Notes on Review of THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI(directed by David Lean) by Trevor Lynch

https://www.unz.com/tlynch/the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai/

Nicholson’s “tragic flaw” is that he does not see that his virtues only really make sense when practiced among his own people, for their benefit. In the prison camp, however, these virtues are being exploited by a ruthless enemy who aims to destroy the Empire that Nicholson so loyally fought to preserve. There’s a lesson in this for white people today, since our openness to strangers, altruism, and moral idealism are being exploited by a system that is destroying us as well.

In a way, it's not so much a personal flaw as a cultural-professional vulnerability among the Anglos. On the one hand, Anglos were imperialist and race-ist and took pride in their blood and heritage. But their empire also claimed to be different from other empires. It wasn't merely about brutal conquest and exploitation of others but bringing of civilization unto benighted folks around the world. A light for both fellow Europeans on the Continent(as the British oh-so-superior to the Teutons, Slavs, and the fallen Latins) and the darker folks around the world. So, the British Empire wasn't just about white man clobbering the darkies but elevating them to higher forms of civilization. As one of the officers in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA explains, it's about 'discipline', not just 'guns'. One could also add excellence and meritocracy. In other words, Brits are better not simply because of their identity but their ability, know-how, dedication, and commitment to quality.
There was a time when Anglos had pride of seed, creed, and deed. They were about blood, culture, and work. So were the Jews, a rival power vying for dominance with the Anglos, an uneasy partner-in-crime. Jews knew that they had to undermine the element of seed and creed to gain control over Anglos. While preserving their own sense of seed/blood, Jews increasingly convinced Anglos in UK and US that they were too good for such ugly tribalism and 'racism'. Jews flattered the Anglos as the better kind of whites who, unlike those backward Italians and Slavs, lived by a higher universal creed and took pride in deed/work than in atavistic tribalism. Anglos increasingly fell for this BS pushed by Jews, but they were especially vulnerable as they were relative late-comers to civilization. While Jews had civilization for 3,500 yrs, predating even the Greeks and Romans, Anglos had been a bunch of barbarians until relatively late in history, and they grew to greatness only after the 17th century. So, Anglos had a weaker sense of roots and identity than the Jews did, and this made Anglos rely more on creed and deed than on seed.
Then, Jews worked on the creed/culture/ideology of the Anglos. Initially, Jews flattered Anglos for developing rule of law and culture of fairness, indeed far more than any other people. Anglos took the bait. Jewish flattery set a trap, however. If indeed Anglos possessed such a wonderful creed, how come they were such hypocrites and betrayed it with their 'racism' and 'classism' and imperialism' — never mind Jews financed much of British Imperialism, and never mind Jewishness has always been race-ist. So, eventually Anglos lost out in seed and creed. Hindus also picked up on the hypocrisy angle. It's like Gandhi said, "Western Civilization. It's a good idear." So, what did the Anglos come to rely on for pride as the years passed and as their outlooks and values changed(or were altered via manipulation)? Only the pride of deed and achievement, but they were bound to lose to Jews in this as well because Jews have higher IQ and are more able. So, once Anglos fixated on achievement and ability as the most admirable things that they should support and serve, they became cucks of Jews who are best at money-making and blacks who are best at sports, something Anglos are crazy about.
The signs of this is already evident in Nicholson who is so fixated on the pride of achievement. Perhaps, David Lean sort of understood because he made movies as the British Empire was crumbling, not least under the domination of the American Empire. Also, his movies required the funding of Jewish Hollywood. He was a proud Brit who had to work for others and make compromises, like Nicholson created his masterpiece(the bridge) under Japanese control.

Nicholson's dilemmas is further complicated by the fact that it's about empire vs empire. In DURKIRK, it's about British soldiers retreating homeward to defend the motherland. That is about true patriotism(though if the British had been more patriotic than imperialistic on the world stage, they wouldn't have gotten involved in another war with Germany that had no beef with the Brits.)
Both the Brits and the Japanese are invaders in Southeast Asia. They are patriots to the extent of serving their own empires, but empires trample on the patriotism of locals, and both Brits and Japanese are violating the lands of Southeast Asians. Thus, neither Japanese nor British can be pure patriots in the movie's setting. They are for imperialism, not nationalism.
Also, betrayal is part of the logic of empire, which is premised on winner-takes-all and losers-do-as-told. British Empire maintained itself through recruiting local collaborators or compradors(or traitors). British Empire required on the treason of the local elites. Japanese were the same way and had their own local flunkies. No empire can sustain itself without encouraging treason among the locals. And this logic seems to have come full circle for the British in RIVER KWAI. Brits work as collaborators of the Japanese(who, following defeat in war, became craven collaborators of the US empire). With universal nationalism, each people/nation is loyal to their own. But under empire, there is one winner and all the losers must betray their own kind in service to the winner. British Empire needed local traitors in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And US empire has local cucks all over, like in Poland and Ukraine and Japan and Taiwan. (Currently, as Jews are the top lords of the US empire, white elites betray their own kind and serve their Jewish masters, much like how the Hindus and Hong Kucks once served at the feet of the mighty British.) Imperialism intrinsically fosters treason. It's based on the conquered serving the conqueror. Brits demanded this of locals whom they conquered. So, it's not all that surprising that the conquered soldiers in KWAI RIVER become collaborators to the Japanese.

Of course, one could argue that Nicholson calculated that the Japanese were doomed at any rate. Bridge or no bridge, Japanese were fated to lose to the combined power of US and UK and other allies. So, it's not like the bridge he was building was a make-or-break thing in the war. IF HE REALLY THOUGHT THAT, he perhaps wouldn't have built t. But he figures the Japanese will eventually lose and the bridge will ultimately come to symbolize not Japanese might but British excellence and achievement. His style of thinking is like Temporal Imperialism. Japanese may have the whip hand but they will eventually lose the war, and the bridge will come to symbolize British triumph in the long run. Time will vindicate British virtues of hard work and dedication. It's like black slaves picked cotton and did field work for the white massuhs but, today, blacks use it as a point of pride and done say, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, WE done built America, even done stack up the White House like a pile of hot cakes."

At any rate, pride of deed is good, but no people can survive without pride of seed and ownership of creed. Jews did a fast one on the Anglos, and it should be lesson for all the world.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is masterful at exploring the fundamental distinction between aristocratic ethos that prizes honor above all else and the bourgeois ethos that prizes comfort, security, long life, and pleasure above all else.

Aristocratic ethos maybe, but not the Aristocratic way. With the passing of years, the aristocrats went from a hardy warrior class to a bunch of tooty-fruity playboys and slouches. While peasants did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown, many aristos whittled away the hours dressing 'gay', acting 'gay', talking 'gay', and etc. They powdered their faces and dressed and acted all whoopsy-doopsy. Just look at the high-born fells in CYRANO DE BERGERAC. Look at this guy's hairdo at 1:35 of the movie. It's ridiculous.

Once the wars ended or became rare, the aristos used their leisure time for little else but comfort and powdering their noses and sniffing snuff and sneezing. Sure, there were duels over honor, but mostly over petty egotistical matters. The aristos were into gambling and putting on big parties with rich food and decadence, and borrowed lots of money from Jews. Look at the aristos in BARRY LYNDON. What a bunch of toots.
True, not all aristos were alike. The Northern Europe types, esp Anglos and Prussians, were more conscientious and responsible. Instead of wasting their fortunes on good times, they used their privilege to run relatively cleaner governments, push social reforms, advance science, and patronize culture. Still, as kids were born into pampered privilege, many turned out to be soft mama's boys and floozers, like the pathetic son in BARRY LYNDON. Or consider Edward Fox's character in THE SERVANT. What a useless clod. Many aristos were about unearned privilege as they were born into position. Others did the work, and they lived off taxing their labor; at the very least, the bourgeoisie ran enterprises and took big risks. And many aristos only cared for comfort and good times. Also, their sense of honor was less about serving the greater good than a matter of personal egotism. Duels over perceived slights or someone stepping on someone's boots.

At least in terms of ethos, the highest value among the bourgeois was respectability, not comfort and pleasure that came with the rise of modern consumerism. Bourgeoisie were into money-making but also into stuff like the Protestant Work Ethic, restraint, discipline, and frugality. They believed work was good. The ideal was to keep working even if one had sufficient wealth for relaxation and leisure. (At the extreme, it could turn into a kind of Scrooge-ism. All work and no play.) Unlike aristocrats who shunned work and preferred leisure and privilege(if they could have it), bourgeoisie felt they should never rest on their laurels and keep working even when they had lots of money. Work was constructive and good for one's character, and so, one must work. Instead of spending one's money on fun and pleasure, invest and expand the business or invest in future enterprise. Or use money for philanthropy and build libraries and universities and do 'good work'.
As the bourgeoisie rose under the aristocracy, they felt culturally inferior and sought to win respectability by emulating the style of the aristos. Some bourgeoisie married into aristo families(on the decline) or bought titles. The bourgeois sense of respectability feared scandal and disdained the shameless and uninhibited, which is why anarchists like Luis Bunuel loved to expose and ridicule bourgeois anxieties and hang-ups. The bourgeoisie were repressed, and it was only with the rise of modernism and Freud's theories that things began to loosen up among the modernist children of the bourgeoisie. Also, the logic of capitalism transformed society from virtuous hard work and productivity to vice-laden hedonism and consumerism, but that came AFTER the cultural eclipse of the bourgeoisie and the rise of impulse-driven youth culture.

The Anglos, more than others, developed a fusion of aristocratic and bourgeois ways. Anglo aristocrats were more productive than most other aristos, and Anglo bourgeoisie were more repressed and respectable than others. There is something of the aristo in Nicholson but also something of the shopkeeper. He's like both a nobleman and a shop manager who counts every last penny. He believes in pride of work. He has boss mentality but also clerk mentality. He's so eager to prove he is worthy.

Since both Saito and Nicholson are master types, albeit at times “temporarily embarrassed” master types, the film needs a well-developed slave type as a contrast.

This is all relative among both the Japanese and Anglos. Saito and Nicholson are both master and servant types. Over their own men, they are masters. But they are also duty-bound servants of men higher up. So, while they are the two highest ranking men in the movie, they are mere servants of men even higher up the chain. Bushido means to serve, and every Japanese, no matter how higher up, was in service to someone higher. Samurai served the daimyo who served a higher daimyo who served the Shogun who, at least in principle, served the Emperor. Even though the Japanese Emperor didn't have much power, he was essential to the Japanese who believed everyone must serve someone higher, finally ending with the divine ruler. Same with the Brits. Everyone served someone higher. Every master was a servant to a superior, with the hierarchy ending with the King or Queen, who though not very powerful, symbolized the highest authority.

This is where Jews are different and perhaps unique. While Jews may play servant roles in society, every Jew, via the Covenant, feels that HE HIMSELF is special and chosen. His ultimate meaning doesn't come from serving someone higher or better but in valuing his own soul and self as having all the worth in the world by his personal connection to the one and only God who chose the Jews.
This is why Jews are the only immigrant group in the US who didn't come to serve others. Everyone else came to serve the mighty Anglos, but Jews had a powerful sense of self and believed, if anyone should serve anyone, the goyim should serve them cuz they got the Covenant, not the lowly goyim. In time, even the Anglos came to serve the Jews with such powerful sense of being.

the character of Commander Shears is a brilliant encapsulation of the slave type: cowardly, dishonest, and cynical about honor. Shears’ character is brought into sharper focus by making him an American, since America is a thoroughly bourgeois society that took pride in throwing off European aristocratic civilization, although vestiges of its ethos survived among the military and Southern planters. Making Shears a womanizer to boot perfected the character.

More like the Fugitive Slave type. A true slave type loves to serve. A slave has a kind of honor of his own. He believes he exists to serve others. He believes the meaning of his life comes from serving the master. A true slave would rather die for his master than live. It's like dogs who live for the love and approval of the master. And in a way, Saito and Nicholson have this slave mentality as well. Like loyal dogs, they will die for higher authority. Saito cannot tolerate the shame of disapproval from higher up. He feels it in his bones. Nicholson is always mindful of his reputation, not only among his inferiors but superiors back home. In a way, the master type and slave type are one and the same, and one cannot exist without the other. A slave believes he must serve and die for his master. In that, he too has a sense of honor. An ideal slave is loyal to the end. Also, an ideal master doesn't merely exploit his slave but appreciates the slave's loyalty, and this binds him to the slave. He must take good care of the slave. And to prove to the slave that he is no weakling and coward, the master must be willing to die alongside the slave. It's like lots of British officers died with the lowly soldiers in World War I.

William Holden's character of Shears isn't a slave type. He has no sense of deep loyalty. He wants to be free and do his own thing. It's a cowboy mentality, and to associate this with 'slave mentality' is ridiculous. Of course, one can say he's a slave to his personal needs and desires, but then, 007 would be a slave too because he loves women and gambling and good times. By the way, womanizing was a sport among the aristos, not so much among the slaves.
Also, Shears doesn't come across so bad because he's caught between empires. If he were an American soldier sent to Iwo Jima but dodged his duties for good times, he would be a lowlife rat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Americans had to fight back.
But Shears is like a fish out of water between the British and the Japanese in some godforsaken Southeast Asian nowhere-land. Sure, Brits and Yanks are allies, and Japanese are the common enemy, but patriotism is rather hard to sustain in the jungles of Burma or Thailand or Malaysia or whatever. He feels like American soldiers in Vietnam War: "What are we doing HERE?" As far as he can tell, it's a war between empires in Southeast Asia, and he has no feelings about what the 'Japs' or the Brits are doing. He just wants to make it out of there alive.

I wouldn't call him cowardly but resourceful. His dishonesty is a survival mechanism among peoples he doesn't care for. He has little use for the Brits and far less for the Japanese. He doesn't feel like putting his neck on the line for either side. Also, his escape took some courage, and a true coward wouldn't be so brazen. Holden sort of reprises his role in STALAG 17, and George Segal took it up a notch in KING RAT.
Besides, there are varying degrees to cynicism, which doesn't come in one flavor. Some are opportunistically cynical to justify greed and loutishness, and there is something of this to Shears. But cynicism is also a smart response to the BS all around. It'd be nice if US soldiers today were more cynical and saw through the BS about 'honor, country, duty' blah blah when, in effect, they are nothing but attack dogs of the Jewish globo-homo ruling elites. How better things would be if white Americans were more cynical and saw right through the BS of GOP. How better if white progs saw through the BS of MSM and Jewish Power. Shears is both a self-centered egotist and a savvy observer who sees through the BS of authority. And the British who blackmail him into serving the mission are cynical in their own way. If they were really into principle and honor, they would have him prosecuted and even executed for impersonating an officer and etc. But they play him in the most cynical manner. They too know it is a game.

Shears is not bourgeois. He isn't into respectability or reputation, what the bourgeoisie care about most. He cares about being an individualist, being free and his own man. This makes him self-centered and selfish at times, but he's closer to the cowboy than the slave. He wants to roam free, and he doesn't want to fight battles for which he knows little. It's like the William Holden character in THE WILD BUNCH, a film that surely took some pointers from THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. An outlaw, he's out for himself, and he will deal with any side to get his cut.

One can argue that Shears is something of a worm, but a worm seeks freedom, not slavery(though one can argue such a cretin deserves to be a slave). Not to patriotism, not to honor, not to whatever. A worm would be like the Italian character of Lina Wertmuller's SEVEN BEAUTIES who spouts about dignity and 'honor' as a petty mafia hood, but when push comes to shove, chooses to save his own skin wherever and however.
Of course, slavery, used broadly as metaphor, can signify just about anything. Even to the want of freedom because freedom can mean addiction to one's appetites such as gluttony, sloth, and lust.
But, it's so easy to be cynical in war as all sides tell lies and betray trust. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the higher-ups exploit Lawrence's idealism and vanity to goad him into accomplishing something that will then be twisted and corrupted by diplomats who shill for oligarchs of the empire.
It's like the soldiers who fight and die in Sergio Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY seem foolish compared to the three men who figure life is worth risking only for their share of gold. And yet, freedom gains meaning in attachment to something, and in that sense, Shears is also a doomed figure. He can lie, he can cheat, he can squeeze out of tight situations, but ultimately what is he if he's only for himself, if he has nothing to die for? It's like the thief in Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, once having gained a glimpse of the Takeda Clan, wants to be part of it.

Now, are we to believe that Americans embraced slave-mentality because they rejected the aristocratic ways of Europe? -???- Because Americans wanted to be free and not bound to higher authority, they were choosing to be 'slaves'?
In Europe, the general rule was only the noblemen owned land and were armed. In the US, cowboys could claim their own turf and carry their own guns. Somehow, this made the US 'bourgeois' and 'slave'-like? In Europe, freedom and privilege were hogged by the aristocrats while their subjects lived helot-like existences. In the US, every person aspired to be free and equal under the law and maybe own his own plot of land. And anyone could ride horses and own guns. Sounds more like freedom than slavery to me. If something like aristocratism survived in the American South, it was because of black slaves. In other words, aristocracy cannot exist apart from slavery. You can't have one without the other. Thus, aristocratic system is also a slave system.
Many pro-aristocratic romanticists seem to believe that they themselves would have been noblemen lording over the peasants(much like every little girl who reads fairy-tales identifies with the precious princess than with serf girls who made up the bulk of society), but the chances are they would have been peasants because noblemen made up maybe 5% or less of any population in Europe. Aristocracy is slavery because only a few enjoy privilege while the rest are subjects without equal protection of the law.

To be sure, US began as a semi-aristocratic enterprise. The Founding Fathers were bourgeois-aristocrats and landowners(and even slave-masters). And in the beginning, only land-owners could vote, which was less than 20% of the population. Thomas Jefferson believed in 'natural aristocracy' based on merit, which is a bourgeois ideal as success among the business class is determined by ability + diligence; it is earned than inherited(though children who inherit capital and live off interest are like the new aristos). He figured a smart person is a natural aristocrat and should have the freedom to rise freely.
US became something closer to a real democracy under Andrew Jackson the populist, but if we follow Trevor Lynch's logic, Jackson was the great enslaver since he dealt a blow to the quasi-aristocratic form of governance instituted by the Founders.

As for the Southern Aristocracy, what a terrible bunch. The North relied on free white labor and equality under the law. South relied on black slave labor, which made the neo-aristocracy possible, even necessary. Again, aristocracy is built on slavery. If a few are to hog all the wealth and privilege, others must toil as helots.
The North did better than the South for having equally free white folks. The North was bourgeois, the South was aristocratic. It was the South that became the source of the racial woes that came to haunt America by relying on slave labor, especially that of blacks who are more muscular and more aggressive than white folks. And Latin America was even more aristo, with Spanish elites relying on masses of brown helots. How did that turn out?

White Nationalists can fantasize themselves as aristocrats all they want. The fact is aristocracy means special privileges for the 5% and slavery for the rest. How about freedom for all, and that is what Shears represents. Granted, freedom isn't enough as people often do stupid shit with their freedom. And freedom in a degenerate post-bourgeois society like the US immersed in consumerism and vulgarity is being wasted in the worst way.

Because aristocratism means special privileges for a few, it cannot exist apart from slave mentality. For a few to be aristocrats, most must be slaves. For a few to monopolize the power and formulate policy, most must be obedient dogs. That's what we have today in the US though Jews cleverly disguise the neo-aristocratism with calls to 'diversity, equity, inclusion', and other BS. No, the US is about aristocratic rule by Jewish Supremacists who regard the rest of us as slaves or at best serfs. Whites can be either deplorable Field Honkeys who must be whipped or servile House Honkeys, like the Wasp-Cucks in the Deep State, who serve their Jewish masters, darn tootin'.

But the solution isn't aristocratism but neo-fascism, an ideology that ensures equal dignity and protection for all the volk who are served by an elite whose highest vision is the good of the nation and people than its own caste and privilege.

The fact is Nicholsons of the world in US and UK would still loyally and 'honorably' serve the globo-homo Deep State whereas someone like Shears would see the utter BS through cynical eyes. Look at all those 'honorable' men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon. They dutifully serve their civilian leaders who, in turn as political whores, serve their Jewish donor-master class and quasi-prophets of satanic globo-homo.
In this, the 'master' mentality is a 'slave' mentality. The master mentality always feels a need to be within the proximity of power. Thus obsessed with power and control, it doesn't really ask whether something is good or bad. What matters most is to belong in the club and be in the game. Look at the master military class in the US. All slaves of Jews.
Now, if some US soldier saw through the utter BS of the system and used whatever means to get out of the army and no longer serve the Jews, would that be a bad thing? Also, why not be dishonest with a system that is utterly corrupt and mendacious? If goons of the FBI come to your door, should you be honest when the agency is full of dirtbags?
True, Shears is too carefree and self-centered to care about truth or meaning, but he's someone who no longer wants to be a dispensable cog in the system, a slave of masters with their imperial dreams. He's like a cynical version of Dr. Zhivago who doesn't want to fight for the Whites or Red but simply wants to live. Sure, he's a 'deserter' but he never volunteered to serve the Red and has no personal beef in the fight between the Reds and the Whites.

And for someone who wrote a book called WHITE NATIONALISM that calls for universal nationalism for all people, why all this romanticism about the British Empire and sense of honor and duty? Duty to empire?

THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI covers some of the concerns of Jean Renoir's GRAND ILLUSION, which is also set in a prison camp and concerns the role of class in modern warfare. Even though it's Germans vs the French, in some ways the German aristocrats and French aristocrats have more in common. In a way, it's the last aristocratic war as well as the first truly people's war(at least on a grand scale) as all sides appeal to nationalist populism despite the outsized role of aristocratic military elements on all sides. Unlike previous wars where aristocrats fought aristocrats with soldiers used as pawns, the common man mattered in World War I. This new Modern War wasn't about lowly soldiers serving the superior classes but the higher classes fighting for the honor of the entire nation where every soldier was worthy of dignity and pride. Or so every side claimed.

Both GRAND ILLUSION and MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE suggest an aristocratism that goes beyond class. A kind of spiritual aristocratism. In the former, the French aristocrat sacrifices his life so that his men(one a prole, another a Jew) can make the escape. Why would a man of higher caste give his life for men of lower order? Because, at least in the spiritual sense, more is expected of superior men. Similarly, the anti-aristocratic attitude of Jack Celliers(David Bowie) is paradoxically intensely aristocratic, at least in the spiritual sense. Though he rejects the notion of being part of the Superior Breed, he chooses the Herculean task of sacrificing his own life so that others may live. Only a man of superior courage and will could have done that. And this brings us to the figure of Jesus Christ, often referred to as King of Kings. A crass aristo-monarch like Herod is comfy with his privilege and power. His superiority is social-political. But for a man to reach spiritual aristocracy, he must prove a higher morality, greater courage, greater compassion, and greater will to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Thus, aristocratism, at its highest spiritual reaches, sacrifices itself for others(the inferiors) than sits snug and smug in its superiority.

Then Lean ended his career with Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984), which fail as films in part because their slighter stories were overwhelmed by Lean’s epic style of treatment, which had hardened into mannerisms.

Agree about RYAN'S DAUGHTER but not PASSAGE TO INDIA. Though I don't care for the latter, the treatment suits the subject, and it was done with considerable restraint compared to RYAN'S DAUGHTER which is pictorialism gone wild. PASSAGE is stately and measured. It's a grand work set among ancient ruins of India, but it doesn't feel monumental; it focuses mostly on characters and drama than visuals. With Lean's fingers fine-tuning the knob, it varies between intimacy and grandeur than goes for nonstop epic treatment, the failing of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is visually 'high volume' at every moment. PASSAGE TO INDIA is also equally literary and visual(even more so than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI that, for all its location shooting and action, feels a bit stagy). But whether some Hindu touched a white woman or not, I simply didn't care and wished the movie featured more elephants.

It's misleading to say Lean ended his career with RYAN'S DAUGHTER and PASSAGE TO INDIA as those two works are separated by fourteen years. They shouldn't be seen as a pair. If anything, their difference owes to the harsh critical rebuke to RYAN'S DAUGHTER having led Lean's self-doubt and discouragement, which nearly ended his film-making career for good. He learned something from the criticism, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA is so different in style and tone from RYAN'S DAUGHTER. The latter was a case of Lean laying on epic film-making thick in utter disregard of the material. In contrast, PASSAGE TO INDIA has a sense of proportion. It is big when it needs to be, but also personal and intimate in other parts, like in his earlier films(which many critics consider to be his best). Lean learned from the failure, both box-office and critical, of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA was greeted mostly with applause.

Notes on Jared Taylor's "Why America Has Gone Mad" — BLM Riots as Jewish Supremacist War on Whites and Donald Trump — The Need to PUSH BACK against Pushy Jewish Supremacists

https://www.amren.com/features/2020/09/why-america-has-gone-mad/

George Floyd died in police custody on May 25. Since then, there have been demonstrations in his name in more than 2,000 American cities... It would be tempting to think this is just one more chapter in our dreary record of race riots; it isn’t... Whites are important participants and even instigators. For the first time in American history, many whites are thinking — and acting — like aggrieved blacks.

There is truth in this but not entirely. This is largely an anti-Trump campaign, and the reason why the riots and protests grew to such extent owed to coordination top-to-bottom. The Jewish-controlled mass media urged this. Democratic leaders called on the masses to go into attack mode, much like Mao Zedong signaled to his Red Guard minions to 'bombard the headquarters', meaning attack the political rivals of the Chairman, especially Liu Shao-Chi and his loyalists. As many mentioned, it had some of the features of the Color Revolution in Ukraine and use of Jihadi terror in Libya/Syria. While Red Guard violence seemed populist and spontaneous, it was largely coordinated and orchestrated... though it eventually burned out of control, much like the violence in the US this summer. Sometimes, even controlled fires can break out into raging forest fires.

If Donald Trump weren't president and if the Jewish-run media, the Democratic Party, and the Deep State hadn't colluded to sensationalize the death of Fentanyl Floyd, this would likely have been just another black race riot, with a few Antifa outbursts here and there. But as with the Cultural Revolution, the leading lights of the US elite class gave the Go-Ahead to the masses of blacks and white radicals. And in key respects, it was very useful to Jews and their cuck-allies. Under the cover of BLM hysterics, so many Confederate monuments and white monuments have not only been desecrated but officially removed. Also, when Trump used the military to restore peace in D.C., the deep state military-industrial-complex goons attacked Trump as a dictator and even made threats of a military coup(with the blessing of the Jewish-run media). Of course, Trump is scump and hardly an angel, but Jews hate him for having fueled populism, especially of the white variety. Though Trump and his supporters are vocally very pro-Israel, Jews perceive any sign of white consciousness, even if implicit, as threatening to Jewish Supremacism that thrives on White Submissivism.

Would these massive protests happened if Hillary Clinton were president? No, the powers-that-be would have done everything to keep it under lid. But the ruling elites and deep state saw an opportunity to disgrace Trump-America with mass protests and riots. They'd already destroyed the Trump Economy with Covid-19 Hysteria, and they figured the riots would bury Trump morally as well. In a way, it was a continuation of the political hysteria surrounding the 'Dreamers' and illegal immigrants. Trump's first order of business was to stem the tide of illegal immigration, and the Jewish-controlled media, deep state, and powers-that-be did everything to make Trump out to be a 'nazi' and to present illegals as akin to Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany. There were mass protests all over America in 2017 to rival what took place this summer. The difference is that most immigrant groups are not inherently violent. Even as they sided with Democrats and vilified Trump, they weren't into burning down buildings and looting stores. Their only transgression was violating US borders and breaking US laws. So, when the Democrats fanned the 'dreamer' hysteria, it generated a lot of political heat but no riots. White Progs marched in support of the illegals, and the illegals just wept a lot to plead for sympathy.

But blacks are different. Give the green light to black rage, and it invariably turns into "There's a Riot Goin' On." Naturally-genetically an uninhibited and aggressive race, once blacks are told that the Power will not stand in the way of them robbing, raping, rampaging, looting, and burning, they do just that. Surely, the ruling elites anticipated some violence, but living in their cocoon echo-chamber, they had no idea of how things would spiral out of control once blacks were ENCOURAGED to riot. But then, Mao had also underestimated the mania he unleashed with the Red Guards. And Bush, Cheney, and Neocons underestimated the extent to which Iraq would fall apart so fast following the toppling of Hussein.
Mass violence is worst when there is convergence of radical rage on the streets and approval/encouragement from the top. Cultural Revolution happened because of communist brainwashing of the young and Mao's blessing to youth violence. Kristallnacht happened because of mass antisemitism and approval of the Nazi regime. And the 2020 Summer of Loot happened because black rage and white radical passion were given the go-ahead by the Jewish elites and their cuck-allies. The elites probably hoped for mass protests with limited violence. They had no idea it would lead to wholesale looting of even Manhattan. Also, Jewish Power had pushed PC to make non-whites hate whites and make whites hate themselves; it valued PC as social control. But it failed to realize how crazy the young ones would become under such influence; but then, Mao was surprised by how crazy the Red Guards proved to be. It went from mind-control to mind-out-of-control. Instilling radicalism among kids is like playing with matches. It can burn out of control, and we've heard of stories of young firebrands in institutions and industries throwing hysterical fits and demanding 'justice'. Of course, Jews still see value in PC because most of this 'social justice' rhetoric is directed against whites while even most Antifa and BLM types remain mum about Jewish Supremacism that really governs the West.

This is because millions of ordinary whites have crossed the color line and adopted the prevailing black view that whites are exclusively and personally responsible for the failures of blacks... For centuries, whites believed that inherent limitations prevented blacks from succeeding as whites do. W.E.B Du Bois (1868 – 1963) played a key role in overthrowing that view, arguing that white achievement was 'built on black and brown and yellow suffering...' In Du Bois we therefore find the two central ideas of the broad movement that comes under the name of Black Lives Matter: Whites became rich through exploitation, and whites deserve our contempt. As whites adopted these views, they started thinking and acting like blacks.

I doubt if Du Bois has much to do with the current reality. How many blacks and whites even read Du Bois anymore? Granted, they surely read literature influenced by the works of Du Bois. Anyway, can we blame Du Bois for thinking as he did? In his time, there was blatant racial discrimination against blacks in all walks of life, in all parts of America, even in the North. So, if the likes of him felt that blacks were held back due to history of oppression and racial discrimination, it seemed plausible. And it was still the Age of Empire when a handful of white nations had conquered and colonized so much of the world. The West did extract raw materials and labor from non-whites, and this surely had much to do with the rise of Western Wealth. (Where Du Bois and like-minded thinkers were wrong is the notion that oppression/exploitation leads to super-wealth. If so, why didn't Africa, which had slavery for 10,000 yrs, build high civilization? China was oppressive by modern standards, but its progress had stalled long ago. The natives of the Americas were brutal and oppressive, but how come Mayans and the Aztecs didn't bring about the industrial revolution? Also, the concept of freedom, liberty, and rights that Du Bois espoused came from the West. By African and non-white standards of morality, American Slavery was hardly a special form of evil. After all, most non-white peoples enslaved their own kind and treated their own kind more brutally than whites treated black slaves in the US.)

The reason why whites have special hots for blacks is not simply due to the history of black poverty and backwardness, especially in the US. It is due to overwhelming black success in sports, music, oratory, and sex. Recently, there was the film ROMA by Alfonso Cuaron. Its main character is this short brown woman who works as a servant for a privileged white Latin-American-Mexican family. Her people were invaded, wiped out by diseases, and subsisted essentially as peons, helots, and servants for the lighter-skinned upper classes. And in the US, American Indians have it the worst. But where is the white passion for such people? It's close to non-existent because whites see them as perennial losers who suck at sports, music, and exciting stuff. But whites have had a love/hate thing with blacks, especially beginning with Jazz and Jack Johnson. Black music was both mocked/lampooned and imitated/prized by whites. While white men reacted with horror to beastly boxers like Jack Johnson, white women were flocking to them as superior sexual studs who beat up white guys and got bigger dongs. The rise of Rock-n-Roll meant Elvis as White Negro making white girls wet their pants. Over time, Rock gave way to Rap Culture where white girls wet their pants over blacks. And if the pride of white manhood once resisted black rise in sports, white males since the Muhammad Ali era have been cucky-wuck worshipers of black muscle as the true symbol of Western Manhood. Look at the French soccer team. Look at the British boxing champions. Look at the US Dream Team in basketball. And now, Hollywood and music industry push endless images of white women with black men. And in Jewish-controlled advertising too. The message is clear: Black men are superior to white men, and therefore, white women, the highest prize in beauty, should go to black kangz.

People like Jared Taylor prefer to talk about black failures as students and scientists. They focus on IQ, but most of what excites the masses isn't nerdy stuff but sports-stuff and entertainment-stuff. Also, as blacks have louder and deeper voices, their oratory, especially in the personage of MLK, has convinced secularized whites that Negro Talk is the voice of god. So, to properly understand white passion for blackness, one mustn't focus only on white guilt over black failures but white fever for black successes in the visceral spheres. It is precisely because whites are so enraptured about black successes in sports, music, sex, and oratory that they feel that blacks are indeed the superior race, the lions among the species, and therefore, blacks are deserving of the best of everything.
Of course, a rational and factually based person knows that a people can be good at some things but not-so-good at other things. Blacks are great at basketball but not so good at math. It's like black skin is better under the hot sun but not so good in extreme cold climates. But emotions often override reason. So many whites are so taken with black successes in the Cool Fields that they FEEL that blacks should be best at everything. When one sees geeks and gorks like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, one doesn't assume that they must be good at everything simply because they are good with brainy stuff. While we appreciate(and even envy) intelligence, we react to it rationally. It doesn't overcome our emotions. Even with giants like Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, we don't FEEL that just because they were geniuses, they must have been great at everything else. In contrast, sports-music-oratory-sex affects people viscerally and emotionally. People may admire the ability of geeks, but they don't regard nerds as 'heroes'. But people regard pop stars, athletes, and orators as Heroes, larger-than-life beings, even godlike. Such individuals come to be not merely appreciated but revered and worshiped as demigods. White emotions override their reason. And because black successes affect white emotions, whites feel that Black Heroes, as superior folks, must succeed at EVERYTHING... or else it's INJUSTICE! If indeed blacks are a god-race, how could they be inferior in anything? The reason must be 'racist'! But, such feelings exist on the American 'Right' as well. Consider all the fulsome praise lavished on any black who is mildly 'conservative'. If some second-rate black guy or gal says, "Sheeeeiiiit, conservatism be cool", he's treated like the new rising star in the GOP firmament.

Now, white feelings toward blacks are especially weird due to various contradictions. Whites conquered blacks industrially and militarily, but blacks conquered whites athletically, musically, and sexually. In physical terms, whites defeated blacks collectively, but blacks defeated whites individually. The movie ZULU shows what a united team of whites could do to hordes of black savages. But Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali showed what a lone black guy can do to a white man in the ring. The fact is wars are relatively rare and most soldiers remain faceless, whereas sports are a year-round thing and the winners develop personality cults as superstar celebrities. Who remembers any of the 400,000 Americans who died in World War II? But so many white kids collect cards of their favorite black basketball stars.

In a way, the history of black slavery, black poverty, and black backwardness(in Africa especially) tugs at white heart-strings. Whites see blacks as helpless children in need of white compassion. In this regard, white do-gooders look upon blacks as akin to orphaned lion cubs. Poor little kitty kats. But in another way, the reality of black domination in sports, rap, and sex makes whites turn into goo in awe of black prowess. According to GET OUT the movie, white Liberals are so enthralled with blackness that they want to inhabit black bodies. This part of whiteness looks upon blackness as a super-lion. So, whites look upon blacks as both helpless orphaned lion cubbies and fearsome lion-kings. There's compassion and combustion. There is both a condescending sense of superiority that whites must take care of these helpless blacks who can't take care of themselves AND a convulsive sense of inferiority that whites have been finally spiritually emancipated and bodily liberated by awesome blacks. According to Rock Critics like Dave Marsh and many others, white people owe their 'spiritual' freedom to blacks who came up with rhythm-and-blues and inspired guys like Elvis Presley and Bruce Springsteen. Prior to Rock n Roll, whites had a conceptual and legal notion of freedom, but they were still lame, uptight, or square. It was black music that loosened whites up and made them truly enjoy freedom, just like white women truly learned to enjoy sex with black men: As the saying goes, "If you black, you don't go back." Likewise, whites in UK feel as if England was all fog and ice before the coming of the African sun that brought light and joy to the land of Victorianesque shopkeepers. It's no wonder that the blues had an even bigger impact on UK than on the US. And of course, the Irish are a strange case. As part of their historical identity is as fellow-victims of the British Empire, they've come to regard blacks and others as their true moral brethren. (Also, the Irish consider themselves to be more wild and musical than the Anglos.) But the Irish also took part in the slave trade and benefited much from the Anglo-Empire, and so, the Irish are into 'white guilt'. So, as both soul-brethren of the Negroes and guilt-ridden participants of white-supremacism, the Irish are committed to Africanizing all of Ireland via mass black immigration and Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs.

In the US, white kids grow up weeping over Harriet Tubman & Emmett Till and wetting their pants over Lebron James and black rappers. They see blacks as most tragic and most triumphant. In a way, they find blacks to be more tragic precisely because blacks have proven to be triumphant in key visceral fields. Would there be so much white mania over blacks if blacks were like the browns of Mexico? The brown woman in ROMA is a nice creature but 'lame', hardly exciting to whites. In contrast, black women have this loud gorilla-howl voice that fill white folks with awe. White folks go, "what a set of pipes" and fall all over each other in praise of the gorilla-goddess-hollering. It's like "Gimme Shelter" and "Suspicious Minds", both 1969 songs, utilize the gorilla-goddess howl as backup vocals to add extra-energy. And Bob Dylan had Negresses supplying their gorilla-goddess howl to "Gotta Serve Somebody".

Because of this voodoo spell that blacks can have over whites, whites relied on race-ism in the past to keep things in balance. The white message was, "You Negroes sure can sing and dance, BUT our Western Civilization does not and cannot have jigro-jivery as the cultural foundation. Civilization is the product of much work and sobriety, more the product of ants than grasshoppers. So, while you Negro go tappity-tap, don't think all the jivery amounts to much. Be more like Mr. Bojangles."

The other white message was, "Look here, Negro. Jack Johnson proved he can beat up all the white guys and hump all those white women. So, if we dissolve racial barriers, you black guys will destroy white male pride and take white women. And so, we need racial barriers to secure white manhood and to keep white womenfolk. And it's all the more reason to segregate sports and for white boxers to duck black boxers who will surely kick their butts. Now, if a black man must be champion, let it be someone like Joe Louis the Brown Bomber who acted like a 'credit to his race', indeed as if he knocked out all those white guys by accident than intentionally."

Of course, this message was implicit than explicit, but that was the problem. It should have been explicit and even amended into the Constitution: New Amendment: "While the US is committed to equality under the law, the fact is there are racial differences between whites and blacks that lead to blacks kicking white male butt and taking white women, and so, there shall be laws limiting contacts between whites and blacks." Such an amendment based on facts and honesty may have saved the white race, but it's so difficult to be factual and honest in any social order. It's like Daffy Duck is more honest than Bugs Bunny, but the clever hare gets all the favors in Looney Tunes cartoons.

The larger shift in white thinking and behavior has created a bitter cleavage in American society that has taken on a religious intensity. It is leading towards antagonism and violence on a scale not seen since the Civil War... The change in white thinking is an intellectual revolution brought by ideas that had been quarantined in universities but spread to the whole country. The most important one sounds innocuous — a new definition of “racism” — but it is turning the country inside out. Americans used to think racism meant deliberate acts of hostility to others because of race.. Not anymore. Robin DeAngelo... scoffs at what she calls, “The simplistic idea that racism is limited to individual intentional acts committed by unkind people.” ... “the ubiquitous socializing power of white supremacy cannot be avoided. The messages circulate 24-7.”

But let's consider the Roth-Rosato rule. In THE GODFATHER PART 2, Hyman Roth says the Rosato Brothers had Pantangeli killed, but then Michael Corleone asks, "But, who gave the go-ahead?" People like Robin DeAngelo would be NOTHING without Jewish Power. Jewish intellectuals toyed with her feeble mind, and Jewish publishers promote her worthless nonsense. Most white 'intellectuals' are hacks indoctrinated, favored, and promoted by Jewish Power. They are like the official thinkers of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Party hacks and official scribes. It's Jewish Power that gives the go-ahead to such morons who come to affect masses of white morons.
There is also the element of prestige. DeAngelo is promoted by New York Times, and that means her ideas carry weight! Ideally, the uppermost institutions and most influential media should favor truth, honesty, and integrity, and it may be so when it comes to non-political or non-ideological matters. If you stuck to pure science, you could rise to the top even in the Soviet Union. But on political and ideological matters, the Power always favors what is useful to its perpetuation, and every system has a problem with the truth. So, when it comes to social sciences and political science, the top institutions and media favor the hacks, partisans, and dogmatists than true free thinkers who may say something that rocks the foundations of the system. But because institutions like Harvard and New York Times are seen as most prestigious, even the nonsense they teach or spout gets special attention.
Of course, in many cases, people are not fooled but nevertheless go along with the Big Lie because they want status and privilege that is availed only to those who conform to the prevailing orthodoxy. Another appeal of the likes of DeAngelo is the pseudo-intellectualism. Her seemingly more probing and 'profound' interpretation of 'racism' is the kind that may appeal to those who love to feel smarter than others. After all, anyone can understand the simple meaning of 'racism', whereas only 'sophisticated' and 'subtle' individuals grasp DeAngelo's 'complicated' psychological examination of the roots of 'white supremacism'. Paradoxically, those who claim to champion equality love to espouse ideas that are opaque to most people. You see, 'simplistic' notions are for the hoi polloi. The 'ubiquitous socializing power of white supremacy' can be glimpsed only by those with a set of brains as fine as that of DeAngelo and her ilk. LOL.

Now, there is a kernel of truth to what DeAngelo is saying, and we see it all around us in everyday behavior that has nothing to do with 'racism'. After all, take school popularity. While almost all students will morally and consciously, with utmost honesty, say that they believe all students are equally valuable in their humanity and potential, the fact is people do have all sorts of inbuilt biases. Prettier students are treated better. Teachers favor smarter students to dumb ones. No one cares about uncool kids and ugly kids. Even feminists and male dorks who insist on total equality of the sexes find themselves feeling and reacting differently to men and women. And this goes for race too. Even if most Americans don't try to be actively hostile to other groups, in so many ways they find themselves to feel more favorable to certain groups than to others. Just ask the Palestinians. Also, there is the matter of legacy. If People A have been above People B for a long time, things are not going to change overnight even if all unequal laws are abolished and equality of opportunity prevails over the land.

So, if DeAngelo wants to discuss those subtleties and the lingering effects of past racial inequalities, that's one thing. Where she's an idiot is that she dogmatically assumes that the fault is entirely with 'white supremacism'. While white supremacism did oppress and exploit other races, let's weigh the positive sides. If not for white supremacism over black Africa, most blacks would be living in mud huts without written language and modern technology. If not for whites having brought over blacks to America, American blacks would be rotting in savage Africa. Even if blacks got less than whites throughout US history, they got a lot more than blacks in Africa and most non-whites around the world. Many blacks were better off in the US than whites in Europe who suffered through serfdom, endless conflicts, World War I and II, various forms of imperialism(esp Germanic and Russian), and communism. White supremacism, for all its faults, did more for blacks than blacks ever did for themselves. Also, if South Africa achieved more than other black African nations, it was because it maintained white supremacist rule well into the late 80s. It was because whites managed things that its economy grew and grew. Just about every worldwide black success was made possible via association with white power, be it supremacist or otherwise. It's not as if whites and blacks were at equal levels of development when the two peoples met. Whites were the most advanced whereas the blacks were among the most savage, backward, and primitive. So, even though white supremacists exploited black labor and oppressed blacks, blacks gained so much from being in contact with whites who had the supremacist power to force blacks to reject savagery. But then, this was always the case in history. Romans spread terror and oppression but also progress and growth when they conquered barbarian folks. Arabs enslaved blacks but also spread Islam and Civilization among the blacks.
So, white supremacism must be given its due. Not because it was nice and wonderful but because it was the product of white people having surpassed other peoples in science, technology, military, commerce, political organization, and the like. In the practice of white supremacism, whites committed lots of ugly violence around the world but also spread the seeds of modernity that lifted so many peoples around the world. Chinese and Indians have reasons to be bitter about white imperialism, but where would modern India and China be without whites having forced their civilizations open to accept new modes of economics? It was because whites were in supremacist mode that they felt emboldened to FORCE other peoples into joining modernity. Most peoples refused to do it voluntarily and only did so at gunpoint. Also, as white civilizations learned to be more mindful of liberty, rights, and justice, they spread these notions among non-whites. So, even as non-whites sought to throw off the yoke of white imperialism, they adopted Western modes of politics and justice to remold their societies into modern ones. Indeed, where did blacks learn the notion that slavery is wrong? It was because whites didn't enslave their own kind. Whites enslaved blacks but not whites. This was problematic for both whites and blacks. Whites began to wonder, "If slavery is so bad that we don't enslave whites, why should we enslave other folks?" And blacks began to wonder, "If white folks don't use each other as slaves, why they be using us as slaves?" If whites had enslaved whites as well as blacks, blacks would never have realized that slavery is wrong since "Everyone does it to everyone."

This is why blaming 'white supremacy' for everything is so idiotic. All progress begins somewhere and then spreads incrementally outward. Before there was universal suffrage, there was first elite suffrage, followed by universal male suffrage, followed by universal suffrage for men and women. Therefore, it'd be stupid for any woman to bitch about how the West once only allowed voting for men. But if it hadn't begun with men, would it have spread to women? Democracy began with the elites. In Polish democracy, only the noblemen could vote. In Ancient Greece, only free men of property. The thing is the idea begins somewhere and then gradually expands. It's like the notion of rights began with noblemen before it spread to the hoi polloi. Same with slavery. For slavery to be abolished around the world, abolition had to begin somewhere and then gradually expand outward. When whites stopped enslaving other whites, other races were still enslaving one another. While, at one time, whites who didn't enslave whites still enslaved blacks, the fact that whites didn't enslave whites served as the moral template for banning the enslavement of blacks as well. People who enslave their own kind will surely have no problem enslaving other kinds. But a people who don't enslave their own kind will run up against the moral conundrum of enslaving other kinds, which is precisely what happened in the US and the West. And so, slavery was ended in the West and then was ended around the world. Indeed, it was white supremacy or white domination that allowed the West to FORCE the non-white world to end slavery. So, white supremacy was a double-edged sword. It meant that whites, feeling superior, abused and exploited other peoples. There was certainly this side to white history. But, it also meant that whites, as the superior and dominant force around the world, could use their moral and military muscle to pressure the non-white world to conform more to advanced Western standards of morality, and this led to much social progress... that is until Jews took over the West and made celebration of black savagery and globo-homo degeneracy the new cornerstones of 'Western Values'.

People like DeAngelo are easy to understand. There is Big Think and small think. Big Think is like the Big Tent, and small think is like so many flea market stalls under the Big Tent. Each stall has its own allotted space, but it, along with all the others, does business under the rules of the Big Tent. Robin DeAngelo's book is just small think in service to Big Think of Jewish Anti-Whiteness. All small thinks are like that. They are part of a bigger think or the Big Think. It's like Marxism spawned so many intellectuals and writers, but they all offered small think in service to the Big Think of Karl Marx's prophecy. DeAngelo works under the Tent Pole of Jewish Power. Consciously or unconsciously, her success is built on giving her Jewish Masters what they want to hear from white goyim. Same goes for blacks. Jewish Power will not tolerate blacks who blame Jews; it only favors blacks who blame 'white supremacy' for everything. Thus, Jewish Power uses white cucks, blacks, and various non-whites as proxies of Jewish Supremacism.
Jews have the money and the reach, but they don't have the numbers. They are only 2% of the US population, and therefore, the most valuable asset to Jewish Power is white obeisance and white cuckery. Whites may be less intelligent than Jews, but they are plenty smart, creative, capable, and talented. So, Jewish Masters need white servants. But it is natural for any people to prioritize their own identity and interests. The natural mode of whites would be white unity, white identity, white power. But uppity whites-for-whiteness won't be willing to cuck to Jewish Power. And this is why Jews need to keep whites in cuck mode. Jews used the Holocaust Card to morally intimidate and guilt-bait the whites of Europe, but it was never going to be particularly effective with white Americans because WWII happened in Europe and because white Americans helped defeat Nazism. And so, Jews pushed white guilt about American Indians and blacks since the 60s. But Jews dropped the American Indian stuff over the years because (1) mass immigration, favored by Jews, wiped out the Indians (2) Indians aren't profitable and cool in sports & pop culture and (3) Jewish Hollywood made tons of movies celebrating cowboys killing Indians. So, Jews have emphasized Jungle Fever and Jungle Faith. Make white Americans so guilt-ridden about blacks forever that whites dare not entertain notions of white identity. There was a time when white supremacism was something like KKK burning crosses or Neo-Nazis making trouble. Now, it's any sign of whiteness devoid of self-loathing and guilt. So, if a white person doesn't feel sick and grossed out about his/her whiteness, he or she is a vile cretin infected with tell-tale signs of 'white supremacy'. It's all a lot of hooey, but it's the Big Think under which all the small thinks operate in the current US. Dissident Cucks like Jared Taylor fixate on blacks, white cucks, and non-whites, but he's dealing with the small thinks, the Rosato Brothers. He's not confronting the Big Think, the Hyman Roth behind it all. Therefore, he's as useless as the rest of them. There's too much of Sal in Jared Taylor. Sal in THE GODFATHER wants to be IN with the power. He senses Barzini as overtaking the Corleones and sucks up to him. Taylor, for all his dissident credentials, wants approval from the Power. He regards Jews as smart, rich, and superior, and therefore clings to the hope that if he cucks enough to Jewish Power, a good number of Jews will magically come to his aid and welcome him into the Club. It's bullshit country-club mentality, utterly useless in a state of war. Jewish Power feels as Tim Wise toward whites. Against such hatred, whites must feel hatred and rage, not some aloof gentility affected by Taylor. This is war, not a game of golf. When Jews hate you, you got to fight the same way. The Jewish mentality was conveyed through Sean Connery with the words of arch-Zionist David Mamet: That's the JEWISH way.


There are two kinds of moral conflict. One based on reform and mutual understanding. Both sides agree that neither side is perfect. Both sides have grievances, both sides have done wrongs. So, both sides agree to bury the hatchet and move on and try to work it out. The current Russia-China relation is on such basis. Neither claims moral superiority over the other. They know they've had a troubled history, and it's not a case of angels vs demons.

But there is another kind of moral conflict, one that pits the totally good vs the totally evil. In such conflict, one side must win totally and the other side must be wiped out or completely subjugated. Jews have a long history of seeing the world in terms of Total Moral Wars. God and His Chosen Jews are totally right while other groups are totally wrong and must be rubbed off the face of the Earth to the last woman and child. It explains the sheer moral hatred of the likes of Tim Wise. Such Jewish view was emboldened by communism, Nazism, and Zionism. Communist Jews got to thinking that History was on their side and any mount of bloodletting could be done in the name of historical justice. Nazi Evil made Jews feel that they, as innocent angels, were mass-murdered by what was nothing but sheer evil. So, when Jews call whites 'nazis', it means whites must be totally defeated and morally enslaved. And Zionism restored Jewish messianic vision of anything-goes-for-the-fulfillment-of-prophecy. And there is also the matter of Jewish gangsterism. Once Jews became masters of US as the lone superpower, they got to thinking like insatiable gangsters for whom no amount of money was money enough and no amount of power was power enough. So, the Jewish Worldview is not one where Jews and Goyim can be both wrong and must work things out through mutual understanding and compromise. It is one where Jews are totally right and must have everything their way, and all those standing in the way must be crushed, humiliated, dehumanized, terrorized, and even mass-killed.

Of course, Jews can't admit as much because scales will fall from people's eyes, in which case Jewish Power will be seen for the rot that it is. So, instead of directly boosting Jewish Supremacism, Jews seek to weaken and destroy anything that is regarded as a stumbling block to Jewish-Zionist domination. So, Iranian economy must be destroyed in the name of 'preventing nuclear proliferation' even though Israel has tons of nukes aimed at Iran. Russian economy must be targeted because Russia said NO to globo-homo hegemony as proxy of Jewish Power. Mass-immigration must be pushed on white nations to prevent white unity. Whites, via media and academia, must be taught that the highest virtue among whites is self-hatred, 'white guilt', and hunting down 'nazis' who, by Jewish definition, means any white person who voted for Trump. Jewish Supremacist Power operates by control of finance, big tech, and whore-politicians who do the bidding of Jewish Power, and that includes Republicans. But lest people figure out who's really in control, Jews do this behind the scenes. What Jews do out in the open is to promote the likes of Robin DeAngelo and other small-think hacks as the authoritative voices peddling 'woke' PC within the Big Tent of Jewish Big Think that is all about War on White Supremacism to ensure the primacy of Jewish Supremacism. All such small thinks have the seal of approval of Jewish Big Think or Grand Strategy that, nowadays, can be boiled down to suppressing goy identity, especially that of whites, to bolster and secure Jewish Supremacism.
This is why Jewish regard for Palestinians and Whites is essentially the same. To Jews, both are goyim to subjugate, control, and manipulate. The odd thing is Palestinians are utterly powerless but have the pride of identity and memory. Palestinians don't rely on the Jewish-Zionist Narrative for their own identity and history. In contrast, white Americans are immeasurably more numerous, wealthier, and privileged than Palestinians(who live under Occupation) but now almost totally lack the pride of identity and autonomy of memory. White identity is what Jews say it is: Dirty and Foul. White memory is dependent on Jewish academia and media that boil it all down to 'white supremacy, white supremacy, therefore, whites must forever atone for white supremacy by cucking to other races, especially Jews and their favored allies, blacks and homos." Materially, whites are more powerful than Palestinian by light years, but morally Palestinians are more powerful than whites because they have an autonomous sense of identity and history in defiance of the Jewish Narrative. It's like the Palestinian-American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaid is just one lonely voice and outnumbered by white politicians who are richer and more connected, BUT she has pride of identity and history whereas nearly all white politicians are worthless cuck-maggots with tails between their legs when it comes to identity and pride. They suck up to Jews, homos, and blacks. And of course, Jared Taylor belongs in this cuck-league. Taylor's art of dissent is useless because he refuses to tackle the power that has been most instrumental in white dispossession. In this, he's like Alex Jones who, like Taylor, has been censored and deplatformed from internet venues but carps about 'Arabs owning Hollywood' and 'Chicoms censoring Americans'. But then, notice the BS of 'mainstream' white Liberal Cucks. If they are so appalled by Donald Trump's murderous bigotry, why don't they say one word about Trump's continuing wars in the Middle East, Trump's mindless support of Netanyahu's Judeo-Nazi Israel, Trump's hate-campaign against Iran, and etc.? Instead, they push totally inane conspiracy theories like the Russia Collusion Hoax. Both white American 'conservatives' and 'liberals' push the small narratives in service to the Big Narrative that all boils down to Jewish Supremacism. Jews attack Trump, but Trump and GOP support Israel even more. Trump's main bigotry is against Iranians and Palestinians, but White Liberals ignore all that and focus on nonsensical fantasy about Russian interference and Trump being Putin's puppet. What kind of country is this? Jared Taylor, being a dissident, ought to know better, but he remains a suckass cuck to Jewish Power. Jews got him censored, deplatformed, disgraced, smeared, and denied basic services like Paypal. Taylor got some Jews to appear at American Renaissance Conference, but they are not the Jews with power. Now, being anti-Jewish-Power doesn't mean whites should go nazi-like or hate all Jews. It means they must address the fact that the West is currently Jewish Supremacist, Jewish Power is virulently anti-white and utterly corrupt and nihilistic. Likewise, being anti-Nazi in WWII didn't mean you had to hate everything German. If Mormons ruled America and acted like a bunch of a**holes, opposing Mormon Power wouldn't mean you must hate everything about Mormons or the Mormon community. But the power must be exposed and countered.

The fact is Du Bois and his ilk are not to blame for the current state of affairs. It has to do with black success in sports, music, and sex on the one hand, and on the other, it has to do with Jewish control of academia and media to mold the minds of whites. While some whites are sincerely turned onto anti-white PC, most other whites go along with the Basic Narrative because they are bought by Jewish Money and fear Jewish Media power. Even the most ardently right-wing politician in Washington D.C. knows that Jewish Money can unseat him or Jewish Media power can drag him through the mud. Even as Jews insult whites and encourage their proxy minions to dump on whites, whites must always praise Jews, Jews, Jews. As long as whites live under these conditions, there is no hope.

There have always been whites who excused black rioters, but not in such sweeping terms. And mob violence has crossed a fateful line: instead of wrecking only their own neighborhoods, looters are sacking top retailers in the whitest parts of Manhattan, Beverly Hills, and Chicago. Astonishingly, the victims then promote the very ideas that inspire the violence. Target Corporation is a good example. Looters — most of them black — struck six of its stores: Oakland, Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Minneapolis... Target’s response? Pledge $10 million to black organizations, and 10,000 free hours of consulting for “people of color” who own small businesses.

Businesses are about money, and money has no ideas. It only understands the bottom line and publicity. Generally, businesses will do whatever it takes to increase profits. But businesses are about publicity too. So, even if profits are sacrificed in the short-term, businesses will do whatever it takes for good publicity. But what are the terms of good publicity? Businesses don't decide because businessmen only understand money and profits. Money relies on Morality as determined by the spiritual and scholarly caste. After all, being associated with homosexuality was NOT good publicity for most of Western History, but now, businesses fall all over one another to push their 'homosher' (homo-kosher) products. Now, I highly doubt that market share will increase because a certain burger or cookies are associated with homo-rainbow. So, why do companies push such stuff? One reason is most of the industrial elites are products of PC academia and rub shoulders with the globo-homo crowd. Most elites just conform to the prevailing fashions to maintain their status. The other reason is advertising companies(dominated by Jews) often operate independently. So, advertisers push globo-homo as a marketing ploy. Creative types who work in advertising and entertainment don't have critical minds of their own. They soak up ideas pushed by Jewish Big Think and spout the same BS in the form of small think. Another reason is quasi-messianic and propagandistic. The elites feel that, even if sales won't increase via globo-homo advertising, the masses will become inculcated with 'good think' of homomania. What is called 'cultural marxism' is really Cultural Capitalism; according to this mindset, everything is political or must be politicized, which means everything from cookie commercials to kiddie program must be used to push the correct ideology; this is why even comic books and STAR WARS movies have been politicized to the max. Political Power grows out of a barrel of Fun. Finally, companies that push globo-homo advertising aren't so much signaling to the consumers as to the financiers. Jews control finance and media, and companies rely on financing and fear bad press. As Jews control money & media and push globo-homo, many companies feel compelled to signal with 'gay' symbols to be in good graces with Jewish Power. In Old Europe, Jews had to convert to Christianity to participate fully in government and business. In the New West, whites must signal globo-homo and now BLM to be in good graces with Jews, the fancy-pants urban crowd, the elites, and etc. While capitalism generates lots of money, money itself doesn't produce ideas or moral values. It's like, even though Jewish merchants made the big money, Jewish prophets and rabbis got to decide what is right and wrong. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are worth gazillions, but they rely on ADL, SPLC, NYT, Ivy Leagues, and other Jewish-controlled institutions for right-or-wrong. Those with only money power will lose to those with both money power and moral power. Jews got both money power and moral power. Whites got lots of money power but no moral power. Whites used to have positive moral power. Then, they were reduced to zero moral power. And now, they have NEGATIVE moral power, what with Jewish Supremacism having pushed the 'white supremacist' and 'white privilege' narratives so deep into the American psyche. Of course, money does affect morality in that Big Money can choose to fund and favor certain schools of thought. Indeed, Jewish Money Power did just this. Rich Jews funded 'progressives' who were more into promoting globo-homo and gayday than proles and mayday. Jews funded MLK, a pro-Zionist, while doing everything to limit the power of Nation of Islam and figures like Malcolm X. By selective funding, Jewish Power made sure that American Morality would favor Zionism over Palestinian Liberation. Jewish Money Power made sure that Mandela would be elevated to sainthood while Arafat would be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Granted, it's easier to fund certain things depending on the prevailing narrative and dogma. For instance, it's hardly controversial for a US company to donate millions to AIPAC, ADL, or SPLC. But if Bill Gates were to give a mere $50 to American Renaissance, V-Dare, or BDS, he would find himself in deep doo-doo. The Jewish-controlled media will say "Bill Gates is a Nazi(or an Anti-Semite)", and all the elites brainwashed by or fearful of PC will avoid him like a plague. The fate of Chick-Fil-A demonstrates the difficulty of going against the prevailing morality, which is never a permanent or static thing. It was finally pressured to stop donating to pro-Christian charities hated by homosexual supremacists. At one point, it would have been scandalous for a company to fund some 'gay' agenda or be associated with homosexuals. And this was true even among Liberals. But now, it's the other way around. Jews used their power of advertising, Hollywood, and academia to spread the notion of homos as saintly angels or brilliant creative folks, and over time, the educated and sophisticated came to feel smugly superior because they were so pro-'gay'. And they pushed globo-homo in entertainment, and masses of American idiot TV viewers fell in love with homos, and so, the new prevailing morality became 'Gay Knows Best'.

The thing is, if something is pushed from one side without push-back from the other side, it will eventually take over everything. It doesn't matter if it is good, bad, sane, insane, factual, fantastical, genuine, bogus, or whatever. If anything is pushed to one side without push-back, it will eventually take over the other side. And this is why we have Jewish Supremacism, globo-homo, and BLM. But it began with Jewish Power because it was over the Jewish Question that white people stopped pushing back and just relented to everything demanded by Jews. Anything disliked by Jews was deemed 'antisemitic' or some such. If the American Left and American Right came to one shared understanding, it was the holiness of Jews, the moral perfection of Jews, the need to support Israel, and the obligation to condemn any voice critical of Jewish Power. This was easier done on the Left as it was Jewish-dominated. But the American Right, led by William F. Buckley, also got into this game of sucking up to Jews 100%. And it seems Jared Taylor still belongs to the suck-up-to-Jews school.

Now, Jews had good reasons to push against White Power(as nothing is perfect and can be reformed by criticism), but whites should also have pushed back against Jews(as Jews themselves are not perfect and have lots of power, which must always be criticized and countered). But especially beginning with the creation of Israel, whites increasingly relented under Jewish Pressure and then even got into the habit of praising, celebrating, and worshiping Jews at every turn. Clearly, Jews had done wrong to Palestinians, but white Americans fully supported the Zionists. White Americans ignored all pleas from Palestinians and just went with Jews Know Best. This template that was perfected in Zion came to be used by Jews in US and the West. Just like Jews are always right no matter what they do to Palestinians, Jews are always right no matter what they do to whites. So, Jews pushed and pushed and pushed, but there was no push-back from whites on grounds that any push-back against Jews is akin to 'Nazism' or 'Antisemitism'. So, American Politics became a case of Jews bashing whites, and then whites praising Jews to prove that they, the whites, aren't so bad. Jew: "You white scumbags stink like a pile of maggots and should crawl off to die in misery and pain!!" White: "But we whites love you Jews, so we can't be THAT bad." That's about the gist of white/Jewish relations in the US. Jews bash whites by promoting black thuggery and Diversity, but the white response is, "We are so worried about the harm that may come to you wonderful Jews from blacks and Diversity."

So, Jews push and push and push, and whites never push back. And so, whites came to worship Jews because Jews demanded it. Jews pushed the cult of Jewish Holiness, but whites didn't push back with reminders that Jews are humans too and, as such, can be as bad as good. And then, the same happened with LGBT and BLM, both of which were promoted and pushed by Jews. Again, there was no push-back because the white/Jewish dynamics is founded on JEWS PUSH but WHITES DON'T PUSH BACK. Why was there no push-back against the homo agenda? Word got around that it was a Jewish Baby, and it just won't do for whites to say NO to a Jewish Agenda. Also, Jews pushed 'racism' as the worst possible 'sin', and whites didn't push back.
In truth, no people and culture can survive without some degree of rational race-ism. What would happen to Israel if it dropped the notion of it being a Jewish State? And Palestinian struggle and resistance are predicated on Palestinian Identity and Interests taking priority. And yet, if any European nation had a policy like that of Jewish Israel, Jews would call it 'racist'. What Jews do is not 'racist', but if any other people do it, it is 'racist'. So, if a European Liberal Democracy were to demand that Israel change its policies and adopt multi-culturalism like France or Holland, Jews will condemn it as a policy of erasure against the Jewish nation. Jews will say it'd be a policy of great replacement, a demographic imperialism against Jews. Indeed, an act of 'racism' against Jews. However, if a European nation were to reject mass immigration, diversity cult, and the great replacement, it would be condemned as 'racist' for prioritizing the native people and culture. So, whatever Jews do is correct and not 'racist'. Jews securing a Jewish homeland is not 'racist', but it is 'racist' if a white nation does it. And Jewish pushing demographic replacement on white nations isn't 'racist', but it is 'racist' to push for non-Jewish migration into Israel. It's like Marx Brothers logic, and indeed, current Jewish Power has more to do with Groucho, Chico, and Harpo than Karl.

Another trait of the revolution is a shocking level of bullying. Roving bands of BLM swarm restaurants and demand that patrons raise their fists in solidarity. In both these clips, mobs — mostly white — scream ferociously at the few white diners who refuse. Here, a crowd barges into a Kenosha grocery store and harangues white patrons with a bullhorn. In this video, another mostly white crowd parades through a peaceful white neighborhood, swearing and shouting obscenities in the fight against “racism.” In Portland, BLM marched in a white neighborhood late at night, leaning on car horns shouting “Wake up, motherfu**er.” Cultural-Revolution-style hectoring will not heal a “deeply racist society,” but is typical of revolutionary zealots convinced that only they can be right and that anyone who is not an ally is an enemy.

That I rather like. I like it for two reasons. All those glib and smug white progs in urban centers are forced to get a taste of their own medicine. Those types love to turn up their noses at 'rednecks' in the South and pretend that blacks are innocent angels, but what are they to do when the Mob comes after them? ROTFL.
Another reason why we should appreciate such mob violence is it has a red-pilling effect on many Americans. I mean, who wants to be harangued in a restaurant by a bunch of imbecilic morons? Indeed, nothing turned off the Chinese to Maoism than the Cultural Revolution. I hope these crazed mobs go around creating havoc all over America. They'll do a great job of waking people up to the sheer idiocy of PC as pushed by media, academia, and the Jews. As for Manhattan in the current state, what's not to like? Those NY scum have been funding and protecting Antifa. Let Antifa mess up their cities. And NY scum have been utterly hypocritical about blacks. NY used stop-and-frisk and other drastic measures to curb black crime and violence, but it never admitted to the full implications of this: Blacks commit most crimes, and tough policing is needed to control blacks. Instead, NYers enjoyed a much safer city without admitting what made it so much safer. They pretended blacks are innocent angels and cops are evil, and so they pushed BLM, and well, just look at the result. It's beautiful. LOL. Burn Baby Burn.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZmX2y9wrfH7j/