The What-If-Most-People Game: An Easy Way to Tell if YOUR IDEAS & VALUES are Sound and Valid for Most of Society

What would be the simplest way to test as to whose ideas, values, attitudes, and mindset are best or most ideal for society as a whole? One of the easiest way would be to theorize as to what society would be like IF most people think, feel, and do as YOU do. After all, while any society can tolerate, weather, and overcome some degree of bad behavior and destructive tendencies, NO society can last for long if too many people indulge in wrong kinds of behavior. So, a sane, sound, stable, and healthy kind of society is one where most people do what is good, right, responsible, and constructive.

For example, suppose there are two people: Bob and John. Bob doesn't use illicit drugs whereas John is into drugs. Now, which is better? Not using illicit drugs or using them? Bob says it's better to forsake drugs. John says it's better to use them. So, who is right? First, imagine a society where most people are like Bob and don't use illicit drugs. Then, imagine a society where most people are like John and use plenty of illicit drugs. I think most of us can agree that a society where most people don't use drugs functions better than one where most people indulge in drugs. Does anyone want to live in a society full of meth-heads, heroin addicts, and the like? Even most druggies will likely admit that they don't want to live a society run by druggies. Even as they argue for legalization of many drugs, they surely don't want engineers, managers, and other essential workers to be druggies.

Now, take gambling. Is gambling good or bad for society? Suppose Jerry doesn't gamble and finds it to be wrong. Suppose Billy thinks gambling is awesome. What would be better? A society of Jerrys or a society of Billies? Would it be better if most people don't gamble or do gamble? My guess is that even people into joys of gambling would agree it wouldn't be such a great idea to have a society where MOST people gamble. Gambling is not only a vice but mass theft by oligarchs(who in the US happen to be Jewish) from the middle class and working class(and even from senior citizens and poor folks who don't know any better and become addicted to the habit).

Or take prostitution. Suppose Sarah is against it while Skankura is for it. Who would be right? Would society be better if most women are NOT prostitutes? Or would society be better if most women are prostitutes. Even among proponents of legalization of 'sex work', can they honestly say that a society where most women are involved in the sex industry would be better than one where most women aren't? Would it be good for families if most mothers were hookers on the side? Would it be good for society if fathers raised their daughters to be slut-skank whores? Would it be a better society if your mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, and daughter were into stripping, porn, prostitution, or S&M for money? Seriously? While we can understand the logic of libertarians who argue for legalization of 'sex work' on grounds of individual choice and free enterprise, surely even most of them know full well that it would NOT be good for society if most women were skankass whores.

Now, take homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Granted, this has less relevance to reality since most homos were born that way and only a handful of kooks are trannies. The fact is most people will never be homo. Even with all the gender-confusion pushed by MSM and academia, most men and women are not going to declare themselves homo. Still, there is the PC notion that homosexuality and trans-genderism are just as valid as real-natural-normal sexuality. They insist that 'heteronormativity' is some kind of mentally sick social construct. They say 'gender is fluid' and anyone can declare himself or herself to be anything, and all these various 'genders' are equal in value and validity. Okay, that being their premise, suppose there is Cary and Nico. Cary is real-sexual and believes a society where most people are proudly real-sexual is best for society. In contrast, Nico is a homo and believes his fruitishness to be just as valid as real-sexuality, aka heterosexuality. Nico believes homo fecal penetration is just as valid and 'natural' as real-sexuality between men and women. So, who is right? Imagine Cary's Society where most people are straight real-sexuals where men and women procreate to produce kids. Then, imagine Nico's Society where most people are fruitkins who bugger each other in the ass or tranny freaks with their dicks and balls cut off and equipped with fake vaginas. Seriously, which society would be better? Which society has better chance of mental health, moral equilibrium, and chance for continuance & survival? Is it really true that all 'genders'(as social constructs) are equally valid? (Also, if 'gender' is a social construct, why does PC say homos are biologically born that way? Is there any consistency in the logic of so-called 'woke' folk?)

How about gluttony? Some argue for 'Body-Positivity' Movement. They say that being a fatty fatkin is glorious and a badge of pride(and lard of honor). But is it really good to eat like a pig and be grossly obese? Suppose Jack believes in eating moderately, exercising, and staying slim. He believes a good society is one where people watch what they eat and watch their weight. In contrast, Otis believes people should eat all they want and there's no shame in being a fatty fatso. So, which society would be better? A society of Jacks or a society of Otises? One where people eat healthy and stay slim, or one where people eat grossly like hippos and look like hippos as well? Again, the answer should be obvious. Then, one wonders why the media, via fashion magazines and the like, push the notion that Fat is Beautiful and just as okay as being slim and trim around the weight?

How about Open Borders? Would it be better for society for most people to oppose the Great Replacement or welcome it? Would it be better for Hungary if most Hungarians were against the Hungarian Nakba or if most Hungarians were for it? For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'Nakba', it was the national tragedy that befell Palestinians when they were colonized, expelled, and replaced on their native territory by European Zionist-Immigration-Imperialists. (As you all should know, Endless Immigration = Genocide or Nakba. If just a trickle of Jewish Immigrants had entered Palestine, Palestinians would still have owned their land and would have tolerated a small Jewish minority. But Jewish Immigration was endless and came to replace the Palestinians... just like endless non-white immigration turned whites in California into a minority. Endless immigration also turned native Hawaiians into a minority in their native ancestral islands.) Anyway, suppose there are two Hungarians. Viktor is opposed to the Hungarian Nakba. He says NO to Endless Immigration, or Replacement Immigration. He believes Hungary will fare best if MOST Hungarians agree with him. Against him is Miklos who sucks up to Jewish globalists like George Soros and welcomes Endless Immigration, one that is sure to lead to the Hungarian Nakba where the native folks are turned into a minority in their own ancestral lands by Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians, and others. Miklos wishes MOST folks would agree with him and welcome the Hungarian Nakba. Now, which Hungary will be better off? One where most people think like Viktor or one where most people think like Miklos? If most people think like Miklos, the fate of Hungary will be like the fate of Palestine where the native Palestinians were replaced by European Zionist-immigration-imperialist Jews.

How about Jew-Worship? Would it be better for society if most people said NO to Jew-Worship or if most people said YES to Jew-Worship? Suppose there are Kevin and Lindsey. Kevin thinks it is dangerous for goyim to mindlessly worship and obey Jews who, though smart and creative, tend to be cunning, hostile, vicious, nasty, contemptuous, and exploitative over 'dimwit goyim'. Kevin thinks society would do best if most goyim, while not going full-Nazi, remained wary and cautious about Jewish narratives, agenda, and power. Don't dehumanize Jews but don't deify them either.
In contrast, shabbos goy Lindsey says Jews are oh-so-wonderful-great-awesome-wise-holy-oustanding-and-etc. in every way and then some. Jews are the most sacred, most tragic, most tremendous race of noble folks that ever existed on the face of this planet(and maybe the entire cosmos). If Jews want it, we must give it. If Jews demand, we must fulfill. If Jews command, we must obey. Lindsey believes goy society will be best off if MOST goyim were committed in blind faith to serving, honoring, and appeasing Jews on grounds that what Jews want for themselves and for us must be the BEST thing.
Now, which society would fare better? One where most goyim are like Kevin and remain skeptical of Jewish claims and criticize Jewish abuses OR one where most goyim are like Lindsey and grovel at the feet of Jews as the god-race? Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US embarked on Lindsey-ism and look at the results. Have they been good? The Wars for Israel, bailouts of Jewish banksters, the pornification of mainstream culture, the spread of interracism-jungle-fever-and-ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), anti-white PC propaganda, feminist wedge between white men and white women, Christianity replaced with Globo-Homo Queertianity, White Nakba & Replacement Immigration, new 'cold war' with Russia, and etc.? Has Lindsey-ism been a blessing for America?

And we can go on and on with the game of What-If-Most-People. Given that the health of society depends on what MOST people do, a good society is one where most people do what's right while a bad society(soon to be no-society at all) is one where most people(or enough people) do what's wrong. Needless to say among those cognizant of HBD(human bio-diversity) truths, this isn't only a matter of morality but biology. Some races are more prone to do the wrong thing given their genetic inclinations. Blacks, having evolved to survive in a state of savagery, are hardwired to act against civilizational norms. So, freely left to their own devices, most(or too many) of them will act wrongly and turn once-fine cities like Detroit into hell-holes. White people are genetically hardwired to make more civilized choices while blacks are genetically hardwired to make more savage choices. Whites tend to Europeanize, blacks tend to Africanize. So, a healthy modern society is one where most people are white than black; indeed, blacks in the West can enjoy modernity ONLY BECAUSE they leech off whites; even black achievements under slavery in the Americas owed to white supervision as, after all, black slaves under black rule in black Africa wielded no great results. Though, hypothetically speaking, it's possible for a society made up mostly of black people to have righteous Negroes who act responsible and moral, real-world results invariably show that too-many-blacks lead to 'savagerization'. Likewise, while we can hypothetically imagine a society full of Japanese where most act like jive-ass jiggerish savages, the likelihood is that a society full of Japanese will act in a cooperative and stable manner.

Another factor to consider is that one mustn't confuse 'most' with 'all'. While society is best off if MOST people act in a certain way in accordance to certain values and norms, it wouldn't necessarily be good if ALL people or each-and-every-person acted that way. This is especially true in science and the arts. Certain talents and abilities are inseparable from certain neuroses and eccentric(and often troublesome) tendencies. Many great artists tend to be half-mad or nutty in some way. So, while it wouldn't be good for society if most people had the personalities of Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and John Lennon, creativity and artistry have benefited from the presence of a small minority of mavericks, rebels, outcasts, and eccentrics. Indeed, this is why homosexuality has been beneficial to civilization as a creative outlier. While homosexuality is biologically useless, morally troublesome, and culturally problematic, the 'gay' sensibility has a way of seeing things that has contributed greatly to the arts, design, and perspectives. So, just because society is best off if MOST people act such-and-such, it doesn't mean ALL people should be that way. Certain social rewards are inseparable from the problems that surround them. It's like there's no honey without the bee stings, there's no championship in boxing without getting hit many times. The good can be attained only through the bad.

Still, for MOST people, there are certain values and standards that are best for society-as-a-whole, and it is essential that the great majority of people adhere to certain values and attitudes. But in our sick, decadent, and degenerate order, such sane-majoritarianism is looked down upon. Fashion magazines push fatties as idols of beauty and health. Cities put on massive globo-homo parades and children are read to by trannies on the premise that 'gay is sacred'. The once-Christian West totally bows down to the demands of Jewish Supremacism as if Jews are deities than flawed humans. Once proudly white nations welcome the Great Replacement or White Nakba. Even though blacks are the most destructive race(by their genetics), the White West worships blacks as demigods and celebrates ACOWW. Even though drugs are harmful for the most part, they are pushed on everyone as soma, soma, soma. Gambling went from a vulgar vice to a 'moral' industry that provides 'reparations' to American Indians. Women get their values from shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS by Lena Dunham. Skankery has been made the New Normal by Disney run by Jews. Under Jewish Power, society is made to push MOST people to choose the Wrong over the Right. Apparently, Jews fear any notion of majoritarian morality because they are a minority-elite and, as such, fear majority values as threatening to Minority Privilege. So, Jews are hellbent on making the majority accept minority-deviance as the New Normal. This is a terrible thing for the West(and the Rest that still looks to the West to lead the world).

If Homos Can't Help Being Homos, Normos Can't Help Being Normos — Therefore, Just Like Homos Should Be Left Alone to be Homo, Normos Should Be Left Alone to be Normo

We've all heard a million times that homos(and even trannies) are born that way, and nothing can be done about it. Even if we compel homos to repress their own deviant form of sexuality, it still impacts the way they feel, think, and act, especially on 'sexual' matters but in other areas of life as well. There was a time when most people adhered to the reigning religious, medical, psychological, and/or ideological explanations of homosexuality. Religious authorities said it was sinful, very likely soul-corruption by the Devil. Medical community regarded it as some kind of disease of the mind and glands. Certain schools of psychology deemed homosexuality as the result of childhood trauma. Ideologies on the Right regarded homosexuality as a subversive attack on society, and ideologies on the Left regarded it as the product of decadence & degeneracy as part and parcel of late-stage capitalism. It wasn't all that long ago when virtually all sectors of society regarded homosexuality with negativity and hostility. Even up to the 80s, it wasn't unusual for Liberal Hollywood to associate homosexuality with psychopathy and villainy, as in the Kevin Costner action movie NO WAY OUT(1987). There were also movies like WINDOWS, DRESSED TO KILL, and CRUISING that featured the dark & obsessive side of homosexuality. WINDOWS(written by Barry Siegel and directed by Gordon Willis) starred Talia Shire playing opposite a mad lesbian who will go to any lengths to own and control her. (In the original story idea, the psycho was a tranny.) Brian De Palma's DRESSED TO KILL featured a tranny as a serial killer. In William Friedkin's CRUISING, the victims are homos but so is the killer(s). Even though none of these movies go out of their way to condemn homosexuality or transvestites per se, there's a sense that individuals thus afflicted tend to be possess strange hangups or excessive neurosis. And of course, one of the biggest movies of the 1990s, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, had a tranny as a psycho-killer.



Given that sexual complex has often been used as the underlying motive for crazy, dangerous, or malevolent behavior in fiction — the murder in Otto Preminger's LAURA, repressed sexual memory in Alfred Hitchcock's MARNIE, the mad quest in THE GRADUATE, the attack on the prostitute in THE UNFORGIVEN, the bitter jealousy in RUSHMORE, the ugly tall man in MANHUNTER, and etc. — , it only seemed natural that storytellers would feature homosexuality or tranny-stuff as catalyst for neurosis, frustration, or strangeness that might trigger a chain reaction of horrors. Or, if homosexuality itself wasn't to blame, the burden was placed on the repression of homosexuality, as in AMERICAN BEAUTY where the reason for the abusive husband/father's fury & hostility turns out that he's really a homo who wants to suck dick. So, if many storytellers in the past used homosexuality or tranny-ness as the hidden motive behind anti-social, subversive, and/or dangerous behavior, later storytellers said the REAL problem derived from compelling homos and trannies to repress their true abnormal natures or 'abnature'(as homosexuality is 'abnatural' as it is abnormal, i.e. it is a part of nature to the extent that most homos were born that way BUT it deviates from the normal natural processes that make survival of organisms possible). Movies like AMERICAN BEAUTY and BOYS DON'T CRY suggested that what homos need to do is come out of the closet and embrace their true nature or 'abnature'. Then, they will be free of neurosis and will be honest with themselves and those around them, and it will be better for society as a whole since people will accept the reality of homosexuality — that some people are indeed born that way — and stop pretending that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE must be normal.


Well, we've seen how that theory played out. It's hard to think of another as wrong, but then, those who knew of the true homo nature warned us time and time again. It should be obvious to all by now that homos(and trannies) are NOT satisfied with mere social tolerance, individual rights, and acceptance of their 'abnature', namely that most Americans came to realize that most homos were born that way and it'd be as difficult to turn a homo into a normo as it would be to turn a normo into a homo. I can't imagine a real-sexual normal guy being conditioned to prefer men over women — though it may work in a few cases — , and it seems homos with their 'abnatural' predilections can't help being 'gay' either.
Now, some still argue that homosexuality must be conditioned than inborn because so many homos claim to have been molested as children. But the notion that childhood trauma can alter one's entire sexual proclivity for the rest of one's life sounds too much like a crackpot variation of Freudianism. Also, one wonders whether homos in their youth were really molested or invited such attention from older homos. According to Milo, he initiated the flirtation with an older man(a priest it turns out). And according to George 'Too Gay' Takei, he really got a kick out of being fondled and who-knows-what-else by his older adviser in the Boy Scouts. So, it is likely that homo kids tend to be sexually more voracious/adventurous and invite, by means subtle and not-so-subtle, sexual advances from older people; but when they grow up, they act like they were pure-as-snow victims, as when Milo changed his story from one where he was the seducer-predator to one where he was the hapless victim. One thing for sure, even if there are a good many homos who claim to have been molested as children, there are many homos who were never molested but are nevertheless 'flaming' in every way. Also, science tells us that we can often spot a fruitkin by his facial features and manner of speech. Science has shown that homos, far more than normos, tend to speak with a lisp and have girly voices. And when we look at a lot of homos, they tend to have a froolaloopidoopiness about them.

Anyway, once science established that most homos are born that way, it became less tenable for society to persecute or condemn them for what they didn't choose to be. They were 'chosen' that way by biology. And yet, most of society still understood homosexuality to be strange, deviant, and even perverse, especially as it involves men who indulge in homo-fecal-penetration. Also, homosexuality is often associated with a host of behavioral patterns that tend toward the obsessive, neurotic, hedonistic, vain, and/or nihilistic. To be sure, homosexuality comes with certain innate advantages in areas of design & craft. And some say that homosexuality is usually accompanied with few extra IQ points on average. But the CORE of homosexuality centers on a certain kind of 'sexual' proclivity, and objectively speaking, it cannot be good. After all, two vaginas grinding together isn't real sex and can never produce life. As for homo men doing sodomy, that is objectively gross and medically unsafe as it involves a sex organ penetrating a fecal organ. Gross.
So, even if society had to come to terms with the 'abnatural' fact of homosexuality, it still upheld a negative and dark perspective on such behavior. After all, science now seems to indicate that pedophilia is also a 'born' trait, which is why it is so difficult to reform and rehabilitate child molesters who can't help feeling their sick kind of desire. The closet-pedo father in Todd Solondz's HAPPINESS risks EVERYTHING to bugger his son's friend; despite the risk and perhaps even the realization that it's morally wrong, he still couldn't help himself. So, does that mean pedophilia is okay since some people are 'born that way'? Science also indicates that some people have greater natural tendency to be gluttons or alcoholic, but people still don't think pigging out or getting drunk is worthy of praise, let alone celebration, because it's so 'natural' or 'abnatural' with some people. There was a sane and serious time when society was willing to (1) accept the fact that most homos are 'born that way' but (2) nevertheless regard homosexuality as a deviance with a perverse streak. (Not only are some people born homo but such people tend to be far more risque about having multiple partners and experimenting in all kinds of excessive behaviors.) But, that compromise and consensus gradually and then dramatically faded as Jewish Power became absolutely predominant in the US(that controls all the West and most Westernized nations) and chose to use globo-homo-mania as substitute neo-cult for Christianity and proxy for promoting minority-elite-supremacism that would so nicely complement Jewish minority-elite-supremacism. If recent history taught us anything, it is that Jewish Hostility + Media & Finance Monopoly + Think Tank Domination + Power of Celebrity + Most People as Sheeple + Controlled Opposition(as US Conservatives are intimidated dogs of Jewish Power) = Social Madness. The West went from accepting the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occurring deviance to celebrating, revering, and near-worshiping homosexuality(and even tranny stuff) as what might as well be the second coming of bejesus.

How could so many people, from educated elites to unwashed masses, from people on the 'left' to people on the 'right', so quickly fall for the Jewish snake-oil? This amazing truth about humanity is both exhilarating in its madness and dispiriting in its implications. One thing for sure, it totally destroyed the Conceit of Rationalism. It is now quite evident that even if rationalism is the ideal way, too many people are incapable of facing facts and knowing the truth. And too many people who do know the truth would rather not speak out lest they lose in the social competition for status. One thing for sure, individuals don't decide what is good or bad based on reasoning. Rather, the decision is made at the top by the elites and then disseminated by the mass media, via which the Jewish Message enters every private space via electronic devices. We purchase and own the hardware, but most of the sounds, images, and words have been created by Jews and those mentally colonized by Jewish Power.

Jewish Power has proven that one can fool the masses that 2 + 2 = 5. Not by demonstrating it is true mathematically but by associating the formula with fanfare, music, song & dance, and bedazzling stories of how those who believe 2 + 2 = 5 are so very cool, awesome, or 'inspiring'. This is how Jews pushed the tranny business. Honesty and good sense tell us that a man is NOT a woman simply because he insists he is, but so many have been led to believe otherwise because trannies are promoted with such affection, hype, and even reverence by the Jew-run media. So, 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't have to be proven to the people. It can be promoted as 'true' by emotional and sensory appeals, like a movie that makes us suspend disbelief and revel in the excitement of watching a caped hero flying over clouds. Meanwhile, the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can be made 'false' in the hearts of many. How? Again, never mind that it can be proven true and instead associate it with negativity, such as spreading the message that 4 is a 'hate number' or having hacks as 'experts' all saying in 'unison' that 4-as-answer has been debunked and only BAD people still believe it. It's like Conservatism Inc. will not answer pointed and valid questions about the impact of demographic transformation on the American political landscape and about the duplicitous & often hypocritical role of Jewish Power in American narrative and politics. Unwilling to deal with facts, Con Inc merely goes about smearing such manner of inquiry as 'racism', 'Nazis', or 'Antisemitism'. If emotional/sensual appeals can fool so many people with the pseudo-science that a man can be a 'woman', then the same can be done to make people favor 2 + 2 = 5 over 2 + 2 = 4. It is distressing to believe that people can be so stupid, but that's humanity for you. If Jews did us one favor in the 21st century, it was in exposing how utterly stupid(or craven) most people can be.

Anyway, homos and their supporters have argued that, because homos are born-that-way and can't do anything about it, all good and reasonable people should accept the 'abnatural' facts of homosexuality and stop regarding homosexuals as willfully immoral degenerates. (Granted, if the natural inclination is nevertheless deviant and prone to danger, it should be the moral obligation of those who are afflicted to curb, restrain, or at least moderate their behavior, a lesson all too neglected in the homo community that is so vain and narcissistic — common traits among homos — that it never faced up to its responsibility in the HIV epidemic that killed so many fruitkins. That said, it seems the HIV epidemic had an effect on the homo community similar to the effect of drugs & radical violence on the Counterculture. Those most prone to abuse of drugs and political violence either burned out or were weeded out by circumstances, leaving the more cautious, organized, and bureaucratic radicals to take power. Similarly, it seems the HIV epidemic weeded out the most brazen & adventurous 'cowboy' homos, thus handing the leadership of the Community to the 'accountant' homos.) If homos are born-that-way and can't help it and if, for that very reason, we must make peace with homos and accept the facts of how they feel and behave, then the same demand must be made from the normo-sexual or real-sexual side. Just like it's impossible to turn a homo sincerely into a normo by therapy or some treatment — though, to be sure, progs keep telling us 'gender' is a social construct and not based on biology — , it's impossible to change a normo-sexual's true feelings about homosexuality. Sure, under heavy dose of indoctrination, propaganda, and intimidation(especially with loss of job & status), normos can be browbeaten into praising and even celebrating homosexuality and tranny-ness. Especially as people are loathe to admit they conformed or consented to something out of cowardice, the cucked normos often go out of their way act the 'more evolved' true-believer in globo-homo, just like John McCain, a pathetic dog of Zionist power, went out of his way to convince himself that he really and truly believed there is no greater honor than kissing the Jew's ass and sucking his cock.

Still, the fact that the Power feels a need to push globo-homo 24/7 suggests it knows that, minus the endless conditioning and propagandizing, most normos will eventually revert to the natural tendency to regard homos and trannies as weirdo deviants, freaks, or even degenerates worthy of derision. We know from history that tremendous anti-homo social pressure compelled most homos throughout the ages to either hide their sexual orientation or repress it as best they could, which would be like an natural alcoholic or glutton trying desperately to convince himself that he doesn't want a drink or another serving of cake. Throughout history, many homo men and homo women remained in the closet and led seemingly normal lives... just like in our time, so many normos keep their true feelings about homos hidden in the cabinet and pretend to be so hip and cool with globo-homo. It is here that the 'rainbow' flag has been so useful to the Agenda.
After all, people automatically visualize everything, and if there wasn't a potent deflective 'gay' symbol, a visual shield, as the main focus of our attention, most normos thinking of homosexuality, pro or con, would form images of guys sucking each other off or porking each other in the ass. Even for normos sympathetic to the homo agenda, it wouldn't be very pleasant for them to visualize homosexuality in terms of blowjobs and sodomy among fruiters. But if there is a colorful and happy symbol associated with homos and trannies, one need not think of penis-up-the-poopchute or a doctor slicing off a penis to mold a fake 'vagina'. Indeed, nowadays, so many fools seem to think homosexuality and tranny-business are all about fanfare with happy 'gay' colors. Consider the advertisement for food with 'gay' colors. No sane normo wants to think about homo-fecal penetration or tranny penis cutting while he's eating, but so many people purchase 'gay'-colorized food products because they think being 'homo' is mainly about these bright and sassy colors.

That way, one can nibble on 'rainbow-homosher'(the new kosher) oreo cookies while pretending that one is celebrating happy colors than an orientation involving guys sucking cocks and doing homo-fecal-penetration on each other. People are so easily fooled by packaging. For example, why do women spend so much money on clothing and hair-dressing? Because they think a different outward presentation will make them beautiful. Consider all those big fat black women who think they will be sexy if they get nails done in some exotic way. Or how their children will be special with 'creative' names like Mo'nique, Skankisha, and Bitchasshope.

Now, the argument that normos should put forth is as follows: Just as Homos cannot help feeling their 'abnatural' desires because, after all, they were only born-that-way, we must accept the fact that Normos can't help feeling the way they do about homosexuality and tranny-stuff because they were born-that-way. Normos have a natural revulsion, distaste, disgust, and attitude-of-ridicule about homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Just as it was cruel to force homos to reject their true homo self and pretend to be 'normal' out of fear of social opprobrium or worse, it is cruel, repressive, and corrupting to force normos to pretend that they are really hip and cool with a form of pseudo-sexuality involving homo-fecal-penetration or tranny-penis-cutting by Frankenstein Medicine. What is most cruel, ugly, and vile is the defamation that natural normo-sexual feelings about homosexuality or tranny-stuff are 'homophobic' or 'transphobic'. No, phobia is a medical term that means panicked reaction and extreme fear/dread of something harmless and safe. Normo-sexuals are naturally and rationally turned off by homosexuality that is sexually useless and physically gross. There is nothing phobic about such reaction. Just as people are grossed out by people eating feces, normo-sexuals find it gross that some men would have 'sex' by inserting their penises into the poopholes of other men. And when normo-sexuals honestly ponder what really happens at a 'sex reassignment' surgery, of course they would be freaked out.

Why wouldn't they be when it involves mutilation of a perfectly healthy organ to make for an ugly-looking fake 'vagina', especially one that smells like poop? If there is any phobia in our culture, it is Normo-Phobia that has inverted all sane, natural, and rational modes of humanity. We are to believe that men buggering one another or cutting off genitals is about PRIDE; in contrast, normo-sexuals or real-sexuals finding homosexuality or tranny-business to be odd, perverse, deviant, gross, or laughable are said to be suffering from a 'phobia'. It'd be like saying "Drinking urine is worthy of pride BUT those who express disgust over it are showing signs of phobia, or pissdrinkophobia to be exact." (By the way, if progs really believe that people with anti-homosexual feelings are 'homophobic' or suffering from a medical condition, they should show sympathy for them because people who suffer from phobias can't help themselves. If indeed 'homophobia' is a real phobia, then the affected are as helpless as those with arachnophobia, acrophobia, or ophidiophobia, extreme fear of all snakes, even harmless ones. But even as progs accuse anti-'gay' people of being inflicted with a 'phobia', they BLAME them of moral failings. But if people who oppose the 'gay' agenda are truly sick in the head, they should not be blamed for what would be a clinical malady.) The fact is real-sexuals normally feel a natural revulsion toward homosexuality and find stuff like tranny-business to be ridiculous. Just like homo men can't help wanting to suck each other's cock and bugger each other's ass, real-sexuals cannot help feeling queasy about what homos and trannies do. This is NOT a phobia of any kind. Nearly ALL normo-sexuals or real-sexuals don't have panic attacks or freak out over someone being homo. Instead, what they feel is a naturally derisive sense that the homo guy is either too effete/pansy for a man or that he indulges in gross pseudo-sexual acts.

Normality naturally favors the conventional, the standard, the usual. Now, there are exceptions. Beauty is rare, and normal people who are neither ugly or beautiful but average in looks prize beauty like precious gold. Elite athletic ability and high intelligence are also rare, and normal people admire the naturally gifted who happen to be far stronger or smarter than the average. (It could be, precisely because most people aren't exceptional in intelligence, looks, or athleticism, they now seek to be special in ways that are far more accessible, such as tattoos, piercings, and green-colored hair. If you can't be outstanding, be stand-outish.) Even so, normality generally prefers what is common and familiar, and this explains the penchant for certain negative attitudes even toward those with prized traits. For example, the overly big and strong person has often been caricatured as 'moose', more beast than man. And beautiful women have often been associated with vanity, vapidity, narcissism, self-absorption. Most people aren't rich and would love to have more money, but there is also the negative caricature of uber-rich people as snobby, stuck-up, crass, greedy, and soulless. And even as we admire intelligence, we can't get enough of the negative stereotype of the 'aspergy' geek or nerd who is all brains & bundle of neurosis and no body & life. Though 'fag' is now a dirty word, 'geek' and 'nerd' are not, and stereotypes of such are commonplace. Justified or not, the normal feels a certain disdain even for people with rare gifts, abilities, or good fortunes that most people would like to have. There is a sense that, in having those 'extreme' qualities, the 'special' people have become walking-talking caricatures than well-rounded people. Consider the cult of the artist that is both positive and negative. There is the romantic notion that, being different and special, he's devoted his entire life(and even sanity and health) toward creating a great work of art for the ages. But there is also the perception of self-indulgence, madness, and sickly obsession to attain, via a Faustian pact, the creative power of the gods.
Now, if normal people could feel naturally negative feelings about positive and much-prized traits, just imagine what they might feel for extreme manifestations of negative, useless, and/or harmless traits. If even great beauty or intelligence can be objects of mockery, imagine how most people naturally feel about extreme ugliness or extreme retardation. Now, out of kindness, most normal people, being decent ladies and gents, will not go out of their way to mock ugly or dumb people. Most of us take pity on the main character of ELEPHANT MAN and harbor no ill feelings toward the mentally retarded. But most normal people don't want to be around hideously ugly people and don't want to be friends with seriously low-IQ people. Likewise, for most normal people, homosexuality and tranny-stuff seem like extremes in negativity. We know that not all men are masculine, but certain froopy-doop tootkins are off-the-charts in pansy manners. And trannies who are men-pretending-to-be-women just look ridiculous.


And the idea of a fake 'vagina' is gross to most people, which is why even PC-addled proggy men who say all the token 'woke' things will NOT date or have 'sex' with trannies. They can tell themselves that a 'woman' can have a penis or that an artificially created 'vagina'(via Frankenstein medical surgery) is just as good as a real vagina, but something elemental in their nature says "NO, that is freaky as hell... Ewwwww." Just like people feel a natural revulsion toward gluttonous people who are grossly obese or lazy unkempt people who are overly filthy, people naturally disdain homosexuality and tranny-stuff that come across as extremes in negativity. It's one thing for men to have some feminine traits but to the extent that fruitkins do? It's one thing for men to dress a bit pretty and look elegant but put on a wig, wear makeup, and put on female dresses & high heel shoes? When confronted with such, most normal people feel revulsion or ridicule(that often turns into laughter). And such response among normo-sexuals is natural, no less than it is 'abnatural' for a homo to want to suck dongs and take them up his anus. If the natural feelings of homos are so overwhelming that it's near-impossible for them to refrain from blatantly odd(and even harmful) behavior such as 'cock-sucking' and homo-fecal-penetration(and even fisting in some cases), then we shouldn't demand that normo-sexuals refrain from natural feelings of revulsion & disdain about homosexuals and trannies. If it's unhealthy for homos to repress their true nature and keep it all bottled up, it's equally unhealthy for normo-sexuals to deny their true nature and self-censor honest responses to what they deem to be odd, strange, and deviant.

Now, a compromise has been possible whereby homosexuals do their own thing in their own space while normo-sexuals express their naturally negative feelings about homosexuality in their own space. There is no need for normo-sexuals to insult homosexuals as 'fags' and the like, but there is also no need for homos and trannies to demand that normo-sexuals honor, praise, celebrate, and even revere the attitudes and behaviors of homos and trannies as quasi-spiritual and 'rainbow'-like. But under the current Jewish Supremacist rule over the West, we don't have a sound compromise that is possible. The diva-like homo/tranny character, being naturally vain and narcissistic, isn't content with tolerance and mutual recognition with the other side. Rather, homos want to hog the stage of culture, politics, and even spirituality and present themselves as something akin to a quasi-race-of-angels. Therefore, they no longer just want their own spaces to do their homo things. They want to take over all public spaces, schools, banks, businesses, governments, and even churches to spread what could only be called Homomania or Queertianity.
Of course, homos(and especially trannies) on their own couldn't have accumulated such power in a million years. But having the full backing of venal Jews, the most powerful people in the world with control of finance, media, and much else, homos have been able to pull off an idolatrous neo-satanic takeover of Western culture, politics, and even spirituality(as so many churches fly the homo flag, as if indeed Jesus died so that His followers could celebrate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting). As a result, even though we are told that it's cruel, unjust, and dishonest to force homos to repress their true nature of being homos, we are also forced to believe that real-sexuals must repress their own normal and natural feelings about homos and trannies on account that such are 'unnatural', 'irrational', and downright 'phobic'. So, while homos are so naturally homo that they can't help being 'gay', we are to believe that normos have harbored anti-homo feelings all through the ages AGAINST their own 'normal' nature.
In other words, current PC says it's natural and (new)normal for normos to have the most positive feelings about homos and trannies. To shore up their specious line of 'reasoning', PC commissars may point to the current West and remark how so many normos now celebrate homosexuality, but that is to totally ignore the fact that (1) most of the world media are controlled by venal Jews (2) people, young and old, have been bombarded with endless homo propaganda via education, entertainment, and advertising, and (3) Jews and their cuck-commissars have created means of purging and lawfare whereby anyone who deviates from the current dogma and 'idology' is swiftly smeared, character-assassinated, demoted, blacklisted, and/or fired.
Therefore, even though so many people seem happy-crazy about 'gay' stuff, it's really part of a ceaseless campaign of artificially manufactured hype, euphoria, and fear-mongering. History has shown that such madness isn't difficult to achieve IF the power is concentrated in certain hands. Consider the mass mania of Germany that blindly worshiped Adolf Hitler that drove them to ruin. Or consider the madness of Maoism that once engulfed the entire nation. Or consider the nutball lunacy of North Korea with its mindless displays of pageantry to sustain the mythic grandeur of the Kim clan. Looking back, we may one day wonder, how could so many seemingly normal people have been so duped and swayed into such feverish stupidity? We like to pride ourselves for living in a democracy with freedom and rational thinking, but most hearts and minds are shaped by slogans, mantras, idolatry, and dogmas pushed by institutions and industries that are really about concentration of power and control.

Now, some homos may object to the notion that homosexuality amounts to a negative extreme like obesity. Homos could argue that while there is nothing good to be said about obesity, there is much to be credited to homosexuality. For example, even though Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, and Sergio Leone were great film-directors, their success probably owed nothing to their considerable girths. There have been many successful fatty-fatkins, but it'd be quite a stretch to attribute their talents to their appetites. However, the same cannot be said of tooty-tookins. While most homos are hardly special in talent, there have been too many remarkable homos in the arts, design, fashion, music, and letters to dismiss the possibility of a link between homosexuality and certain kinds of creativity. And therein lies the difference between obesity and homosexuality. While some people have much bigger natural appetites than most people do — just like homos have a natural leaning to be fruity — the achievements of successful fatsos probably have nothing to do with their massive craving for More Food.

Thus, the (lack of)worth of obesity can be judged by its most obvious external manifestation. A fatso is fat, and that isn't good, and he should lose some weight. In contrast, there is MORE to homosexuality than its obviously grotesque and gross behavioral manifestation in the 'sexual' arena that involves fecal penetration and a generally nihilistic surrender to depravity. If such were the ONLY feature of homosexuality, we could dismiss it as a mere sexual deviance that leads to perverted behavior. But apparently, homosexuality has connections with certain brain functions and allows for nimbler use of fingertips. And this has led to homos making considerable contributions to the arts, letters, and design. Also, as homos are not burdened by family — even with 'gay marriage' as law of the land, most homos don't have children — , they can work 24/7, something impossible for men and women who seek to balance work and family. That means homos have created lots of things of great appeal to countless straight people and have been especially committed to tirelessly working as advisers and managers. And that means they've accumulated a great deal of cultural capital, social capital, connections with powerful people, and insider knowledge. Thus, there is more to being a tooty-tootkin than a fatty-fatkin. While, outwardly speaking, homosexuality does seem gross and grotesque to many/most honest normo-sexuals, there is no denying that there are facets and permutations of being 'gay' that have led to considerable and even crucial contributions to civilization and power.
In that light, we can understand why homos in the past felt so frustrated. They, as closeted fruits, made many contributions to society but hardly got the credit. So many normo-sexuals with disdain and hostility toward homosexuals were actually enjoying and/or benefiting from the fruits of talented homos. Also, most normos felt they were benefiting from the achievements of straight people since most homos remained in the closet and pretended to be straight. Homos felt like Cyrano de Bergerac. They made the poetry but the credit went to someone else. (Some even say 'Shakespeare' was a mere front for a genius homo playwright.) Therefore, unless homos came out of the closet and declared their talents, they would never get the credit and respect that they really deserved.

And yet, paradoxically enough, in our age when Homos have not only come out of the closet but out of the bedroom into the streets with their homo-stalinist banners, their creativity has mostly turned to trash. Perhaps, the formula for homo success wasn't simply innate homo talent but the social repression of homosexuality. In other words, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Consider what black self-indulgence did to black musical culture. In an earlier cultural climate, homos felt a need to mold and channel their natural narcissism and vanity in service of something broader and deeper than "I'm so gay and pretty." After all, what makes a great actress isn't simply beauty and/or acting chops but the willingness to subsume her own considerable ego into an empathetic portrayal of another character. Thus, even as she is indeed feeding her own ego as a star(or star-wanna-be), she is also restraining and remolding her own ego in service to a portrait of another person. After all, nothing would be more boring and insufferable than an actress whose entire shtick is "Look at me, I'm pretty, I can show off all kinds of emotions." Julianne Moore was just awful in MAGNOLIA with a look-at-me performance. When homos were closeted, it was unfair that they didn't get the credit they deserved, but their creativity was enriched, deepened, and even ennobled by serving something far greater than a narrow bandwidth of ego or group identity. In our time, homos seem to do little but use their creativity to fill TV shows & movies with endless(and often irrelevant or gratuitous) homo propaganda; or much of the energy seemed devoted to making yet more advertisements about how we should consume Oreo cookies and guzzle Sprite soda because they are so 'woke' with globo-homo hysteria. So, when homos can be openly creative, they are actually less creative, or at least less meaningfully creative.

Anyway, one thing is for sure. Even if there is more to homosexuality than sodomy and poon-to-poon-grinding, its most defining feature and characteristic are not good and cannot be good. There is absolutely nothing good about homo-fecal-penetration, which is gross, disease-prone, and disgusting. As for poon-to-poon-grinding, while not physically gross from a clinical angle, it makes zero sexual sense. To the extent that most normo-sexuals are not interested in arts & culture(in which closeted homos played a key role in the past) and have a more basic and elemental understanding of humanity, they have every reason to be psychologically and physically put off by homosexuality. After all, if you asked any guy, "How would you like to have someone stick his dick up your ass?", his natural, normal, and healthy response is going to be, "What the fuc* are you, some kind of a faggot?" Indeed, what do normo-sexual men fear most about ending up behind bars? There's a good chance that their bungs will be torn apart by Negro dongs. Of course, if Milo ends up behind bars, he will probably have the time of his life. Now, is it 'homophobic' for normo-sexual men to be so put off by thoughts of homo behavior? Of course not. It's a healthy, natural, normal, and rational reaction(and defensive mechanism) to something that is so obviously gross and grotesque. Humans are naturally empathetic — the ability to put oneself in another's shoes — , and when normo-sexual men try to imagine themselves as fruiters being rammed in the ass or ramming their dongs inside the poopchutes of other men, their immediate natural reaction is Ewwwwww and for good reason. So, let homos be 'gay' since they were born-that-way, and let normos be 'nay' in their naturally visceral dislike of homosexuality. There used to be such an understanding/compromise, but today, homos and trannies are encouraged to strut their stuff in the streets and even in the presence of young school-children, whereas even the slightest negativity expressed by normo-sexuals on the matter of homosexuality leads to rabid hysteria, witch-hunts, and mania to tar-and-feather the heretic who then must be burned at the stake for all to see to send the message loud-and-clear that we must all worship globo-homo as the proxy of Jewish Supremacist Power.

Notes on Review of CABARET(dir. Bob Fosse) by Trevor Lynch — Weimar Decadence and the Nazi 'Cure' — Nature of Creativity

For Trevor Lynch's Review of Cabaret, Click this Link: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/07/bob-fosses-cabaret/

I managed to ignore CABARET all these years — I was never a fan of Bob Fosse and musicals in general besides — , but upon reading the above review, I checked it out, and yep, not my cup of tea. It reeks of sleaze(without a real sense of danger), and Liza Minnelli is one of the most repellent screen presences ever. She looks like a cross between Raggedy Ann Doll and Malcolm McDowell in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Her character is like a freako Lena Dunham impersonating Matthew Broderick as Ferris Bueller.
Like many artists who came to film-making from other fields, Fosse never developed a sure cinematic style of his own, which accounts for the peppering of his movies with obvious and intrusive visual antics(usually with editing) to demonstrate cinematic prowess. A true master of cinema doesn't have to remind us at every turn that he’s making-a-movie. If anything, he renders the making-of-film invisible and subordinate to the final product. ALL THAT JAZZ is half-interesting(at least it was to my younger self when I’d seen nothing like that prior), but it too is marred by excessive razzle-dazzle of cutting, lighting, and odd angles.
Granted, the very great Orson Welles also moved from theater to cinema, but his genius transferred theatrics into cinematics with masterly ease. Stagecraft merged with screen-magic. In contrast, Fosse's theatrics stick out of his films. The difference between Welles and Fosse is that between compound and mixture. Welles’ method is a chemical process whereas Fosse’s method is merely the physical joining of one art-form with another. And because Fosse could not rise above the stage-centrism of his performance arts background, he relied excessively on editing, a technique unique to cinema, to earn film-making credentials.
Other than that, I find Cabaret-style music to be mostly cringe-worthy, and it's all the worse in CABARET because everything is overripe, wearying, and putrid. At the very least, the American Vaudeville scene was without pretension. In contrast, the Cabaret scene had the affectations of bohemian chic, a conceit that made it even worse. We can enjoy a movie like STRIPES(with Bill Murray) for what it is. It doesn’t pretend to be a serious work of satire. In contrast, CABARET masquerades as an Important Art Film. Its musical acts lack the light-hearted spirit of a number like "Dreaming of You" in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN or other breezy American musicals. Instead of freshness, there's the stale air of putrefaction, as if we’re watching musical acts done by ghouls(like the ones in CARNIVAL OF SOULS).


Politically, CABARET is a dishonest and stupid movie, especially irritating because it tries to have it both ways: Apologia of Immorality as Liberation but also Morality Tale about looming Tyranny. (In rare moments, one wonders if the film is actually a criticism of Weimar Period for indulging in mindless decadence than waking up to the dangers of Nazism. Indeed, the most touching moment is the wedding scene where two Jews reverently reconnect with their roots in a traditional ceremony. Immorality is hardly an effective weapon against a 'moralized' movement like Nazism or communism. Shanghai decadents and the like were swept aside by Mao and his communists, as shown in THE LAST EMPEROR and FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE. Perhaps, this accounts as to why today’s decadence and degeneracy as been moralized than merely liberalized. As globo-homomania is regarded as a ‘spiritual’ crusade, it has the New Moralists on its side. In current America, Cabaret isn’t merely a club but the new church. Stonewall Riots are commemorated as akin to the Resurrection of Jesus. Thus, if few people were willing to die for Weimar Germany, many are willing to fight and die for Weimerica as a ‘moral’ principle.) Culturally, CABARET is THE SOUND OF MUSIC for the artsy set. Oddly enough, both movies ironically end up giving the Nazis their due, as Lynch's review points out. While the wholesome family in THE SOUND OF MUSIC is staunchly anti-Nazi and 'good', they represent in looks and manners exactly the kind of people that the Nazis would have endorsed. They are like the idealization of the Perfect Aryan Family except that they're Anti-Nazi. In contrast, one might say CABARET is a celebration of freaks and weirdos, exactly the kind of 'degenerates' and reprobates denounced culturally and morally by the Nazis. It’s like watching the satanic rituals in ROSEMARY’S BABY. The fact is they do really come across as ugly, repugnant, and demented, as if to admit that maybe the Nazis did have a point. Such perception would have been ‘accidental’(or perhaps incidental) than intentional on the film-makers’ part, but it’s nearly inescapable, especially for those who are preordained to disdain overt displays of excessive decadence. (A much greater work about the life in theater and music is TOPSY-TURVY, a genuine masterpiece by Mike Leigh who, until then, was mainly known for neo-kitchen-sink or bitchin-stink dramas that were mostly wearying.)

The film reminds us of what Paul Johnson said of Modern Art in general: Nazi persecution lent it an air of tragedy and significance it otherwise might not have had. Among anti-fascists in the Liberal West, the idea was "If the Nazis hate it, it must be good." After all, if the Nazis were Evil Incarnate, everything they opposed must have been on the side of angels. In the dreary film FARAWAY, SO CLOSE by Wim Wenders, we see traumatized angels throwing tantrums at the Nazi exhibition of Degenerate Art. With so many problems around the world, one would think angels would be preoccupied with matters other than a Modern Art exhibit, but such is the conceit of deracinated cosmopolitan artists. Since the satanic Nazis were opposed to degeneracy, degeneracy must have been good, or so the anti-Nazi logic would have us believe. If not for the specter of Nazism, one would have to wonder WHAT cultural value the trashy musical numbers in CABARET have. It’s like Jews, even the most noxious and corrupt ones, invoking the Holocaust Card — my so-and-so was a ‘Holocaust Survivor’ — as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Never mind one’s lack of intrinsic virtue because one is bestowed worth simply as the hated-of-Nazis. Similarly, Antifa, a gathering of lunatics and thugs, has been bestowed 'meaning' and 'purpose' because they presumably fight 'Nazis'. And illegal invaders are 'dreamers' simply because their presence is an affront to Trumpism, aka 'New Nazism'.
To be sure, pro-Nazis can fall into a similar mental trap. If the Anti-Nazis argue, "If Nazis hated it, it must be good", the Pro-Nazis argue, "If Nazis were anti-degeneracy, they must have been good." In truth, a movement or system can be anti-degenerate and still turn out to be terrible. Consider Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Theocratic Iran & Saudi Arabia(not to mention the Taliban), and the Khmer Rouge. Does anyone want the US to be ruled by the 700 Club? Besides, the very people who claim to be anti-degenerate could turn out to be closet-degenerates or repressed-degenerates whose neo-puritanical campaigns serve as cover for new forms of degeneracy passing themselves as morality and order. Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels, and other Nazi big-wigs were pathological degenerates in their own ways except that they donned kulturkampf armors to conceal their diseased souls. Just like Televangelist charlatans hide behind God & 'family values', pervert-sadists like Beria hide behind Social Justice ideology, and the axis of cretinous Neocon Zionists & Pentagon warmongers hide behind the smokescreen of 'spreading democracy' and 'war on terror', the Nazis too honed their skills in presenting themselves as the cure for the disease when, if anything, too many of them were diseased themselves.
Now, given the nature of human psychology, it could be that all such individuals were sincere in their self-delusions. Whether Beria or Himmler, it's possible he actually believed he was on the right side of History. And it's possible that many in the neo-imperialist Deep State sincerely believe in the crap that they spout to maintain world hegemony. And consider the pathetic case of Matthew Heimbach. The Malt-Right bubble-butt kid made a name for himself by spouting off against the corrupting power of Jewish degeneracy. He promoted a family-friendly version of Neo-Nazism as a cure, but it turned out his private life was akin to antics on the Jerry Springer Show. The fat boy humped the wife of his father-in-law and then beat him up upon being exposed. And there’s Richard Spencer and his crew whose idea of White Nationalism was all-night drinking binges and fantasizing about being 007 Darth Vaderians sticking their laser dongs into anything that moves. And there was the audio-recording by some bi-sexual guy(who goes by the pseudonym Pilleater)that revealed Greg Johnson discussing how it's fun to recruit young men for homosexual trysts at white nationalist conventions. Now, this was mis-characterized as 'grooming' by the gross fatbody Matt Forney-the-Horny, but it wasn't exactly wholesome either. Incidentally, Forney is yet another moralist who is actually a total degenerate unlike his nemesis Jim Goad who is open about and even proud of his degeneracy. It seems the crucial difference between Gavin McInnes & Milo(and Goad) AND Richard Spencer & Greg Johnson(and Forney) is the former’s degeneracy is out in the open whereas the latter is more keen to keep it under wraps from the public(without much success, one might add).

Moralist-as-closet-degenerate. Matt Heimbach with Matt Parrott whose wife Heimbach boffed in Jerry-Springer-fashion.

What is striking about CABARET is its Judeo-centrism. It exemplifies the golden Jewish rule of "Is it good for the Jews?" Power over principles. If Jews can use degeneracy against a power they don't like, they choose to be pro-degeneracy. But if Jews can use anti-degeneracy against a perceived enemy, they can just as easily be anti-degenerate. The very Jews who defended Weimar degeneracy against the Nazis could have been the same ones cheering for neo-puritanical communists against capitalist-imperialist decadence(when it was dominated by gentiles in the West). Plenty of Jews admired the Cuban communists and Vietnamese communists for resisting American Imperialism with its crass materialism, consumerism, and hedonism. New York Times played a key role in bringing Castro to power and did its share in undermining American efforts in Vietnam. Today, we see Jews promoting globo-homo degeneracy against Christian moralists but also defending Muslims and #MeToo Movement against Trump who is portrayed as a vulgarian bigot and pussy-grabbing degenerate. When American Capitalist-Imperialism was once mainly associated with Wasp power and the right-wing military, Jews were more than willing to support neo-puritanical forces against it. There was a time when even a millionaire Jewess like Carole King serenaded none other than Fidel Castro with the song, "You've gotta a friend." But when degeneracy was the weapon against the enemies of Jews, such as the Nazis, it was suddenly a GOOD thing. So, the very Jews who might watch the Soviet film I AM CUBA and cheer on the neo-puritanical revolutionaries against the decadent capitalists of casinos and swanky hotels might, on the next day, cheer for the decadents in CABARET whose acts are hardly distinguishable from the capitalist excesses of pre-Castroite Cuba.



In the 60s, the very Jews and Liberals who championed Sex, Drugs, & Rock n Roll against Old White Conservative America could, in the same breath, extol the virtue of selfless and spartan Viet Cong who were fighting the South Vietnamese lackeys indulging in capitalist-consumerist excesses imported by American Imperialist Occupiers. In the documentary HEARTS AND MINDS(1974), Americans are shown as corrupting agents by spreading drugs, degeneracy, and prostitution among the Vietnamese. But few years prior, Jews and Liberals cheered for M*A*S*H where libertine Americans use sex and debauchery as anti-authoritarian and antiwar statement, especially at the expense of Robert Duvall’s character who is exposed as a Christian-moralist hypocrite. The very Jews who morally condemn a bunch of white people placing bacon inside mosques lend full support to Pussy Riot degenerates who desecrate Churches in Russia. How can Jews be pro-morality in one case but pro-degeneracy in another? It all boils down to, "Is it good for Jews?"
Granted, there is less contradiction among today's Jews because they now possess the ultimate power. Decades ago, Jews resented the dominant position of Wasps in elite institutions, and they sought EVERY means, decadent or moralistic, to undermine Anglo-American prestige and power. But with the fading of communism, the triumph of Jewish power in the US as the Lone Superpower, and the decline of Third World nationalism, Jews now have a narrower agenda than prior to their seizure of power. If in the past, Jews used moralism against decadence(siding with Castro and Viet Cong contra US capitalists) or decadence against moralism(idolizing Weimar subversives contra Nazi authoritarianism), Jews today are more likely to say Decadence Is Moralism, as with their promotion of Globo-Homo that went from pleading for 'gay rights' to mandatory worship of Gay Rites. Indeed, things are worse now than in the Weimar period because we can’t even tell degeneracy apart from morality. At least with Weimar, you knew degeneracy when you saw it. Even those championing it didn’t pretend it was moral. If anything, they got high on its nihilistic kicks. It’s like Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald in THE SUN ALSO RISES and THE GREAT GATSBY weren’t morally endorsing the hedonism they depicted even as they delighted in much of it. Weimarians of the pre-Nazi period were for freedom of perversion as a democratic value; they weren't arguing perversion IS morality. In contrast, so many people today embrace degeneracy as the new hope, the new faith, the new path forward for all mankind. Degeneracy once used to mock religions and faith. Now, globo-homo-mania seeks to take over churches and preach ass-buggery as the stuff of 'rainbow' visions and revelations.

There was a time when degeneracy took pride in being rejected by the Middle and Mainstream. It was so cool in its dangerous ‘subversiveness’ and as an affront to Social-Moral Order. But now, the Power(that is mostly Jewish) pulls out all the fireworks to ensure that Middle America will bend over to Degeneracy as the New Normal. 80% of Americans accept 'gay marriage', and most Americans do NOTHING to lend support to Christian bakers being sued by Jewish law firms at the behest of vicious homos and disgusting trannies. And just consider the spread of tattoos and piercings EVEN AMONG conservatives. If heavily-tattooed Gavin McInnes who kisses Milo(whose bung is filled with Negro dongs) and sticks a dildo up his ass is the face of New Conservatism, it really makes you wonder.

Gavin McInnes the Bung-servative

A scene near the end in CABARET mocks stupid Germans of suspecting a Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy consisting of both financiers and communists. It’s an invitation to "Don’t think beyond A-B-C." The A-B-C logic goes, IF Jews are commies, how could they also be capitalists, or vice versa? Surely, only DUMB people could accuse Jews of both radicalism and greed. But, let's consider the historical facts. While it’d be ludicrous to say Jewish communists and Jewish capitalists were completely without ideological scruples, there were many cases of collective-complementary-symbiotic strategy between the Jewish Left and Jewish Right on the basis of tribal solidarity. The capitalist Armand Hammer had no qualms about doing business with the Soviets. And of course, Zionism was a collective-movement of the Jewish Right and Jewish Left to wrest Palestine from the native Arabs. Also, plenty of capitalist Hollywood Jews gave cover to Jewish communists who sat around swimming pools while penning screenplays about the Proles. In a way, the Jewish Socialists and Jewish Capitalists could be mutually beneficial to one another. Jewish capitalists could wash away the sins of ‘greed’ by association with ‘progressive’ causes, and Jewish socialists could deflect accusations of communism via association with wheeler-dealer Jews. Quite often, Jewish capitalists chose Jewish communists over white capitalists. It was blood over creed. And so many former Jewish communists made the easy Zelig-like transition to capitalism, suggesting their identity ultimately mattered more than their ideology.
But then, Jews are hardly the only people who've acted in this regard. After all, what holds the disparate elements of the GOP together? It is implicit whiteness whether one is Christian Right or Libertarian-Capitalist. Donald Trump is hardly a spiritual figure, but many white Christians voted for him because he is 'one of us'. In India, religious Hindus(who tend to be culturally arch-conservative) are allied with capitalist Hindus(who tend to be worldly) because what they have in common is a powerful sense of Indian identity and nationalism. And when communist Vietnamese persecuted ethnic Chinese in the late 70s, communist China didn’t make common ideological cause with the communist Vietnamese but sided with their capitalist-leaning co-ethnics. So, it shouldn't be surprising that the Jewish communists and Jewish capitalists sometimes saw eye-to-eye on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?"

In a way, it confuses matters to address the politics of degeneracy within a left-right ideological framework. Historically, both the hard left and hard right had problems with degeneracy that became mainly associated with aristocratic privilege and/or capitalist excess. Monarchs and aristocrats were supposed to be noble, but their wealth and privilege often led to self-indulgence and excessive behavior. Emperor Ludwig II was the Michael Jackson of his day. He built lavish useless palaces and made homo advances on his servants. He did good to patronize the genius of Richard Wagner, but it's ironic that the whims of a homo 'emperor' laid the material groundwork for the music that would inspire men like Hitler. Many aristocrats ran out of money because they led lives of dissipation filled with partying and gambling. And then, capitalists made tons of money, and their spoiled children grew up with bohemian tastes and became the patrons of Modern Art. Also, as capitalism is all about the BUCK, it was willing to market ANYTHING for profit. This led to the explosion of vice industries, culminating in national legalization of gambling, pornography, and drugs(and even prostitution in some countries), with the result that, especially since the 1960s(but going back to the Jazz Age as well), decadence & degeneracy became synonymous with the mass 'values' as well in a world where young kids grew up to ‘decanography’ of MTV. In time, the aristocracy vanished and gave way to the capitalists. At the very least with aristocrats, despite their dissipation and decadence, there lingered the ideal of dignity and honor. With capitalists, all such lofty ideals eventually faded(as each successive generation of capitalists were further removed from the aristocratic model to which the first capitalists aspired) and gave way to the culture of shamelessness.
In the pre-capitalist world, the main economy comprised the procurement of food and essential goods, and that meant most people were involved with virtuous industry of agriculture, manufacture, repair, and transport. But as capitalist industrialism greatly expanded the economy and moved people from farms to cities, many more people got involved with occupations that were centered around vanity and vice... or at the end of the day, they turned on the TV and became fixated on vapid celebrity as their cultural mainstay. Then, it is not so surprising that homos became the New Angels of the 21st century. In a world where culture is mostly defined by narcissism, hedonism, and vanity, it only seems fitting that the most froopilaloop group would become the focus of attention for the masses hooked to TV shows and the latest fads and fashions.

At any rate, this is not strictly a left-right issue. It confuses matters to refer to the current politics(and even neo-spirituality) of degeneracy as 'leftist'. If anything, it gives the degenerates & decadents(and their globalist-supremacist patrons) too much credit by lending the impression that the Revolution is still alive. Granted, one could argue that decadence is more leftist than rightist because the left is about constant change whereas the right is about reverence of heritage and tradition. However, tradition can grow decadent, stale, and effete, whereas the culture of health could be embodied by the dynamism of change. During the French Revolution, it was the Left that embodied strength, vitality, and warrior spirit whereas the King and aristocrats with their powdered wigs, fake birthmarks, & snuff boxes were a bunch of hapless dweebs. In THE LAST EMPEROR, we see how traditional Chinese Power came to be consolidated in the hands of weak monarchs and silly eunuchs cloistered within their palace as a kind of Never-Land. And tradition among Chinese women had devolved into the sick practice of foot-binding. And traditionalist Chinese literati were effete men who grew their fingernails long and scribbled poetry while disdaining any use of their muscles as ‘vulgar’ and ‘low’. If anything, it was the Chinese modernizers, among whom communists were prominent, who emphasized the need for a healthy vigorous culture that respects labor and exercise. At the time of Japan's forced opening to the West, the ultra-conservative Tokugawa culture had grown decadent, what with poems being written about the smell of rotting teeth as sexual fetish. Both the ultra-conservative Byzantium and Ottoman court fell into despair of decadence. The Ottoman sultan was more likely to indulge in orgies with his harem than roll up his sleeves and rule an empire. And the elite power-holders of Rome grew decadent and acted like the clowns in Fellini’s SATRYICON. In some ways, the Germanic Barbarian invasions had a cleansing effect on a decayed culture and society.

There is a reason why Hitler shared the communist disdain for the German bourgeoisie. Even though National Socialism chose to ally with the bourgeoisie than overthrow them, Hitler found the conservative elite class too timid, effete, or dull to possess the necessary will to take command of History. And in a way, he proved to be right. The German Business class aided Hitler’s rise in the hope that it could control him, but, as events proved, it lacked the ‘balls’ to restrain Hitler whose balls proved bigger like Tony Montana’s in SCARFACE. National Socialism drew much from the Left — the color of red for example — because, despite fundamental disagreements, men like Hitler admired the leftist fighting spirit and determination to smash the old corrupt order and build a new one. Part of the reason why Wasp Conservatives became almost overnight a bunch of decadent ninnies is their power and privilege spoiled and softened them. Without the toughening effects of struggle, people lose the Will to Power and power of vision. Catholic Church is supposed to be ‘conservative’, but its inner circle now seems to be made up of a bunch of child-molesting degenerates addicted to privilege.

The true leftist struggle is dead and had been so for quite some time. Globalism is both anti-true-right and anti-true-left. No true leftist would have embraced globo-homo or 'gay marriage' or so many things associated with ‘progressivism’ nowadays, like ‘twerking as liberation’ or ‘Bruce Jenner is a woman’. Leftists believed women could do a lot of things that men can do, but they never said Man is Woman or vice versa. What goes by the label of ‘progressivism’ today is really the product of late-stage capitalism and the end-logic of vanity and hedonism as the highest values in the post-virtue age. This isn't even 'Cultural Bolshevism' but Cultural Capitalism. It is what happens when capitalism goes from an economic system to a value system. Now, there are some solid values, even virtues, associated with capitalism: Hard Work, Enterprise, Competition, Risk, and Ability, all of which support Competence, Accountability, and Meritocracy. But as capitalism emphasizes profit uber alles, it is driven to sell anything to maximize influx of cash. So, if billions can be made by selling fast food junk and turn lots of people into fatty-fatsos, capitalism will do so. If billions can be made by expanding gambling into every town and city, so be it. If stuff like Rap can rake in lots of dough, capitalists don't hesitate to fill the airwaves with garbage despite its corrosive effects on society. In time, the profit-centrism of capitalism can effectively rot the core of society. While capitalists themselves must be intelligent and hardworking, they make their money by selling stuff to the masses, most of whom happen to be dumb and vulgar. To maximize profits, capitalists use their smarts to come up with dumber things for the idiocratic masses. Lots of smarts went into the creation and development of video-games, but consider its overall impact on society. Smart geeks make dumb stuff for the masses. Consider the impact of smart-phones on consumers. It’s smart-machines for the high IQ designers & engineers but dumb-machines for their owners who spend inordinate amount of time staring at nonsense on them. And lots of creativity and smarts go into CGI, but the result has mostly been lots of dumb action movie spectacles about superheroes. And estimates show that one-third of all internet traffic goes to pornography. So, when addressing the problem of degeneracy, we need to stop blaming the 'left'. It is the result of neither the left nor the right but of capitalism's fixation on profits based on maximum short-term efficacy. Since the shameless masters-of-hedonism are most adept at concocting stuff that bring in the most profit, they are favored by capitalists to manage and define the culture, and the result is the 'Gay Party', like the one in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, which is like the culmination of the late consumer-capitalist mentality of the X-ers in RISKY BUSINESS, hardly a movie about 'leftists'. (What goes in fraternities are pretty crazy too, and the opening scene of DAS BOOT would suggest German military men were no strangers to acting wild and crazy.)


Had the German communists come to power in 1933, they would have done away with Weimar decadence just the same IF NOT MORE SO. Indeed, even under Nazi Rule, Germany was far less repressive than communist nations where culture was concerned. Jazz was disapproved but not banned. Swanky clubs continued to exist though without the excess of degeneracy seen in CABARET. For several years, Nazi Germany was less censorious of Hollywood movies than the Soviet Union was. Indeed, most of Nazi movie production aped Hollywood genres far more than the Soviet movie industry did. It’s no wonder that the ‘gay’ character(William Hurt) in THE KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN loves to watch Nazi-era movies because they are filled with glamour and fantasy. If anything, the neo-puritan leftist prisoner(Raul Ruiz) despises Hurt-character’s frivolity... though their eventual love-and-alliance perhaps prophesied the new politics whereupon leftism went ‘gay’ and ‘gayness’ became political. The film THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING shows how communist authorities didn't care for 'decadence'(associated with capitalism) either.




Also, the humanist cinema of the 40s and 50s(that generally leaned heavily to the Left) was often disapproving of the 'capitalist' culture of vanity and pleasure. Keep in mind that classic Marxists argued that Fascism was the final culmination of capitalism — maybe there is something to that given the current state of US as a gangster-fascist fiefdom of Jews and their globo-homo henchmen. In Roberto Rossellini's OPEN CITY, the Nazis come across as rather decadent, and there is a lesbian Nazi bitch to boot. In Vittorio De Sica's UMBERTO D, the least likable character is the wanna-be-rich landlady who evicts the old protagonist and invites affluent bohemian types to her social gatherings. In Frank Capra's movies — Capra was a conservative Republican but worked on scripts by leftists, even crpyto-communists — , the Good Common Folks embody simplicity whereas capitalists live it up. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, the vision of hell is Pottersville where raw capitalism runs like sewage; Violet isn't merely a floozy but an all-out whore, and Martini's joint is Nick's with a big-ass cigar-chomping Negro banging blues rhythms on the piano. Also, even though Sam Wainwright the uber-capitalist turns out to be an A-Okay guy, it's the social-communitarian George Bailey who is the real hero, and he's all about Family and Community. He stuck with the Savings and Loans out of loyalty to his father, and he finds most meaning with wife and kids in his hometown. (This is why today's globo-homo urban decadents hoot-and-holler throughout the movie, especially in the scene where George encounters Mary-as-old-maid-librarian.)


In Akira Kurosawa's movies like STRAY DOG, IKIRU, and HIGH AND LOW, the urban capitalist culture is presented as corrupting, degrading, and alienating. Federico Fellini's LA DOLCE VITA and Michelangelo Antonioni's L'AVVENTURA were hailed at the time for what many took to be a commentary on the soulless materialism of post-war Europe where everything revolves around the ME. Even up to the 70s and 80s, it wasn't rare for Leftist or Liberal artists to depict villainy in the form of homosexuals(even when the artists themselves were tootkins). In Visconti's THE DAMNED, one of the arch-villains is a transvestite who goes over to the Nazis like Annakin Skywalker to the Dark Side. In THE CONFORMIST, it's implied the main character settled for fascist conformism as the result of childhood trauma of having been molested by a homo. In Z by Costa Gavras, one of the right-wing thugs is a nasty homo. Even as late as 1987, the arch-villain in NO WAY OUT was William Patton’s brilliant portrayal of a homo social-climber and henchman whose blushy face gives the impression that he just walked out of the washroom after sucking someone’s cock.
Also, back when society disdained homosexuality(or found it ridiculous, as in Mel Brooks' THE PRODUCERS with "Springtime for Hitler" number), it was commonplace to associate the Nazis and Fascists with the culture of perversity. In that regard, CABARET somewhat stood apart from anti-fascist films such as Pasolini’s SALO(where fascists bugger kids), NIGHT PORTER(where fascists indulge in S&M), and Szabo’s MEPHISTO(where the Nazis are eager to recruit a bohemian artist as a culture warrior). In Bernardo Bertolucci's 1900, the Fascists come across as the craziest bunch of party dudes who even hang a cat on the wall and bash its guts out. Donald Sutherland plays a Fascist who makes Alex of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE look like Mr. Rogers. He's a total pervert and degenerate. In contrast, the communists represent simplicity and virtue. Fellini's AMARCORD is supposed to be about how everyone was so idiotic under Fascism, but everyone just comes across as lovable and funny, even the Fascists.

A kind of Saul-Alinsky's RULES-FOR-RADICALS outlook shaped the cultural strategy of the 70s, especially as the 60s flamed out by alienating Middle America or the Silent Majority. Alinsky argued that radicalism has to be presented as mainstream, normal, and respectable. But, if radicalism was to become the New Normal, then the Old Normal had to be made the New Perverse. It appears Alinsky was a genuine leftist and socialist, but his lessons were adopted by others as well, though they likely arrived at the same conclusion on their own. If cultural perverts were to gain power in a society that was still socially conservative — where even many liberals found homosexuality to be weird or sick, pornography to be offensive or demeaning, and drugs to be corrupting to the young — , then the biggest symbols of Political Order, the Nazis and Fascists, had to be presented as the Real Perverts. Then, it is not surprising that so many Fascinating-Fascist Cinema of the late 60s and 70s featured Nazis or Fascists not so much as Men of Order but the Real Men of Degeneracy, with Pasolini's SALO really taking the cake. (In contrast, globo-homo came to associate ‘gays’ with middle-class values, white picket fences & green lawns, clean-cut white collar jobs, and even ‘marriage’. It was like HOMO KNOWS BEST or LEAVE IT TO HOMO. PHILADELPHIA presented a homo as upstanding middle class professional, and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN had homos as American icons: Cowboys as rump-humpers. Homos were made out to be more-normal-than-normal, and in time, even churches were festooned with ‘gay’ colors. The fact that the children of John McCain and George W. Bush all so easily become globo-homo shows how vapid and shallow the values of the ‘conservative’ elites are. They have no core convictions beyond hankering for status & approval by the latest fads and fashions.) Why did homos and other perverts feel a need to invert symbols and values in this way? It was their way of hoodwinking the larger society that was still culturally conservative in many respects. When we survey some of the biggest or most significant films of the 1970s, what really strikes us is how 'conservative' they are despite the fact that most were written and/or directed by 'liberals' or Jews. There was PATTON, DIRTY HARRY, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, THE GODFATHER I & II, DEATH WISH, THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST(if not conservative, then libertarian against liberalism), FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, TAXI DRIVER, JAWS, ROCKY, and THE DEER HUNTER. The problems of urban crime made DIRTY HARRY, FRENCH CONNECTION, and DEATH WISH relevant. THE GODFATHER and FIDDLER ON THE ROOF focused on the Family as the only worthy attachment in a world of chaos, corruption, greed, and/or hypocrisy. THE EXORCIST portrayed men of the church doing battle with the Devil who turn a young girl into proto-Miley-Cyrus. CARRIE mocked the ultra-religious mother, but its top villains were the soulless materialist school girls who torment good-hearted Carrie. And Woody Allen's early comedies, though certainly not right-wing, tended to be more negating of the Left because of their cynical anti-utopianism that remained skeptical of the program. It was Allen’s way of saying "We Won’t Get Fooled Again". Given the norms of the time, it would have been rather risky to make an anti-Nazi statement by promoting degeneracy as the cure. It made more sense to associate Nazism or Fascism itself with degeneracy and decadence. Besides, the early 70s dealt with the hangover of the late 60s with its hippie freakouts, Manson murders, Altamont disaster, endless riots, and social protests. In that context, CABARET's unapologetic celebration of Weimar degeneracy wasn't characteristic of the period. Despite Nazism's anti-homosexual policy, it wasn’t rare in arts & culture to associate Nazism with homo perversion, not least because of emergence of S&M homo subculture with fetishes for Nazi regalia(like in CRUISING with Al Pacino who, as undercover cop, gets in too deep with the bung-busters). Granted, times were changing fast. ALL IN THE FAMILY featured Divine as a sympathetic transvestite character. And the sitcom SOAP featured Billy Crystal as a nice 'gay' character. Still, the overwhelming attitude about homos remained negative throughout the 70s. At most, homos could hope to turn homosexuality from a butt of kicks to butt of jokes. Better to have people laugh at homos than insult or attack them. Make people see homosexuality as humorous than hostile, like in the SANFORD AND SON episode: at 16:10


The problem with CABARET(and movies like ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW) is their weirdness is too easy and mostly phony. Weirdness, strangeness, and even freakiness are a part of life and may be fascinating as such but not when misguided souls(who are not even genuinely weird) go out of their way to be ‘different’. Perhaps, the cult of modernism spread weirdness as some kind of 'cool' model, thereby encouraging even non-weirdos to go out on a limb to appear eccentric or odd in some way. "Hey look, I’m special." (Today, so many people get tattoos and piercings to make a ‘statement’. Especially as Political Correctness doesn’t allow for controversy or differences of views, people hope to be a fresh face in the crowd with token signifiers, a conceit that gets lamer by the day as tattoos, piercings, and pink/green hair dyes have become the New Conformism among idiot Millennials, the dumbest generation of all time surely.) It’s like some people are genuinely schizo and, as such, their condition can be an interesting and worthy subject of study, but it makes no sense for non-schizos to act schizo. It'd be a mockery, at best a parody, and why? Non-weird pretending to be weird is like non-talented pretending to be talented. The Arts & Culture community has an excess of both. Too many nice middle-class kids raised on cult of modernism & post-modernism trying desperately to be the next weirdo artist. As much as I detest Robert Crumb, at least he is a genuine weirdo with real talent. But everything in CABARET is fake, a farce. The players are just insipid no-talents pretending to be edgy bohemians and free spirits when they're about as engaging as the no-can-dance extras in ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW.

The utterly worthless ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW where weirdness is just a big put-on.

Generally speaking, the most striking forms of creativity, especially in the modern era, tend to be either strange or the product of strange sensibilities. Normality doesn’t breed much in the way of inspiration. Even when someone like Brian Wilson wrote pop songs for mainstream America, he dreamed his private dreams to access the muse. It is the Strange Factor, as muse or expression, that distinguishes notable works from others. This strangeness could be overt(as in the paintings of Salvador Dali) or subtle(as in the stories of Katherine Anne Porter), but it throws people off balance and lends privy to new perceptions. In modernism, mere mastery or expertise isn't enough, though, to be sure, even the greatest pre-modern works of art had something strange about them. The X-factor of vision or style that distinguished it from the rest.
This Strange Factor is always a bit disturbing but also fascinating and provocative. Even beauty is most potent with an element of strangeness. Any number of decent artists can paint a beautiful scenery with trees, lakes, and sunsets, but it is the special artist who conveys something more than niceness. The real question is whether the strangeness is genuine, the stuff of inspiration/conflict, OR just a big put-on. For the naturally normal or non-talented who seek fame(or even notoriety) in the arts, strange-posturing is all-too-often a shortcut to being ‘special’. It’s like avant-garde-ism is dime-a-dozen across Art Schools with their new gremlin-batches of artistes who’d be the new Basquiat or worse. It’s all just a put-on with the freaks on display in CABARET. Worse, it’s a put-on without any discernible talent. (Bob Fosse has been widely praised as a choreographer, but what was his contribution to dance other than having women roll their hips and thighs like chunks of ham on a stick?) Now, a put-on artist or poseur can have talent, which was certainly the case with David Byrne as part of Talking Heads. Unlike David Bowie, Byrne wasn't a real weirdo but a clever showman(like Peter Gabriel) but with some genuine musical flair. But apart from playfulness, Byrne was nothing more than College Rock music. In contrast, Bowie had a genuinely strange musical sensibility, though his stage persona as Ziggy or some such freak was just plain dumb. Musically however, he was like one-man time-machine bridging nostalgia and futurism, primitivism and sophistication. Most people will outgrow Talking Heads but will be haunted by some Bowie songs for a long time.

The problem with Nazi conception of Art was the lack of appreciation of strangeness. Nazi cultural theorists appreciated the outer-manifestations of genius(at least that which was devoted to beauty or grandeur) but were reluctant to ponder the inner turmoil that made such art possible. It’s like the limitations of someone looking at a beautiful child and thinking that beautiful life can be created beautifully. But in fact, life is created through exchange of fluids in animal-sex, the burden of childbearing, and the gross agony of child-birth. Beauty is born of pain and ugliness. Flowers don’t create flowers. Flowers bloom from stems that grow from the soil that absorb nutrients from decay of dirt. Honey isn’t made by honey but by bees through a complex and arduous process. Fixating on beauty as the end-all of art is like regarding the honey without considering the processes involved in creating it.
When it came to biology, the Nazis understood the dark side of life. Aryan beauty was the product of ruthless evolutionary processes of struggle and brutality. Every life-form, no matter how beautiful, is the product of violent struggles over millions of years. Yet, when it came to Arts & Culture, the Nazis were almost timidly and tidily bourgeois in their near-phobia for the strange and dark. Though Goebbels initially argued in favor of German Expressionism, he fell in line with the Hitlerian dogma that art must mandate beauty and be borne of beauty. Think beautiful images and make beautiful art. But even visions of beauty must emanate from a darker place, just like light of the Sun draws from turbulence deep beneath the surface. True art can only be created by genius individuals, and they must be free to seek their own path. The state cannot dictate or ordain creativity. It can only support it if it exists in the first place on the individual level.

Because of the crucial Strange Factor in creativity, it makes little sense to discuss art in terms of disease vs cure, foul vs wholesome, sick vs noble. The real question is whether it is true in vision, meaning, and talent. A work can be 'noble', 'wholesome', and/or 'healthy' but still lack value as just a bundle of trite cliches executed without talent or skill. Granted, a work can be 'diseased', 'foul', & 'sick' and without artistic value, which would be WORSE than a bad work with 'positive' or 'healthy' qualities. And in this sense, I agree with Trevor Lynch that the volkish song by the young blond lad at a beer garden is preferable to what goes at the Cabaret. It may not be much, but at least it's positive and healthy. In contrast, not only are the Cabaret acts demented but lousy to boot. Worse, it’s like a freakshow with pretend-freaks, like watching Lar Von Trier’s IDIOTS where non-idiots act like idiots just to annoy everyone. (That said, there's the appeal of the Cabaret in its looseness of body and motion whereas the volkish anthem by the blonde Nazi lad is about rigid unity and bound commitment. Cabaret music is about song-and-dance whereas the Nazi song is about song-and-march. Upright stiffness is necessary to uphold civilization and social order, but there's a natural desire to cut loose in lateral motion. It's like dogs are eager to learn tricks and obey orders to please their masters, but they also want freedom to stretch out and run wild. The Claire Denis film BEAU TRAVAIL makes this very point in the final scene where the hitherto overbearing sergeant goes footloose and feels liberated from social and psychological regimentation. On the other hand, anyone who's observed black societies should know that unfettered wildness is not the path to meaningful liberation. It can just as easily be a surrender to tyranny of animal savagery. Just look at black communities in Sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, Detroit, and London where people's idea of culture is bumping-and-grinding like shameless apes. Animals may live in 'freedom', but they are also trapped in a state of brutality and constant fear. When the West was nearly all-white and well-ordered, the appeal of the primitive to Modern Man was understandable. Too much order, complexity, artificiality, and abstraction can repress or deny something that is natural and vital. In such context, the new primitivism offered spice and flavor, something fresh and reinvigorating; indeed, the German obsession with nature and the Romantic fascination with ancient barbarian myths had something to do with dissatisfaction with ultra-modernity. But when neo-savagery, especially that of blacks, becomes the main mode of culture all across the West -- made worse by heavy influxes of black African migrant-invaders -- , it is no longer a dream but a nightmare. There's a difference between having nature around where you live AND surrendering to the full-blown forces of nature. In the Modern West, we now have the sick phenomenon of the the most advanced technology in electronics and communications using their vast reach and networks to amplify & disseminate Afro-jungle-savagery far and wide. Instead of a desire for a taste of nature separate from modernity, we have modernity itself in overdrive to saturate civilization with the hyper-savagery of the Negro-Gone-Wild.)

As for Liza Minnelli’s character, Sally Bowles doesn't come across as a true free spirit(like Louise Brooks’ silent movie personas or Jeanne Moreau’s Catherine in JULES AND JIM) but merely someone aping the type. To be sure, the film at one point has Michael York's character blurt out that her femme-fatale act is a pathetic sham, but then, why are we made to fixate on her miserable life as some kind of meaningful middle-finger against bourgeois mores and the Nazis?
Everything in CABARET is fake because it's about people going out of their way to be WILLFULLY weird. Willfully wallowing in decadence is the flip-side of willfully straining to worship beauty, which is what made the Nazis dreary. Ironically, the Weimar decadents and the Nazis in CABARET have more in common than they realize. Both are dogmatically committed to the notion that Culture MUST BE one thing or another instead of naturally flowing from genius, hopes, and dreams to make us see the world anew.
At least Holly Golightly of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S was a 'real phony' and was played by the lovely and charming Audrey Hepburn. In contrast, Liza Minnelli is about as captivating as a sack of moldy potatoes. Her face resembles a blobfish. And her Louise-Brooks hairdo is all the more irritating for evoking the fabulous silent star to whom Minnelli can't hold a candle. As for Joel Grey, he seems to be imitating the magician in Fellini's 8 ½, possibly Fosse's favorite film as his semi-autobiographical ALL THAT JAZZ draws so much from it.

Liza Minnelli or a Blobfish

The difference between SEVEN BEAUTIES and CABARET is the former understands Nazism/Fascism as a pathology within the larger sickness of the human condition. In other words, fascism or no fascism, the human species has always been a one big fuc*-up since the time of cavemen to the age of Romans to the modern present. So, while Nazism was a more pronounced form of lunacy, the roots of human sickness go much deeper and its seeds will continue to sprout around the world. In contrast, CABARET's stunted moral vision would have us believe that since the Nazis were the bad guys, the good guys must have been the degenerates denounced by the Nazis even though the movie clearly shows the Cabaret world as tawdry and sordid. There’s a ridiculous stage act(hardly worse than the numbers in CABARET) in SEVEN BEAUTIES, but Wertmuller didn’t pretend it had moral significance against Fascism.

Lina Wertmuller could see the problems of humanity BEYOND Nazism/Fascism. The makers of CABARET apparently couldn't. One gets the impression from CABARET that, "If not for the Nazis, all would be well with everyone having a grand time." It’s like the crazy notion within PC that evil could be purged from the world by eradicating ‘Anti-Semites’, ‘racists’, and ‘homophobes’, most of whom happen to be white. But such logic is self-defeating because the moral value of the Cabaret world depends on Nazis as the villainous foil. Without the Nazis, the obvious degenerates of CABARET wouldn't be able to say, "At least I'm not a Nazi."
Michael York's character’s only purpose is serve as the alter ego to the average moviegoer. Though a homo, he's the most normal person in the story, the one that the average moviegoer will want to identify with. He is meant to act, talk, and think for us. Since he turns pro-degenerate and anti-Nazi, the average moviegoer is expected to nod along. His role is much like that of the southern boy in SOPHIE'S CHOICE who befriends a very messed-up couple — a Jewish neurotic and a Polish knucklehead — who are meant to represent the tragic burden of art, romance, and history. Though deeply flawed, a much more interesting movie about Weimar period is Ingmar Bergman's THE SERPENT'S EGG that at least tries to understand why things fell apart to make way for the New Order in Germany.

In medicine, one cannot understand health without the study of disease, and the German medical community played a key role in the rise of Nazism as physical & psychological health were seen as analogous to social, cultural, and national health. In a way, an artist is like a doctor who puts his stethoscope to matters of soul & society to listen for signs of health or sickness. An artist who only wants to deal with pleasant, beautiful, or nice subjects is like a doctor who insists on seeing only healthy patients. If Nazis were like illness-phobic doctors, Weimar degenerates were like quacks selling snake-oil to spread disease. A true doctor must possess genuine curiosity to understand the nature of disease, just like a true artist must have the courage to delve into life’s realities to gain deeper understanding.
Of course, doctors must ultimately treat diseases, but they must also regard them with fascination and even respect. After all, there is a certain Relativity Principle to diseases and organisms. We regard many bacteria as parasitic carriers of disease, but plenty of organisms would say the same of humanity if they could think and speak. Humans have parasitically used land and water to their own benefit at the expense of other organisms. Humans leech milk from cows. Humans empty lakes and seas of fish. All organisms are parasitic in some way. But then, even as they harm other species, they also provide opportunities for others. Humans have been bad for wolves and bears but great for dogs, cats, rats, and pigeons. Also, the decaying agency of micro-organisms performs a cleaning service. Dead animals rot in nature, but it’s also a process of cleansing and renewal. People find maggots gross, but they feed on carrion and waste material. To the extent that other organisms may regard humans as a disease, we need to respect all organisms on some level because life is a competition among parasites. Like humans, all organisms do what they can to survive and gain dominance. In many cases, one organism seeks to devour other organisms, but organisms also arrive at symbiotic relationships where they not only co-exist but become co-dependent. Humans couldn’t survive without certain kinds of bacteria in their guts. Therefore, the Nazi medical ideology, like its cultural ideology, was limited in its strict distinctions of healthy and sick, noble and ignoble. For deeper understanding, some degree of empathy is required to understand why the Other acts as it does and how We may appear to Them from their own sets of values and priorities. Art, at its best, is about exploring and understanding than preaching dogma and pushing the same idols over and over. This aspect of culture was completely missing in Hitler who was so sure of everything, but then, this trait was evident from his childhood. Germans and Jews had developed a symbiotic relationship over the centuries. They were parasites on the other and yet also mutually beneficial. Germany kings and princes gained much from Jewish financial expertise. In that sense, they were leeching off Jewish intelligence and know-how. But, Jews used their financial wizardly to leech off Germans as well. They were both feeding and taking from one another. Same could be said of their cultural relations. Gentiles often regarded Jews as cultural parasites who stole and exploited white culture. But Jews could say of Europeans that they stole the Jewish God as their own God. Also, white Europeans stole the Biblical Narrative as their own. Furthermore, even as Jews took from German culture, they also made key contributions from which Germans drew inspiration. So, the Aryan-Semitic relationship through the years was both troublesome and constructive, with rights and wrongs on both sides. Alexander Solzhenitsyn felt much the same way about Russian-Jewish relations over the centuries. But Hitler refused to consider the Jewish side of the equation and simply denounced Jewishness as all-bad. Today, we see the same pathology among Jews who insist on the narrative/dogma that they were entirely good and innocent while white goyim were entirely to blame for all frictions between Jews and Gentiles. Just like Hitler’s arrogance led to the madness of WWII, the current Jewish madness — an unwillingness and inability to consider the goy side of the equation — is pushing the world over the brink with Jewish Power demanding that everything go its way or the highway. Notice how Jewish media monopolies in the US have refused to publish Solzhentisyn’s book that call for reconciliation by both sides confessing their historical wrongs. Just like Hitler, today’s Jews feel that their kind was always totally correct while all others exist only to lick Jewish boot.

The problem with Nazi medical ideology was it overlooked the sickness within Nazism itself. Though Hitler and his cohorts presented themselves as political healers of Germany and provided certain much-needed cures, they also spread the disease of racial arrogance, aggression, and contempt. National Socialism didn’t so much counter Weimar decadence with morality as replace it with its own brand of nihilism giving Aryans the license to do as they pleased, which would have terrible consequences in the East once war broke out.
Besides, it’s one thing to suppress excessive degeneracy but quite another to render the culture sterile with too strong a dosage of antisepticism. And given the psychological profiles of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and others, it should have been clear to the German medical community that the Nazi cure could just as easily turn out to be as bad as the disease. Likewise, when a pathological nut Jim Jones got to play spiritual arbiter at Guyana, the result was worse than secular sin. And communists, in their war on capitalist exploitation, ended up creating an even more tyrannical society. Louis Farrakhan offers some good insights and proposals, but he is fundamentally a diabolical figure, a demagogue like Hitler with boundless megalomania. If a man like that could come to power, the Million Man March could easily turn into Million Man Murder.

One thing for sure, the medical community is never fully independent of ideology and politics. While all doctors will readily identify certain conditions as diseases — it’s difficult to imagine a day when doctors will defend cancer as a sign of health — , the fact is the medical community also bends to the winds of power politics. Once upon a time, the medical community recognized homosexuality as a pathology, but today, it’s classified as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. HIV was seen as a grave threat to society, but due to the ‘gay’ lobby, much stigma has been removed from the disease, and there’s even been push for legislation that would NOT criminalize those who knowingly spread HIV to ‘sexual’ partners. Also, part of the reason why HIV causes less panic now is due to the enormous amounts of funding that went into developing medicines to suppress its symptoms and its spread. The reason why HIV treatment got preferential funding owed to the powerful Jewish and homo lobbies that did everything to ensure that their demands were prioritized. Who/whom matters in medicine. If there were a disease that mainly kills Jews and a disease that mainly kills American Indians, you bet more funds will be spent on a cure for the former. Due to Jewish promotion of themselves and homos, America values Jewish and homo lives over all others. In foreign policy, Jewish lives matter more than Palestinian lives. And in medical funding, homo lives are prioritized over the lives of others. Notice how the medical community and the media paid scant attention to all the white working class folks dying as the result of the opioid crisis. The overall attitude among the elites has been, "Let the white trash choke on their own vomit and die", which is hardly distinguishable to Jewish attitude about Russian misery and deaths in the 1990s.

For quite some time, the medical community has allowed and even encouraged the mutilation of genitals in ‘sex-change operations’ so as to allow men to become ‘women’ and women to become ‘men’. This is now performed even on young children with full endorsement of medicine. There are doctors who dare not tell their patients to lose weight because lawyers on behalf of fatso clients will sue doctors who regard obesity as a medical problem. Things were no different in Nazi Germany where the medical community caved to the prevailing ideology in identifying health or sickness. Psychopaths like Hitler got to dictate to the medical community what was sick or healthy, just like, in our time, the Jewish globo-homo elites get to decide what the medical community may deem as diseased or not. A medical researcher today who writes an article debunking much of tranny gender theory could face severe ostracization and even be fired & blacklisted from further research. So, while there is a core consensus on health among all societies — broken bones are broken bones, and cancer is cancer — , the meaning of ‘health’ at the margins has often been ‘fluid’ in accordance to the vagaries of shifting ideological winds.
Like those in the medical profession, most people perceive good vs bad on the instructions of the prevailing ideology. If the media/academia tell us that ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ are the biggest problems, a lot of white people are likely to look for them under every rock like dogs ordered to track down rabbits will obsessively chase after rabbits. Having their scents directed at specific targets, they will overlook all the social problems caused by blacks and homos. Notice how Jewish Supremacism is the real power that controls America, but too many Americans are fixated on exposing ‘white supremacism’ because the Jewish-controlled media/academia fill impressionable people’s minds with nonstop panics about ‘Nazis’ and ‘white supremacists’(as diversion from the truth of Jewish Supremacist Power). Sometimes, a kind of 'automania' takes hold of human behavior. Just like a dog trained to dig for rabbits will keep digging at everything even when there are no more rabbits to catch, thereby causing damage to floor and furniture, social crusaders trained to hunt down ‘evil’ will keep on the hunt despite the ‘evil’ having been suppressed or expelled.

Now, the analogy of doctor and artist doesn't entirely work, especially in the Performing Arts, because the doctor's role is cerebral and rational, whereas the artist deals with sensations and passion. Whereas the doctor’s role is always about making the patient healthier(in the objective sense), the artist/entertainer is often about making the audience FEEL good, which doesn’t necessarily comport with becoming a Better Person. In that sense, an artist/entertainer is as much a drug dealer as a pharmacist. An artist/entertainer may offer his product as medicine with moral content, but he knows the audience wants something more than a soul-manual. The audience wants excitement and thrills, a bit of sensationalism. After all, the selling point of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT isn’t merely its Christian message but elements of violence and suspense. Also, if doctors must take care to not become diseased themselves even as they treat diseases, artists often embody the dark, impassioned, or irrational moods of their material.
It's no wonder many notable artists have been manic-depressives, like Jean Sibelius for example who was most creative when clawing out from pits of gloom. In a way, an artist is like a patient trying to infect others with his mad fever. Van Gogh’s paintings were made richer by his ‘sickness’. Beethoven’s manic-obsessiveness is all over his music. Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page cast their crazy nets of sounds far and wide to ensnare their audiences. There is an element of sorcery and witchcraft in the arts. In ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, the Medical State is the castrator of all that is alive and virile. It tries to tame man’s nature that must retain spontaneity to be real. Similar message is delivered in John Boorman’s ZARDOZ where repressed nature wreaks vengeance on an ultra-elitist society of absolute order and harmony.
In a way, Hitler’s confusion owed to contradictions between his sorcerer-nature and doctor-tendencies. He might have actually done less harm if he’d just embraced his craziness instead of trying to make the world right with moral instruction, but he couldn’t let himself go due to certain personality traits and/or social upbringing that stressed reputation, seriousness, and respectability. According to the semi-interesting movie MAX about Hitler as young artist befriending a Jewish art-dealer, the ex-corporal has technical talent and strangeness but is unable to connect the two. He couldn't come face to face with this 'crippled' and 'wounded' side of himself(as artists like Edvard Munch and Ingmar Bergman could), which remained repressed to spin his self-made myth as a divine man of history.

At any rate, if we are going to have strangeness, weirdness, and even perversity, we want the Real thing, not a put-on or farce. The difference between ERASERHEAD and ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW -- among the biggest cult movies ever -- is David Lynch's work is the product of genuinely weird rumination that experiences the world, inner and outer, in a singular way. Maybe it’s demented and even depraved, but it’s one of a kind. One could argue ERASERHEAD and MULHOLLAND DR.(and BLUE VELVET that I like less) are 'degenerate', but their visionary power cannot be denied. In contrast, ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW is a silly pile of nonsense made by gimps who were desperate to be ‘subversive’. The fakery and strain show in every shot. Granted, even faux-weirdness can be amusing if done with humor minus the pretension. Tim Burton and Paul Reubens had a blast with PEE WEE HERMAN'S BIG ADVENTURE.

Of course, mere strangeness isn't sufficient for art, a lesson lost among art students/critics at some juncture in Modernism. Art is strangeness + talent. There are those with inner vision without the finesse for outer expression. Even among artists, most tend to be limited to mastery in one form of expression. William Blake was a far greater poet than illustrator though he immersed himself in both. Norman Mailer could burn a stack of paper with his fever dreams but was cold with celluloid. Imagine if Van Gogh possessed strangeness but lacked talent; his visions would have remained in his head. If some people have strangeness but lack talent, others have talent but lack strangeness, the singular vision thing fueled by some mysterious source within. It is the rare artist that has both, like Stanley Kubrick or Sam Peckinpah. David Lean had mastery of technique, a way with actors, and a great eye but lacked soulful depth and that strange maverick quality to truly own a work in the way Kubrick or Kurosawa did. Essentially, he provided efficient drama and pretty pictures in grand spectacles that mostly stuck to formula(albeit with more intelligence and taste).

Art needs balance like everything else in life.
If the subject is 'degenerate' or contemptible — and why not since so much of the world is indeed degenerate or contemptible? — , the artist should seek to explore and interpret than wallow and indulge: Be a surgeon than a butcher. IN COLD BLOOD and MIDNIGHT COWBOY are dark but also illuminating. Same goes for Martin Scorsese’s GOODFELLAS that, even as it guides us through the world of psychopaths and criminals, maintains what might be called a Silent Morality, one that isn’t pronounced enough to blur the clarity of the world at hand but nevertheless insists on a distance and awareness that we are in a kind of hell. (Scorsese’s film of THE SILENCE makes more sense in this regard. In a way, Scorsese the artist has had to maintain his silence as a spiritualist-moralist in order to work in Sin City on projects mostly about shameless characters immersed in filth, excess, and debauchery. A moralist can walk away from such a world or barge in to condemn it. But if the moralist is also an empathetic artist who wants burrow inside evil and see what makes it tick, he needs to be like a spy and maintain his silence(like the kid in HUGO who works on clocks while avoiding authorities; likewise, Scorsese had to find a niche in the machinery of Hollywood to pursue his ultimate dream). In the ensuing intimacy, he is in too deep to pass judgement but also too mindful to surrender to temptation. Without this Christo-Zen detachment-within-closeness, the result could be like the utterly degenerate MAN BITES DOG and Quentin Tarantino’s demented movies following RESERVOIR DOGS, his best film and the only one with any sign of moral health, perversely ironic as it may be.

In contrast, if the subject is positive, inspiring, and 'healthy', the artist needs to look beyond the ‘ennobling’ elements and dig deeper for the dirt of life. Jan Troell’s EMIGRANTS and NEW LAND are about good, simple, hardworking folks, but they offer much more, the very stuff of art. We get the fullness of life with failings and follies as well as strength and sacrifice. We see the characters in both their noble and petty moments. From the prosaic growth of details there gradually emerges something like poetry of patience, like syrup slowly flowing out of maple trees. There are no pat truths or easy comforts. As such, it isn’t trite and familiar like PLACES IN THE HEART, a decent enough movie that doesn't show us anything more than what we’ve come to expect from Oscar-hungry American Cinema.

It's oft been said that Nazi Germany was a low-point of Western Civilization in the 20th century(or maybe of all time). According to Ian Buruma, communists made better art/culture because the underlying humanism of their ideology accepted man-as-man. In contrast, the myth-driven ideology of Nazism couldn't tolerate the small and intimate, the stuff that makes life and art rich and interesting. Also, master-race ideology is less inspiring for artists than the dream of the brotherhood of man. But in fact, most German movies during the Nazi period weren't all that much different from Hollywood kitsch, and one of Hitler’s favorite German movie was rather humanist in tone. Also, Soviets remained in power for 70 yrs whereas Nazism lasted only 12 yrs, with the last six years devoted mainly to war. If Nazism had lasted 70 yrs, it may have produced more interesting artists.
Still, it's worth pondering why the less repressive Nazi Germany was culturally less productive than the Stalinist Soviet Union that produced its share of great films and literature(and allowed Shostakovich and Prokofiev to compose their masterpieces). More than the policy of repression, the bigger problem was probably self-exile by talented people who simply weren't as inspired by Nazism as by Marxism. (To be sure, Nazi Germany was far more likely than the Soviet Union to allow people to just pick up and leave, thereby bleeding more of its talented individuals.) For starters, as murderous as Stalin's system was, Marxism was about the embrace of mankind as fellow brethren whereas the ideology of Nazism was about racial arrogance. Even the British who were steeped in racial-supremacist sentiments were offended by the Nazis who made their views so brazen and blatant. Brits found it coarse and in bad form.
As for artists, actors, and writers, they tend to be vain and are anxious to be seen with the 'right kind of people'. Given the low reputation of the radical right in many cultural circles, even those who weren’t inclined toward leftism preferred not to be associated with Nazis or Fascists. It’s also worth noting that, while most artists, actors, and writers are a bunch of narcissistic jerks and stupid pigs, they love the cachet of ‘leftism’ to impress the public that they’re about 'justice' than Just Me.
Artists and entertainers are very nervous about whom they associate with. Today, we see this phenomenon with people in Western arts & entertainment steering clear of Putin’s Russia(and Donald Trump). Though current Russia is hardly tyrannical or crazy — Jewish-run US is now closer to Nazi madness — , it was given bad repute by Jews who dominate arts & entertainment, and so, all those who seek to be on good terms in the culture sphere would rather be caught dead than be regarded as chummy with Russians, at least those who aren’t Jewish or globo-homo. Nazis and Fascists quietly agonized over this deficiency in the arts & culture and what they could to court artists and entertainers but had little more success than the GOP in attracting stars and celebrities. Same could be said of Franco's Spain that actually went out of its way to court artistic talent, such as that of Picasso. But most artists remained on the Left, not because they wanted to live under communism but because leftism made them feel better as an ideology of the brotherhood of man whereas radical rightism of Nazism struck them as too contemptible of much of humanity. Themes do matter. Just like universalist Christianity and Islam spread far and wide whereas Judaism was appealing only to Jews, the universalism of leftism naturally won more converts and enthusiasts than the narrow racial ideology of the Nazis. In a similar way, it is precisely because Zionism has limited appeal around the world that Jews have justified the Wars for Israel on themes such as ‘War on Terror’ or ‘spreading democracy’. It is why they’ve tried to use Globo-Homo as neo-universalist or mino-universalist(universalism of minority privilege) proxy to captivate and control the entire world. The fact that the degeneracy of globo-homoctopus has extended its tentacles so far and wide is proof that something about humanity is made of total shit.

Another reason for communism’s advantage over Nazism in the world of arts & letters had to do with its intellectual pedigree. As tyrannical and capricious as Stalin could be, communism was bigger than any single leader. It was underpinned by elaborate intellectual theory that supposedly unified all of material science, philosophy, ethics, and neo-spiritual longing. Marx, not Muhammad, was the last great prophet in the eyes of communists. As Marx was regarded as a great thinker, no communist leader, however powerful, could be bigger than Marxism and communism. Communist leaders could only be servants of history. This accounts as to why Stalin, despite his cult of personality and iron rule, stuck with the rather modest title of ‘secretary general’ and professed to be a humble servant of Marx & Engels(and Lenin).
In contrast, most people understood Fascism and Nazism as nothing if not for the cult of personality. Fascism was about Mussolini cult, and Nazism was about Hitler cult, with its tome being Hitler’s autobiography MEIN KAMPF. Now, some may disagree and contend that Fascism and Nazism were not without big ideas with deep roots in Western Civilization, but because neither Fascism nor Nazism came up with a unified theory of everything(as Marxism did), most people came to regard them as cults of charisma. For the intellectual-minded and sophisticates, it seemed childish and simple-minded, a blindman’s game of 'follow the leader'. Another reason why communism appealed more to intellectuals and writers in the West was they faced the real danger of living under Fascism/Nazism but felt no such imminent fear of communist tyranny. So, communism could remain an idealized abstraction than a looming threat. Indeed, even Eastern European nations would have faced greater threat of fascist than communist rule but for the fact that Hitler invaded Russia and lost the war. Of course, Eastern Europeans who lived under the Iron Curtain after World War II came to see the true side of radical leftism and developed immunity to its temptations, something Western Europe failed to realize as no nation there turned communist.

Now, it's possible that a great right-wing intellectual movement could have risen in the West. Despite the leftist advantage, the right was not with its big guns in arts & letters in the early part of the 20th century. Besides, 19th century Romanticism had been as rightist as leftist. Also, the horrors of the Soviet experiment made many thinkers in the West recoil in horror, much like the reaction against the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Indeed, both Fascism and Nazism were fueled by these intellectual and cultural ferments on the Right. And, prior to WWII and revelations about the Holocaust, there was no great taboo with which to silence the Right. If anything, even Winston Churchill named the Jew as a crucial component in the Bolshevik Revolution. And plenty of politicians in Europe had more to gain than lose by baiting the Jew.
In a way, the worst thing for the Intellectual Right was the triumph of Italian Fascism, Franco's win in Spain, and National Socialism. Victory often makes people lazy and rest on their laurels. The most interesting right-wing ideas emerged prior to radical right’s seizure of power. Also, once the radical right took power, it decided which right-wing ideas were correct or incorrect. Thus, the intellectual right became straitjacketed by its own ideological victory. Same happened where communists came to power. Almost all the best Marxist thinkers did their most important work in capitalist democracies. Where communism came to power, one bunch of radical leftists soon purged their rivals(much like Catholics used to attack Protestants and vice versa), and the result was the Iron Boot of Stalinism as the new dogma. Revolutions do tend to devour their children all around.

As for Nazi Art, only Leni Riefenstahl's two monumental propaganda-documentaries, Albert Speer's architecture, and a handful of paintings & sculptures have lasting value(though most haven't survived the war and its aftermath). The state cannot decree or dictate creativity. The state can patronize real talent — like the Soviet Union with Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Shostakovich, and Tarkovsky — , but it cannot turn non-artists into artists, no more than the Chinese government can turn Chinese basketball players into Gold medalists in the Olympics. Most artists favored by the Nazis were second-raters or third-raters, and no amount of state support could turn them into great artists. Granted, second-raters, through experience and practice, can become pretty decent. Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood became pretty good directors over time. But as the Nazis sought greatness in art, they weren't going to achieve much with the kind of human material that were willing to do the Party’s bidding. Nazi artistry relied too much on grand themes than personal inspiration. So, artists were commissioned to create work extolling noble themes, but individuality of talent simply wasn't there to bring it to life. Most self-respecting artists didn’t want to make art according to program, and so, the Nazi Party ended up hiring a bunch of hacks to produce state propaganda masquerading as timeless art.

There's been much talk of how the Weimar period, despite or because of the crisis and turbulence, was a time of great cultural ferment. And there is truth in this inasmuch as it was a time of new freedoms and possibilities. There was a dizzying spirit of novelty and experimentation in the air. Also, defeat in WWI led to intensive soul-searching in some quarters — think of the great anti-war novels like ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, later banned by the Nazis — and Faustian flirtations with nihilism that, despite the dangers, opened up new venues of thought and behavior. Even the German Right was most interesting in this period because it had to do a lot of soul-searching and had unprecedented freedoms to do so. Times of crisis can drive people over the cliff with madness but also bring them to new revelations and insights. Crisis moments turn everything into a question and compel people to re-evaluate everything. Nothing could be taken for granted, and in a way, the Nietzschean moment had finally arrived.

Weimar period was also interesting for its intense balance of power between the left and the right. While Jews and Social-Democrats wielded great power in government and media, many universities were right-dominated. So was the court system that let the Nazis off the hook time and time again, much like how Antifa is slapped on the wrist by the current system. Also, there were many powerful conservative German oligarchs who bankrolled men like Hitler as a bulwark against the communists. So, Weimar Germany wasn't all about left over right or right over left. Both sides had their key advantages. Likewise, the US was especially interesting from 1950s to 1980s because of the balance of powers among the right and left, among Jews, Wasps, Catholics, the Christian Right, and etc. However, just like the Nazi seizure of power broke the balance in Germany, the Jewish-Zionist seizure of power in the US(finalized in the 1990s) led to what is essentially a post-democratic America where all political elites are little more than tools of the Jewish globo-homo overlords. And in the current US, not only the media and the state but the courts, academia, and just about everything that matters are controlled by Jews and overseen by their goonish cuck-collaborators. There’s one difference however: If the Nazi revolution happened out in the open, the Jewish-Zionist takeover has been invisible, executed behind the veil of the 'democratic process'. As such, most Americans still think they’re living in a liberal democracy when they are the colonized subjects of the Empire of Judea.

Though Weimar Germany was artistically and culturally a fertile period, one that produced lots of flowers and trees as well as weeds and fungi, it had already run out of steam by the time Nazis came to power. But then, nothing lasts forever. It's like the British Invasion and the French New Wave had their moments of glory but soon faded. People say Rock is dead, and Western Culture has been exhausted to the point where no one cares about anything anymore. Notre Dame burns down, but what do we get from experts? Insipid proposals about turning the Cathedral into a greenhouse or maybe a disco. And in pop culture, people say the music sounds the same year in and year out, and Hollywood keeps recycling shopworn formulas whose only appeal is Better Special Effects. So, maybe the Nazis had a point. While democracies can guarantee more freedom for the creative pursuits, an excess of creative fuel can burn out fast, resulting in a jaded culture whereby increased dosages of jolts and thrills are required to elicit any reaction. Culture often acts like a drug. Like a junkie develops tolerance and needs heavier amounts to get the same high, Western Culture has reached ridiculous levels of tolerance whereby excess has become the New Normal because people can’t feel anything without overdosing on thrills and sex. Chris Hedges calls this the Empire of Illusion.
It’s as if most people have become comfortably numb with too muchness and inured to ever-shifting distractions of violent video games, porny pop songs, and movies that are more about explosions than expressions. Japan had a great run in cinema and literature in the aftermath of WWII, what with all the soul-searching by the generation that had undergone so many crises; but when the dust finally settled and Japan became a stable & affluent nation, the culture degenerated into infantile TV shows, trashy literature, comic books, pornography, and video games. Japanese became at once more mechanical & animal and less human & soulful. The lesson here is that a society doesn’t need ‘fascist’ or communist tyranny to run into a cultural deadend. This happened in so-called liberal-democratic Japan. Incidentally, it’s quite a challenge to think of any significant cultural product from France or UK in the last 20 yrs, something that was truly seminal and made a real difference. Some might say HARRY POTTER, but if that's the best the UK could do, what a joke. As for the world of Fine Arts, vapid junk by the likes of Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst is making even the worst of Nazi and Commie Art seem not-so-bad by comparison. Maybe there was something to the culture of eternal truth and meaning sought by the National Socialists. That said, they weren't going to find it under the leadership of Hitler whose blindspots, moral and historical, were legion.