The Power of Mockology. If You Don't Want to Bother with Argument, Mock the Other Side.

Mockery has been around forever, but now it's a fine-tuned science that might be called Mockology. One way to argue, debate, and discuss matters is through earnest sincerity and facts & figures and in good faith. Traditional Wasp liberals tended to be of this sort. Agree or disagree, men like Senator Adlai Stevenson--the egghead--and John Kenneth Galbraith meant what they said and spoke with a degree of sincerity. In a way, one might trace such an approach to New England Puritan tradition. Though this tradition could be traced back to Great Britain, British society was ruled by its aristocratic and then bourgeois elites  who weren't very puritanical in anything--even during the Victorian Era. Brits were into Propriety, which is not the same thing as Purity.  Dignity of manners and demeanor mattered a great deal, but as long as one's air of 'dignity' was maintained, one could rely on irony, wit, mockery, sarcasm, and snobbery to better or put down others; and masters of such wit were much admired for their delicious 'dignified' cruelty. Since wit is rare--relatively few are born with it and those naturally without it need extensive training to learn the art--, the British style of debate and discussion favored the aristocratic, the rich, the privileged, the haughty. Though there were plenty of sincere and earnest British thinkers and intellectuals, the dominant voices of British Order really made their mark through wit, haughtiness, and mockery. Even the 'leftist' Christopher Hitchens was very much in this aristocratic tradition. Though a 'bad boy' personality, Hitchens' effectiveness depended on his snobbish air of superiority, i.e. not just 'I know more or better than you', but 'I speak better than you and know more fancy words and turns of phrases.'

Though Puritans didn't found the American Republic, their attitudes and manners influenced the formation of the American Character. And since the American Republic was supposed to be anti-aristocratic and reach out to the masses--The People--, it wasn't good form for American elites to put on haughty airs and go overly into ironic and witty mode. Thus, the culture of mockery in America often had a populist than elitist flavor. American Puritanism's culture of sincerity and good faith found its greatest obstacle in Populism. While populism panders to the masses, it isn't really about people power. Rather, it's about the manipulation of the masses by the cynical elites, deluded demagogues, or firebrand reformers. As we all should know by now, The People are incapable of leading themselves. Huey Long the Populist was a pretty clever guy, just like Lenin and Hitler. In Frank Capra's MEET JOHN DOE, we see how easily the masses can be manipulated via populism by the craven rich and their allies. What the fat rich guy does in that movie is no different from what Jewish elites do today. And the nature of Populism was also examined in movies like A FACE IN THE CROWD(directed by Elia Kazan and starring Andy Griffith).

Even so, American intellectual tradition had a strong Puritanical tinge. Men like John Dewey were very earnest in their causes. And American intellectuals tended to lose public debates to British intellectuals because the latter were trained in wit and irony whereas Americans dryly and earnestly stuck to facts, figures, and data.
Indeed, it was this aspect that gave a big boost to Bill Buckley in the 50s. While most Americans never read the NATIONAL REVIEW, Buckley became a very attractive figure to the mass audience because of his public persona as a debonair man of wit. He employed a kind of British wit and snobbery that mocked the liberals, and egghead liberals were made to look foolish(even if they were correct on certain issues). Buckley-ism was an odd phenomenon for Buckley the man with the snobby elitist style allied with vulgar populist Joseph McCarthy and claimed to represent REAL Americans from the liberal elites. Buckley was a neo-aristocrat appealing to the populist masses--it's no wonder he would later form a strong bond with Rush Limbaugh--against the technocratic liberal elite.

With Buckley, style mattered over substance, but in the mass media age, style IS the substance. While someone like Buckley figure might have been resented in class-bound England of the post-war period, many American conservatives ate it up--and even liberals were impressed. Though Americans were committed to 'equality', they'd always felt a certain inferiority complex when it came to flair and grace  compared to the Europeans. Thus, even populist conservatives were drawn to the aristocratic style of Buckley since it lent conservatism a measure of class and 'dignity'. Buckley was their 007, and it's no wonder that Buckley created a series of novels with an ersatz James Bond figure.
Buckley and Bozell won many debates against liberals in the 50s by employing wit and irony than facts and figures. Even when liberals were factually correct, Buckley pricked their 'lame' bubble of sincerity with his sharp tongue.

Another group that rose of great influence and prominence via wit were the Jews, and in a way, their wit was fiercer and more lethal. If British and Buckleyite wit tended to be dry and 'dignified'(as a form of aristocratic wit), the Jewish wit tended to be down and dirty(as a form of grubby middleman wit). British wit was like taking a velvet glove and slapping the opponent. Jewish wit was like pulling down the pants of the other guy and exposing his genitalia. Also, Jews with their higher IQ, had the sharper wit. If Brits and Buckley fought with a saber, Jews had a saber plus a knife behind their backs. Buckley was no match for Alan Dershowitz in their debates. Buckley daintily slapped Dershowitz while Dershowitz ferociously grabbed Buckley by the balls and wouldn't let go.
Consider the scene in SHADOWLANDS where some British professors makes a dry mocking remark to a Jewish-American lady, but the woman counters with a remark that pulls down his pants and leaves him standing like a fool. Check 3:25 of the video below:


Or watch how Buckley is totally outclassed in wit by Woody Allen. It's like German scientists could design rockets, but Jewish scientists could make the Bomb:


Perhaps, the rise of Buckley, the Jews, and gays had something to do with the fact that they were all masters of style and wit. Gore Vidal the homosexual 'leftist'--an eccentric one to be sure--became more famous and prominent than most fuddy duddy earnest liberals. It didn't matter if Vidal was right or wrong. He had the gay debonair style as could be seen in the video below:


Buckley was no friend of homos, but if he were liberal, he might be considered as 'pansy' by many red-meat Populist conservatives and too 'fancy' by heart-and-soul puritanical conservatives. Buckley probably found a lot of conservatives overly boring and square, and that may have been one of the reasons why he welcomed the neocons. Though Jewish wit was different from his own, Buckley appreciated the quick mind and sharp tongue. Besides, with his power of wit fading due to aging, mental block, and/or pot-smoking, he hoped smart neocon Jew could best carry out the conservative cause--even if it meant sacrificing one of the greatest wits on the Right: Joseph Sobran.

All said and done, wit has not been a strong suit among conservatives, and Buckley was like a diamond among stones. Oddly enough, liberals politicians, ever so stuck in earnest WASP mode, tended to lose in the wit department in national elections. Reagan and even Nixon had more 'charisma' than Humphrey, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis the Anglo-Americanized Greek. Things began to change with Clinton, though dullness returned to politics with George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain. Obama's one advantage was in the Style department. Romney, handsome and smart as he may be, had a certain stiffness about him.

With the the loss of Buckley, American conservatism returned to the mode of earnestness. If wit was to anywhere be found, it was populist wit of the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter. Both were pretty skilled at 'winning' by mocking the other side and making it look ridiculous than arguing with sound facts and figures. And of course, on YOUTUBE, there is Ramzpaul:


With Talk Radio and Sensationalist Fox News ascendant in the New Media against the dry and 'boring' MSM of network news and CNN, it seemed as though(for a time at least) conservatives were finally turning the tide in the getting their views out. (Liberals were so worried that many invoked the Fairness Act to force Talk Radio to give equal time to liberals.) It wasn't so much that conservatives were making the better argument. Rather, they were more brazen in their politics and mockery of the other side. Though MSM was always liberal-leaning, their commitment to 'objectivity' prevented them from being overtly partisan, and this made them look 'wimpy' and dry. And since a lot of leftists were academic intellectuals, they came across as 'elitist' and couldn't connect with the people. And intellectuals were supposed to rely on reason and facts, not on mockery. Though leftist intellectuals often fudged their data and told lies, they still had to maintain the facade of 'reason' and 'objective' scholarship; and that made them easy targets of ridicule of right-wing mocksters. But then, with the rise of Political Correctness, it became more and more fashionable for intellectuals and 'social scientists' to be openly mocking of views and groups they opposed, even calling for their silence via 'hate speech' laws.

And with the rise of Michael Moore came the leftist-populist schlockumentary that appealed to millions of people. If documentaries by filmmakers like Barbara Koppel won the critical accolades but went unseen by most people, countless people loved the Moore's clown act and connected with his 'every-man bowling alley and baseball cap' image.
And if liberal Talk Radio failed to match conservative Talk Radio, there was Liberal Talk TV--Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and etc.--that won a huge audience, among both the unwashed and the educated. And as TV talkshows like Letterman and others became more politicized, their Jewish comic writers delivered endless lines mocking conservatives and Republicans--and more Americans get their political attitudes from such shows than from political news sources.

Also, liberal news shows followed the Fox format and became brazenly and sensationally partisan, mocking, and aggressive. Liberals were no longer 'wimps' pushed around by 'macho' conservatives but pushing back and fighting with sharper knives(as most Jewish wit was on liberal side). Also, the rise of PC meant that liberals could fight a lot dirtier than conservatives could. For example, liberals could demean the Conservative as 'old, white, male, and etc', but the conservative side had to mindful not to push too hard on power of Jews, gay privilege, feminist hysteria, black violence, and Mexican tribalism. (Indeed, the issue of Jewish Power is an utter taboo for both sides, as both Joe Sobran and Rick Sanchez found out.) Mexicans, Jews, gays, and blacks can be 'racist' against conservative whites, but white conservatives must be ever so careful not to wage 'war' on women, minorities, and etc.   Liberal Jews can bash wasp conservatives all they want, but wasp conservatives must embrace Jews as the most wonderful people. Liberal Jews can trash white conservatives for being conservative, but the most white conservatives are allowed is toexpress sadness that too many Jews are liberal. Limbaugh and Coulter may rage against Mexicans, Chinese, and Muslims, but they never dare say anything about Jewish Power that did most to undermine white conservative America. Both liberal Jews and neocon Jews--as fifth columnists--did more to destroy to American conservatism than any other force, but they are untouchable in political criticism and discourse.
Though we are told that the 'model minority' is a pernicious idea, white conservatives are told that they must play by the 'model majority' ideal. While non-whites, Jews, and gays get to play down-and-dirty, whites must always be 'high-minded', generous, and 'fair'.  Though liberal Hollywood has made tons of anti-Muslim movies, GOP is accused of 'Islamophobia'. Most of the war porn movies sensationalizing American Power smashing the Middle East with big bombs were made by liberals. Though liberal Hollywood has spread 'yellow peril' fears with movies like RISING SUN and the remake of RED DAWN, liberals accuse conservatives of being anti-Asian. (Of course, GOP does play the 'yellow peril' card but no more than liberal media. NY TIMES endorses the idea that Asians are 'unfairly' being admitted in huge numbers to elite schools.)

In a way, the demise of the GOP and the awakening realization among white conservatives that JEWS WERE BEHIND IT ALL may finally change the political dynamic of this nation. It's like in THE GODFATHER. The Corleones find out it was Barzini all along. And in GODFATHER II, the grand manipulator turns out to have been Hyman Roth the Jew. Though both Barzini and Roth posed as friends of the Corleones, they were masterminding the destruction of the Corleones. Once the Corleones discover the truth, they get tough and ruthless and do everything to fight and destroy the enemy. At this point in American history, we need to learn that it was the Jewish Barzinis/Roths all along who've masterminded the destruction of White America. We need to go into Corleone mode. The old war of party politics may be over, but the new war of Race Politics begins now. And in this new war, whites will have to discuss white power, white interests, white identity, white pride, and JEWISH MENDACITY and JEWISH POWER.


Anyway, liberal mockery isn't merely mockery but a kind of science of making the other side look ridiculous. Jews, like Greeks of Old, are into intellectualizing and understanding everything. Seinfeld said that he didn't merely learn comedy but intensely studied it. He inspected what makes funny 'funny'. What are the main components, what are the mechanisms of humor and the patterns of absurdity? And in a way, SEINFELD and Larry David's CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM aren't only comedy shows but the 'science of comedy' shows that toys with the rules and mechanisms of comedy. SEINFELD was SCIENCEFELD.
Having mastered the science of comedy and mockery, Jews have fashioned it into Mockology, and they use it in the media to make conservatives look very stupid, dumb, and bigoted, though to be sure, conservatives don't need much help, what with personalities like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, the hacks on Fox News and clowns on Talk Radio, morons who fixate on Obama's mythical birth in Kenya, and etc. There are many smart conservatives, but since mockery is the main mode of politics, both liberalism and conservatism have been defined by the mocksters.
So, both sides are full of obnoxious and contemptible people. So why do the conservatives look dumber? Because there is more liberal control of media, more liberal mocksters, and better understanding of the science of mockology among liberal Jews. Also, keep in mind that many Americans pick up their political views not from politicians or pundits but from entertainment. Though ostensibly not political, 'everything is political', as leftists once used to say. So, if a TV show presents gays as angels while anti-'gay marriage'  conservatives as fat, ugly, and gross 'homophobes', that's how many Americans will come to see the debate: wonderful gays vs evil dumb conservatives.  Since liberal Jews control the media, that's just how it goes.

The Pre-emptive Socialism of Obamanomics.

Look at Obama's top donors and the people--other than blacks--that supported him most: the white educated class. This is especially true of the Jewish population, the most successful in America which voted 80% for Obama. Jews are not only overwhelmingly liberal but have great influence in media, and they used their power to make Obama president. So, Obama-ism didn't happen because the unwashed masses smashed down the gates of the rich. Rather, Obama-ism is socialism perpetrated by some of the most successful and most educated people in America. Sure, Obama got the bulk of the black vote, Hispanic vote, and some blue collar white vote--as Democratic candidates tend to do. What's striking is he pulled ahead because he got much of the upper-middle class white vote--and Asian vote(another successful group in America).
So, why would rich and successful people support Obama? (1) Fear. The rich and successful are anxioius about the rising tide of envy and resentment among Middle Americans. So, what is to be done? Buy off a radical like Obama and make it seem as though America is now controlled by someone who 'cares for the people'. If a black man is president, there really must be Change upon the land. Rich people have tried to buy off radicals before. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler could have succeeded without the support of the rich; the Italian and German bourgeoisie sensed that people were growing more restless, and therefore, it would be a safer bet to have a 'man of the people' take power--at least nominally--and dole out handouts to calm the unwashed massesive. Hitler, you recall, calmed the people down with public works and jobs. Of course, Hitler also outmanuevered the rich people and brought destruction to Europe. But, Obama is firmly in the hands of the rich who've bought and marketed him. (2) Intellectual arrogance. The educated class sat through many lectures in colleges and read many books written by leftists. Education is a good thing, but intellectuals have a tendency to mistake book learning with actual reality. At any rate, they hold ideals at odds with reality and believe that they must have more power through government to push their ideals or ideology onto all the people. (3) Sheer powerlust. There are many kinds of power but political power is most addictive and potent. Rich people aren't satisfied with economic well-being or power; they want political power,and bigger government means more power in their hands; sure, they have to pay higher taxes, but as they--or their children--will be running government(Kennedies, Bushies, etc), they don't mind. (4) Conscience. Rich white people have swallowed the religion of political correctness and multiculturalism. But, almost all of them know nothing of poor people. They live in highrise condos or in gated communities away from the 'disenfranchised'. By making Obama president and expanding government--which will be run by people of their social status--in the name of helping 'the people', white liberals can feel 'progressive' and 'inclusive'.
We have to start accepting the reality that GOP is no longer the party of the rich and successful. GOP is the party of Joe the Plumbers. Democratic Party, for all its pandering to labor and minorities, is also the party of urban, privileged, highly educated, and very wealthy upper- and upper-middle class. It will become more so since rich people send their kids to elite colleges, and guess who runs those institutions? Also, kids raised in privilege want 'clean' jobs or to follow 'noble' callings in life, and nothing is said to be nobler in our democratic society than 'serving the people'. To serve the people, you need political power. See how clever it is. Liberals serve themselves by claiming to serve the people. Of course, one could argue that a successful businessman creates jobs and opportunities and so on, but he's said to work for 'profit' whereas politicians and bureaucrats are said to work for the 'good of the people'--with taxes taken from successful businesses of course. Anyway, the point is socialism is a worse habit among the rich and successful than among the poor. The poor didn't come up with the ideology of socialism; rich educated people did. It's rich people who've been using socialism to gain power for themselves in the name of the people. And, many people fall for it because it sounds nice and very Christian--help the poor, take care of needy, 'greed' is evil, etc.


Obama-ism is not about the masses tearing down the rich. It's about the rich buying off a radical to push their own agenda. Though Obama acts like a proud black man, he's really just a puppet-boy of the white liberal upper-class. You might call this pre-emptive socialism. Old-style class warfare would be where the masses rise up and tear down the system. In pre-emptive socialism, the rich people buy off mass envy and resentment by propping up a symbolic radical like Obama who will then do as the rich white liberals tell and guide him. Obama knows nothing about economics, so he will fetch when Larry Summers and Tim Geithner tell him to. And, bigger government isn't necessarily anti-capitalist as far as the liberal rich are concerned. More government spending means more contracts for favored private companies. Just as Halliburton found the Iraq War to be quite lucrative, many liberal leaning private companies are bound to make 'obscene profits' from the Obama order.

Atlas Shrugged? Or Huggy-wugged? Are Rich Leftists and Liberals the True Rand-ians.

Today, many libertarians and conservatives recommend that we read Rand’s ATLAS SHRUGGED to understand the true meaning of freedom, individualism, American values, and capitalism. They argue that our society is burdened by big government and an elite that simply does not appreciate the power of capital, enterprise, ambition, risk-taking, and innovation. You’d think that American society is divided into big government socialists on the one side and individualist capitalists on the other. We have this impression of unimaginative and resentful socialists, liberals, leftists, and government bureaucrats manipulating resentment of the masses in order to undermine the Promethean greatness of the enterprising capitalist class. Perhaps, this was closer to reality back in the days of Rand when much of the capitalist class was none to happy with the New Deal and less burdened with the culture of social and historical guilt. . But, this hasn’t been the case for quite some time. The problem today is not the absence of Randians–as there is no shortage of super-capitalists–but, the nature of the capitalist elite.

In practice, economic competition is as ruthless as it had always been. The best students still strive to enter into top universities. Even if most of them play by the rules–as they should–they want to get ahead of the pack. They don’t want to be like the rest-of-humanity. And, once they get into top schools, they want to get all A’s. They want to graduate with honors. They want to be better than their peers. Out of college, they look for the best jobs that offer the most money, power, prestige, influence, pleasure and/or whatever that they find most fulfilling. They want to come up with the new idea or technology that will earn them not only millions but billions. The point is today’s creme de la creme never practice egalitarianism. Some of them may see themselves as promoting or fighting for equality or ‘social justice’ but want to do so from above. Among those really interested in money, there is brutal competition. These are not ‘nice guys’ but ruthless competitors. Being ruthless doesn’t necessarily mean one is unethical or evil, but it does mean that one is hungry, even mad, for power. So, there is no lack of Randians in our society. Just look at business, government, and other endeavors, and they are filled with people who want more money, power, influence, prestige, honor, etc. They are all Randians in practice.

If so, why is the majority of the most successful people in the US liberals or left-leaning? It’s because Randianism isn’t fulfilling as a professed philosophy. It’s one thing to go after great power, money, fame, honor, and etc, but it doesn’t feel noble to claim such self-obsession. The more convenient way to feel morally satisfied and good about oneself is to claim compassion for mankind. So, we have Angelina Jolie who obviously loves being glamorous, rich, narcissistic, making millions per movie, being on magazine covers all the time, and so on–and is utterly ruthless in the Randian school about it. Yet, she’s also holding and kissing African babies and acting like Mother Teresa. It’s not Atlas Shrugged as much as Atlas Hugged. Contrary to what conservatives think, many liberals and leftists are not sheepish or dorky tree huggers or people too beset with guilt to compete and rise in the world. Indeed, the smartest liberals often tend to be far more ambitious, ruthless, cutthroat, driven, power-mad, and money-crazy than most conservatives. A good many conservatives may love guns, rugged outdoors, and manly stuff, but they are no match to the likes of Rahm Emanuel who’s one of the most ruthless operators around. Rahm will do anything to win. He’s no liberal softie. Or, look at Bill Gates or all those liberals in Hollywood or Silicon Valley. You can’t get any more cutthroat or blood than they.
Sure, they say ‘nice’ things and appear ‘soft’ in public–at times anyway–but, they love power and money and have done anything and everything to get it. If we judge people by what they do than what they say, Randianism is alive and well among the liberal elite.

Sure, there are many wimpy gimpy liberals, but they are not the successful ones. The successful liberals often have bigger balls than most conservatives. Conservatives may love to hunt, but that’s easier than what some liberals like to do–mountain climb, cross an entire continent on a bicycle, and travel all around in dangerous countries. Notice that some of the most daring and big-balled journalists have been leftists and liberals. Conservative journalists generally like to stay close to home and spout opinions. Liberal and leftist journalists like to venture into the jungle world of international politics with heavy equipment. It’s no wonder that liberals and leftists dominate the way we see the world. They got the balls to go where most of us will not.

Woodward and Bernstein had big balls. And, look at some of the most daring artists in the modern era. We may hate Oliver Stone, but the fact is he had the balls to go to Vietnam, see the reality up front, and then go to film school and fight his way up the ladder to make the films he wants to make. In practice, he’s been one helluva a Randian even if his politics is closer to Marx. Conservatives and libertarians talk of how daring, free, and gutsy they are, but in practice, the toughest and most badass people in business, technology, arts, media, and etc have been liberals and leftists. Consider the fact that many liberal bitches have the balls to do something wild, daring, and crazy. They’ll travel the world, climb mountains, go to places where even most of us guys will not dare go, and so on. In contrast, your average conservative girl would rather stay home, watch tv, and hug her bible. Who’s more Randian in practice? Of course, not all liberal women are like this. A good many of them are sheep–reasonably successful but not daring or original. And, they have very naive understanding of society since they don’t come in contact with real reality. But, this is true of most conservative women too.

Anyway, there is a ballsy and gutsy side to liberal and leftist Randians–in practice. Many conservatives think liberals and leftists are for internationalism and trans-nationalism largely of white guilt. There is something to this, but it’s equally true that leftists and liberals–the successful ones anyway–support the dissolution of national borders because they figure they’ll always be #1. They figure they are so smart and so great that no matter what happens to America, they will looking down on all of us. In contrast, it is conservative Americans who are insecure and afraid. Conservatives feel that, as middle Americans, they’ll have to compete with newcomers and would prefer not to since most of them don’t have the brains, talent, or balls to rise above the rabble. In contrast, Randian liberals and leftists feel that they and their kids–blessed with higher IQ genes and good schooling–will always be #1. Come to think of it, I don’t think Rand was ever an American patriot. It was not America–its flag, people, heritage, etc–that inspired her as how America could be used as her pet ideological project. She wanted America to lead the way with super-capitalism but she saw it as something for ALL mankind. Her main loyalty was not to America but to her ideological concept of America which was not only radical individualist but radical universalist. It was a blueprint for the whole world. She though Great Men everywhere should be primarily committed to their own supremacy than to their country and people. And, liberals and leftist billionaires feel this way, live this way, and think this way. Of course, what they say is something different. (In a way, she was no more American than she was Russian. Compare her with Solzhenitsyn who had suffered under the communist system a 1000x more. He too came to America, but he always felt a great love and devotion to Russia despite all he had suffered under the communist system. He was born, lived, and died a Russian patriot. Rand felt no love or nostalgia for Russia though she’s been born there. As an American, she tried to impose HER idea of what American should be on all of us than try to learn what America really was. Rand tried to remake America as much as Lenin tried to remake Russia. Lenin tried to remake Russia into a post-national socialist state, and Rand tried to remake America into a post-national playground for her mythic individualist-capitalists. Granted, her ideology was bound to be far less dangerous because it didn’t seek to gain total state power)

So, the dichotomy that libertarians have in their silly minds is all wrong. The world is really not split between the freedom loving, masterful, competitive individualists AND dull, unimaginative, and jealous socialists and their mass followers. Rather, today’s Randians are the ‘socialists’.

But, this is nothing new since rich and powerful people in the West have been Christians for most of European and American history. The rich and powerful are like you and me in this regard–they wanna have the cake and eat it too. They want all the power and money yet they wanna hog the morality and compassion too. When Bill Gates made his billions in the 80s and 90s, people just saw him as the Rich Guy. That wasn’t enough for him so he set up a mega-foundation to dole out money to this cause, that cause, and buy the respect and appreciation of mankind. He makes his money the Randian way but uses it the socialist way. That way, he can be rich/powerful and noble/caring. Of course, acting the savior-of-mankind is just another way to win power and influence. Powerful liberals in government are less likely to inspect his dirty ass, and leftists are less criticize and condemn everything he does. It’s one way of buying off the opposition.

But, I don’t doubt Gates’s ideological sincerity since everyone gets their view of the world from people who write books and the news. And, who controls the mind of the nation? Mostly liberals and leftists, a good many of them Jews. Since Jews are intelligent, even their falsehoods, distortions, exaggerations, and fantasies have a way of sounding true or brilliant. It’s no wonder that so many of the smartest people in the world were taken in by people like Trotsky. They admired Trotsky and favored him over Stalin not so much because Trotsky was less of a radical but simply because he sounded more intellectual and smarter than the ruffian-like Stalin. It’s the cult/conceit of brilliance. Jared Diamond, for instance, is a very brilliant Jew. He’s a lying leftist ideologue and lowlife asshole, but his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" was provocative and seemingly profound. People like Gates read it–and the books of Jeffrey Sachs–and found a convenient explanation of the world–why parts of it work, parts of it don’t.

On a related subject, one should consult here:

http://groups.google.com/group/neo-fascism/browse_thread/thread/ba8731fc430914dc/3d344ac6e82a6421?hl