Politics of Labor will decide the future of nations.
What was the most crucial difference between Zionism and Afrikanerism?
Zionists debated early on whether the Jewish settlers should hire Arab workers or Jewish workers. Zionists came down on the side of Jews hiring Jews. Thus, the Jewish head would be wedded to the Jewish body. And as the theme of Zionism would be ethno-cultural, it would serve as the heart between the head and body of the Jewish nation. In the short-term, it would have been more profitable to use Arab labor. It would have been cheaper than Jewish labor. Also, whereas a Jewish boss would feel moral obligation to treat fellow Jews with some sense of justice, he might merely exploit Arab laborers as expendable than essential members of the Community. But if Zionism had opted for Jewish owners and Arab workers, it would have failed in the long run. As there are always more workers than owners, Arabs would have outnumbered the Jews, and Jewish dominance would have been difficult to maintain. So, even though Jewish owners hiring Jewish workers was economically more costly in the short-run, it was crucial in the long-run in the creation of a Jewish state where the Jewish mind was united with Jewish body. It became one organic unit and fought off all challenges. But, suppose Zionism had opted for Jewish owners hiring Arab Workers. When the Partition of 1948 was declared, would all those Arab employees of Jewish owners have sided with their Jewish bosses or with their Arab brethren? Most would have joined with Arab Brethren, and the Arabs would have won the war, and Jews would have been expelled from Palestine permanently. But because Zionist opted for Jewish owners and Jewish workers, when the crisis moment arrived, all Jews from top to bottom united as a single force and fought the Arabs and won... and were even able to grab most of Arab territory.
In contrast, let's look at the Politics of Labor of South Africa. Afrikaners were race-conscious, but they opted for economic expediency. They decided to hire lots of black workers to do much of the work. In the short-term, this was a terrific bargain. Blacks could be hired for cheap. They could be exploited because they weren't white. White owners and bosses felt some paternal feelings for black workers but not as much as if they'd been white. So, this was a great boost to the South African economy on farms and in the mines, not unlike the economic arrangement in Rhodesia where blacks worked for white owners. But in the long run, what happened in South Africa? These blacks increased in number, outbred whites, and more blacks moved to white areas from the hinterland and even from other African nations. This meant lots of cheap labor that whites could exploit, but it also meant whites being outnumbered by blacks by an ever-increasing margin. Unlike Israel that came to be about Jewish mind wedded to the Jewish body and united by Jewish heart, South Africa increasingly became a world of white mind wedded to the black body with heart of stone lodged between the two communities. Afrikanerism wasn't organic like Zionism. Zionism decided to see Labor as part of 'us' and 'ours'. Afrikanerism decided to see Labor as the Other.
Zionists had been tempted to go with Arab labor. After all, Western Jews honed their skills in white-collar professions and in ownership of property. They weren't really into manual labor. That was for the goyim. Granted, there were poor Jews in Eastern Europe at the time who did manual labor. And even in the West, there were plenty of poor Jews in the garment industries. Still, the Jewish ideal was to use one's brains, not to toil like a 'dummy'. Labor was looked down upon as stuff Dumb 'Polacks' did. Even Jewish communists wanted to be intellectuals or commissars representing laborers; they didn't want to become laborers themselves. Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory in his entire life. And yet, another side of Jewish culture had more respect for the common man, at least if he was Jewish. As Jewish culture wasn't about warriors, it didn't develop an aristocratic culture like the Europeans and Japanese. Among the goyim, the warrior caste became the noblemen, and their power and privilege rested on blood. So, the Western ideal came to be aristocratic-minded, like that of Sparta though not nearly as extreme. Aristocratism deemed that a certain caste was superior over all the rest, and they had the right to rule over others who had to do the heavy lifting as peons and peasants. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant was shared equally by all. Rich Jew, poor Jew, it didn't matter. So, at least within the Tribe, Jews could be more mindful of the humanist value of every Jew. After all, in the Jewish Lore, the kings came later, long after the emergence of the Jews as a people and culture. In contrast, many goy narratives begin with some great leader figure who conquers and rules. According to the Jewish Lore, Jews are a people with certain needs, and they reached a point where they needed a king. In contrast, the Goy Narrative is often about how some guy beat all the others and gained the right to rule, and therefore, it was the duty of everyone else to obey him and his descendants.
National Laborism believes Labor isn't just some economic entity or measure but part of what defines and defends a people, land, and culture. Zionism is National Laborism, and it may be the only nation that is ideologically formulated to be that way.
In its day, National Socialist Germany had a similar ideology. German workers weren't seen merely as economic units but as part of the national family. Labor was organic. It was the body wedded to the German mind and soul. Unfortunately, this ideal all went to hell when Germany decided to go imperialist and turned non-Germans into slaves, thus going from National Socialist ideal to Imperialist Exploitation expediency. And yet, Hitler understood the need for German owners and German workers to be united in the newly occupied lands. Hitler's vision of Russia wasn't for German owners to hire and rely on Slavic laborers. Initially, Germans would use Russians as slaves, but eventually they would be replaced with German workers as a strong German Empire could be assured only by unity of German minds and German bodies. But this was a grisly vision outside Germany because it entailed removal, even extermination, of entire populations. Hitler was right about the New World. North America(minus Mexico) was sounder than Latin America because North was mostly about white owners and white workers. There was organic racial unity of white mind and white body. In contrast, Latin America was about white minds ruling over brown bodies. Thus, there was no heart between mind and body in Latin America. In North America, there was a sense of heart between white mind and white body because it's tougher to exploit one's fellow tribal brethren than another people. It made labor more expensive but also more precious because it wasn't seen merely as economic value but as national-cultural asset. But Hitler was wrong to apply New World historical lessons to the Old World. While it's true that the Red Man lost out tragically to the White Man in North America, there weren't all that many Indian savages in North America. Also, primitive world was supplanted with a modern world as a result of White Conquest of the Americas. In contrast, German invasion of USSR was a war on 170 million people. Also, despite evils of communism and Slavic backwardness, Russia was still part of the great civilized world. Eradicating all of that to create Greater Germany was a mad vision. Though Zionist occupation of West Bank isn't nearly so spectacular, it could be the undoing of Israel if it's ever annexed as Israel will have to offer some form of citizenship to all those Palestinians who may tip the demographic balance of bigger Israel. But then, Jews could try to expel them, but that will stir up a giant international shi*-storm.
When the US was gloriously race-ist, it had a defacto if willy-nilly kind of National-Laborism. While immigration was key to the rapid expansion of the US in the 19th century and early 20th century, most of the newcomers were white and, in time, assimilated. People like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH mattered because it was deemed a moral necessity for white haves to have a heart for white have-nots. George Bailey doesn't bowl alone in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE because those white folks of Bedford Falls are his people. If they were a bunch of crazy Negroes, apathetic Mexicans, and angry Muslims, he would have left the town. Labor was seen as part of the National Family. New Deal addressed the issue of Labor and Laborers as fellow Americans.
In contrast, the white elites in Latin America always saw Labor as a huge threat. Latin whites were the mind, but the Laboring body was brown(or black). There was little heart between the two. In some ways, Latin white elites envied American white elites, and vice versa. Latin white elites thought American white elites had it better because they hired white workers. Latin America too tried to encourage more white immigration to stem the tide of Rise of Color. But most white Europeans wanted to move to US than to Latin America. Anyway, American white elites also envied Latin White elites. Because American white elites had to hire white workers(for the most part), they felt an obligation to pay them more and offer more benefits. After all, it wouldn't do for whites to mistreat whites. But in Latin America, white owner class could treat the brown workers like expendable peons desperate to work for few pesos. It's no wonder some American capitalists romanticized Latin America. It's like what Hyman Roth says about Cuba. Money goes further in Latin America where the owners don't have to treat the people as Workers with Identity and Rights. Workers are mere peons, and political 'leaders' are whores who can easily be bought. (Today's DC resembles Havana before the Revolution, and ironically enough, this makes Trump with his Deplorable rabble army seem like New Castro to the Deep State.) It's no wonder Buckleys and Bushes had romantic views of Latin America and Mexico. It's where the distinctions of race and class have been more clearly etched. Owners are up here, and workers are down there.
We tend to associate mono-racialism with conservatism, but there is something inherently socialist about mono-racialism even if the dominant economic system in such a society is capitalist. Under mono-racialism, everyone is seen as part of the national family, and so, there is a sense of obligation to each and every person who is seen as deserving of education, opportunity, job, and benefits. In contrast, Diversity means the owner class may well be racially and culturally different from the working classes. And that means the owners don't have to pay much attention to the Other, the lesser folks who do work that is deemed low and inferior. Though Diversity is often associated with liberalism and equality, its effect is often a form of conservative hierarchy like in caste-ridden India of old. Latin America was more diverse than the US and also more conservative and reactionary in just about every area. To this day, it's about white elites ruling over browns. Of course, the official rhetoric of Latin America is that everyone is nicely mixed and no one sees race, but that's just bogus fantasy to mask the fact of hierarchy and lack of communion between those on top and those on bottom.
East Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been about yellow minds and yellow bodies. And nationalism was the heart that glued yellow minds to yellow bodies. But the rise of elitism via near universal college enrollment and elevated expectations may lead to the demise of National Labor ideology in these nations. Today, most Japanese see non-white-collar jobs as 'dirty, demeaning, and dangerous.' Same in South Korea and Taiwan. Not only do many yellows prefer to commit suicide than take up 'dirty and demeaning' labor, they refuse to have children who might fail in school and end up doing 'dirty and demeaning' labor. Also, Asian women, nearly all college educated, only want to marry 'winners'. This means sudden drop in birth-rates, and it means low-level jobs must be filled by... someone, and so, even Japan is now taking in 500,000 foreigners to take up those jobs. And according to Peter Frost's research, South Korean labor will be 40% non-Korean in 25 yrs. Taiwan seems to be following similar trends. So, their economic ideology is closer to Afrikanerism than Zionism. In the short term, it will be profitable and convenient as poor laborers arrive from places like Philippines and Indonesia to fill up 'dirty and demeaning' jobs. But in time, those newcomers will take over the nation just like blacks took over South Africa. Another threat to East Asia is globalism. East Asian mentality is essentially TO SERVE. The samurai, also known as 'bushi', was about submission. 'Bushi' means To Serve. Even though samurai were the elite caste, they were all about serving the Lord. Without someone to serve, one was a ronin, a nothing. Among Chinese and Koreans, the ideal was to become a Confucian bureaucrat and serve the emperor or king. Thus, an individual has no value except in service to the highest power. In Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI and RED BEARD, samurai are initially reluctant to serve the 'common rabble' than some fancy lord. They are used to serving the High than the Low, just like the shoe-maker in HIGH AND LOW must really struggle with himself before coming to regard his chauffeur's kidnapped son as akin to his own. When the top power in Asia was national, most were happy to serve the local power. But now that globalism made the West the uppermost power, most Asian elites are servile to the Western globo-homo way. This is in contrast to Jews who have a sense of self-worth. The Covenant means that every Jew has a direct connection to God. So, even as Jews may work for or with other people, they don't believe they exist to SERVE others. If anything, the key is to make OTHERS serve them, the Chosen Individuals. Asians lack such mentality. Today, Asian elites believe they should serve the West, the toppermost power, and they think they, as 'fancy Asians', should be served by lower people such as 'jungle Asians'. This goes against the grain of Zionism and will be disaster in yrs to come. (There is also a matter of personality. Three groups -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- have big personalities that tend to be egocentric or vain and expect the world to serve them. In contrast, most other groups have either neutral or servile personalities. Jews think everyone should revolve around Jewish Genius, blacks think everyone should suck 'muh dick', and homos think everyone should kiss their behind. No wonder the Three have such out-sized roles in World Culture.)
At one point, whites were like 50% of the South African population. Had Afrikaners taken the Zionist route and decided upon white workers for white owners, South Africa might have become a White Israel. But whites thought short-term. And same could be said for California. When the Golden State had been gloriously race-ist, it came to its senses and excluded Chinese Invasion and Colonization. It didn't want to end up like Tibet or Xinjiang are ending up today. California Dream was a kind of White Israel on the West Coast. And it was a fantastic success story, in some ways the most spectacular tale of American can-do spirit. But at some point, white Californians got used to Too Much of a Good Thing. And they turned grasshopper and took things for granted, even leading to the rise of the California Teenager meme. So, Californian economic ideology went from quasi-Zionism to quasi-Afrikanerism: Whites were too good for certain jobs, and they were to be taken by all those lowly 'beaners'. But just as lowly blacks took over South Africa, these lowly 'beaners' came to demographically take over much of California. This is what happens when the mind and body are no longer one.
Though a collective of people is different from a single person, there are certain parallels that are instructive. Even if heads and bodies could be traded among peoples, a person functions best if his head is connected to his own body via his heart. "My mind, my heart, and my body." But suppose we do an experiment where one person's mind is connected to another person's body and both are pumped by heart of yet another. Would such a person feel as one? When men pretend to be 'women', what happens to their psychology?
In John Carpenter's THE THING, the extraterrestrial creature doesn't care about any of the bodies it takes over since it can move from body to body. It has no organic unity with any single body. It considers every body as expendable. As far as it's concerned, all bodies exist just so it could move from one to the other to spread more Thingish-ness. Now, imagine if your head was severed from your body and suppose your head could move around from place to place. Suppose, it could supplant the heads of other people and take over their bodies. Would you take good care of those bodies? Not likely. Why not? They are not your bodies. You're just a parasite that sees every body as a host. You'd use and abuse the body as long as possible and then move onto to new bodies to mess with. This is indeed how George Soros and Paul Singer operate. They are heads without bodies. They move from nation to nation and attach their heads to the nation as 'advisers' and then do everything to suck that nation dry and then move onto new national bodies. But would Paul Singer do such to his beloved Israel? No. When Singer's head connects with Israel's body, it feels like 'Home', like when ET saw Yoda on Halloween. https://youtu.be/VrVEHszxL7E?t=2m12s
In the current West, the Jewish head/mind feels little connection to the white body. If anything, the Jewish mind fears rejection by the 'deplorable' white body that might call for the return of the proud white head, and so, the Jewish mind is hellbent on diversifying the body so that it won't be white anymore: White torso, Mexican liver, Asian lungs, African dong, Muslim hands, homo anus, and etc. These body parts will be too busy rejecting one another to come together to reject the Zardoz-like Jewish Head.
As for the former white mind that used to control the white body, it was decapitated long ago, and having no organic connection to the body, it dreams silly dreams of Homo and Tranny as the new god.
A sane and sound person's mind is connected to his body and soul. A sane and sound nation is essentially of one elite ruling over one people. While Israel has a sizable Arab population, it has been a Jewish majority nation led by Jewish elites for Jewish identity from Day One. Zionic beats Bionic. Organic beats artificial. And if Turkey remains viable to this day, it's because modern Turkey was founded as an organic nation of the Turks. Its biggest problem has been with Kurds, a people who insist they are not Turks, but fortunately for Turkey, Kurds are a minority like Arabs in Israel.
Now, it may be understandable why some elites want to boost Diversity and destroy organic nationalism. They feel burdened by having to lead and deal with their own people. It's like Moses had a fearsome task ahead of him because he was a Jew leading the Jews. Because they were his people, he couldn't just see them as chattel or the rabble or human trash(even though the mobs sometimes acted like that). He had to whip them into shape, inspire them, and secure their future in terms of land and survival. Such is a huge challenge and burden, and not all elites are up to it. They just want to make money, gain privilege, and live in the glam world.
American elites were more conscientious and mindful. Protestantism suppressed narcissism and vanity. In contrast, in the colorful Catholic Latin America, the elites were more shameless in lavishly furnishing themselves with the Good Life and style over substance. In a way, the rise of Marxism was like the Second Reformation in Latin America. A way of saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to all the Havana playboy lifestyle. Castro decided to play Moses by ruling Cuba as a nation where every worker would matter as part of the national family. Unfortunately, the fool chose Marxism than Neo-Fascism, the true way to bridge the mind and body. But in the end, the problem wasn't only bad choice of ideology but race. No matter how much Cuba's white elites tried, they couldn't represent whites, blacks, and mixed-race people in between the same way. A racially diverse nation has a hard time being organic. Ideology goes only so far in stitching the differences.
Anyway, Zionism or Afrikanierism when it comes to Labor? Should Labor be seen as part of National Family or Global Finance? When we compare the fate of Israel vs South Africa, I think the answer is clear. So, why do Jews push Afrikanerization of Labor for all nations EXCEPT Israel? Because smart(and devious) power wants to keep the secret formula for itself. Let the suckers fall for the hustle of short-term profits for long-term demise.
In Sergei Eisenstein’s IVAN THE TERRIBLE the characters are less people than architectural motifs with predetermined roles set in stone. Only their eyes — limpid pools with slightest room to maneuver — animate with free will. Consciousness remains suspended between dark depths and preposterous pageantry. In one instance, a man ‘lifts’ his eyelid with his finger. It's as if it takes an act of will to glimpse truth in a world heavily weighed down by power as burden or tyranny.
There is also the metaphor of cavernous spaces to convey the secretive and labyrinthine dimensions of ambition and paranoia. Shadow-lurking byzantine ceilings arch over characters whose body movements complement the distorted dementia of Slavo-gothicism.
We watch figures trying to burrow into themselves; one man shrivels into his collar like a turtle withdrawing into his shell; another recoils into hidden space like an armadillo or porcupine. It’s a veiled world teeming with vampiric forces vying for power but scurrying into darkness like mice or roaches at first sign of light. Just about every component of the film is an exaggerated symbol or twisted metaphor of souls tormented by power as cure and/or poison.
IVAN THE TERRIBLE suggests at the illusory way of power through the motif of the garb. Ivan looks magnificent in his royal outfit but the sheer ostentation also betrays insecurity and vulnerability. It’s as if he must own and control the symbols of legitimacy to just barely hold onto power in a world of so much treachery and betrayal. (Stalin understood that, without the Cult of Personality that made him an object of worship to countless comrades, he could be outmaneuvered and purged, as he and his henchmen had done to many revolutionaries who had no protective shield of symbolism. In the end, most in the inner-circle of power feared conspiring against Stalin because it’s much more difficult to destroy a god than a man. Thus, the Cult of Personality that made Stalin so powerful was really the product of his extreme insecurity.) And yet, over-dressed in magnificence, Ivan or Ivan’s trappings of power become an all-too-visible target for his resentful and envious enemies who want the 'blings' for themselves. The motif of the garb also illustrates the fluidity of power, the difficulty with which it is won and the ease with which it can be lost. For example, Kazhaki ambassadors come dressed in fabulous silk garb only to be denuded and strung up to dry. In the final scene of IVAN THE TERRIBLE PART 2, Ivan's henchmen don priestly robes while an idiot pretender-to-the-throne is goaded into wearing Ivan’s cloak.
Ivan is a shadowy figure, indeed more like a shadow of a shadow, both in the personal and historical sense. He contends with forces all around him to impose his proto-national vision in an unruly and sprawling world where downfall & disgrace are never more than few steps away from power & glory. He has to maintain his balance amidst ceaseless tremors emanating from both within and without. He cannot just settle down to being a good leader. The bulk of his energies must be committed to the bare-bone-struggle of just keeping the power. Internal intrigues, tensions by region & class, and external threats abound everywhere. The imperial nature of nascent Russia is both its strength and weakness. It is vast and domineering but also under constant threat from competing powers. It is always on war-footing whether it wants to be or not. If Russia is not pressing against others, others are pressing against Russia, eager to carve off its territories and enslave its peoples. Against such seemingly insurmountable odds, the only way to keep the power is to appear and act godlike. The concept of Divine Right of King is insufficient as practice in Ivan's universe. The ruler himself must appear divine, a god-emperor among men. Thus, at times, Ivan the Terrible is more like a Pharaoh or a Mongol Khan than a European king. He isn’t merely blessed by but has the aura of divinity. He must struggle to live and rule as long as possible because Russia cannot survive without a ruler without the will of a god.
Like the mystique of the late lord of KAGEMUSHA, Ivan’s power is a complicated interplay of myths and symbols that amplify yet also threaten to annul one another. Shadows can loom large, making the smallest object seem most ominous. But all said and done, a shadow without substance loses its mystique in the blink of an eye, as with the shadow in THE THIRD MAN that turns to be of a balloon-peddler. In KAGEMUSHA, the Takeda clan maintains its aura of invincibility through a complicated shadow play that fools rival clans into believing that the great lord full of wisdom and experience is still alive.
KAGEMUSHA - The double(thief) stumbles upon the dead lord whose persona is kept alive by the clan.
The deceptively ominous shadow in THE THIRD MAN
Ivan is too larger-than-life to entertain close friendships yet also all-too-human to play god at all times. He is a great flame that can engulf millions of lives but also a flicker that longs for quietude and intimacy. A great fire has the danger of burning out, and a candlelight can easily be snuffed out. Whether burning brightly or softly, Ivan cannot escape from the logic of power. He and the land are one, as is the case with King Arthur in EXCALIBUR who, at one point, says: "I was not born to live a man's life, but to be the stuff of future memory."
Shadows serve as a striking metaphor for power because the size of a shadow has less to do with the actual size of an object than in its relation to the light source. Then and now, so much of politics is a game of shadows, making small things loom large, making big things seem small. In nature, some animals puff themselves up to look bigger than they actually are. In the US, the shadow-play of the media have convinced so many Americans that homos constitute 25% of the population when they are only 2.5%, if that. The significance of whiteness, so crucial to the creation and development of America, has been diminished by the Jewish favoritism of themselves, blacks, homos, anti-white-male feminists, and ‘immigrants’ who are said to be ‘more American than Americans’.
Of course, cinema too developed essentially as a shadow play. The silver screen is really a shadow-projection of images on strips of celluloid. For so many people, cinema defined hyper-reality in terms of Narratives, Heroes and Villains, Truth and Falsehood. In movies, small figures can loom deceptively large and dwarf larger characters, and few directors exploited this dynamics as well as Eisenstein, especially in IVAN THE TERRIBLE, a work that conveys the illusory versus the actual terms of power. A man without substance cannot gain power by illusions alone, and yet, even the man of substance cannot maintain power without control of illusions. (One might argue George W. Bush and Obama became the ‘most powerful man in the world’ via manipulations of illusions, but they were never anything more than puppets in a shadow-play controlled by Jews and the Deep State.) After all, what were the histories of civilizations but tales of mortals playing gods, never a stable condition — just go ask Hussein and Gaddafi — but a necessary one to pull peoples and territories together into a unity of shared identity and purpose. The final image of part one of IVAN THE TERRIBLE almost literally turns the eponymous ruler into a silhouette over his dominion. Russia is stamped with his will and personality.
Ivan’s sharp-tipped goatee symbolizes power but also fragility. It is knife and feather. At times, his head tilts back, gazing upwards as if summoning consent from the gods. Yet, it also suggests resignation, an image of crucified Christ beseeching His Father, ‘Why?’ Why was Ivan chosen to carry the cross for his people, an unworthy rabble given to dissension and corruption?
It also illuminates an aspect of Ivan's life since his tormented childhood, emotionally torn and twisted by warped allegiances to ostensible allies who could be mortal enemies. It's as if Ivan was born feet first followed by painful hours before the head, traumatized and deformed, finally emerged as an act of dark miracle. Indeed, IVAN THE TERRIBLE is about the birthing(and rebirthing) pains of political consciousness, how a boy grows into a man who becomes a czar who must rule as a god. It is significant that Ivan's mother was murdered by intrigue when he was a child, scarring Ivan for life as a bitter soul longing to regain lost security(like Charles Foster Kane for ‘Rosebud’ that reminds him of mother and home), later made worse the death of his wife. It is as if Ivan is searching for that one person -- companion, friend, or confidante -- who could fill the void left by the death of his mother. It is this sentimentality that explains Ivan's initial trustfulness of those who feign loyalty and devotion.
Then, there's the motif of chess, a game where the various pieces are assigned different degrees of power. As in chess, politics is a game with players in positions of varying levels of advantage. But in the end, it all comes down to how the game is played. A powerful piece played stupidly can lose to a weaker piece played brilliantly. Latent advantage isn’t enough. A queen in chess is latently more powerful than bishop, knight, or rook but can actively lose to one or all of them acting in concert if ‘she’ is played rashly. Also, one can hold a powerful position without having agency or autonomy. Most Western leaders hold powerful positions but lack the agency of someone like Viktor Orban of Hungary who is under tremendous pressure from sorcerer Soros and his chess-piece minion-leaders. Their 'power' is decided by EOJ(the Empire of Judea) that moves them across the global chessboard.
Jews understand the game all too well. Many high positions are still filled by gentiles in the US and EU, but they are like chess pieces with latent power only. They are activated into play only when Jews decide to ‘move’ them as Judea has hegemony over Western elites who’ve been bought, blackmailed, or squeezed at every turn.
Likewise, Ivan understands that it’s not enough to be Czar. Latently, it is the strongest position to have, but its ultimate power depends on how it is played in a never-ending game of intrigues, conspiracies, and challenges. It’s like a hare is latently faster than a tortoise, but a lazy hare that rests on its laurel will lose to an active tortoise that remains in the race. One thing Russians fail to understand is that Jews are obsessive players in the game of power, and they play only to win. This is why Russians must never lower their guard or hope for some kind of compromise with Jews. Jews want it all and only on their terms. As the creators of the God who insisted He is the only God and all other gods are false, Jews are hyper-egomaniacs who believe their ethno-ego or ‘ethnogo’ is the only one that matters. All other ‘ethnogos’ must submit to the obsessive prophetic insistence of Jews. Such is the natural personality of Jews, and this is why Russians find themselves flabbergasted time and time again. Russians are like a bear that, once satiated with enough, is content to just take it easy and get along. In contrast, Jews have the ‘radical will’ that persistently and incessantly gnaws into other realms to take over. Not for nothing have Jews been so often compared with rodents and weasels. So, just when Russians thought they might have a nice Winter Olympics in 2014, the Jewish globalist media waged full propaganda war. And vicious Jews in the US State Department pulled off a coup in Ukraine. And just when the war is winding down in Syria, nasty Zionists in Israel and the US keep provoking and instigating new problems to prolong the war as long as possible. This is why Stalin didn’t trust Jews. He was adept at outmaneuvering them because he came from a part of the world famous for its thieves, crooks, and bandits. Anyway, when dealing with Jews, one must never fall back on one’s latent advantage. One must always remain in Active Play mode. It’s like Vito Corleone is the most powerful mafia boss in NY, but Sollozzo and the Tataglias make a move against him because they believe he’s grown soft and mellow. One thing Michael understands is one must keep playing the game that never has an end. When Tom Hagen suggests in THE GODFATHER PART 2 that it’s no longer worth going after Hyman Roth, Michael disagrees and decides to play the game to the very end. Roth must die. In CARLITO’S WAY, Carlito spares Benny Blanco who never stopped playing the game. It turns out to be a fatal error. When you’re in the game, you must never drop your guard or go easy on your opponent. It’s like a boxer must keep fighting for the duration for the bout. Even a champion who drops his guard and falls back on his latent advantage as top dog can be knocked out by the opponent who is still intensely in the game. Just ask Mike Tyson who overestimated himself and underestimated Buster Douglas. The most important lesson about Jews is they will never stop playing the game of power until they have everything. And even when they have everything, as they do in the US, they still carry on in smite-the-enemy mode, which is why Jews still growl and gnash their teeth in their rabid and virulent War on Whites. It is in their nature to want to become the god-race over us all.
Perhaps the most iconic moment in IVAN THE TERRIBLE is at the end of Part One where Ivan assents to Muscovites' demand that he resume the imperial role of Russian Atlas. A deep focus shot has the closeup of Ivan's profile fill one-half of the screen while a column of men and women trailing into the distance fills the other half. Ivan appears at once godly and enslaved to history. But then, Atlas was both god and slave. He possessed immense power but had to carry the burden of the world on his shoulders at all times. In the final scene, we can’t help but sense Ivan's ambiguous relation to his people, i.e. he is way above them, perched on high like an eagle(or vulture), yet intimately bound to their destiny that will also decide his.
Sergei Eisenstein immediately entered the cinematic lexicon and pantheon through his experimentation with dialectical montage, a fast-cutting and juxtaposing of loaded images for the achievement of thematic synthesis. IVAN THE TERRIBLE didn’t dispense with montage, but Eisenstein managed to create something more remarkable(surely influenced by gothic expressionism of German cinema and perhaps even Citizen Kane, and, in turn, probably having a key influence on Stone's political shadow-play NIXON). Instead of head-to-head clash of ideologically charged tropes in films like BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN and OCTOBER, the result in IVAN THE TERRIBLE is more oblique, elliptical, and elusive. It’s a world where so many forces prefer to hide and conspire in the shadows than settle accounts in a head-to-head clash and collision. The earlier films are closer in spirit to Flash Gordon, the brash hero who relishes open and honest combat. The mood of IVAN THE TERRIBLE’s is that of ‘orientalist’ Ming the Merciless or Darth Vader. It is about the hidden depths of power both in its political and psychological dimensions, and as such, it probably had an influence on Orson Welles’ OTHELLO.
Eisenstein created the impression of montage in IVAN THE TERRIBLE through means other than editing. For example, consider the CALIGARI-like angularity and jagged visual stratagems. The perspective of the camera is often at odds with(or in sharp contrast to) the poses or the gazes of lurking characters who creep in and out of frames like stalking predators or fearful prey. There is a sense of disjointedness, a world fractured and fragmented in body & soul, in need of an inspired savior who can fit together the pieces of the puzzle. In IVAN THE TERRIBLE, Eisenstein created the montage-effect not so much across frames but within the frame. Instead of the a-b-c & a-c-b connect-the-dots methodology of his earlier films(palpable with tension from the restless dynamic shuffling of images) that made him world-famous, the visual complexity of IVAN THE TERRIBLE achieves something like ideological cubism, what with so many obtuse contradictory tropes molded into a single image in which organic(and orgasmic) synthesis is denied. Unlike the early revolutionary movies where power transformed from tyranny into potency, the libido of history, IVAN THE TERRIBLE’s conception of power is haunted and venereal. It’s more like a game of poker than soccer or hockey. Power is so tainted and corrupting that it’s naive to hope for liberation from history. Rather, history will always be a sewer filled with pestilence and filth. Therefore, it takes a special kind of man to plunge into the dark depths — the ‘swamp’ as Donald Trump might call it — and soil his own body to fix things for the higher good. As in the Jesus myth, the central question is, "Can a man keep clean his soul even as he pollutes his body in the struggle against filth?" Jesus embraced the wretched of body but His soul remained pure. In politics, those who enter the game invariably become just as corrupt and dirty like everyone else(though there are exceptions like Ron Paul). But is it possible to come in contact with all the filth but still maintain one’s core integrity and honor? IVAN THE TERRIBLE presents a noble soul who contracts the leprosy and syphilis of power out of love for justice & the well-being of his subjects and ultimately manages to rise above the diseases that afflict him out of sheer will and the grace of history. Ivan is both sickly Amfortas who clings to the hope of salvation and Parsifal who goes on the quest for the Grail.
In part, IVAN THE TERRIBLE is a showcase of classic Russian chauvinism. It presents Russia as the repository of the vital qualities of man, both the primal/natural and noble/spiritual. In Part One, we see Russians as daring defenders of civilization against the barbaric Muslim-Asiatic Tartars. In Part Two, Ivan rallies his manly forces against the preciously effete Polish aristocrats in their cookie cutter palaces. Russians are shown as robust and virile in contrast to the decadent and preening Central Europeans.
Ivan himself embodies this Russian duality as a leader channeling both the boorish but forthright passion of the mob and the refined but devious treachery of the elites. It's a portrait of a man torn between royal refinement and rough reality summoning an awesome will to bridge the two realms. He desires respect and acceptance from the upper-crust, the better kind of people, but they remain disloyal & resentful, seeking Ivan’s destruction with virulence on par with the Rabbis who wanted Jesus punished and killed. (Likewise, no matter how much Putin or Trump tries to compromise and come to terms with ‘Western’ globalist elites and the Deep State controlled by Jews, he will never be accepted as a member because what he represents is anathema to the agenda of globalism.) The more Ivan comes to reflect on power, he decides upon the creation of a private army of loyal followers, but they are uncouth and vulgar, much like the samurai who serve the fallen Hidetora to their tragic end in Kurosawa's RAN. But in the end, they are the only people Ivan can trust. He is alone with the ‘people’. He once reached out for affection and respect among the elites, but his wife died and the aristocratic boyars merely played him for a fool.
The color dance sequence is Part Two is dazzling and vibrant but also sticks out like a sore thumb, not least because of the inferior color technology then in the Soviet Union. Yet, the scene serves as a deceptive counterpoint to all the dramatic buildup. Up til that moment, tensions had continued to mount, intrigues piling atop one another, treachery creeping through every crevice. The explosion of music and color as respite from the accumulating suspense despite the, as yet, lack of dramatic resolution creates a strangely surreal atmosphere where things aren't what they seem. If the dance had followed the resolution, it would have been celebratory, like the peasants singing and banging drums at the end of SEVEN SAMURAI. But as a pretense of carefree revelry when everyone knows intrigue and counter-intrigues are afoot, the dance number is actually a bait-and-switch than show-and-tell. The combination of merry laughter and mocking irony makes it all the more perverse, like the sing-and-rape scene in Stanley Kubrick’s A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and the Inquisition number in Mel Brooks’ THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART I.
The musical sequence also serves a similar function as the incoherent rush of images catalyzing right after Liv Ullmann steps on broken glass in PERSONA(Ingmar Bergman) or the opening dance number in MULHOLLAND DR(David Lynch). It's the false muse between light and darkness, between sense and nonsense. It's as if tensions have reached such a boiling point that some steam has to be let out of the pressure cooker lest it explode.
But inevitably, what then follows is the grim re-emergence of the plot leading to assassination and resolution. The stark contrast between the ruckus of the dance number and the nervous quietude of the assassination scene(back in b/w) makes for a jarring effect, surely intentionally anticlimactic. Likewise in THE GODFATHER, the killing of the heads of the five families seems even more profanely awesome because of its juxtaposition with the baptism of Connie’s baby.
The dance sequence also declares Ivan's final break with his former self that aspired to be someone he wasn't allowed to be. Like Guido at the end of Fellini's 8½, Ivan accepts his condition — endless intrigues, wars, and betrayals — as the circus of power, the way of doing business. He stops worrying and learns to love the power. He has given up hankering for respectability. He has accepted the dark side of power like a vampire has accepted the life of the dark.
The gargoyle-like acting styles in IVAN THE TERRIBLE range from hyperbolic to arch and stilted. Dramatically it grows wearying in moments because of the never-ending parade of iconographic poses and exaggerated gestures, at times almost inching into vaudeville territory, especially as lambasted by Sergei Prokofiev's memorable but circus-like score that seems at once to extol and mock the themes and characters.
Yan Shen: Although the incident was undoubtedly a source of amusement to many, to me the surreal confrontation highlighted not only just how deeply rotten modern day American culture had become, but also the clear extent to which East Asian and non-East Asian cultural values had diverged in the 21st century.
Values or strategies? People can have same values or ideology and still have different strategies and habits. So, that incident in the library doesn't necessarily mean East Asians have different values from what prevails in the West. It could be that they just have different outlooks, styles, and attitudes. Consider German Socialists and 'Russian' Socialists. Stalin once remarked that German Socialists tended to be punctual and disciplined. If you take an Italian communist and a German communist, they may have the same ideology and same 'values', but they will have different approaches and manners. The Italian communist is more likely to be like the guy in SWEPT AWAY.
So, there's no guarantee that difference in cultural norms means ideological divergence. If anything, even though East Asians are less likely to act wild and crazy(due to cultural and genetic factors), they are more likely to become PC and globalist. As diligent students, they will soak up all the PC taught in schools. Is it any wonder that so many Asian academics, journalists, and bureaucrats are pushing Maximum PC? Maybe that Pan guy in California is not the type to scream in a library, but he's for total censorship in the name of PC.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/04/04/california-democrat-dr-richard-pan-proposes-fake-news-bill-shut-internet-free-speech-censorship/
So, it's very possible that the Asian guy who asked for quietude in the library will become another Pan. After all, if he's studying so hard, what kind of materials is he reading? Unless it's math, hard science, or technology, he's likely to get a lot of PC. Also, much of indoctrination happens outside schools in music, movies, TV, and state-sponsored propaganda like celebration of Homomania. A lot of it happens subliminally by icon-izing certain images and symbols.
Yan Shen: A recent article by Wesley Yang derided the fact that in contemporary American society “therapeutic concepts of harm have metastasized to encompass what we all once understood to be the unavoidable vicissitudes of daily life.” His discussion focused on the increasing sensitivity of millennials, in particular highlighting the fault line separating minorities from whites. In my opinion, equating the problem with the political left misses the heart of the matter entirely. Left-wing political correctness is merely a symptom of the more insidious underlying disease, which as Amy Chua alluded to in her now infamous essay Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior, is the American obsession with self-esteem.
Both Yang and Yan are missing the point. These easily triggered 'snowflakes' were made that way by the System. Therefore, we have to focus on the Power at the center. It is essentially Jewish. Most people, even elite academics, have NO ideas or agency of their own. They are dogs, sheep, and sycophants.
The fault line that matters is between Jews and white gentiles. Now, most white gentiles don't feel this way, but Jews do feel this way. Prior to the rise of Alt Right and related movements, I almost never came across hostile views among white gentiles against Jews. Being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel was as American as Apple Pie. Things may be changing with (1) Alt Right and related folks waking up to JQ and (2) white leftists supporting BDS against what is increasingly seen as 'far-right' Israel that is cozy with the GOP.
At any rate, if white gentiles mostly want to welcome Jews as whites who happen to be Jewish, Jews have hostile feelings toward whites. In the past, this was more understandable because of naked discrimination, periodic pogroms, and the Shoah. People may feel fear and hostility when faced with oppression or obsessed with survival. But that was then, this is now. Today, Jews are addicted to supremacist power, and they fear whites not because whites are hostile or 'antisemitic' but because whites might wake up to how Jews have gone into supremacist mode and are pulling all sorts of dirty tricks in Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. If whites were to withdraw support, Jewish supremacism cannot maintain itself. Indeed, what if whites wake up to how US foreign policy has been usurped by Jews to serve Jewish globalist hegemony. Because whites are still the majority, they are the group that Jews fear most. Not because whites are anti-Jewish but COULD become anti-Jewish.
Jews may be less fearful IF they'd risen in power gradually through a process of being morally vetted. Suppose Jews rose high not only through meritocracy but under moral scrutiny. Suppose the worst kind of Jews had been called out and removed by this process. But because of the Jew Taboo(centered on Shoah and other themes), it became impossible to be critical of any kind of Jewish behavior. So, not only smart decent Jews made it to the top but also nasty vicious lowlife Jews. After all, smarts alone don't mean a person has character. Surely, Bernie Madoff is much smarter than the average Joe, but his MQ or Moral Quotient is close to zero. And yet, he was allowed to rub shoulders with men of power and privilege. Even though it was obvious he was doing bad stuff, he was left alone and even protected... as long as he functioned as a cash cow for Jewish groups.
Now, it wouldn't have been so bad if GOOD Jews called out on BAD Jews, but even the better ones went with tribalism over other considerations. Thus, Jewish Power rose rapidly but without being vetted and filtered of really bad shi*. And this is across so many fields. Just how did that compulsive liar Sabrina Rubin Erderly get a gig at a major publication? She'd been caught lying in college journalism. But the red carpet was rolled out for her, and she wrote a big big lie for ROLLING STONE mag, and then the rest of the media(mostly owned by Jews) decided to push the nasty anti-white message. If not for the internet, maybe the whole fraud would have been covered up or sent down a memory hole.
Now, PC has spread far and wide. There is much anti-white vitriol among non-whites and even among 'goody-good' whites. But WHO were really behind this? Jews. And why? Because Jews want to paralyze whites with collective 'guilt'. Non-whites and goody-good-whites(the self-righteous supremacists and vanity-virtue sniffers) may sincerely believe in PC, but they didn't come up with it. It was injected into them by academia and media that are funded and controlled largely by globalists. And even the character of Leftism has changed over the years in accordance to "Is it good for the Jews?" Notice that class issues are mostly gone from what goes by the label of 'leftism' today. Notice that for much of Obama yrs, homo and even tranny issues took front seat and pushed blacks to the back.
As such, the term 'leftism' has no meaning. If something becomes pretty much the opposite of its original meaning, is it still that thing? If Christianity ends up worshiping Satan but still calls itself 'Christianity', is it still Christianity? Today's 'leftism' is LINO or Leftism-In-Name-Only. It is just a mental-putty molded in any way by the Glob Powers That Be.
Anyway, the main reason for anti-white animus of PC is not about historical justice or whatever. It's about Jewish supremacist need to tame and harness white power into a war horse that can be ridden by the Power of Zion. Just think. If white power is so evil, why are Jewish globalists so insistent on using the US military for attacking nations like Syria? Despite 'inclusion' of homos and diversity cult, the US military is still about white generals ordering lots of right-wing white guys with guns. When the US military attacks other nations, it often translates into White Guys with Guns and Bombs killing bushels of Non-Whites. Like in the movie BLACK HAWK DAWN, almost a remake of ZULU, what with heroic white guys fighting like Starship Troopers against hordes of jivers and mofos. Recently, the US military has been causing all sorts of havoc in the Middle East populated with People of Rag. But, do you hear about how 'racist' and 'white supremacist' this is? Imagine all those white guys with big guns blowing up cities inhabited by non-whites. Apparently, Arab Lives Don't Matter... unless there is a likely false flag report about how Assad is killing babies with a blend of Clorox and Aunt Jemima yellow cake powder. And notice that NO ONE in the US prog community is calling for anti-war marches against the never-ending US aggression in Middle East and North Africa.
The fact is most 'minorities' have no inherent animus against whites. Now, blacks may be the exception for both inferiorist and superiorist reasons. Blacks do have a bitter history of having lived under whites who said stuff like, "Hey ni**er, go pick me some cotton and fetch me some water." This made blacks feel inferior. But black animus is also a superiorist contempt for 'white boy'. Blacks be thinking, "We whup your ass, we shout louder than you, we hump your women, and you be a bunch of fa**oty ass cucks."
But most other non-whites have no reason to hate whites. Now, Mexicans have had this resentment thing because 'gringos' achieved so much more. You can see the difference between the Anglo and the Mexican in THE WILD BUNCH. Pike Bishop is always planning ahead and trying to figure things out. Mexicans just like to laugh, eat, and party if they got the power. Or, if oppressed, they just hunker down and eat tortillas and show no agency. Even the Mexican bandido is a more childish character, like in TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE or THEY CALL ME TRINITY. Because Mexicans don't have leadership qualities, they like to work for 'gringo' or Americano. Look at Guillermo the sidekick at Jimmy Kimmel Show. We are told that the US used to be a bad evil society in the past because of its racial stereotypes, but Guillermo is the biggest Mexican stereotype of the silly, squat, childlike, and docile dufusez.
Anyway, if whites were solidly in charge, Mexicans might feel resentment but no real animus against gringo. Mexicans look up to power, the big hombre. If Mexicans feel more anti-white hatred today, it's because they feel contempt for weakness. Even as Mexicans resented the Grande Gringo in the past, they also respected him. But now, Mexicans see the Blanco Cuckez and feel nothing but contempt. Also, as they lack intellectual or ideological agency, Mexicans will swallow any crap taught to them by schools. And what do schools teach? A trickle-down version of anti-white vitriol cooked up by Jews.
As for Asian immigrants, I don't think there was much anti-white hatred in the past. As with Mexicans, there was surely some resentment and feelings of inferiority. At one time, Big China lost wars to tiny UK. And US clobbered Japan real bad. Still, Asians came to the US because they respected what the Great White Man made. They weren't coming to play Indians or emulate blacks in Detroit(at least not the parents). But as Asians tend to be docile, teacher-pets, and drones, they mostly went along with whatever was taught them. US media and academia weren't so anti-white in the past. And Asian-Americans who grew up back then didn't turn out to be rabid PC tards.
But many of today's Asian students are rabid dogs of PC. They may not burn down cities or disrupt libraries... though if a bunch of blacks or 'radicals' make a scene, you will always find some yellow dogs following and shouting along because that's what dogs do.
But again, who made the media and academia so anti-white? Jews. And what is the main reason for Jewish anti-white vitriol? Jewish moral outrage at the historical crimes of whites? Really? If this is so and if Jews really believe whites must atone for their 'sins', why do Jews insist on whites support Wars for Israel in which whites end up killing bushels of non-whites? And why do Jews insist that white Americans support White European Jews in Israel who oppress brown Palestinians?
Also, if Jews are soooooo outraged by past crimes, why are they easy on Latin-American whites whose 'crimes' were much bigger than that of Yanquis? It's estimated that Spanish and Portuguese arrival in the New World spread diseases that killed 50 million out of 55 million natives. Also, there was much 'rape' of native women. Also, Latin American whites brought over many more black slaves. Brazil alone brought 10x the number of slaves that US brought. And it was Anglo-pressure that finally ended the Brazilian slave trade. And Mexico has long been a civilization where whites lorded over natives. The Mexican Civil War was more than twice as long as the American Civil War and over a million people died. But even after the reforms, Mexico has been a white-ruled society. But how do Jews regard white Hispanics? As 'people of color'. Why is this? Because Jews need them as allies against white Americans.
So,the real motivating factor of Jewish cult of 'justice' is not righting wrongs but securing Jewish supremacist power. Jews know that their supremacist power in the US(thereby the world) depends on whites serving Jews. Whites will serve Jews instead of themselves ONLY IF they remained stigmatized and paralyzed by guilt. Therefore, whites have been led to believe that any sign of White Identity or Interest is 'white supremacist'. In order for whites to be redeemed, they must serve OTHER peoples. And of course, whites end up serving Jews the most since it's most lucrative to do so. After all, redemptive whites who serve Jews will get lots of goodies like Joe Biden, Billy Boy Clinton, John McCain the Cuckaine, Marco Rubio the rubber-boy, and etc. After all, what do whites get atoning for their sins by serving Navajo Indians or fat Hawaiian natives who spend all day munching on Doritos and watching TV?
As for Amy Chua, her book is not about Chinese moms being superior. It's about the lesson that there is no single foolproof method in parenting. Her method worked with one girl, didn't work with the other. Also, upon visiting China, she remarked that Chinese students there lack something American students have and vice versa. At any rate, the Chinese system is hardly better. It's all about robotic mania for tests and good schools. Does anyone in Asia study to learn and to think? No, they only see education as ticket to career and status.
Now, this is also true in the West, but it seems more obsessive in the East. Also, because the main emphasis is on admission, students take it easy once they made it into an elite institution that is treated more like a club(or so it's been said of Tokyo University). It's no wonder that Asian universities get no respect. In Asia, the thing is to get INTO a good school than do real work in one. Bad attitude. Also, this status-elitism is destroying Asia with high suicide rates. Because status matters so much, those who don't make it would rather kill themselves than work at 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning' jobs. As university attendance has become near-universal in some Asian nations, the overall effect has been to instill almost everyone with hipster-Confucian snobbery that they are too good to do any 'lowly' labor.
Or they'd rather move to the West and abandon their race/culture. Asian status-obsession is value-free. So, if a Chinese parents are ideologically conservative but their kid goes to a good school, has a fancy job, and becomes ideologically liberal, the parents will be happy because their kid made it to higher status... even though his ideology is opposite of theirs. So, in Asia, status is the main ideology. This is not a healthy society. It's all about status, approval, and snobbery. And because snobbery has been universalized in places like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, they are now dying nations. People will not get married or have kids unless they can be assured of social rank and raising kids who will do well in school and gain status. (In a way, Mexican-Americans have a healthier attitude to life. Less snobby.) With the entering of women into careers, this means even less jobs for men, and that means more difficulty gaining status. No wonder suicide rates are so high in East Asia. It's a sick society.
This 'tiger mothering' is a misnomer. It should really be called 'dog-mothering' where both the parent and kid act like dogs. The dog-mother will do anything to train her kid to be good doggy who will win prizes at the dog show. And the dog-student's main obsession is to gain status either by making lots of money or winning approval from PC powers-that-be. It's no wonder that the new crop of Asian journalists in the West are such servile dogs of PC, spouting the same crap as everyone else. Maybe Wesley Yang is a partial exception, but two chopsticks don't make a dinner.
What Asians need is Human-Mothering. American style of Altar-Parenting(offering one's kids on the altar of degenerate pop culture that is all about glory of crazy blacks, degenerate homos, and nasty Jews) is no good, but dog-mothering also sucks. Human-Mothering is best. Raise kids on Akira Kurosawa films, and the world would be a better place. It's like HIGH AND LOW. There is something higher than profits and status. There is a sense of humanity, and humanism is best served on the national level.
Heine said: “As Western society becomes more individualistic, a successful life has come to be equated with having high self-esteem,” Heine says. “Inflating one’s sense of self creates positive emotions and feelings of self-efficacy, but the downside is that people don’t really like self-enhancers very much.”
Heine got it all wrong. The problem is the West has gotten LESS individualistic. It's gotten more 'INFANTILISTIC'. True individualism is about having freedom and taking responsibility for it. It's like characters in THE BIG COUNTRY. Now, those guys are into individualism. And Gregory Peck's character is about discerning right and wrong based on individual conscience. Now, Pike Bishop in THE WILD BUNCH is a criminal, but he too is a rugged individualist. It's about how even thieves must live by honor. It's about being a tough hombre in a rough world. And that kind of attitude once defined American individualism. It was hard and rugged, like in SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Even James Dean's character in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE was messed up because his father was too weak. He wanted his father to be like John Wayne and beat his spoiled namby-pamby butt.
People conflate idiotic obsession with pop culture(the stupid kind) with 'individualism' but it's really about boys and girls wanting to remain kids forever. So, we now have grownups whose main experience of culture is discussing comic book movies. We have women who turned muffs into muppet-shows in their 'resistance' to Trump. Children are not individualistic because they don't have the means to think for themselves. Even their brattiness is manipulated by adults. So, kids will watch a TV commercial and say, "Mommy, buy me, this, Mommy buy me that." They are dupes of advertisers. So, when adults don't grow out of childish mentalities, they fail to develop into true individuals. True individualism is about self-control and having agency and power over one's own soul, body, and thoughts.
But look at the rise of gambling that addicts adults to dumb slot-machines. Look at the spread of drugs where people need a hit of this or hit of that all the time to feel alive. Look at the spread of videogames where full-grown men spend hours pushing buttons on joysticks to kill imaginary dragons. This isn't individualism but infantilism. A true individual is curious and hardy enough to listen to other views. But today's 'snowflakes' shriek in horror or act like Bam-Bam(of the Flinstones) if what they hear goes against the PC goo-goo talk they got from cradle. Given the prevalence of Altar-Parenting that offered so many kids to the 2PCs of Pop Culture and Political Correctness, many parents have no meaningful relation with their kids. Kids think, "my parents are uncool" and identify with pop idols cynically engineered by the dirty entertainment industry. Parents regard their kids as offerings to the gods of Trash Culture, and the kids feel that the main role of parents is to feed, clothe, and house them until they can finally lead lives in imitation of TV characters like in GIRLS or SEX AND THE CITY or some other trash.
Was it individualism that led to the rise of Homomania? Was it individualism that led to all this hysterical waxing about BLACK PANTHER and the Afrotopia of Wakanda? No, only an infantile society where kids were drugged with PC and Pop Culture from cradle could create such a clown world.
What we need is true individualism. It means kids growing into adults and being responsible for their freedoms. But look all around, and we get babytalk from blacks, feminists, homos, and even Asians. Notice how these people are afraid to think or speak as real individuals. They speak in chant-ese and slogan-ese. Their ideo-vocab repeats the same terms over and over: 'racism', 'homophobia', 'misogynist', 'intersectionality', 'black lives matter', and etc. It doesn't even occur to these morons that the main purveyor of violence against women are black rappers who have contracts with Jewish moguls of music industry. These are infantile idiots whose main fixation is with feeling goo-goo-ga-ga-good. They are like babies who can't change their own diapers about peeing and pooing and go waaaaaaaaah. PC and Pop Culture clowns are like babies. When confronted with something that triggers them, they mentally pee and poo themselves and call on mommy, daddy, teachey, and policey to remove and ban whatever is 'triggering' them, goo ga ga.
But then, who made the kids this way? Those who control Pop Culture and PC.
The problem really began with boomers, the first ones to grow up with TV. Many of them grew up feeling closer to TV characters than to their parents. And then, the TV-kids grew up and became parents and had TV in every room,and their kids became even more TV-ed. And then, there was Cable TV with more dumb channels. Thus, parenting became all about offering kids to the altar of degeneracy.
But is it all that different in Japan, China, and South Korea. When the kids are not studying, what is the main source of their culture? In Japan, it's anime and videogames. In South Korea, it's K-pop and videogames. In China, pop culture is pretty retarded too, hardly less than in US and EU. So, parents push their kids to study, and when the kids are not studying, their experience of culture is junk. This is so different from the past when there was no TV and when movies were made for adults. If you were a Japanese student who was taking time off from studies in the late 50s or early 60s, you might have seen a Kurosawa film at the local theater. Now, the kids are watching dumb cartoons and playing video games. It's soulless. Look at the kids in BEIJING BICYCLE. What an empty cultural life.
Altar-parenting is killing civilization. But so many adults were raised on junk culture and think it's some kind of RIGHT and RITE for their own kids to go through the same junk-phase.
The reason why Pop Cultural Junk is worse than ever is because it's been so intertwined with PC. Though the idea of using Pop Culture as platform for political ideas is nothing new, it has now reached into all forms of expression. When I was a child, I used to read Archie's comic books, and they were just goofy fun. Though all arts & culture have some political subtext, there used to be a time when Pop was Pop. Because Pop was just Pop, you didn't take it too seriously. It was something you outgrew. Also, serious people didn't go into pop culture to spread ideas. They became serious authors, scholars, or artists.
It's different today. Young ones grow up with Pop Culture that is packed with ideological stuff. So, Archie sacrificed his life to protect a fruity politician.
If in the past, Pop was something you were supposed to outgrow, today kids regard Pop Culture as sacred text for Moral Truths and Political Consciousness. So, Pop sticks to them like brain tattoos. Why abandon Pop and kiddie entertainment when 'higher' moral and political truths can be gleaned from them? The New STAR WARS is dumber than ever, but the cultural commentariat is treating it like canonical stuff for the ages. And when NYT runs op-eds about the profundity of Wakanda, we are living in some fantasy world. We are no longer reading but living in BRAVE NEW WORLD.
In the past, college was where you went to put away childish things and got some real knowledge about serious stuff. But youth culture dominates most colleges. The music culture of most young ones is infantile rap and other crap. Also, smartphones have fostered a culture of distractions. So, colleges now dumb people down, not just intellectually but culturally.
Feminism was always ridiculous, but there used to be real intellectuals in the movement. Now, it's just about some fat woman with green hair and steel through her nose yammering about intersectionality with Muslims while wearing a pussy costume. It's like Teletubbies or muppet show.
And then, the rise of 'gay' gender studies made it even worse. At least women are half the world. Homos are 2% and trannies are far less than 1%. But because gender studies showered so much attention on them, this was bound to have a Peter Pan effect because (1) homos are vain and prefer fantasy over reality, therefore their impact on ideology and pop culture was to make us favor frivolity over essentiality (2) trannies are like homos, only more so. Homo fantasy's influence on feminism was to make it even sillier. Feminists in the past were about being free of pop cultural influences that turned women into silly idols. It went too far, but given the sheer inanity of pop culture, it had a salutary effect. But then, homos gain greater cultural influence, and they just luuuuuuv fantasy and artificiality. They promote vanity, narcissism, and artificiality. And this impacted feminism, and women are acting like degenerate teenyboppers of Peter Pan. They've become immersed in the celebrity-centric stupidity of pop culture largely fashioned and propped by homos.
With Jewish media and academia having promoted and spread homomania all over, even straight people are raising their kids to be reverential to homos and trannies. This Peter-Pan-izes the kids because homo culture is essentially Michael-Jacksonish.
Moreover, our pop culture is totally confused. If homomania encourages boys to be effete cucky metro-sexual dorks, Rap music encourages them to be thugs and see women as 'bitchass hos'. Also, rap attitude is one of ignorance + arrogance. It's about hatred of curiosity, humility, discovery, and maturity. It tells 13 yr olds that they know everything if they holler rhymes where everything is a 'motherf***er' and if they threaten others with fists or guns. Rap sensibility stunts the soul at around the age of 13. If Rap music becomes one's main cultural mode, forget about emotional development or mental curiosity. Punk had a similar impact on British youths in the 1970s. Arrogance of ignorance.
Also, PC isn't really about self-esteem. It doesn't try to boost self-esteem but makes people feel angry and blame others for their lack of self-esteem. After all, if a black guy says he appreciates the US, doesn't feel oppressed, and is happy with his life, he is attacked of being an 'uncle tom' or some such. PC is a contest of how "My people have less self-esteem because of 'racist' or 'homophobic' or 'sexist' oppression." PC may claim to boost self-esteem, but Progs are hostile to those who say they do have self-esteem and don't need 'social justice' to lead meaningful lives. Thus, PC is like a trick where it promises you more self-esteem but condemns you when you say you got self-esteem and don't need PC to feel good about yourself. PC is like some Christian sects that claim to save your soul but dislike you if you say you can find God on your own and don't need their help. It has to be their way. Your salvation must be through them, but of course, their treatment never ends... just like psychiatry never ends. Just ask Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys who was kept sick in the name of curing him of his sickness.
Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits.
Asian self-criticism may be sincere in part. Asians may have more 'panda' genes of anxiety, doubt, and subservience. As they evolved as a race of rice farming serfs, their genes were selected for servility. It might be somewhat different among Mongols who evolved as bride-stealing yogurt-gulpers. Also, Confucian values stressed modesty. Furthermore, in a status-crazed society, one's worth is always measured in relation to others, and there are always others who are better than you.
But in another way, Asian humility may be a kind of showing off. If in Asian culture, self-effacement is seen as a virtue, then one's self-esteem rises in inverse proportion to one's denial of such. It's like those Hollywood movies about Chinese where some guy says, "Welcome to my worthless house. This is my worthless son. Please have our worthless food." On the surface, it appears as humility, but it's really humility-as-pride, or false humility. After all, a display of humility is seen as a sign of superior breeding and manners.
Also, if you expect the worst, it's not so bad if things don't go your way. So, in a sense, it's good emotional strategy to expect less than more. If you win, you are happy. If you don't win, you don't feel so bad since you told yourself not to expect to win.
This is why blacks get so miffed when they don't win. They be telling themselves they's done deserved it and shi*. It's like that black winter Olympian who didn't get to carry the flag and got all sourpuss. It be my bling. But then, blacks are this way due to genetics than PC. They evolved to compete with one another to kill the most number of baboons and show them off as their bling.
Are whites into self-esteem? It seems PC says there is nothing more evil than White Pride. PC is about invalidating the right of White Identity. This may explain why anti-white vitriol is often most extreme among whites themselves. The ONLY way whites can feel esteem is by being goody-good whites, and that means they must hate, hate, and hate white 'racists' and 'supremacists'. So, that's how self-esteem works among whites. They want it too, but because whites can't have it collectively, whites are eager to earn it by screaming about baddy-bad whites.
Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits... This resilience against negative environmental influences also probably explains why by and large the parasitic memes of left-wing post-modernist insanity which have seemingly hijacked the minds of numerous black, white, and Hispanic Americans alike are absent amongst people of East Asian descent.
It's servility, and it's a trait that can be found in native Mexicans as well. Many native Mexicans are like brown Asians with lower IQ. But emotionally, they are similar. With Asians, it may have developed into a certain neurosis because of the culture's stress on both humility-servility and elitist-meritocracy. On the one hand, East Asian societies were very repressive and people were expected to keep their heads low. If you didn't bow properly in Japan, a samurai could cut your head off. Chinese weren't as ruthless but also had rough justice for those who didn't bow their heads low. So, this aspect of East Asian evolution favored servility and humility.
But because China developed a meritocratic society based on exams, it spread the idea to folks that nothing is as glorious as having a son who passes imperial exams and works for the emperor. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to be humble slavish folks. But another side of Chineseness said every father should try to make his son study and pass exams and bring honor to the family by becoming an adviser to the Emperor himself. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to bow your head low as possible, while another side of Chineseness told the people that, through exams, they could rise very high. So, Asians developed a cultural trait of rising higher with heads bowed low.
In contrast, Mexican natives never developed a universal meritocratic system like the Chinese did. It's interesting that the Chinese exam system was both elevating and repressive. While all forms of education demands form and manners, Professor Kingsfield in THE PAPER CHASE pushes his students to rise higher in intellect and think on their own. Kingsfield is a son-of-a-bitch in pushing his students to think independently. He wants to raise their intellectual independence as high as possible. In contrast, Confucian education meant one's elevation depended on total conformity to established truths and forms. There was no leeway for individual thought. The range of subject was narrow, the style of the essay was set in stone, and the answers were preordained. In this way, Chinese developed their way of PC of Philosophical Correctness that rigidly froze Chinese culture and knowledge, preventing it from thinking outside the box. In a way, Current Chinese education is still a form of PC. After all, what would happen if a Chinese student wanted to freely express his views about Mao, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and etc? What if he were to write an essay denouncing the decision of Xi Xinping to prolong his rule?
Indeed, the fact that so many Chinese could be mobilized to carry out something like the Great Leap Forward and later the madness of the Cultural Revolution goes to show that the Asian mindset isn't immune from total lunacy. Asians took rather earnestly to communism-Stalinism and carried out crazy horrors in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia(though Cams are not East Asians to be sure).
I'm not sure blacks and browns are motivated by 'leftism'. After all, blacks love to see rich and powerful blacks with lots of bling. Same with browns. They are not opposed to inequality or riches per se. Blacks love millionaire black singers, athletes, TV personalities, and etc. If blacks are for black power, they are really black rightists. They just happen to be allied with white leftists. It's like Muslims in Europe ally with homos and liberals but they are NOT pro-homo or liberal. They are Muslim rightists who want to expand Muslim power. The only real leftists in the US are white progressives(who will work against white interest for 'higher good'), self-critical Jews like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, and some East Asians as teacher's pets of PC. All three groups are willing to sacrifice tribal interest for a 'universal' or abstract principle. So, white progressives will support Affirmative Action. So, self-critical Jews will condemn right-wing Israel. So, East Asian PC commissars will expend most of their energies in serving a non-tribal cause or interest.
When white progressives and blacks holler 'black lives matter' together, the former are being 'liberal' in opposing 'racist' white police whereas the latter are being 'rightist' in that they are blacks who care, first and foremost, about black lives. Notice blacks don't care about all the black violence against other races. So, to bunch all these peoples under one label misses the point.
Speaking of 'post-modern insanity', it may be missing in China that is ruled by nationalist regime, but it's spread like a cancer in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They have massive homo parades, their pop culture is peter-pan-ish and Michael-Jacksonize the young, and they imitate whatever trends that emerge from the Jewish-homo-controlled West. I read in some blog that Taiwan is on the verge of passing 'gay marriage'. It might be law there already. Now, as long as Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan don't have lots of diversity, they will be more stable than rapidly diversifying West. But with rapidly falling populations, corporate demand for cheap labor, desire to emigrate overseas and abandon their own nations, and PC promoting 'multi-culturalism', it's very possible that East Asian nations except China will turn into Sweden and UK of the East. If we go by most Chinese journalists in Canada and US, it's amazing how fast and total their conversion to PC has been.
Yan Shen: In part because of their own cultural resilience, East Asians are often marginalized in American society and rendered invisible.
That isn't the main reason. Suppose East Asians lacked such 'resilience' and 'stoic' diligence. Would they be the favored center of attention? How many Americans pay much attention to Puerto Ricans? Or to Guatemalans? Do Muslims get much respect? Who speaks up for the Palestinians? There is the budding BDS movement, but most Americans care little about Palestinians. It's not that East Asians are 'marginalized'. It's that they fail to come into cultural focus. One reason is they complain less. After all, people pay attention to complainers, not to those who remain silent. Even among whites, the conservative boomers were more silent while liberal boomers made more noise. Guess who got more attention and power? So, would Asians have gained more attention if they'd complained more? Not likely. For one thing, Asians look geeky and have weaker voices. So, when an Asian complains, it's like the scene with Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. When a Negro bellows to the whitey, white folks get scared like hearing god's thug angel telling them stuff. They pee their pants. But when someone like Mickey Rooney as Japanese shouts 'I protest', it doesn't inspire much emotions, good or bad, among whites. It's just amusing.
Also, Americans are very idolic and pay most attention to exciting stuff. Take Jackie Robinson. Why did he become such a legend? It was a combination of victim theme and victor theme so central to Christianity. As a black man, he stood for symbol of victim of 'white racism'. But as a man who succeeded in baseball, he came to be admired as a superior athlete who overcame imposed inferiority.
Now, East Asians may have achieved something similar. After all, there was the sad history of Chinese rail road workers. And we know about the Japanese in camps during WWII. But despite those odds and bad times, many Asians succeeded in professions and contributed to US society. Okay, but most professions are boring. They may be far more essential to society than hitting a ball, but Americans love exciting stuff. So, a Negro who hits home runs is more idol-worthy than an Asian who becomes a doctor or accountant or nerdy engineer. But then, it's the same in Asia. Bruce Lee didn't do anything but pretend to kick butts of all color on the movie screen. But he's better-known and more revered in Asia than real Asian folks who cure people, cook food, crunch numbers, build bridges, fix roads, and etc. The human mind is essentially idolic and iconologic. People seek heroes who offer thrills and chills.
Suppose East Asians dominated sports and pop music. They would not be 'marginalized'. After all, this 'marginalization' happens among Asians themselves. Take immigration. Why do Asians choose to leave their own ancestral nations forever and choose to settle in the West where they will be minorities of whites, blacks, & browns and live under the power of Jews and Homos? Why do Asian immigrants 'marginalize' their own nations into a distant memory and take on new identities in the West, often changing their name to something like 'Frank' or 'Francis'? Why do Asians reject their own nations, peoples, cultures, and lands to come to ANOTHER nation where their children are very likely to assimilate into non-Asian-ness? Also, judging by the number of Asian women who choose to have kids with non-Asian men, don't Asian women 'marginalize' Asian men? And why? Because Asian men have zero idolic value in America. Things might be different if Asians were good in sports or dominant in pop music, but not so. One may criticize American culture of being shallow and stupid for favoring trivial things over serious things, but isn't NBA huge in China? All those Asian boys worship black athletes. And according to an American Renaissance article, Chinese women throw themselves as white men in China.
So, if Asians reject Asian-ness as inferior, why should non-Asians give a crap about Asians? It seems the best plan for Asian survival is to end emigration and ban non-Asian immigration and deal with the world only in terms of sharing ideas and trading goods. But so many Asians have chosen to abandon their own people, lands, and cultures to come to the West. Once they've come to another nation, they must expect to be treated by the Norms of the New Nation. And in the US, the Norms are 'winner-takes-all' for the most idolic or iconic groups. And this is why only four groups matter: the Holy Three of Jews, blacks, and homos... and whites. Whites don't have 'victim' thing and are targeted by PC 24/7, but everyone still likes whiteness deep down inside. Look at all those Brazilians who want to have white babies. Look at Asian women who get plastic surgery and blonde hair to look white or marry white men to have white-looking babies. Look at black women who just gotta have their weaves. And look at Tiger Woods and black men who go for white women. And look at Jewish Portnoy Complex. So, everyone wants to feed off whites economically, politically, sexually, and etc. (Indeed, precisely because non-whites want to feed on the white whale, they paralyze it with 'white guilt' so that there won't be white resistance to this parasitism.) Whites are very iconic in this sense, but because they lack the 'victim' theme, they are not holy. To be holy, you need both victim theme and victor theme. Jews are the biggest winners in this because they got the victim theme of Shoah and victor theme of having succeeded so much in business, science, arts, and entertainment. Blacks got it because they got slavery-victim theme and victor theme as athletes and singers. With homos, it's largely manufactured, but still, homos claim victimhood because they were in the closet and claim victor-hood because so many homos saturate elite fields.
Now, East Asians may point to the opium trade, imperialism, building railroads, Philippines war, internment camps, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korean War, Vietnam War, Great Leap, and Cultural Revolution, etc. as examples of Asian victimhood. But opium war was with the Brits, not with Americans. And building railroads was tough, but it was not like the Chinese were brought by force like blacks. The internment camps were bad but not that bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very bad, but Japan attacked first and Japanese were doing worse in China. Korean War was bad, but Koreans act like grateful dogs of US, so not much happening there. Filipinos are likewise a silly people without historical gravitas. Vietnam War was bad too, but Vietnamese now LOVE Americans and want more business. Just when we thought Americans are amnesiac, I guess silly Viets are even more so. And Great Leap and Cultural Revolution, horrible as they were, were self-inflicted, so you can't blame white folks for that horror. So, even though there was lots of Asian suffering, the events don't really touch American nerves in a particularly tragic way.
Also, unless a people have idolic or iconic power, their past suffering just becomes the stuff of past history than living history. Because blacks are always visible as athletes, singers, and celebrities, white people are always prone to think, "Oh my god, blacks are so special, talented, and awesome, but we white folks whipped them and said, 'Hey ni**er, pick me some cotton'." Same with Jews. Because there has been so much Jewish talent in letters, arts, movies, music, comedy, and etc., people are always reminded of the specialness of Jews. Also, Jewish scientists changed the world. Asian ones are pretty good at grind-work, but Einstein was the prophet who figured out laws of the universe. And Oppenheimer built the mother of all bombs. That's some iconic shi*. Jewish genius got the spark whereas Chinese smarts only got the heat. So, the visibility of Jewish talent and genius makes people feel about Shoah especially. If Jews had exhibited no talent since the Shoah, I don't think people would much care about the tragedy. It is the the continuance of Jewish talent that reminds people of the evil of Shoah. It makes them feel, "The World committed a great wrong to a special people." But the supposed 500,000 Iraqi kids who died of sanctions? Who cares about low IQ cousin-humping Arabs? All those 'white trash' dying of opioids? Who cares about such low-IQ morons? Even Kevin Williamson who came from a 'white trash' community doesn't care. America's view of 'white trash' is they are only useful as consumers of opioids, cannon fodder for Wars for Israel, more meat for the porn industry, and the poster-child of 'racist white populism' that represents the mother of all evil.
Granted, Jews may lose out in the iconic game in the future. PC has undermined comedy, a field Jews have excelled in. In a PC world, guys like Mel Brooks, Rodney Dangerfield, Albert Brooks, and Don Rickles wouldn't have had a chance. Also, with pop music now being so totally rappy and hippy-hoppy and dumbed down, it's difficult for someone like Bob Dylan to emerge and make a difference. Also, if many talented Jews in the 60s were fueled by hunger and ambition, too many Jews born to privilege lack the fire and drive. And too many of them have mixed with bimbos who bring down Jewish IQ or with Asian women who bring down chutzpah quotient as Asians are servile than chutzpahistic.
Anyway, Chinese-Americans are no good in sports(relative to other races) and don't have the vocal power or movements to be rappers and such. So, whites are not reminded of Chinese tragedies because they don't notice Chinese talent in the 'cool' areas. But this is true of Mexicans and browns too. Sure, the progs pretend to care about the 'dreamers', but it's purely about political expediency. There is no interest in most Mexicans who are seen as Brown Asiatics with lower IQ.
Now, suppose Chinese were dominant in sports and entertainment in the US. Then, so much attention would be showered on Chinese winners, and there would be news stories about how such-and-such's grandfather was killed by evil Japanese or was discriminated by 'racist' America, or was once called a 'chink'. It's just how things work. Why do we know(and care) so much more about nations with famous national cinemas than ones without? Take France vs UK. Among cinephiles, France is a special place. UK is much less so. Why? Because French cinema really put French-everything on the map whereas UK cinema was far less renowned, usually seen as the lesser English-language cinema, a kind of poodle to Hollywood.
Yan Shen: For instance, it’s long been known that Asian Americans are discriminated against in the context of elite college admissions, bearing the brunt of the sacrifice required to create affirmative action spots for blacks and Hispanics in this country.
True, but even with such discriminatory policies, Asians are vastly OVER-represented in elite academia. But from a practical POV, wouldn't it be better for Asians if ALL were banned from elite colleges? After all, what happens when people, Asian or white or Muslim or Hindu, are admitted to elite colleges? Do they serve their own people? Well, Jews do. But who else? Whites who enter elite institutions become enemies of whites. Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and etc. never gave a shi* about white folks. They just joined the globalist club and raked it all in for themselves. Asians are no different. If you think Asians entering elite institutions means MORE Asian power, you're gravely mistaken. Paradoxically, it will mean less power for Asians. Why? Because Asians are status-obsessed rodentoids. Once they get in to an elite institution, the ONLY thing they care about is My Status, My Privilege, My Position. So, to secure their statuses, they will do ANYTHING to be be approved and accepted. Instead of gaining power to serve the Asian community or their ancestral nations --- like Jews serve Israel and fellow Jews around the world --- , Asian elites in the US will just be running dogs of the Empire. Unlike Jews who have the Covenant, Asians just have the Covetousness. So, if more Asians enter elite institutions, they will use their position to spread the agenda of the Empire to weaken Asia. I guarantee that all those Chinese who graduated from elite Canadian and American colleges are committed to spreading homomania, negromania, and diversity to Asia. And because Asians are such suckers for those with elite scholarly credentials, they will listen to the words of Asian Harvard and Yale graduates as if they're the words of gods. Asian elites will be just like white elites. When has Hillary Clinton the Yaley ever done anything for the white race or her own kind? Ted Cruz is supposed to be a conservative, but his main passion is Israel, Israel, Israel. Even half-white Obama turned traitor to blacks. He didn't do crap for the black folks. He mainly served Jews and homos, and now, he has a $60 million book deal. Look at all the white gentiles who write for NYT or WAPO. Do they ever care about white folks? No.
There was a time when white folks did enter Harvard and Yale and then did something for their own race. But Jews took over the elite institutions and rigged the curriculum to turn everyone into a shill for Zion, Afromania, and Homomania. If one serves Homomania, one is indirectly serving Jews because it's Jewish replacement for Christianity. If one serves Afromania, one is also indirectly serving Jewish power because Jews control the industries in which blacks are featured as athletes and singers. Jews have such power over blacks that they even grab black puds and asses with impunity, and the Negroes just have to take it.
Anyway, think of Harvard and etc as Janissary Schools for all groups except for Jews. Jews enter elite institutions to serve and push Jewish interests. Everyone else is turned into a Janissary of the GLOB. Whether it's a white gentile, Asian, mulatto, or Hindu, they turn into the kind of running dogs who bark for the bombing of Syria. If Asians want to make a difference, they should stay on the outside of elite institutions and form organizations to criticize The Power. Entering elite colleges is like entering the Roach Motel. Your soul checks in but it doesn't check out.
Yan Shen: Even when the correct reporting of the facts began to surface later on, we were still subjected to the typical blathering accusing the Trump administration of being disingenuous by feigning interest in the well-being of Asian Americans and proclaiming that Asians shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as tools by white conservatives in advancing their right-wing agenda. The fact that 64 different Asian American groups had filed a complaint against Harvard seemingly eluded everyone. One generally got the impression that Asian Americans were a group deprived of any real agency, instead being merely hapless pawns in the Game of Thrones pitting whites on the one hand against blacks and Hispanics on the other.
I don't think Trump should give a crap about Asians. 80% of them voted for Hillary, and that means most Asians are for the displacement and replacement of White Americans in the nation that they founded and built. With Asians supporting such a vile agenda, why should Trump or whites care about Asians?
Also, if Asians really have agency, why it did take Ron Unz's article to deal the first real blow to the 'myth of meritocracy'? As Unz pointed out, Asians in California have been ignoring black-on-Asian crime and problems associated with illegals and just dishing out the same old anti-white rhetoric that they absorbed from PC. So, the Asian-American narrative barks on command for its PC master. There is no agency there. Furthermore, Asian-American groups who complain about discrimination have said they support affirmative action for blacks and browns. Their plan is to sacrifice EVEN MORE WHITES to make room for more Asians. It's a dirty move.
Granted, NYT and progs are full of shi* as well. If they really care about proportional justice, why don't they point to Jewish over-representation in all elite fields? Hardly 'fair'.
Yan Shen: Another insidious example of the tendency to marginalize Asian Americans has been the rather curious phenomenon as of late of simply pretending that they aren’t even Asian at all. For instance, we constantly hear the mainstream media bemoaning the fact that Silicon Valley lacks diversity and is too white and male. Yet this conveniently ignores the fact that whites are actually underrepresented overall at many of the Bay Area’s most elite firms relative to their percentage amongst the general population.
LOL. It's also amusing because many of those 'whites' are also Jews, which means white gentile under-representation is the real problem. Anyway, since whites are the Villains according to PC, it won't do to say there are Too Many Asians. They have to be made 'white'. It's like the complaints about Stuyvesant school having 'too many whites' when it's majority Asian. 'Whites' is sometimes used as cover for Asian, just like 'teens' is often a cover for black thugs.
But two things. Aren't East Asians a bunch of white-wanna-be's? After all, why did they leave their own peoples and cultures to be with whites and to attend white-made institutions? Also, with all the race-mixing with whites, it seems East Asians want to have white-looking kids. And even a Chinese American woman, Andrea Cheng, is wondering about Asian women dyeing their hair blonde. Isn't it better for Asians to stay in Asia and defend and tend what they got instead of coming to the West and bitching about unfairness? I think if a people move to another land, they don't have the right to complain much. If whites moved to China, they better accept Chinese norms. Otherwise, they should leave. Same with Asians in the West. If they don't like it, they can just go back.
Yan Shen: The obsession with self-esteem and the fundamental lack of what might be described as a self-critical orientation is hardly the sole province of those on the left...
One of the more disappointing revelations in my opinion has been the extraordinary ambivalence of many right-wing whites towards clear anti-Asian discrimination in this country. On various alt-right blogs where themes such as race realism and affirmative action are often discussed, when it comes to the issue of Asian Americans and meritocracy, many right-wing whites seemingly abandon their principles whole. Thus, while these individuals formerly denounced discrimination against whites in favor of blacks and Hispanics, we all of a sudden hear that Asian American academic success is merely the result of cheating and gaming the system.
Again, much of what is called the 'left' is really the non-white right. Rightism puts one's own people and culture at the center. So, blacks and browns who want affirmative action are really black or brown rightists or 'nationalists' who are for "Is it good for my people?"
As for the Alt Right, of course it is opposed to 'principled meritocracy'. Alt Right is about blood and soil. It values Power over Principles. Now, if supposedly principled libertarians approved of AA against Asians, that would pose a problem of logic and consistency. But Alt Right isn't libertarian. It is first and foremost about racial solidarity, ethnic identity, and cultural heritage. Alt Right is for exclusive meritocracy or meritocracy within the white order for the good of whites. So, in an all-white society, Alt Right would be 100% for meritocracy. But in a diverse order where it's a case of competition among various groups, Alt Right has to be for white power first. It must be race-ist. Now, Alt Right might be for meritocracy for Asians IF Asians weren't anti-white. But Asians in the US are mostly running dogs of PC, and once they get their fancy degrees, work against the white race. The vast majority of Asians voted for Obama the homomaniacal monster and Hillary the race-traitor witch-monster-whore. Amy Chua, the Harvard grad and Yale professor, wrote a new book blasting Alt Right and Richard Spencer. This is the reality. So, hell with 'principles'. The fact is most Asians are status-obsessed running dogs. Since PC is the official religion of the US, most Asians who attend elite colleges will become agents of PC and will do everything to hurt 'whitey'. Now, if Vietnamese patriots wanted to kill US neo-imperialist soldiers, OK. That was their turf, and Americans were the occupiers. But since when do Asians get to come to the US and work against the very people whose ancestors built this country? That's a lowlife shi* move.
Also, the highest principle is not meritocracy but truth, honesty, and courage. After all, Billy Boy Clinton is a very bright guy who made it to Yale with real smarts. But his meritocracy with grades didn't translate into meritocracy of virtue or integrity. He's a slimeball through and through. Indeed, so many of these graduates of elite colleges are just the most craven, repellent, lowlife, scummy, and turdy critters I've ever seen. Just look at Obama, Ted Cruz, Hillary, Biden, Gore, Emanuel, Yoo, Comey, and the list goes on. I mean where did they find these people? What a waste of intelligence.
Being Asian, Yan Shen is fixated on degrees(like Negroes are fixated on blings and Mexicans on pinatas), but he should care less about meritocracy and more about truthocracy, honestocracy, and couragocracy, all of which are missing in the parenting culture that is obsessed mainly with gaining status and privilege for one's kibblers.
Alt Right position makes perfect sense. In white nations, whites should do everything to secure their own pride, power, prestige, and well-being. The fact is races are different, and if one takes a principled approach on universal standards, one's own people will lose out IF the other race is superior. This is why whites need a sports culture of their own. A white league. As whites cannot compete with stronger and faster blacks, meritocracy in sports has led to cucky loss of manhood and jungle fever among white womenfolk. And Yan Shen should know that his Chinese folks are losing out meritocratically in the US for the most part. Even if the US were to get rid of all Affirmative Action and even if more Asians were to attend elite colleges, the fact remains that Asian men lose out sexual-meritocratically to men of other races. Raw manhood is judged by height, muscularity, personality, and dong-size, and it seems Asian men can't keep a lot of their own womenfolks. So, what does it matter if some Asian male geeks attend Harvard? The Chinese girlies are still gonna go with other men anyway. Yan, being Asian, is so fixated on exams and colleges, but meritocracy operates in every field. Why do so many white boys get beat up by black boys? I've seen a lot of it when I grew up. Because blacks win meritocratically in muscle power and aggression. If whites, who are still huge in number, keep losing out in the nation that they made, do Asians want to stake their future in the West? What for? Just to turn into running dogs of PC? Just to have lots of race-mixing whereby Asians become half-whites or mulat-tofus?
The best advice is in Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA. "Mountain doesn't move." Asians have China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and etc. They should do everything to keep it. That's a lot of good stuff. Trying to gain in the West will only turn them into cuck-roaches of globalism. It's like the Mongols failed in the end. They were outnumbered by the Chinese and got absorbed into China. Likewise, all the Asians in the West will be sexually, culturally, and politically absorbed into the West and become cuck-roaches of Jewish and Homo power. The ONLY reason Asians should study in the West is to take back the skills to their home nations.
The real war for the West must come from white nationalists. They are the only hope. Alt Right understands one thing. While individuality and meritocracy are important, the identity and power come first and foremost. All ethno-cultural orders function this way. Israel maintains itself because it favors even mediocre Jews over smart gentiles. Perhaps, Israeli GDP will go up if it welcomes high IQ gentiles from all over and let them take over much of the economy. But what will this mean to Jews in a Jewish nation?
Or look what meritocracy has done to Southeast Asia. Chinese minorities have taken over entire industries. Is that worth it? Even if native majority aren't as smart as the Chinese, isn't it more sensible for them to develop their own means to build and establish majority domination of national industries?
The dark lesson of meritocracy can be learned from rise of Jewish Power. Whites took a chance on Jews as fellow whites who happened to be Jewish. As a child, I felt this way and thought most Jews in my school were basically whites with a different religion who just wanted to do well in society. But since the 80s, Jews use meritocracy to gain elite power and do terrible things to undermine White America. It's appalling. And they are doing it even to Europe with ancient roots of blood and soil. And they are exporting homomania all over the world, even to Asia and even to Muslim Turkey(!) until Erdogan(in one of the few sane things he did) said NO MORE. Because Jews are white, they could have made common cause with white gentiles. But they chose not to. And they are now using their immense power to finish off the white race. Will Jews come to their senses and rejoin the white race? The best bet for Jews and whites is to see the main global divide as being between whites(with Jews as fellow whites) and non-whites. But because Jews see the main divide as between Jews and Gentiles, they seek to maximize diversity among gentiles to break up their power via divide-and-rule so as to serve Jewish hegemony. If things continue as they are, the white enforcement of meritocracy for all groups would have been the biggest mistake ever. It's like the Greek Olympics. It was meritocratic but open ONLY to Greeks. Greeks didn't import big-ass Negroes to outrun and out-whomp the Greeks.
Meritocracy must be a tool to serve the race.
There are two kinds of people. Those who use ideology to serve an identity and those who use identity to serve an ideology. The former will always win. Jews win because they use ideas of both left and right to serve Jewish power. Whites lose because they offer their identity to the service of either a fixed ideology or another identity not their own.
Because the races are different, the results of meritocracy becomes race-ist. Take sports. There is no racial discrimination in sports that says NO MEXICANS, ASIANS, HINDUS, ETC ALLOWED. But there is still biological discrimination that favors blacks and effectively excludes many non-black groups. It's even more pronounced between men and women. Women must have their own space in sports because meritocratic competition with men will lead to total loss for women. (Just see what happens as more trannies enter women's sports.) In the end, even individualism fails because of racial differences. Suppose every black basketball player is a libertarian individualist who doesn't see himself as black but as just a free agent. But when he joins a team that is all black, how can he not notice and feel a sense of black power? Likewise, Yuri Slezkine in THE JEWISH CENTURY remarked that even anti-religious communist Jews couldn't help feeling a certain tribal solidarity when so many Jews ended up in elite institutions by meritocracy.
So, even meritocracy leads to racial consciousness. Some groups are more likely to win collectively and others are more likely to lose collectively in certain fields.
Now, imagine a society of people A, B, C, D, and E. Suppose A constitute 5% of the nation while E constitute 50% of the nation. Suppose A has many more bright people, and suppose they gain 50% of the top spots. And suppose peoples B, C, and D take 45% of the spots. Suppose People E take 5% of the spots. That would be meritocratic indeed, but won't people A feel a great sense of racial pride and power? After all, they are the 5% who got 50% of the power. And won't people E feel lots of resentment as the 50% of the population with only 5% of the power? Even if everyone tried to pretend that it's all about individual merit, they would start noticing factors of race and identity. People A will feel tempted to use their vast power to favor A-interests that may actually harm People E. After all, meritocrats can be real sons of bitches. Consider how the rich and powerful elites lobby the US government to push policies that take EVERYTHING away from white folks. It's one thing for smart people to make lots of money and live well. Even poor white folks didn't have much grudge against fabulously rich folks. But that's not enough for the Koch brothers of the world. They must push for 'free trade' that turns entire communities into rust belts. Even so, one might say white folks still have their nation as common historical property. But nope, even that is to be taken from them by demographic replacism resulting from non-stop mass invasion. So, white folks not only had to accept other people making a lot more money and shipping factories overseas. They were also supposed to swallow the eventuality of losing ownership of their nation that had been founded and built by Europeans. Worse, they are supposed to resign themselves to even ancient Europe being swallowed up by Africans and Muslims.
What recent history teaches us is that meritocracy is no guarantee for loyalty and integrity. Many Jews and globalist elites who amassed tremendous wealth and power through meritocracy felt no loyalty to the historical nation. And they were committed to pushing any number of lies to realize the globalist vision to destroy universal nationalism that had been the basis of so much good and stability in the post WWII order.
Meritocracy turned into Imperitocracy.
Henceforth, history must be seen as a war among races. In a war, there is no 'fair play' or 'principles'. In war, you do ANYTHING to win. It is a primal clash of powers. In order for white folks to have a world of principled meritocracy once again, they must first secure an Order of Power for themselves, one that cannot be invaded by non-whites or usurped by hostile elites. Meritocracy and principles are good in the abstract, but a people and culture are not an abstraction. They are real. And they must first secure reality before they create an order of principles and rules.
If meritocracy leads to another people gaining power over your people and then using that power to destroy your people, the hell with meritocracy... at least for the time being until you can build a new order in which your people are safe and secure.
