or the migratory behavior of birds. 'Unholy' are those matters that pose a danger to the Holy and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; they must be condemned outright and, in the absence of legal protection of free speech, banned, as is already the case in UK, Canada, and EU.

MLK, Mandela, George Floyd, Globo-Homo, and Jews are holy. All Good People must gush about them. Covid-19 and 'vaccines' have also entered the realm of the Holy; the 'jabs' and the never-ending boosts are the new communion rituals. If you dare to discuss Covid-19 freely and speculate as to the effectiveness of Ivermectin, you are a heretic and must be mocked as a 'horse-dewormer' taking devil-worshiper. Most diseases and treatments are in the 'Material' realm, or open to free scientific discourse, but Covid-19 and the 'vaccines' are not; the only allowable 'science' is the one pushed by the Jewish Globalist World order that controls the Deep State, Big Pharma, and Big Media. Indeed, notice how the nay-sayers of the 'vaccines' are effectively 'excommunicated' from the church of 'trust-the-science'(or schwience). And of course, anyone who dares to freely discuss the problems of racial differences, black crime, Jewish perfidy, homosexual decadence, tranny nuttery, and etc. are immediately deemed 'Unholy'; everything is done to ban such voices from media, academia, and even internet platforms that once used to be bastions of free speech. Like the Marxists in communist nations, Jewish Supremacists realized their grip on supremacy isn't tenable in a world of free flowing opinions and ideas where anyone and everything can come under scrutiny, criticism, and reappraisal. 'Unholy' views are immediately and roundly attacked as 'far right', 'hateful', and etc., funny coming from a people who've committed the most violence and mass killings since the end of the Cold War. Just ask the Arabs and Muslims whose policies led to the destruction of millions of them. They were victims of Jewish-Supremacist policies that animate the cuckish aggressions of the Anglo-managed US and UK.

American Pravda: the ADL in American Society - From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day - by Ron Unz

Something of the Jewish character can be glimpsed from a consideration of Anne Frank and Leo Frank. The comparison may seem perverse as one was an innocent victim of Nazi inhumanity whereas the latter was a pervert-murderer. But, not if the comparison focuses on the Jewish Reaction to the two individuals(or the two events they're associated with), and it has to do with Denial, a term usually associated with the Holocaust but which applies so often to Jewish reactions to events. Even to this day, Jews are in USS Liberty Denial mode. While Nazi horrors were many times more murderous and destructive than Israel's attack on the US ship, the nature of the lie is the same: A pathological inability to face up to the truth for purpose of ethnocentrism. (Ironically, Holocaust Denialists and Holocaust Dogmatists have more in common than they realize. Both are invested in History as Faith, either in the total innocence or absolute guilt of the Germans. This false dichotomy has made it virtually impossible to have a true historical discussion on the subject as anyone suspected of 'revisionism' is thrown into the Denial Camp.) What matters is the attack on USS Liberty was clearly a hostile act by Israel, but to this day, Jews refuse to own up to what happened. And not just the Israeli government, which would at least be understandable, but Jews all around the world. What does this say about Jewish Power and the general character of Jewishness when most Jews aren't willing to face up to the most obvious facts?

And if Jews aren't willing to face up to what happened to USS Liberty, why would they be any more honest or principled on far graver matters? And if most Jews, 'conservative' and 'liberal', so readily circle the wagons on something so obvious and undeniable, the only logical conclusion is that, for most Jews, ethnic unity and power take precedence uber alles. Besides, it's not as if Jewish criminality has been limited to isolated incidents like the USS Liberty attack. Jewish finance played a significant role in the expansion of European Imperialism, not least the Anglo kind. Jews had a key role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(at least in South America) and the forced sale of opium to China. Jewish merchants played a role in the Westward expansion and the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and Jewish radicalism played a key, even decisive, role, in the spread of communism and its horrors that led to the deaths of millions. And since the end of the Cold War, World Jewry have been the main butchers of the world as overlords of the lone superpower, the US, the foreign policy priority of which has been appeasing Zion by serving as its murderous attack dog. Just ask the Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, and many others.
Furthermore, Jews have been the main concocters of this 'wokeness'(or Jewokeness) that plants poison seeds in the souls of whites(mainly via Afromania and Globo-Homo degeneracy) and prepares the West for White Nakba.

But, because Jewish Power has been dispersed among various nations in which goy 'buffers' were often employed to do the bidding of Zion, much of Jewish Evil has been attributed to anyone but Jews. So, Iraq War is blamed on George W. Bush and 'Neocons'(with Cheney and Rumsfeld as the most prominent faces), and most of the current lunatic policies are blamed on Joe Biden even though he's just a puppet of his Jewish Handlers. Even when Jews were considerably less powerful in the past, they had sway over key members of the goy elites via the control of money.
What all this means is that, while Jews have much to accuse the goy world of, they also have much to be accused of and much to answer for. Also, apart from the policies of National Socialist Germany that sought to be Jew-Free, thereby making its crimes its own, it's not so easy to differentiate the Jewish Role from the Goy Role in much of the Modern West. Jews, like the Irish, collaborated in much of British Imperialism. If most Irish did it as foot-soldiers, Jews did it as financiers. So, ironically, National Socialism rendered Jews the most innocent of German crimes during the Nazi Era, whereas the Western Powers that allowed Jewish participation made Jews accomplices in their 'racist' domination of the world. Not that any of this matters in the current Jewish-controlled Historiography whereby we are to believe Jews were always pure-as-snow innocents who were totally blameless of Western Imperialism and, if anything, the main poor hapless victims of Western 'antisemitism'.

Though Anne Frank and Leo Frank are two very different individuals, both have been shrouded by Jewish Lies. Thus, what unites them is the culture of Jewish Mendacity. Never mind the stuff about Anne Frank story being partly created by her father. Never mind the rather ludicrous canonization of some Jewish Girl into the new madonna. We can accept that she was a nice girl and met a sad fate(though she died of disease than gassing or a bullet to her head). The LIE is in propping her cult as the main face of Jewishness, thereby creating a false impression as to why there was so much anti-Jewish hatred and why the Germans were driven to such extremes. It'd be like using some Japanese girl who died in Hiroshima as the main face of Japan's place in World War II.
Now, clearly many innocent children of all nationalities perished in the war, and there's no problem in remembering and mourning Jewish children who died in the Shoah. And Japanese children who died in the war should be remembered as well. But the war against Japan wasn't about some crazed desire to kill innocent Japanese girls. Rather, Japanese children were the unfortunate and tragic casualties of a war in which Japanese adults in powerful positions decided to play with fire. To understand Japan's role in WWII, one needs to focus on the politicians, industrialists, military men, ideologues, and the Emperor. Likewise, even though many innocent Jews, even children, were persecuted and killed in WWII, no real understanding of the Jewish Role in the war can be understood without taking into account the dangerous and even reckless roles played by Jewish radicals, bankers, gangsters, fraudsters, corrupters, and perverts. Remembering Anne Frank as a sad child victim of History is a decent thing to do, but using her as the Face of Jewishness in the Modern Era is utterly bogus.
After all, Germans could do the same. Consider all the innocent German children who were killed by bullets or bombs, or who were raped(most likely by Soviet troops), or perished from starvation and disease. All such lives should be remembered, but it'd be foolish to use her story as exemplary of Germany's role in World War II. No, Germany got embroiled in the horrors because of Adolf Hitler and his reckless worldview(though it certainly wasn't helped by Josef Stalin, FDR, Winston Churchill, and others itching for some kind of major conflagration). Anne Frank Cult as the face of the Holocaust Narrative overlooks the role of Jewish Power that led to the rise of Hitler and the National Socialists. Germans went to the dark side not because they wanted to hurt innocent Jewish children but had-it-up-to-here with the crimes and corruption of Jewish Power. However, in handing power to a bunch of radical Anti-Semites, there was the danger of innocent Jews getting it in the neck as well. But innocent Japanese also got burned for the crimes of their rulers.
Granted, it's never quite simple to draw a clear line between guilt and innocence. After all, many Japanese supported the policies of their rulers. But then, their minds were largely manipulated by the rulers who controlled the media, so there was a kind of circular logic to the mania. Likewise, many Jews did nothing to restrain the vileness of their tribal elites(and little has changed over the years as Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal are exceptions than the rule) and a good number of them participated, though not as key players, in the vile machinations of their tribal leaders. So, absolute guilt and absolute innocence are virtually non-existent. One could say children are innocent, which is true enough, but it's only a matter of time before children are indoctrinated into soldiers of the regime, much like it's only a matter of time before tiger cubs grow into predators. Children are innocent in the moment but not in their destinies, most of which are controlled by external forces; besides, even the internal drives of human nature leads one to aggression, competition, domination, or service to dominant forces.

If Jews used an innocent girl, Anne Frank, as the face of all Jews threatened or killed in the World War II period, Jews denied the guilt of Leo Frank altogether even though he was most certainly guilty of the rape-murder. A case of rape-murder denial. Though only one girl was raped and killed by Leo Frank, the Jewish pathology behind the denial isn't much different in kind from the denial of those who naysay all documented details of the Shoah. In some ways, it's worse among Jews because, whereas Holocaust Denial is a fringe phenom among goyim, Leo-Frank's Rape-Murder Denial has been the mainstay of Jewish Power and Jewish Majority, much like USS Liberty Attack Denial. Add to this the Jewish Virtual-or-Emotional Denial of the Rosenbergs' guilt in slippling atomic secrets to Stalin. While most Jews came to admit Rosenbergs were guilty of the act, they melodramatized the Narrative to make the Rosenbergs and other communists the 'victims' of 'red-baiting' and 'paranoid' anti-communists. So, even when Jews admit a good number of Jews were involved in treason and treachery, they canonize the guilty as 'victims' while reviling the prosecutors as subhuman persecutors of all things decent and humane.

Leo Frank was eventually lynched by a mob that just about had enough. He was only one person, indeed the only Jew ever lynched on American Soil. Therefore, it may seem ridiculous and perverse to compare his case with the Holocaust where, purportedly, 6 million Jews perished(though the real number is probably half that), Anne Frank included. US was good to Jews, Germany of the Nazi period was horrible for Jews. And yet, history and truth aren't merely about numbers. One Jew or Six Million Jews, the motivations of goy hatred could be the same. Thus, what the Leo Frank Case(the death of one Jew) and the Anne Frank Case(the death of millions of Jews) have in common is the Jewish tendency to commit horrific crimes and use the tribal network to circle the wagons.
Lucky for Jews, such Jewish behavior led to minimum anti-Jewish violence in the US(relatively speaking), but consider the goy rage in both US and Germany. In the US, southern white goyim were more than willing to give Leo Frank the benefit of doubt and his day in court. Frank wasn't treated like some Negro but had all the legal defense one could hope for. And yet, facts proved his guilt beyond a doubt, and the proper thing for Jews would have been to make him face justice. But, what did the Jewish community do? They circled the wagons. They chose tribal ethnocentrism over justice for the dead goy girl. Apparently, the life of a Jewish rapist-murderer was more precious than the life of a goy girl seen as little more than a shikse whore(later to replayed by Roman Polanski's case). Jews not only refused to face up to facts but tried to frame a Negro. And then, the Jewish Press slandered southern whites(who'd been kindly to Jews) as a bunch of raving 'anti-semites' when they'd offered Leo Frank every opportunity to prove his innocence. The real issue isn't that Leo Frank was a creep. All groups have their rapist-murderer creeps; John Gacy was no Jew. The issue was the Jewish Community went out on a limb to protect a fellow Jew despite his obvious guilt(and things are even worse today, with Jonathan Pollard giving the US a middle finger as he swaggers around Israel as a 'hero').

The Southern White Goy community just about had enough and took matters into its own hands. They grabbed Leo Frank from the jail cell and lynched him. The goy rage wasn't much different from what would happen among Germans during the Weimar Period, in which many German Jews, backed by World Jewry, did horrible things to the German economy, culture, and political process, which they would repeat all over again in Russia of the 1990s. But, the difference is German Rage put radical Anti-Semites in power, and the Nazis had a worldview not so different from that of Jews: supremacism. Just like so many Jews felt Jews could never do wrong and should always circle the wagons to protect other Jews, guilty or innocent, the National Socialist direction for Germany was Aryans Uber Alles.
Still, the rage that many German citizens felt that drove them to support the National Socialists wasn't much different from the rage felt by the Southern White mob that finally had had enough of Leo Frank and had him lynched. In both cases, goyim were driven to the limit by Jewish vileness. Historically, Germany had been less anti-Jewish than most European nations, but Germans came to believe that their relative niceness toward Jews only emboldened Jews to act more shitty. Likewise, historically the American South had been kinder to Jews, but how did Jews pay back this favoritism? They circled the wagons to defend the loathsome Leo Frank, the rapist-murderer of a white Christian girl.

Most crucially, both the US and Germany failed to do the right thing. In the case of Germany, the new regime went after ALL Jews. Even if many Jews had acted badly, there was no reason to target all Jews as the majority of Jews hadn't been gangsters, communist radicals, or financial thieves. And some were patriots who had fought in World War I and respected German culture. In going after all Jews, National Socialism disgraced itself and finally blackened German reputation with war and genocide.
One would like to believe the American Example was infinitely better. After all, Americans didn't go after all Jews but targeted one Jew, the guilty Leo Frank. Not that Jews ever appreciated this as they lionized Leo Frank as a saint, and the organization that grew out of the incident, ADL, now serves as the 'moral' muscle of Jewish Power and twists arms everywhere to push for Censchwarzship.
Still, it's surely far more sensible to go after the one guilty Jew than go after an entire community. Better to kill one bad person than kill 'six million', among whom the good are mixed with the bad. And yet, Americans also made a fatal mistake in the Leo Frank case. While only Leo Frank was responsible for the rape and murder of the white girl, much of the Jewish Community had been downright vile and verminous in trying to exonerate him out of tribal solidarity that smacked of racial supremacism: "We Jews are above the law when it comes to harming lowly goyim." (What's truly disgusting is that, even after all these years, Jews have doubled-down on the rape-murder denial and pretend as if Leo Frank is their own 'Emmett Till', all the funnier when even the real Emmett Till wasn't the 'Emmett Till' of myth, though St. George Floyd takes the cake when it comes to perfidious Jewish-manufactured idolatry. Even though the white mob was pushed to extreme measures against Leo Frank because of the dirty Arnold-Rothstein machinations of the Jewish Community, Jews have blame only the whites, never themselves.)

The real shame of the Leo Frank case isn't that some lowlife Jew was lynched. It's that White Americans didn't go far enough and do more. While it's a good thing that White Americans never became radically deranged like the Germans under National Socialism, they failed to realize that the main villain of the Leo Frank case wasn't Leo Frank himself but the Jewish Power Network defined by Jewish Tribal Supremacism. Indeed, Leo Frank would have been summarily tried and sentenced, and that would have been that had it not been for obnoxious Jewish meddling. The case was prolonged and perverted because Jews pulled every string in the book to prevent justice for the rape-murder victim. So, while Leo Frank was guilty of his crime, the Jewish Power Network was guilty of something far more egregious and consequential: Corruption of the justice system, and for what? Jewish supremacism that holds in contempt the humanity of white girls regarded as 'shikse' whores. So, White Americans shouldn't have stopped with Leo Frank. They should have started a movement to root out the networks of Jewish corruption and villainy. This doesn't mean they should have become like raving Nazis and gone after innocent Jews or done what they did to the Japanese-American population during World War II. Rather, at the very least, they should have done everything to root out the widespread elements in the Jewish Community that form networks and work together in favor of Jewish lives and interests regardless of truth and/or justice. The failure to do that has led to the rise of Jewish Networks that now rob the world through Wall Street and Big Pharma, that perverts the law to let Antifa thugs and BLM lunatics to run free and get a slap on the wrist if arrested... while January 6 protesters are denied the most basic of legal rights and parents who protest anti-white CRT agenda are labeled as 'domestic terrorists' by vile Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland(who almost became Supreme Court justice).

So, if Germans went too far in their reaction to Jewish Evil by going after ALL Jews, even good ones, White Americans didn't go far enough by fixating on the individual Jew while overlooking the power of the Jewish Network. After all, it makes no sense to see Jonathan Pollard as merely a bad individual Jew. He did what he did as part of a Jewish Network, and this network, with tentacles in academia-media-government-banking-etc., eventually pulled all stops to spring that lowlife scum from prison. Germans under National Socialism, in going after bad Jews, even went after innocent Jews, destroying the lives of girls like Anne Frank as well. White Americans thought the problem would be solved by taking out Leo Frank the bad Jewish individual while overlooking the fact that Leo Frank managed to elude justice for so long because of the Jewish Power Network operating on the premise of Jewish Supremacism and total contempt for 'filthy goyim'.

The Ideal Way for Americans would have been to Name the Jewish Power, to expose the Jewish Network. Jewish Evil isn't a simple matter of bad individuals doing their own thing but, more often than not, a matter of a bunch of Jews acting in concert within a network. It's like the Mafia, which is why RICO laws were necessary to bring down the underworld empire. Just going after individual mafia hoodlums(as if they're lone wolf street thugs) hardly made an impact on the mafia network; it was like cutting off one tentacle off an octopus that merely grew new ones. To take out the Mafia, the individual crooks had to be linked to the network and its bosses.
Likewise, Leo Frank was protected by the Jewish Network, which later canonized him as a saint, much like Tony Kushner did for the Rosenbergs in ANGELS IN AMERICA. To prevent further such abuse, White America should have at least gone after the Jewish Network and exposed it for what it is. Granted, it would have been more difficult with Jews than with the Italian-Americans whose criminality was far more specific to a social milieu. Indeed, Italian-Americans who broke from the Criminal Community tended to assimilate into Anglo-Americanism or Generic Americanism. In contrast, even Jews who operated above ground retained a powerful sense of tribal identity and loyalty, rendering mafia-like much of the Jewish networks in academia, media, government, and etc. Rudy Giuliani became just a New York mayor and did little for the Italian-American community. The idiot Cuomo Brothers are mainly careerists and have nothing to do with Italian-ness. But look at Jews like Victoria Nuland, Wendy Sherman, Merrick Garland, Stinkin' Blinken, and the rest of them, and they are NOTHING without Jewish Tribalism. Indeed, the demands of Jewish Tribalism are so strong that even goyim in politics cower before its will. Even Donald Trump who, in 2016 boasted that Jews don't own him because he's so rich, did little in office but take it up his ass from the Jewish Lobby and beg, "Can I suck your dic*?"

What the West needs is a RICO-ist approrach against Jewish Power Network. The evil didn't end with Leo Frank. He almost got away with rape/murder because of the Network, the same reason Roman Polanski has been able to sit nice and pretty all these years without facing justice. Indeed, can anyone explain the silence about USS Liberty without taking the Jewish Power Network into account? Or what really happened on 9/11 and how lies were spread in the media(essentially a Jewish Power Network) to rouse public support for Iraq War? Or how Jews managed to rape the Russian economy in the 1990s? Did just a handful of Jews, as mere individuals, manage to pull off the heist of the century all on their own? Or, were they enabled by the Worldwide Jewish Network? And consider the Russian Collusion Hoax. The Covid Hysteria and the rigging of the 2020 election. These were not done by isolated individuals but by the Network with links in government, media, academia, courts, finance, etc.

So, the lesson of the 20th century in regard to Jewish Perfidy is that the Germans went too far and the Americans didn't go far enough. Germans, in going after Jewish Evil, went after the entire population. Americans, in contrast, targeted only the individual while ignoring the power of the Jewish Network. Indeed, it is precisely because the Network was left alone in the US that Jews even managed to push the narrative that Leo Frank was some innocent saint lynched by a crazed 'anti-semitic' mob that, I supposed, one day just got off their ass to kill a totally innocent Jew for the hell of it.
IAIN DAVIS DISSECTS THE PSEUDOPANDEMIC

Accusations of 'Antisemitism' are used to lend Moral Cover to Jews who brazenly act like Antisemitic Stereotypes — Blacks use 'Racism' the same way — Jewish Supremacism requires more than mere Meritocracy — The Myth of Jewish Sainthood as Jews are after Worldly Power, not Spiritual Truth(except in worship of themselves as the new god)

The monstrous Sackler Family whose pharmaceuticals led to the deaths of 100,000s of white people, but NO ONE cares in the Media run by Jews

JEWISH DIAMOND MERCHANT 'TROPES'

The Antisemitism Paradox is as follows: Jews accuse people of 'antisemitism' to get away with acting like 'antisemitic' stereotypes. There's also the 'Racism' Paradox. Blacks accuse people of 'racism' to get away with acting like 'racist' stereotypes. It's like bad people accusing others of defaming them as 'bad' in order to get away with acting bad.

While Anti-Jewish feelings and attitudes can get out of control(and even become cancerous as with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), there's no getting around the fact that broad stereotypes about certain groups are based on reality. Indeed, something like Nazism was an extreme reaction to bad Jewish behavior. The radical character of this hatred was pathological, but it was not an animus based on insane fantasies that slandered totally innocent Jews. (Furthermore, Nazi evil had much in common with Jewish evil as both were expressions of racial supremacism and arrogance.) It's like communism was an extreme and dangerous reaction to capitalism, but many of its criticism and condemnations of capitalism were justified(and even defenders of capitalism noted its problems and saw the need for reform and some measure of socialism as counter-balance.)
If the dark tragedy of extreme antisemitism, such as Nazism, was that it could only see the BAD in Jews, thereby condemning all Jews into objects deserving of hatred and even elimination, the dark tragedy of the post-WWII period has been a mindless Philosemitism that could see only the GOOD in Jews. This wouldn't have mattered if Jews were a powerless people or a middling population, but it became the most dangerous mindset in a world where Jews have amassed supremacist power over the world. An attitude of willful naivete and sappy obeisance to the most powerful people in the world is dangerous, especially when the attitude of many Jews isn't much different from their arch-enemy of history, the Nazis. Jewish Power is based on Master Race contempt for goyim, though this aspect is obfuscated by Jewish-controlled media's mantras about 'social justice'. Right, all that talk of 'equity', that must be white Jews are in an equitable position vis-a-vis goyim. Notice that even in industries and institutions where white presence/power has been slashed to smithereens, there are cries of 'too many whites', but there can never be talk of 'too many Jews' even in fields where the 2% constitute the overwhelming majority as owners, managers, or influencers.

The problem for Jews is, even as they fear 'antisemitic' stereotypes or 'tropes' that cast them in a negative light, they are committed to and obsessed with(and even addicted to) doing the things associated with 'antisemitic stereotypes/tropes'. This is because too many Jews(especially at the top) aren't content merely to be good Jews who get along on equal footing with goyim. They aren't even satisfied with the surplus wealth, privilege, and power that come via meritocracy. As Jews have higher IQ, a purely meritocratic system will ensure that Jews will attain and control more; and as all barriers to Jewish access and ascension have faded over the years, Jews have much to gain from meritocracy alone. But even that isn't enough for Jews because meritocracy, properly applied, puts a limit even on the talented. While meritocracy favors the more talented group over others, it doesn't ensure total power for the advantaged group. Jews aren't content with mere over-representation; they must have overwhelming control over key institutions and industries, which is why Jewish finance sector is propped up by Jews in the justice department and deep state. (The notion of 'too big to fail' means Jews have more cards up their sleeve than mere meritocracy. Even when they gamble and lose, they are bailed out. And even when Neocon pundits were so wrong about the Iraq War, they are favored for hiring by Jewish-run media and think-tanks. Consider that miserable worm Max Boot.) And of course, Jewish finance sector favors Jewish ventures in Big Tech and other areas. If a Jew and a goy come up with the same great idea, guess who will receive favorable financing?

And Jews want to control the icons and idols that ensure irrational emotions in favor of Jewish Agenda. Manipulation of icons means Jews get to control the gods, and then Jews can preach: Jews = Holocaust = Holiness. Yet, 'sacralization' of Jews, far from ensuring saintly Jewish behavior, has only encouraged Jewish gangster behavior. Shielded by the aura of holiness(whereby any critical view of Jewish people, power, and/or culture could be deemed 'antisemitic', thereby 'nazi'), Jews became the 'made men' of America.
It's the law of human nature that, 99 times out of 100, more exaltation leads to more execrable behavior. Why were so many princes and princesses such spoiled snotty louts? All the adulation made Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong more megalomaniacal, arrogant, and tyrannical. (No wonder the Christian Mythology of Man ascending to God-status in Heaven necessitated that He be dragged through the mud and pay the dues. But then, the mythology says Jesus was God to begin with.) When man is allowed god-status, his ego is filled up with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, which leads to hubris. Apotheosis leads to appalling behavior.

This is why saints and holy men are expected to relinquish worldly power and wealth. To gain higher spiritual worth, one must abandon material ambition in the world of man. But Jews paint themselves as the new christs on account of the Shoah Narrative, and then use their sham-holiness as moral shield to amass more wealth, privilege, and power than mankind has ever before. Thus, Jewish saintliness is a fraud. While there are surely individual Jews who, as survivors or historians, tried to derive wisdom from the tragedy, too many Jews have used the Shoah as Shoah-business or a moral license to cheat, lie, steal, and even commit mass-murders against peoples deemed as enemies or rivals of Jews.
And this is what's so frustrating about the lectures, sermons, and warnings about 'Antisemitism'. Instead of cautioning goyim about the dangers of 'antisemitic' stereotypes while, at the same time, reminding Jews not to confirm them by practice, anti-antisemitism has come down to Jews doing whatever they please(thus certifying some of the hoariest 'antisemitic' cliches) regardless of morality or decency while the rest of us must forgo any criticism of Jewish power & abuses lest it be 'antisemitic'. It's turned into a sick game of 'Heads We Win, Tails You Lose'. Thus emboldened, Jewish behavior has gotten worse and worse, culminating in the dark year of 2020 when Jewish Power paralyzed the world economy with Covid Hysteria nonsense and terrorized the Western World with BLM madness to bully the white race into shame and submission. Of course, when it comes to sheer death and mayhem, the biggest victims of Jewish Insanity have been the Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East, at least those who live under regimes that refuse to be puppet-partners of the Zionist-controlled US.

Jews and blacks are the biggest destroyers of the West with their use of moral outrage as cover for outrageous immorality. So, blacks will say there's this 'racist' stereotype of blacks as criminals, implying that anyone who notices reality is a 'racist'. And if one can't help noticing it despite the admonition, just pretend it's 'teens' or 'youths' who are doing it. And on occasion that blacks do admit the criminality, it is blamed on systemic racism or 'history of white supremacism', which means black crime is reparations-by-other-means or rightful-revenge against Evil Whitey. Of course, blacks coast on such delusions with crucial support from Jews who are experts at moral sophistry. Because of Jewish support(and use of blacks), status-aspiring blacks tend to develop a moral blind spot where Jewish Power is concerned. If blacks are indeed opposed to all forms of supremacism, they would call out on Zionism but know all-too-well that they'll be relegated to Field Ni--er status whereas those who denounce Evil Whitey but overlook Evil Jew will be awarded with House Negro status, and of course, Oprah and Obama were mega-advertisers in this regard.

At any rate, the group doing the most harm to the West from above is the Jews, and the one doing the most harm from below is the blacks. If Jewish finance won't get you, black fist will. And yet, both groups are shielded from criticism because of the taboos of 'antisemitism' and 'racism', which are designed less to suppress unthinking bigotry against Jews and blacks than to protect truly bad Jewish and black behaviors from exposure and criticism. In other words, Jews privately know they are addicted to supremacist power and ethno-arrogance; they want everything and know that they must play dirty to get it; only playing clean according to principles won't do it. That means Jews must often act like 'antisemitic' stereotypes to get what they want, and what better way to shield this behavior from scrutiny than by howling about 'antisemitism' at every turn?
Same goes with blacks. Blacks are no longer content with promises of equality and freedom. They savor being the thug and acting like dey be kangz and shi*. They love to thump people in the streets, rob & loot, rape & pillage, and howl like idiots. They are addicted to acting like crazyass ni--az. So, just like Jews with their constant alarmism over 'antisemitism', what better way to shield bad black behavior from pushback than by hollering about 'racism' at every turn?

So, neither 'antisemitism' taboo nor 'racism' taboo exists to remind us that there are good Jews along with bad Jews(as the case is with all other groups) but to silence our noticing of bad Jews and bad blacks. Normal morality would lead us to praise the good about a people while condemning the bad. So, good things done by whites deserve admiration whereas bad things done by whites are reason for condemnation. And this should apply to every group. But with Jews and blacks, normal morality doesn't apply. Even the bad things done by Jews must either be praised(as somehow 'good') or ignored. Same with blacks.
Of course, normal morality doesn't apply to whites either as even the good things they've done must come under hyper-scrutiny and somehow be spun to seem 'bad' or at least questionable or marred. It's as if Jews are observed through the telescope whereas whites through a microscope. Jews are like gods in heaven who are far above us, and we must peer through a telescope for a glimpse of their greatness. In contrast, whites are pored through a microscope for every blemish. It's like Jews as diamond merchants. They examine the diamond for the slightest flaw and emphasize it over the soundness of the diamond as a whole. We are supposed to see radiant holocaust-holiness even in a Jew covered in muck whereas note the slightest blemish(of 'micro-aggression') even in a white of great achievement. This way, even a terrible Jew seen through a telescope will seem better than a good white seen through a microscope. Whiteness is like the stained fork in the Monty Python restaurant skit. No matter how trivial, it is cause for guilt, shame, and self-annihilation. Fork politics against Folk politics.

Examples of Jews using the 'antisemitic' card to cover up actions confirming 'antisemitic' stereotypes abound. Consider Jews and Pat Buchanan. In the runup to the Gulf War in 1990, Buchanan wrote a column noting that the biggest promoters for war were Israeli Firsters whereas most of the casualties will come from whites and blacks. Abe Rosenthal of New York Times howled 'antisemitism' and accused Buchanan of Blood Libel, i.e. Buchanan suggested Jewish sacrifice of gentile blood for Jewish interests. Soon after, even William F. Buckley Jr. was piling on Pat Buchanan who, in a few years, would become persona non grata in the GOP, especially as he reversed his support of 'free trade'.

Now, what is Neocon Foreign Policy but a case of exploiting goy muscle and sacrificing goy blood for Jewish ends? If anything, Buchanan's criticism wasn't strong enough. Indeed, US foreign policy as Blood Libel has been true whether Democrats or Republicans were in control of government(as US politics is a game of who-gets-to-be-top-puppets-of-Jews). Puppet Bill Clinton appointed heartless Madeleine Albright who said it was 'worth it' to sacrifice countless Arab lives. George W. Bush and his Neocon crew waged wars in which many thousands of American soldiers were killed or wounded and countless more Arab lives were destroyed, and these conflicts were essentially Wars for Israel. And Barack Obama was no better, laying Libya and Syria to waste at the behest of Jews who gave him money.
So, Abe Rosenthal's shrieking about 'antisemitism' wasn't to prove the falsehood of 'antisemitic' stereotypes but to give moral cover to Jewish behavior that all-too-often validates those stereotypes.
It's like blacks going on a looting spree and then bitching about how it's 'racist' to stereotype blacks as robbers and looters. That the West has willingly succumbed to such foulness is a sure sign of soul-sickness at the core, not least because cancerous Jewish Power has taken over the institutions. The sheer disregard for goyim is evident in what the Sackler dynasty did to white working class by addicting them to opioids. But even the GOP, the so-called white party, was deathly silent on that matter. One worthless Negro, George Floyd, dies from drug overdose, and Jews turn him into the biggest thing since Anne Frank, but when hundreds of thousands of whites died from dangerously addictive drugs peddled by Jewish crooks, and no one cared, and of course, white working class demise continued under Trump who, to save his own skin from Jewish attacks, had little to say but 'Muh Israel'.

Abe Foxman the Jew and Joe Biden the Goy: Master and Dog

Of course, the Neocon Wars validate yet another 'antisemitic' stereotype. Not only are Jews willing to sacrifice goy blood for Jewish ends but Jews use the power of money to control goy politicians and deep state goons like so many puppets and dogs. What honest person, in this day and age, can deny that Jewish Power controls virtually all politicians in a dog-and-pony show? Even Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor, though vilified 24/7 by Jews high and low, have little to say but "Muh Israel" and "I gladly sucked Netanyahu's pud." The relationship between US politicians and Jewish donors is like that between Hollywood celebrities and Jewish moguls. If you want to be a star, you have to get on your knees, suck, and make sure to swallow. There's truth to the notion of D.C. as Hollywood for Ugly People(though Hollywood isn't exactly pretty either these days).

The 'antisemitic trope' of Jewish Money in politics leads us to another 'antisemitic trope'(that too is demonstrated as truer than false by Jewish behavior). Jews throw a lot of money around, but why are they so rich? Now, Jews are bound to be richer than other groups because they are smarter and thrive in a meritocratic system. It explains why there are so many Jewish doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants, professors, and etc. But it's not Jewish doctors and lawyers who dominate money in politics. It's the billionaires and mega-billionaires. Did all those billionaire Jews on Wall Street really rake in all that cash by brilliance alone? Or is there a New Boys Network?
Worse, if the Old Boys Network dominated by Wasps could be called out(because there was no taboo against anti-Wasp sentiments and, furthermore, plenty of reform-minded whites were committed to self-criticism), the New Boys Network is a closed system because of the taboo against calling out on bad Jewish behavior(why, it'd be 'antisemitic'!) and the knee-jerk tribalism among Jews to circle the wagons against goyim. And with Jews in law firms & courts with further support from Jews in the Fed and Deep State, Wall Street Jews can play a rigged game and rake in countless billions... and if their reckless gambles were to fail, they could always count on bail-outs premised on 'Too Big To Fail', which really means 'Too Jew to be Through'.
And even legal means by which some Jews got stinking rich only validate 'antisemitic tropes' of Jews and their close association with the vice industry. Take gambling, which became cancerous and spread all over America as Jews consolidated elite power in the US(and of course, Jews have also spearheaded marijuana legalization and are positioned to dominate the business). Gambling is really mass-theft, and it has utterly degraded the 'family values' theme of the GOP that relies on Vegas money. What do Jewish casino moguls do with all that money? They turn politicians into servants of Mammon and puppets of Israel. That the GOP profusely eulogized a cretin like Sheldon Adelson illustrates how far the cancer has spread.

Another 'antisemitic' stereotype is the suspicion that Jews care more about their own kind, aka World Jewry, than about any goy-majority nation in which they are citizens. But who can deny this? Jewish behavior has been signaling this forever. Who can deny that Jews in Russia, Jews in Poland, Jews in Germany, Jews in UK, Jews in the US, Jews in Mexico, and etc. all feel closer to one another than to goy folks in the respective nations? How else can the New Cold War with Russia be explained except as a case of Russian Jews, US Jews, and World Jewry in general conspiring to gain total control of that nation, much like Jews have already done so in the US and UK?
One thing for sure, the last thing a Jew in a goy nation wants to see is goy nationalism. Now, if a Jew in Poland were indeed a Polish patriot(without 'dual loyalty'), he would welcome Polish nationalism, that is, if indeed, the 'antisemitic trope' of Jews being unpatriotic and/or treasonous is untrue. But, Jews in Poland hate Polish patriotism, and Jews in Hungary hate Hungarian nationalism. Not only do they want nothing to do with goy national pride but they seek to suppress it. Now, some Jews will say that they oppose goy nationalism because it's small-minded and potentially prejudiced. Therefore, Jews support a colorblind value system where no one is judged by the color of his skin or the label of his ethnicity, i.e. all the world must be turned into the brotherhood-of-man. Jews have especially made this argument in the US, supposedly a nation founded on universal principles of liberty and justice. Thus, even if it's true that Jews are disloyal to goy patriotism in any given nation, it's not out of wickedness or treachery(as 'Anti-Semites' charge) but out of higher idealism and humanitarian principles. But such self-justification yet proves another 'antisemitic trope', that of the two-faced weasely Jew.

After all, if American Jews were indeed committed to colorblindness and universal justice, they would reject Jewish identity & interests as they demand and expect whites to abandon white identity & interests. But the very Jews who tell whites to give up their own identity & interests in favor of universality & equality then turn around and say whites must favor Jews & Israel uber alles. It's two-faced and weasely. So, whites must give up white identity in favor of universality but then betray universality in favor of Jewish identity. It's just bait-and-switch. It's enough to drive a people schizo, and perhaps it explains why so many white people today seem to be totally nutsoid. Under the spell of Jews, their minds are filled with an unresolvable contradiction but must carry on as if it all makes sense because the 'antisemitism' taboo is too powerful. After all, if you question Jews, you must be a 'Nazi', and there's nothing worse than that. In a nation where even Donald Trump and white conservatives(who are much-abused and constantly mocked by Jews) go out of their way to bleat 'Muh Israel', questioning Jewish Power is simply out of the question. In a way, white conzos who are being destroyed by Jews are like the victims of Stalin. Even as the latter were sent to the Gulag or condemned for execution, they continued to believe in Stalin and sang praises to him... to their last breath.

So, if we examine the Jewish con-game, it goes as follows. Jews say Goy Nationalism is bad. Jews say Universalism is good. So, Goyim give up their own nationalism in favor of universalism. But then, Jews say goy must favor Jewish Identity-Politics(or Jewish Idolatry) over universalism. Why? Because... it's the 'patriotic' thing to do. In other words, American Patriotism is fundamentally about sucking up to Jews. Imagine that. The trick is really to make goyim reject their own identity to favor Jewish identity. But then, precisely because Jews fear that some goyim might catch on to the BS, they use media, academia, and whore politicians to fool the masses that praising Jews and supporting Israel are the highest form of patriotism.
Now, why would the case of a goy people of a goy majority nation championing Israel, a foreign nation, be the highest expression of patriotism? Since when is the celebration of the Other a matter of 'true patriotism'? After all, patriotism is about Our People and Our Nation, not Those People and Their Nation(or Empire). Imagine British Imperialists telling Hindus in India that the highest form of Indian patriotism is allegiance to England and the British Empire. Sadly, the collaborator elites can be bought with money and/or threatened with disgrace/destruction, and the masses are just dumb enough to fall under mantric sway. When something is said over and over and over by authorities of both 'left' and 'right', it just becomes one of those New Normals that no one really thinks about. Jews toy with the goy as if they are god messing with Job.

Some members of the Italian Mafia once tried to pull the same stunt that Jews have pulled over America. To protect Mafia or Cosa Nostra activities from scrutiny and criticism, they fronted Italian-American 'civil rights' organizations that complained it was prejudiced against Italian-Americans to cast light on organized crime within the community. So, exposing the mafia or Italian-American criminality was tantamount to defamation against the Italian-American community as a whole. But, this shtickolini was really to protect those very criminal activities from investigation. But just like the Rosato Brothers and Pantengeli were small potatoes to Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2, the Italian-Americans didn't have the mental sparks, financial firepower, tribal unity(as family loyalty divided the Italian-Americans into warring clans), and spiritual inspiration(such as Shoah Business that proved to be invaluable to Jews as moral shield and cudgel) to gain power over America, especially by ousting Wasps from the top position.

IT'S NOT THE RUSSIANS OR CHINESE; WHO HAS TOTAL SUPREMACY OVER AMERICA