Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Will Excesses Really Neutralize Each Other under Libertarianism?



There is a tendency among libertarians to argue for more individual liberty and freedom as the key to societal good. This isn’t because everything people do with freedom is good but because bad things will cancel each other out. It’s like a vision of humanity as economic, social, or emotional billiard balls. There is a rational argument here but one minimizing the moral sense of limits and conscious self-control. The libertarian argument is essentially the Satan-ist argument. No, Satan doesn’t exist, and libertarians aren’t committed to evil. Still, libertarians seem to believe that vices naturally cancel each other out in an utterly free social order. Do they really?

I once came upon a book by some funny Jewish guy of the church of Satan. In it, he argues that the seven deadly sins are nothing to be afraid of. Instead of resisting them we should indulge them because they cancel each other out. For instance, take vanity and gluttony. Gluttony is pleasurable, but it’s bad because it turns us into gross fatties. But, not to worry since vanity is there to balance it out. In other words, a person may want to pig out, but his narcissism will control his appetite or push him to exercise. So, we need not fear these vices. If we indulge in them, we not only gain pleasure but also arrive at some kind of equilibrium. Somewhat true to be sure. But, would it be sufficient for a person to be healthy? Can we have a good society where vices simply cancel each other out? (Also, what about people who are so ugly to begin with that they would gain little by controlling their appetite or exercising? Despair & self-loathing in the looks department may lead a person to eat like pig to compensate for his or her ugliness.)

Libertarian philosophy comes pretty close to such thinking–the notion that vices, if let loose, will cancel or balance each other out and make for a decent society. While such ideas may have some macro-social or psycho-individual validity, there is no substitute for individual virtue and moral character in the maintenance of a healthy society. (Libertarians, of course, aren’t anti-morality, anti-virtue, nor anti-self-restraint, but they hardly emphasize such values in their preference of theory of freedom). Indeed, the beauty and power of virtue unite the individual with the community–made up of other individuals. Individual freedom is something we all prize and seek, but it has no inherent moral value(except in the vaguest and broadest sense; man needs freedom to choose good or evil, but freedom isn’t synonymous goodness; nor, can we expect the bad to simply balance out the other bads).
And, freedom is often socially destructive for the simple fact that people indulging in excessive behavior–even in private–are likely to cause problems spilling into rest of society. Fat people, for instance, make healthcare costs rise for everyone. And, people who gamble away their money become burdens on their family and rest of us.
The libertarian argument is most compelling when law enforcement against certain vices aren’t effective or counter-productive. This was certainly the case with prohibition in the 20s and 30s. The problem in a free society is that even criminals enjoy rights and protections which give cover to much of their criminal activities. The only effective way to eradicate such behavior is by eradicating freedom itself, but that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. So, a free society simply has to allow certain kinds of freedom. We cannot legislate ourselves at every turn into a healthy society, and it almost impossible to legislate virtue in a democracy(and such don’t do much good even in a theocracy).
Nevertheless, who can deny that certain vices are extremely destructive, and we simply cannot expect other vices or virtues to naturally or organically balance them out. Though being fat is not a crime–and of course shouldn’t be–, the rise of fatassness among Americans shows us the serious shortcomings of the balance-of-vices theory. Though it’s true that people want to enjoy both food and have look goods, narcissism simply isn’t powerful enough to neutralize excessive gluttony in many people. Fatsos know they don’t look good, but they keep pigging out. Why? Because eating is fun and exercising is strenuous. People know they should eat less but they want to eat more and more. This is why so many Americans are fat-tards. Gluttony and narcissism are both vices, but one is much easier to indulge than the other(at least in modern society; gluttony would have been difficult long ago when procuring food was the hardest task of all.)
It’s quite obvious that people need another mechanism to eat less: shame. There is a thing called self-shame, but the most effective kind of shame is social shame. But, as we move away from a shame culture–due to both liberalism and libertarianism–, we have people who indulge in behavior that is immediately gratifying but harmful or destructive. In our politically correct, sensitive, and litigious society, we are not allowed to call fatsos ‘fatsos’. Some states are even considering protecting fatties from the evil of ‘weightism’. Now, I’m not recommending that we call fatsos ‘fatsos’. That would be rude. But, would it be so bad if there was some degree of social pressure or ostracism against fatsos? Indeed, it would be best for the fatsos. Fatsos are not victims. They are self-created self-indulged monstrosities. If they are shamed out of fatness, they would be better off and so would be–lower all-around healthcare costs.

Fatasses eat too much shit and don’t exercise enough. Sure, some people have slower metabolism, but then they should eat less. But, they pig out like the fatsos that they are.
Now, a fatso may not like being fat and may want to lose weight. But, many people simply cannot control their eating habits. They know they are fat and ugly and would like to look better(vanity factor), but the food is just too irresistible. Without strong external pressure associated with shame or a strong internally held philosophy of frugality, freedom and liberty themselves are not going to create some miraculous equilibrium. Without a strong set of moral values or shame culture, there is only the strong arm of the state to enforce and maintain social balance/stability. This is truer in some communities than others. Blacks, for instance, tend to be wilder and more aggressive. So, freedom and liberty for blacks naturally lead to more excesses than freedom and liberty among other races. We can even see this when we contrast normal whites with ‘whiggers’. ‘Whiggers’ are white people who emulate blacks, and they happen to be far trashier and more problematic than regular white folks.
At any rate, we don’t want the state to interfere too much with our lives, so we must prevent bad conditions that arise from freedom and liberty. Shame and morality are central to social stability. The idea that simply more freedom and liberty will fix the problems through an organic process of counter-actions is just wishful theorizing.

There is also the cultural factor. A traditional society with newfound freedom and liberty still holds an internal mechanism–handed down through centuries or even millennia–that restrains excesses of individual freedom or liberty. Such mechanism, apart from the law and government, plays a crucial role in curbing wanton excesses of freedom. But, as the generations pass, as youth culture develops, as cultural traditions and norms weaken, and as more kids listen to stuff like rap music & other junk, individual freedom and liberty take on a different color altogether; they lose the connection to the roots of civilization. Freedom and liberty go from liberation to decadence.
Compare blacks in the 50s to blacks today. Many blacks in the 50s still had what we might call ‘family values’. Freedom and liberty for folks in ‘Raisin in the Sun’ had different implications than freedom and liberty for black kids who grow up today to hip hop, nigga culture, jiggety doo, yabbity ho-di-di-do. Of course, black community had always been more problematic than the white community, but its freedom had been restrained by moral sense and order prior to the 60s. No longer.
So, a libertarian argument that black community will make progress through more freedom and liberty would be nonsense. This isn’t to suggest that bigger government is the solution either as it has, indeed, made things worse by encouraging destructive behavior among blacks–welfare checks for teen mothers, tendency for educated blacks to go into parasitic bureaucratics than productive economics. But, the main problem of bigger government in the black community was having pumped in all that money without social controls. If anything, the problem is that bigger government led to more freedom in the black community. The problem was not the government taking away freedom but encouraging and supporting too much freedom–a dangerous policy because blacks, being wilder, are tempted to abuse freedom. All that welfare money allowed blacks to do as they please in terms of having loose sex, dropping out of school, and so on. Every black girl knew that if she messed up and acted crazy, the government would give her money. The problem wasn’t big government per se but a big government that gave and gave but demanded nothing in return. If big government is bound to fail all the time and everywhere(as libertarians contend), Sweden and Canada would be giant Detroits, but they are not. Of course, one could argue nothing would have worked with blacks because too many of them are just too crazy.

* * * *

Suppose we apply libertarianism to gun ownership. A libertarian might argue that the best way to deal with gun violence is allow easier and freer sales of guns to more people. Eventually, things will balance out. If more people own guns, they would be able to protect one another. Criminals would think twice about robbing people. A sudden spike in gun violence may eventually drop once everyone has guns and an equilibrium has been reached. There is some degree of validity to this argument, but let’s not fool ourselves. This kind of ‘equilibrium’ will be violent, crazy, and tension-filled. (Actually, stability or lack thereof in any society may be the product of its system of laws, moral values, and racial make-up than on gun laws. A Yugoslavia divided by ethnicity was a dangerous place for guns since Serbs shot Croats, Croats shot Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims shot Serbs, and etc. Guns and ethnic diversity can be a deadly mix. But, once you have stable communities dominated by one race or ethnicity, there’s likely to be greater peace, with or without guns; indeed, each of the former Yugoslavian nations are safer now after the breakup and population transfers even though many people still own guns. On the other hand, a society dominated by blacks may not be safe with lots of guns cuz so many blacks act crazy. Indeed, fear of blacks has become the number one reason why whites want to own guns. In the past, it was fear of Indians and wild animals. If the wild frontier was tamed by white folks in the 19th century, today the urban jungle dominated by blacks is encroaching on white folks who want guns. Rich liberals, who can afford to live in safe neighborhoods, risk nothing when they yammer about the evil of guns and promote interracism since they don’t practice what they preach, but many common white Americans see the dangers all around.) If easy availability of guns is the solution, then why is there so much gun violence in the inner cities? Since just about every negro has a gun, he or she would be reluctant to use it; there should be mutual apprehension and respect. And, gangs would not shoot one another since all sides know the other guys have guns to retaliate with. But, the equilibrium and stability brought upon by guns in the inner city isn’t much better than the state of animal nature.
Bad and aggressive people will find ways to do bad things, and they’ll be far more willing to use guns. Bad people are more likely to be daring, reckless, and dangerous. Of course, they are likely to die younger(as in the movie City of God), but such idiots don’t think long-term; even if they know the dangers of crime and violence, they still prefer emotion over sense: the glamorous ‘badass’ life to one of sobriety; they don’t heed to the advice of ‘live a long life eating rice gruel’(Yojimbo by Akira Kurosawa).
Ever see a Western movie? Why do certain individuals or gangs gain great power over other people even though everyone has guns? Consider the movie "High Noon"; why is the entire town afraid of a few goons? Or, consider the mafia; how come a bunch of dago hoodlums could exert so much force on entire communities? Bad people have bigger balls. In truth, most people are chicken or ‘don’t want any trouble’. In other words, most people aren’t bungee jumpers.

So, if we ramp up the freedom for individuals, those with reckless tendencies will push them to excess and get in the way of those who tend to be wimpy(most people). The so-called organic equilibrium will vary from society to society depending on how many crazyass knuckleheads it has. A community of 1000 people with 10 Mike Tysons will be saner than a community of 1000 people with 100 Mike Tysons. The so-called equilibrium will be different between the two.

This is why we need many good laws and effective enforcement. To be sure, bad laws may be worse than lax or no laws.
It is the failure to enact and enforce good laws that leads to the excesses that eventually lead people to call for draconian, intrusive, or even oppressive laws(out of anger or in need for security). The best bulwark against the growing power of the state is to allow the state to play a constructive role in enforcing and regulating social order(within reason). Letting people do as they please can lead to social excess or chaos, in which case people fall under the sway of demagogues or ideologues who seek to greatly expand state power in the name of providing ‘bread and peace’.

Consider guns and the recent financial mess. If we have very loose guns laws and if too many people have guns, there are likely to be more shootings and bloodbaths such as the Virginia Tech shooting. http://groups.google.com/group/neo-fascism/msg/a491ffaa4f7a7035?hl=en&
That will lead to an outcry for truly draconian guns laws by people who react EMOTIONALLY than rationally to such things. Emotions matter in society, especially in respect to who controls the media. In the US, the media is controlled largely by liberal Jews, and they don’t want guns in the hands of white Americans. Horrible gun tragedies will be played up by the liberal media in order to push forth their anti-gun agenda.
Sometimes the image or news story is so ICONICALLY or symbolically powerful that the world community feels compelled to DO SOMETHING even if unwise--think of the humanitarian mission in Somalia. Just consider the effect that the images of dead Palestinian children had on the world community and peace processes in the 1990s. Those images played a key role in pressuring US and Israel to go for policies with little likelihood to succeed. When things get bad, people will grab at anything, especially if some news story crystallizes the urgency and desperation of a situation.
Of course, not all crises are caused by lack of laws or social stability; in the case of Israel and Palestinians, the cause of the violence is competing nationalisms. In any case, the problem exists due to impossibility of effective political control and stability in that part of the world--which makes lawful governance difficult or impossible.
But, even in a nation such as US or Iceland, we can end up with major social crisis if the pillars of society crumble. Too much gun violence resulting from too many guns is one form of crisis. The financial collapse in the US and Iceland is another kind of crisis resulting from too muchness or excesses(of 'free markets').
When things like that happen, people grow angry but also feel helpless. They fall into the hands of those who say they can fix the problem if they’re given tremendous government power. People ‘think’ with their emotions than with their minds. (When times are too good, same can happen, which explains why so many upbeat people in the late 90s ‘thought’--more like felt--that they were all going to be millionaires thanks to internet stocks.) Same can be said of the political and social 'thinking' and expectations during the Civil Rights Movement in America. It was the emotional power of watching ‘helpless’ and ‘innocent’ blacks being bullied and attacked by ‘vicious’ whites(especially on TV) that added tremendous momentum to the movement. Also, the gravity and complexity of the racial problem made people desperate and anxious; they wanted something to be done that would end the problem; so, they just decided to hold their breath and take a leap of faith off the cliff into the water they hoped was deep enough. Alas, the water wasn’t deep and we’ve broken many bones since.
Americans–and the rest of world–ignored the complexities of the social problem and just chose to believe in simple good vs wrong, a scenario where heaven on earth would be achieved if white folks only embraced the negro(when in fact the negro had many biologically rooted problems regardless of whether white folks embraced him or not). And, this sort of thing continues to hold sway over us because the liberal Jews who own and run the media and academia still employ those images via movies, PBS documentaries, and school texts to EMOTIONALLY inculcate us into being ‘virtuous’ people according to their agenda.

We should all realize that terrible crises and incidents can be exploited emotionally by the other side. So, if freedom lovers push for too many and easy access to guns, the series of gun-related bloodbaths can be emotionally exploited to turn the majority of people against ALL guns and ALL gun-owners. This is why people who oppose all gun laws will eventually end up with no guns. Zero gun control will lead to more and more horrible bloodbaths, which will be exploited by the liberal media to shock people. More and more people will EMOTIONALLY support tougher gun laws, not only in fear of gun violence because the growing consensus moral pressure says, ‘you must oppose guns to be a good honorable decent person’.

By now, we should know that thought is really steered by emotions. Prevalence of incidents that stir people’s emotions against gun violence will shape their minds against all guns. Consider the impact of liberal media on racial violence. They cover up or under-report news of black-on-white violence, but still remind everyone of the killing of Emmit Till and exaggerate white-on-black violence(which is almost non-existent). White kids grow up reading about or watching that liberal biased stuff(showing us the evils of white ‘racism’) in the various media; their emotions are stirred first, and then their thoughts follow. In boxing, you hit the head and the body follows. In education and culture, you grab the heart and the mind follows. This is why people think Holocaust was worse than other mass killings. Our hearts have been targeted with heart tuggers like Diary of Anne Frank, Schindler’s List, and Angel on the Fence. In contrast, we know of the other killings through the head than through the heart. We know Stalin killed millions but only through dry books, not through wet movies, music, tv, heart-tugging documentaries. We think of the history of communism; we FEEL about the Holocaust.

We must be wary of extreme liberty and freedom because excesses lead to backlashes.
The great backlash against drugs happened because pro-drug folks failed to understand the emotional impact of bad news. Drug advocates of the 60s would have done better to call for strong laws keeping drugs legal but regulated and controlled. Instead, people like Timothy Leary said it would be no problem at all if all the kids smoked pot, tripped on acid, or whatever. Such messages and attitude led to drug orgies and terrible excesses(easily exploited by the media and alarmists), which led to public outrage and tough drug laws that totally banned most drugs.
And, liberals messed up on the crime issue through the EXCESSIVE pro-negro policies. By apologizing for black crime and naively believing that the crime problem would go away if government provided more welfare, love, and job-training for blacks, liberals ended up creating a scary social reality where blacks thought they could run rampant and do as they damn pleased. With cops’ hands tied behind their backs, with criminals being let out through revolving door system, many cities became uninhabitable, and white folks fled for the suburbs. Though conservatives didn’t control the media nor have the means to portray liberal proponents of laxer crime laws as fiends or louts, many ordinary people saw the reality and simply voted with their feet. Because of LIBERAL control of the media and academia(the power to control the heart), many white folks who took flight felt guilt and self-loathing. On the ground, they readily saw black lunacy and crime all over, but the forces(media) controlling their hearts(thus minds) said, ‘shame on you for running from the wonderful negro(who, in reality, wasn’t so wonderful)’. This explains the popularity of Oprah and Obama among gulli-wullible white people. All those white folks who ran from ‘bad blacks’–but were afraid to admit their fear of blacks–wanted to prove that they aren’t ‘racist’ after all. So, they go gaga over Orpah and Obama.

What’s true of guns and crime is also true of economics. Reagan did a lot of good things for the economy, but the libertarian economists who pushed the envelope on deregulation were asking for trouble. It led to excesses in the financial sector which led to the current crisis which is paving the way for socialism. Deregulation and free market economics were not the only nor the main cause of the crisis, but they played essential roles. Had conservatives been more interested and invested in good government, its operations, and what it can do against market abuses, then the current mess could have been avoided, and we wouldn’t be on the road to socialism. But, free wheelers and dealers got the green light to do whatever clever crazy stuff they desired–all the more dangerous because those instruments and policies got intertwined with forces and policies that had little or nothing to do with the free market. Instead of opposing anti-free-market policies on principle and employing the necessary instrument of government to regulate the financial sector and enforce laws, conservatives got ideologically and politically lazy and thought that more and more deregulation and wheeling and dealing would fix all problems and be good for the economy. It led to excesses, and excesses led to the current meltdown.
And, it’s been EMOTIONALLY exploited by Obama and the liberal Jewish media that made him. And so, we are headed to socialism.
Ancient Greeks valued moderation. Libertarianism is the very anti-thesis of moderation. It is inherently supportive and bolstering of excessive behavior in the belief that all the excesses will counter and balance each other out. But, do we want an ‘ecological’ society? There is ecological balance in nature brought upon by ugly processes. We humans cannot live like that. The balance in nature is achieved by animals fighting and devouring other animals, by forest fires, by all sorts of crazy stuff. Animals act excessively, and the ‘natural balance’ is the outcome of all these competing excesses–constant warfare.

Humans, on the other hand, can maintain order and balance through self-control, shame, laws and enforcement, understanding, virtue, etc. Libertarianism mocks all that and says everyone should just do his or her thing to excess and not worry since the excesses will be balanced by counter-excesses of others or by internal psychological mechanism(like vanity neutralizing gluttony).
It’s no wonder that Ayn Rand had no use for morality as we know it. It was all about ‘me, me, me’. I’m not arguing for altruism or socialism. If anything, I think the individual is of paramount importance. But, an individual must be a person of virtue, with respect for others, and such. Also, every individual must realize that he or she is a link in a long chain of humanity. No individual was created by himself or herself. Nor, did he or she leap out of a theory or book. He or she is the product of union of man and woman and part of a long line of history and society. Individuals need freedom to explore and find his or her place in society and history, but there is no such thing as a pure individual, which is just an abstract theory.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 8, 2009

If Keynesianism is the wave of the future(and we can’t do anything about it), would Voluntary Donation be the best solution?



Many Americans oppose Keynesianism(I do too), but if we’re going to have it anyway... how could it be made to work best? Even something deeply flawed has varying levels of functionality. Drinking and driving is always stupid, but it is less dangerous with beer than vodka.
So, even if Keynesianism is fundamentally unsound, applications can range from utterly stupid to somewhat workable. How may we make it as workable as possible?

The current brand of Keynesianism is fundamentally flawed for trying to have it both ways. Huge increase in government spending, small increase in taxes–and only on the rich. (Of course, current policies may force drastically higher taxes down the line.) So where will the money come from? More printing? More borrowing? Dumb and dumber.
Imho, Keynesianism can only work by spending and distributing actual wealth, not inflated paper or borrowed money. Most of the actual wealth in America is the accumulated capital of the rich.

We all heard countless times that the rich got vastly richer while most Americans have been in the stagnant income bracket for the last 25 yrs. Keynesian economists warn us of wealth that concentrates rather than circulates. Using anatomical analogy, a condition where blood doesn’t properly flow through the entire body is not good. (To be sure, it’s a flawed analogy since every person has brains, ability, and potential to be productive and accumulate his own wealth instead of waiting for wealth to fall on his lap. Still, most people are not natural businessmen nor have the talent to succeed in highly skilled fields. Most people have jobs where they are told what to do, and as such, are kind of like parts of the body. If our economy cannot gainfully use such people, there will problems of wealth circulation.)

Since many rich people have more than enough money to run their businesses and take care of their needs(basic and luxurious), much of their wealth remain in savings. Though wealth in banks and other institutions are lent and thereby circulated throughout the economy, the recent crisis has raised doubts about its viability.
Furthermore, in a severe downturn rich people aren’t likely to invest or expand because of poor economic prospects. So, the vast fortunes of the rich remain in banks, as real estate holdings, and other stuff by whatever name they go by.

With the vast fortunes of the rich locked up in savings and portfolios, where is the economic activity and dynamism necessary for us to climb out of this hole? If Keynesianism really the only solution? If yes, which kind of Keynesianism?
The Only Keynesianism that makes any sense is one confiscating the wealth of the rich and spreading it far and wide. Raising top tax rates from 35% to 40% won’t do it. Vast amounts of accumulated wealth will have to expropriated and spread throughout the economy.
The people will spend the money, and the economy will buzz with activity; eventually, much of the wealth will flow back to the rich who own the big corporations.
If a store owner is rich but customers have little money, economic activity will be low. But, if we take half the rich store owner’s wealth and spread it around, people will have money to spend. There will be renewed economic activity with customers buying things from the store owner.
Of course, this is a very stupid(and unethical) way to run an economy and will probably lead to inflation since people are gaining purchasing power without comparable output in production.

It’s also true that rich people don’t horde their wealth in some secret hole in the ground. Whichever financial institution or investment is employed, the wealth circulates through the economy somewhere and somehow. Even so, in the past 20 to 25 yrs the wealth hasn’t sufficiently circulated through large segments of the American society. Also, with all the financial hijinks, vast amounts of wealth have been squandered by ‘the smartest guys in the room’ who now demand tax payer money for bailouts.
And, though vast amounts of loans have been made available to ordinary–and even poor–Americans, mounting debts have only served to corrupt and/or pauperize many people. Given recent developments, leading economists and politicians have reconsidered the merits of Keynesianism. And, it is in this light that I offer the confiscatory lottery policy. In an era of euphemisms–where anti-white discrimination is ‘affirmative action’ and welfare checks are ‘tax credits’–, it should be called the Voluntary Donation.
Two major problems of Voluntary Donation will have to be considered. One is constitutionality. Government, as far as I know, doesn’t have the power to grab large amounts of accumulated personal property. (I could be wrong). Perhaps more important is the likely loss of motivation on the part of the rich and talented. The wealth will eventually return to the rich in the form of consumer spending, but it’ll be wealth stolen from them in the first place. Destroying meaningful incentives for the capitalist class is like killing the golden goose. If rich people had to routinely fork over huge portions of accumulated wealth, they will slack off and the economy will suffer.

Okay, but how about a system that essentially safeguards the wealth of the rich(and therefore their motivation to work) while, at the same time, grabbing a big chunk of their wealth for ‘wealth redistribution’?
This is where the lottery based Voluntary Donation comes in. Suppose we divide up rich people into several categories: super billionaires, billionaires, super millionaires, mega-millionaires, millionaires. Rich people would be divided up into these groups according to the amount of accumulated wealth not directly invested in their business or primary real estate. Suppose every year, 10% percentage of each group(chosen by lottery) has to hand over a substantial amount of their ‘excess’ wealth for redistribution. 10% of millionaires will have to hand over 20% of their wealth. 25% for Mega-millionaires. For super-millionaires, 30% of their wealth. For billionaires, 35%. For super-billionaires, 40%.
The unlucky rich will be chosen randomly(like for Jury duty). The chosen will get a 10 yr reprieve so that no one can be chosen more than once every 10 yrs. Most of this appropriated wealth will be given to ordinary working people(in credit card form to ensure circulation through the economy).

To compensate for loss of wealth, a special hall can be built in the Washington Mall to commemorate the ‘generous’ rich people who ‘voluntarily’ gave up substantial portions of their wealth for the common good. Bigger donors will of course receive greater honors. Millionaire donors will be honored with plaques with their names and photos; super billionaire donors, with giants portraits painted by leading artists. They lose wealth but gain a slice of immortality. Rich people can take pride in knowing that their mugs will rest forever in the Smithsonian along with those of great presidents, scientists, astronauts, movie stars. Vanity goes a long way in boosting morale. Big donors also get trophies and special mentions at the State of the Union address.

The Voluntary Donation policy both preserves a reasonably high motivation level among the business class and circulates the wealth through the economy. Especially with the rise of globalism, the knowledgeable and well-connected elite have grown much richer than rest of America. Globalism has provided us with cheaper goods and services, but it has led to the concentration of wealth in the top while causing stagnation among middle and lower classes.
I don’t endorse wealth redistribution and would prefer to see more of a traditional patriotic capitalism. But, if globalism continues to concentrate ever more wealth at the top while hollowing out or keeping the middle section of America economically stagnant, growing numbers of people will demand a way, even a radical way, to circulate some of the ‘excessive’ wealth of the rich to rest of America.
Printing or borrowing money to ‘spread the wealth around’ simply sounds stupid and irresponsible. Confiscating and redistributing the real wealth of the rich is economically sounder, but it would demoralize and dis-incentive-ize the wealth-creating class.
But, the Voluntary Donation policy balances the needs of preserving capitalist incentives and circulating the wealth throughout the entire economy. In decades past, vast numbers of American workers were paid well, and they purchased the products of American employers. The wealth circulated up and down, back and forth. This no longer seems to be the case in the global economy. If wealth cannot circulate ‘organically’ through a free market capitalist process, more Americans may demand a Keynesian or even a socialist way to get the job done.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Is Socialism ‘natural’? Is It in Harmony with Human Nature?



It’s often been argued that capitalism accepts human nature for what it is whereas socialism tries to change it. Capitalism is realistic whereas socialism is idealistic. Capitalism believes that human nature is essentially unalterable, socialism believes ‘human nature’ is but the product of social conditioning(or, it’s innately noble before being perverted by an unjust society).
Capitalists say that people are, by nature, self-interested, even greedy. This basic fact can be suppressed but not rooted out or changed. If suppressed, it undermines the very part of man that makes him industrious, ambitious, innovative, and creative. Most people work hard or take risks because for reward. If people are not allowed to work for gain and glory, they won’t be motivated. So, for wealth to be produced, capitalism is the best way. It doesn’t suppress human nature of self-interest or even greed. Rather, it channels and controls our nature through a system of laws and ethics.

Socialists long disagreed with capitalists. They believed man can be conditioned or ‘socially engineered’ to work for the ‘common good’; we could all be trained to work for social or moral incentives than for material incentives. This was the idea behind productive socialism, and it has either failed or seriously underperformed relative to capitalism everywhere. Some socialists admit that ‘moral incentives’ aren’t productive but still defend their moral value. But, most socialists have rejected socialism as a productive economic model. Most of today’s socialists are distributive than productive. They understand that capitalism produces wealth much faster and in greater amount than socialism does. Therefore, the purpose of socialism is not to replace capitalism but to feed off capitalism to support policies for the ‘common good’.

The question I want to raise if distributive socialism goes against human nature. Productive socialism certainly does. But, couldn’t one argue that distributive socialism gels well with human nature? Humans are, by nature, self-interested and greedy, true. But, humans are also, by nature, envious. It could be argued that envy is a form of self-interest and greed. When a child sees that another child has more cookies, he wants some of those cookies. When someone sees that his friend has a much bigger house, much more money, and enjoys more luxury, he wants the things his friend has. Envy is natural. And, envy is the heart of distributive socialism. (To be sure, envy also serves capitalism. People work hard because they want to keep up with the Joneses. People bust their butts so they can dress fancy and drive expensive cars like rich folks do. For talented people, envy drives them to harder work, greater ambition. But, some people are either too lazy or too dumb to succeed. Their envy has little or limited productive value. A poor smart envious Jew can use his brains and make millions in several years, but a poor dumb goy will make peanuts no matter how hard he tries. He just doesn’t have the natural talent to succeed like smart folks. Similarly, a Mexican-American can train all he wants, but he’s not going to the NBA; he wont’ enjoy money and chicks professional athletes do. This is where envy is served by distributive socialism. For masses of dummies, it’s the easiest way to get a ‘piece of the pie’.)

Good or bad, distributive socialism may well be very much in harmony with human nature. Productive socialism isn’t mainly based on envy; at best, it’s based on pre-emptive envy--creating a society where no one will have more than others and thus no reason to envy others. Productive socialism is based on the idea of collective effort. It’s the idea that wealth should be created together by everyone, and since everyone created it together, everyone should get an equal share.
But, everyone knows that capitalism produces far more wealth than productive socialism does. This is because capitalism channels and harvests the energies of human nature rather than suppressing them. But, it must be said that distributive socialism also channels human nature. Distributive socialism is not productive, but it may play a role in bringing forth a degree of social co-existence between the have-mores and have-lesses based on the ways of human nature.

Suppose there’s a kid is hired by his uncle to paint the fence. The kid is paid and buys 20 chocolate bars. His brother wants some and throws a tantrum. All chocolate bars rightfully belong to the kid who painted the fence and bought them with his money. He worked out of self-interest, very much in line with human nature. And, he bought yummies to satisfy himself in keeping with human nature.
But, it’s also natural for the brother to feel envious and throw fits of jealousy because his brother has all the candy. Suppose the jealous brother was never hired by the uncle, can’t find means to earn money to buy candy, or is too lazy to work at odd jobs. Suppose the parent finally steps in and tells the brother with the 20 chocolate bars to give 3 to his brother. Fair or unfair, that may restore peace in the house. The brother who worked and earned his money still gets to keep the lion’s share of the candy. The envious brother is partly satisfied because he got something than nothing. And, the parent can finally get some peace in the house without the two kids bickering and fighting constantly.

Or, consider the natural world. Animals are, by nature, self-interested and ‘greedy’. Animals hunt for keeps, but there’s no rule that says an animal is limited to his own kills. If a bear comes upon a kill felled by wolves, the bear will try to take it. Hyenas and lions raid the others’ kills. Packs of hyenas try to take the kills of other packs of hyenas. Prides of lions do the same with other prides. All predators do this. They take whatever they can. Animals hunt for their own kills but also take others’ kills. Whether we call it hunger, envy, or greed, animals want something through effort or no effort at all. In some cases, animals fight eachother to the death over kills. Or, an animal or a pack will retreat when confronted with stronger animal or larger pack. But, this isn’t always the case. There are times when a kind of crude ‘distributive socialism’ prevails among the beasts.

For example, suppose a pack of wolves fell a large bison and start feastingt. We could say they ‘produced’ a kill. Suppose a bear comes along and wants the kill. It could be said the bear is ‘envious’ of the kill. Though the bear didn’t ‘produce’ the kill, he wants it just the same naturally. Now, three things can happen. The bear can drive out the wolves, or the wolves can drive out the bear. But, in rare cases, the bear and wolves, though unhappy and growling at one another, may decide to ‘share’ the kill. If the bear and the wolves are evenly matched, they may sense it’s best to feast on the kill together even while maintaining a certain distance and constantly growling at one another. Why risk life and limb fighting over the kill? Of course, bears and wolves don’t consciously understand this process in the contractual sense. But, in an instinctive sense, both parties may feel that’s it’s better to share, with each side getting something, than have both parties maul one another viciously with everyone getting hurt or even killed. Animals don’t understand game theory, but there is a certain natural dynamic that takes place in such situations.

Animals want to have it all. An animal will lay claim to an entire area and mark it as his own. But, there are times when it will have to tolerate ‘socialistic’ intrusions of others on its territory or bounty if it’s to have a peace of mind and find some enjoyment in life. Suppose there’s a stream full of salmon and a bear slunkers along and claims it as his own territory. It ‘claims’ and marks the stream; it wants to have all the salmon in the stream for itself. But, suppose other bears arrive one by one and intrude on this marked territory. Suppose the newly arrived bears are ‘envious’ of all the goodies in the stream and want some for themselves. The bear that first arrived and claimed the territory can fight all the newcomers. If it’s powerful enough, it may drive them all way. But, it may well be wiser to ‘share’ the stream. The first-arrived bear may still keep the best part of the stream for itself, but it may have to let the other bears fish in the other parts of the stream. If the original bear chases after every new bear, it will grow weary, go hungry, and may even get killed in the fight. So, in order to keep something than end up with nothing, the greed of the bear will have to accommodate the envy of the other bears. This is any kind of conceptual socialism but defacto natural socialism.
Something similar can be seen among polar bears. Generally, polar bears are solitary animals who hunt and eat their own food. But, if a bunch of polar bears come upon a giant beached whale, they may go into ‘socialist’ mode. Suppose a polar bear comes upon a dead whale, claims it, and wants it all for itself. Suppose other bears arrive and want some of it since it’s a BIG feast. Often, all the bears will feast together even if they remain wary and suspicious of one another. It’s almost as if an instinctive game theory kicks into place. If the bears all fight for the entire whale, many will get hurt or even killed, and no bear may enjoy the meal. But, if the first-arrived bear shelves its ‘greed’ nature and accommodates the ‘envious’ nature of all the bears, all the bears will enjoy something.

So, one could understand distributive socialism of the human world in the same way. Of course, it’s not ‘fair’ under the rule that says those who earn their wealth should keep it all. But, the fact is there are far more mediocre folks than talented people. Far more people are unlucky than lucky. All people naturally want personal gain and glory, but relatively few people achieve much of such. Successful people naturally want to keep their gain. But, unsuccessful people naturally feel envious. Since ‘greed’ has negative connotations, capitalists say great achievers seek ‘success’, ‘excellence’ and ‘greatness’. Since ‘envy’ has negative connotations, socialists say the people seek ‘social justice’, ‘fairness’, and ‘equality’. But, at the root of both -isms is the essence of human nature: greed and envy. And, if we examine both carefully, they are two sides of the same coin. Envy is, in other words, greed of the mediocre, the unlucky, or the lazy. Capitalist greed is about using your talent and ‘exploiting’ partners, situations, and employees to maximize your profit, glory, and/or fame. Socialist greed is about using the ‘protection racket’ of the government to take some of that good stuff from rich successful folks.
Some liberal-minded capitalists may pat themselves on the back and take pride in their compassion and willingness to ‘share’ with the less fortunate, but something more elemental is taking place. Like the wolves who figure it’s better to let the envious bear have some bison and leave them in peace to eat the rest of the bison, successful capitalists figure it’s better to ‘buy off’ the people’s envious resentments by offering them some freebies.

And, this is the thinking of the capitalist class who helped Obama get elected and now dominate his administration. Though Obama is a stealth socialist radical, most of the people in his administration(the oohs, aka liberal Jews) are actually successful capitalist types who are trying to expand distributive socialism in order to save their own golden goose.
They are essentially supporters of the New Economy or global capitalism which allows the smart, cunning, knowledgeable, rootless, and cosmopolitan to trot around the world and make fortunes undreamt of by previous generations. This process has made the top 2% very very rich, a group that is disproportionately ooh-ish(liberal Jewish). The global capitalists love this cash cow so much that they don’t want to let it go. But, this process has led to the stagnation of Middle America which lost millions of jobs overseas. If this goes on, there may be an angry mass revolution. Middle America–mostly goyim–may rise up against the oohs. So, these oohs are using Obama to institute socialism not so much to empower the people but to defang their rage and anger. More and more Middle Americans have grown envious and jealous of the superduper oohs who live in fancy condos, rich suburbs, the gated communities, etc. The oohs think, ‘gee, maybe if we give them free healthcare and tax credit checks(welfare checks by other name), they’ll remain stupid, docile, and happy watching American Idol’.

Anyway, this proves that socialism too can be in harmony with human nature. For distributive socialism to work meaningfully however, it must be conditional. People mustn’t just get free stuff through the government but be willing to do community service or participate in public works and lead a reasonably healthy and responsible life. Lazy and irresponsible people who simply want to mooch off others 100% deserve to be shot. In other words, socialism can work if it’s fascist than welfare-ist.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 2, 2009

Some Thoughts on the Lawrence Character in Full Metal Jacket?

Most of us would like to think "Gomer Pyle"–Lawrence–in Full Metal Jacket went from a naturally nice guy to a cold-hearted killer. In other words, the Marines turned him from a warm healthy individual to a cold killing machine. But, could it be argued that what drove Gomer crazy was the realization of his true self?

Gomer was probably raised in a protective environment where he indulge being a big baby. He was provided with food, comfort, and simple joys. He was a child in a toy wonderland. But, in the Marines he’s forced to connect with his predatory nature. (Remember that Peanuts cartoon where Snoopy has a nightmare about being in the North Pole with Huskie dogs? Gradually, he turns mean and fights to be head of the pack.)
Of course, human nature is multi-faceted. There are both the warm and tender side AND the brutal and aggressive side. It would be wrong to say human nature is ONLY this as opposed to that. But, Gomer was probably brought up in a family where the aggressive and survivalist side was never nurtured or developed. He grew big and tall but emotionally remained a cuddly baby. It didn’t help that he’s rather dim.

In a way, Gomer changes due to external pressure, especially that of the badass sergeant. But, this process involves something WITHIN Gomer being awakened. It is the brute nature that had remained dormant but had always been there. It is the side of man that is aggressive, ruthless, competitive, and bloodcurdling. It is a genuine part of human nature.
With most guys in the camp, we see a balance between control and aggression. The problem of Gomer is he starts with little control and little aggression. He has little control over his baby-ish appetites. He’s a fatbody, looks like an overgrown child, and can’t control his hunger or even his facial expressions. He also has little aggression because he’s probably been pampered and doted all his life. Eventually, he is brutalized and gains self-control. And, the aggressive and ruthless side of him is cracked open, and Gomer finally turns into a bona-fide killing machine. But, the process was so traumatic that he ultimately cannot absorb the shocks. He goes crazy. He cannot maintain the balance between aggression and control.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Evolutionary Meaning or Utility of Art?

The evolutionary advantage of art may actually be quite elementary. Art, in the most basic sense, is that which gives pleasure to eyes and ears. Art is created by man but distills the essence of what we find beautiful or pleasurable in the physical or psychological realm. So, what is the evolutionary advantage of appreciating beauty? In the most basic sense, the ability to appreciate beauty makes complex organisms(humans being the most complex)want to live; it turns us into junkies of the pleasures of life. Before organisms pass down their genes through procreation–a process in which beauty and pleasure play essential roles(for higher animals anyway)–, they have to want to live in the first place. More complex an organism is, the more conscious it tends to be, therefore more self-conscious, therefore more vulnerable to emotional downswings and self-loathing, therefore more dependent on counter-forces to balance out the misery and uphold the rationale for living.

Without powerful reasons to live, higher organisms experience or encounter dissipation, thoughts of suicide, or reluctance to procreate. Humans have a tremendous will to live and ability to survive. The ability comes from our cognitive skills and physical dexterity. But, an intelligent and emotionally complex mind questions itself, the meaning of life, suffer from emotional turbulence, moral confusion, self-loathing, and so on. Instead of serving as a tool for survival and expansion, the human mind may cannibalize itself by obsessing on the negative aspects of life or asking circular questions about unfathomable matters. As higher organism is capable of greater depression and self-doubt, these tendencies must be counter-acted by capacity for greater pleasure, meaning, and enjoyment of beauty. Simpler organisms don’t have this problem because they either lack consciousness or possess consciousness focusing mainly on survival. As such, they do not fall into self-conscious suicidal traps.

Of course, too much of a self-serving will to live and enjoy pleasure can undermine the survivalist or evolutionary process; if the technology of virtual reality keeps progressing, people may lock themselves in fun-filled virtual worlds of great aesthetic and sensual pleasure and refuse to deal with real reality. Such are the dangers of technology, often explored in sci-fi works.
Anyway, capacity for pleasure makes people want to live. Consider anyone with suicidal thoughts. Why does he want to snuff out his life? Because he sees more pain–physical or psychological–than pleasure, more meaninglessness than meaning. But, why are people with suicidal tendencies still afraid or reluctant to jump off a cliff or shoot themselves? Other than the fear of physical pain, there is the fear of missing out on the joys of life. Life forms are addicted to the wonderment of life(and it could be argued that all appreciations of beauty or pleasure is a form of art appreciation). Even if suicidal people could die painlessly and be assured that their loved ones will be well-taken care of, they would still feel panic and fear in some part of their being.

Indeed, the very fact of being alive is filled with pleasure. It may not be intense or electrifying most of the time, but there is a degree of satisfaction and fascination in the very fact of being alive. Simplest organisms have an elemental life force that keeps the engine running. Consider insects whose life force within pushes them to consume, run from danger, and survive. Lower organisms can also be mindlessly ‘self-sacrificing’ for the perpetuation of the species as when bees or salmon go through the ‘ritual’ process of mass deaths so that a new generation can arise from it.
As organisms grow more complex, they gain consciousness and complex emotions. No longer driven by what might be called an automatonic life force, they need conscious reasons to thrive as organisms. A goldfish may thrive in the wild or in an aquarium, but a dog will grow sick if locked up in a small cage. A dog taken for a walk senses wonderment through smell, sight, movement, and so forth. The dog is aesthetically engaging with stimuli, and its life force is boosted by these joys. A snake may be content mainly to eat and sleep, but this isn’t true for organisms with higher and more complex–intelligence-wise and emotionally–forms of consciousness. It’s not just the dog’s hunting instincts on display but its ability(and necessity) to derive pleasure from interaction with the environment. There is HAPPINESS on the part of the dog. A dog gains greater life force through such activity. A dog locked up in a small cage may grow sick from lack of stimuli or attention. Of course, an animal has no concept of suicide and cannot attempt such a thing. But, a dog without a stimulating environment grows depressed, sick, and listless. We see the same thing in a child. A child is more excited about or engaged with life when he is given toys to play with or shown a cartoon. Toys and cartoons provide pleasure to a child. Pleasure makes the child more committed and more ‘addicted’ to life. In a way, art is toys for adults. Even puritanical religions that suppress sensual pleasures find roundabout ways to introduce music into prayer. Islam bans pictorial representations of men and animals, but this is compensated by a very flamboyant(one may even say ‘sensual’)use of Arabic on the walls of mosques.

Being locked up in prison is dreary not only for its limited space and lack of freedom but for its sheer lack of aesthetic stimulation. It’s all steel bars and concrete walls. Prison offers the basic necessities for survival, but prisoners serving long life sentences don’t really get a kick out of life. Of course, most inmates still don’t welcome the death because the very fact of being alive still has its pleasures. Meals are pleasurable. Social interaction is pleasurable. Using the prison library has its pleasures. Looking up at the sky and clouds during exercise period also has its pleasures. And, closing one’s eyes and recalling good times is also pleasurable. And, even if one is not surrounded by beauty and pleasure, one can think of beautiful things. One can construct an art gallery in one’s own mind. One can dream of beautiful natural scenery or naked ladies; one can compose music in one’s head or replay favorite songs in one’s mind. These may not be artistic activity in the technical or professional sense, but art is linked with all such emotions, desires, and mental habits.

One of the great pleasures of life is food. Hunger drives us to eat by causing pain and discomfort, but we also like to eat because it is pleasurable. The pleasure that comes from eating makes us look forward to the next yummy meal; that makes us value life and want to live. No matter how depressed you are, the prospect for another delicious dish or good sex makes you cling to life. Gourmet food is art for the taste buds, and sex is a kind of aesthetic/pleasurable experience for one’s eyes, ears, hands, and private organs. Not for nothing did Pauline Kael see cinema as a kind of sex. It was an art form that sensually engaged the most organs all at once. Cinema wrapped and connected with us in like the arms, legs, and private organs of a sex partner. In the film "Purple Rose of Cairo", we have a very unhappy woman with a nasty hubby and nothing happening in her life. If she were a lower organism with no or simple consciousness, it would be enough for her to eat and sleep. But, she’s an higher organism, and as such, filled with doubt, depression, misery, and so on. Yet, what keeps her wanting to live, what makes her cling to life? The ‘art’ of cinema. No matter how stupid or lowly a film may be, it may have some magical life-nourishing purpose for some. Of course, like I said, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. If one becomes addicted to the movies, one may prefer life-at-the-movies over life-in-reality. And, that is also the problem with the woman in "Purple Rose of Cairo". The movies keep her alive, but they also cut her off from what we consider meaningful living. Same is true of food. Delicious food makes us want to live to eat more delicious stuff. But, addiction to this yumminess may make us fat and unhealthy, in which case, too much of a good thing will turn us into fat slobs who die of heart attack at a young age.

The art of cooking is kind of like art. Chefs distill the flavors that are most appealing to us and cook up dishes that maximize our pleasure. Some would even argue that fine cooking is indeed Art. What we generally consider as art–music, literature, painting, sculpture, etc–is consumed through our eyes and ears; food is consumed through our mouths. In both cases, we are seeking and finding pleasure through our senses.
Of course, this can’t be said of much of modern art whose purpose is to provoke, incite, experiment, or even offend. Such may be more of an acquired taste and may not serve the interests of the life force or the will to live. But, some higher intellects or pompous asses may require just that sort of thing to get their jollies in life, in which case even such arts may have their evolutionary purpose.

In addition, such works of art may serve the same kind of function as genetic mutations. Most mutations are useless or harmful, but once in a long while one comes along that may actually present new possibilities and advance the species. Similarly, avant-garde-ism, though generally stupid or useless, may occasionally break through the sound barrier of culture and establish a new template for something very exciting and useful. .
Even so, most people understand art as a thing of beauty, and art appreciation for the masses, even in today’s post-modern culture, is about finding pleasure from works of beauty, humor, and other things that make people feel good. Even art that seems ugly at first sight may be appreciated for its truth–moral beauty–or its wit(a kind of intellectual beauty or elegance). Woody Allen is ugly and his comedies range from gross to absurd, but we can all appreciate the impressive acrobatics of his intelligence.

Art gives us pleasure and fills with a sense of wonderment. We want to return for more. This makes us want to live. Take Franz Kafka who was one severely depressed person. Yet, what kept him going until he died of sickness? He found meaning through art. And, I’ll bet people who read his books but contemplated jumping off a cliff thought, ‘but if I drop dead, I won’t be able to read any more Kafka.’ That may sound like silly, but it’s probably not. And, it doesn’t have to be what we call Great Art. Even taking a stroll and feeling the breeze and looking up at the stars is an aesthetic experience. Art is merely an extension of this pleasure/wonderment principle which is so integral to the higher organism’s will to live. And, cherishing our memories is also a kind of aesthetic experience. The mind does to events and happenstance what time does to grape juice. It turns them into mental wine. It becomes transformed, mythologized, aestheticized, etc. It becomes precious. The past becomes like a museum. It becomes sacred, and the sense of sacred is linked with the idea of art. Art is the sacralization of pleasures that gain special meaning for us. It is distilled and bottled pleasure with the vintage tag.

Aesthetics is integral to just about everything we do. People look for beautiful men or women for sexual partners. People with money seek houses not only for their functionality but for the aesthetic pleasures the houses provide. Architects don’t just build huts where people eat or sleep but houses which people can show off as their private palaces. One of the great advantages capitalism had over communism was that communism stressed the basic necessities of life and not much else. Other than the lack of personal freedom and liberty, there was an overwhelming sense of dreariness, drabness, greyness, khaki-ness, and humdrumness in communist nations. Sure, there was the occasional colorful rallies, splashy slogans, and loud songs, but it was mostly dull, dull, and dull. Capitalism was more colorful. There were fancy clothes for women, even poor women. There were lipstick and hair salons for gals. Capitalist movies promised more fun and pleasure. Remember the movie "Moscow on the Hudson"? What is the first thing commies do in America? They run to Macy’s and try to buy all the ‘narcissistic’ goods as possible to take back home. So, the commies were not only starved for better food but more color in their lives. Even Western leftists almost never defected to commie nations; indeed, look at most leftists and they are just as vain with makeup and fashion as everyone else. Radical feminism tried to be anti-sensual and anti-aesthetic, but the whole edifice fell apart when Madonna came along and shook her ass. (Again, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This is where the Judeo-Christian religion has played an important balancing role in Western civilization. The pagan love of art & appreciation of nature is vital, life-affirming, and all that, but too much of it can lead to the kind of thing we see in the movie Ten Commandments when people take it too far and worship the Golden Calf and have orgies. And, we need only look at our own retarded girls-gone-wild skankass culture and the problems in the black community to understand what happens when pleasure becomes the ONLY principle of life. This is why capitalism needs to be balanced by moral restraint, righteousness, and sobriety). And, this may have been the reason why Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were so popular among their folks. Though both promoted a limited or narrow aesthetic philosophy, neither waged a war on beauty and colorfulness. Both were ideologies centered around the cult of beauty. However, the problem of both, especially National Socialism, was that they tried to ideologize beauty in national or racial terms; as such they tended to be blind to the beauties of other cultures and traditions. And, let’s face it. The reason why Che Guevara has become a great icon among the Left is because he was a beautiful man. Never mind his politics; he was the Latin Lover of the Revolution. If Che had been 4' 11 and looked like Elephant Boy or Baba Booey(on Howard Stern Show), no way he would have gained such an iconic status.

As social creatures, we also want to share the object or source of our pleasure with other folks. This makes for communal interaction. Every artist is also begging for attention and respect/higher status in the community. Even politics is a kind of art. And, it also inspires people to have children in order to pass down and share the things of beauty and sacredness(cultural heritage) that they enjoyed and cherished onto the next generation. I repeat, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. A person so immersed in his or her own pleasures may see having children as a hindrance or obstacle to one’s self-centered pleasure-seeking freedom. That may explain why so many young people hooked on videogames, movies, internet, and so forth do not wish to ‘settle down’ and ‘grow up’ and put away pleasurable but childish things and get married and have kids.

There is probably also a danger in too much thinking. Intellect allowed mankind to come up with better reasons and tools for building and expanding civilizations and empires, but at some point, intellect turns on itself and begins to obsess with thoughts like, ‘maybe life is meaningless’, ‘maybe it’s all an illusion’, ‘maybe power is evil’, ‘it’s all in vain’, and so on. Just look at your average Ingmar Bergman film and you get my drift. High civilization elevates our sense of ourselves; it turns us into super idealists and into proud folks. But at some point, we realize that our reality don’t live up to our ideals. We either lose heart or we seek radical ways to create heaven on earth. Either way, we fail. We also realize, through science, that we are part of the animal world, that human processes are essentially biological processes despite our sense of highfalutin exceptionalism and spiritualism. We hit an intellectual roadblock but can’t regain our lost innocence again. Too much of anything leads to infertility and inertia. Just look at what happened to Jean-Luc Godard ever since he crawled into a cave to ‘think’ about cinema.

Even so, the pleasures of life, of which art is an important element, fill even the most depressed person with the life force. The will-to-life for higher organisms is largely based on the pleasure of living. The very fact of being alive is pleasurable and wondrous. Just being alive makes one feel special or blessed. Even when one’s bored as hell, it’s infinitely more interesting than being dead, which is to be a zero. Just being alive and feeling the buzz of life is, in an elemental way, a form of artistic appreciation. After all, our senses are always stimulated by something. We always react aesthetically to things around us. Even when we are surrounded by ugliness, we think artistically. We wish for things to be beautiful than ugly, pleasurable than painful(unless one is crazy enough to enjoy Chantal Akerman films). That is an artistic spirit within each of us–even if most of us don’t become professional artists. Even if we’re not professional artists, the way we arrange things in our homes, the way we dress, the way we react to other people’s looks, the way we respond to sounds, and so forth all involve an aesthetic or artistic process or appreciation. Even falling in love is a form of artistic process. A beautiful person is like a natural work of art. We love flowers for their natural beauty. Strictly speaking, art is artificial or man-made, but much of our art is a replica of what we find beautiful in the real world. Consider paintings of sunsets, flowers, beautiful women, etc. We preserve beautiful artworks because our pride and enjoyment of them serves to legitimize and validate our entire civilizations. Modern Greeks say, ‘our ancestors built the Parthenon, so our culture and tradition have a right to survive’. All political leaders lay claim to a certain cultural achievement which cannot be distinguished from art and creativity. The reason why blacks are so eager to lay claim to Ancient Egypt is because Egyptians were not only politically powerful at one time but because they built some of the most beautiful and astounding objects and structures known to man. Germans have been justly proud of their musical tradition. It’s as though most of us feel–if only subconsciously–that people that produced greater art and cultures have more right to exist than others. So, with both individuals and societies as a whole, art has a way of reinforcing the will to live and survive. Indeed, we would consider it a bigger tragedy if all of German culture were to vanish than all of East Timorese culture. All cultures are valuable, but loss of German culture would mean the loss of Goethe, Beethoven, Fritz Lang, etc. Loss of East Timorese culture would mean loss of wood carvings and necklaces made of coke bottle caps. (Just kidding if you happen to be East Timorese).

Art is merely the highest form of seeking and enjoying pleasure. It elevates pleasure by distilling or stylizing the essence of beauty we find in the world or in the structures of our mind. High art is an object of pleasure that has attained sublime proportions. As such, we sanctify it as something of eternal value, something worthy of universal and timeless appreciation. Societies do this with art, but we do it with our memories as well. There are certain experiences that we cherish over all others. In the psycho-temple of our minds, those experiences are given special place. They are remembered as the sacred moments of our lives. Without such memories, our lives would have much less meaning. In "Blade Runner", replicants seek memories, even filching them from others, in order to find a greater meaning for living. What is the thing that Batty(Rutger Hauer character)aches most about as his demise looms? It's the fact that all the wondrous and beautiful things he'd seen and stored in his memory will all be lost; death wipes out or utterly destroys the private art museum/cathedral in our minds; in a sense, art expresses or serves our desire to live forever; though we die, something about us--that which is most beautiful, noble, and excellent--will live on through art; it's as though a part of our soul(invested in the art we create, appreciate, or revere)will be reincarnated down through the ages; it's as though future generations who come to appreciate those works of art will, in some strange way, come to appreciate us as well; this is why family albums, diaries, and heirlooms become like 'art' within families.
If replicants in Blade Runner horde other people's photographs to imagine beautiful memories of their own, we watch movies to filch memories from others as well. In time, movie memories become our memories. We are all replicants hungry for images and memories of others. Such memories add meaning to our lives.
All life forms follow certain patterns. Without order, human society is not possible and that may explain our intrinsic attraction to symmetrical and geometric forms. Dada-ism notwithstanding, art cannot simply be arbitrary. Even the most cluttered or chaotic works of art follow certain rules; even violating all previous rules is a form of rule, and the work has to be measured a success or failure according to the rule it lives by. In that sense too, art is very integral to what we are as complex organisms. We don’t merely live in our surroundings but seek meaning and beauty through it. We don’t just use rocks but find ways to extract minerals we need from rocks to make better tools. A metal tool is better than a stone tool. Similarly, we don’t just appreciate beauty around us but try to extract the essence of beauty of nature and express them through art.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 23, 2009

Jewish Use of Blacks Against Muslims.



Isn’t it striking that the movies The Kingdom and The Traitor star, respectively, Jamie Foxx and Don Cheadle? Both films take place in the Middle East, and the enemies are Arab terrorists. Other than the fact that Hollywood often cast Muslims as The Enemy, what is noteworthy that stars of both films are black. Why would this be?

My guess is that the Jews want to bring American blacks to their side or at least turn them against the Muslim and Arab world. This is largely because American Jews are Zionist and care about Israel. In America, the Jewish-black relations aren’t that good. Many black leaders secretly and even openly denounce Jews. Blacks offer three main justifications for their anger. 1. Israel was a close ally of South Africa during the apartheid years. 2. Jewish businessmen in the past exploited blacks socially and economically(and do so to this day). 3. Jews succeeded and became the elite of America while many blacks still remain mired in poverty.
These are the ostensible reasons, but blacks are just jealous of Jewish success like they are jealous of success of all other groups–white or minority.

Why are Jews so concerned about what blacks think? There are several reasons. Many Jews make tons of money in the music, movie, and sports industry where black stars are prominent and crucial; also, blacks make up a sizable portion of the paying audience for Jewish produced goods, especially TV and movies. As successful as Jews are, they want everyone to see them as eternal historical victims, and as such, Jews want to be associated with blacks–the people who experienced American slavery. Especially as Jews are so rich and powerful–potential targets of the envious and resentful goy masses–, Jews want to mask their real power and influence by playing victim. Since Jews are the richest and most powerful people in America, Jews can gain victim status only by two means–memorialization of the Holocaust(hence the endless stream of Holocaust documentaries, movies, anniversaries, books, articles, etc.) and by association with other groups. Since blacks are a vocal and politically powerful ‘victim group’ in the US, Jews want to be associated(at least politically if not socially)with them. With a strong Jewish-black alliance, Jews can say, ‘how can we be elitist oppressors when we are so chummy with the poor negroes?’ Having close ties with blacks also helps the cause of Zionism. To people around the world and Americans who point to the horrors of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, Jews can say, ‘but how can we oppressors when American blacks, whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, are our friends?’ Recall that Martin Luther King never lodged a critical word about Jewish treatment of Palestinians; he depended on Jewish money and associations.

So, this is the dirty Jewish game. The rise of Obama has everything to do with Jews seeking to gain cover from criticism by associating themselves with a black guy. Of course, Jews also supported Obama–as opposed to guys like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton–because they hope to remake the black community in the Jewish image. Obama is an intellectual black guy steeped in liberal Jewish ideology–more so than in black ideology–, and by putting Obama on a pedestal, Jews hope that successful blacks will follow in the footsteps of Obama than those of Farrakhan, Jackson, or Sharpton. Obama understands what this Jewish trick is all about; he knew that if he played along with the Jewish script, he would be President since Jews would shower him with 100s of millions of dollars and give him media support–you all know who owns and controls the media.

So, take a film like The Kingdom or The Traitor. Why do they star black actors? It’s because American Jews want to condition black Americans to identify with anti-Islamism. Both films send a message to blacks that, "look, the Muslims and Arabs are YOUR enemy and brothas like Foxx and Cheadle be shooting and killing them raghead mothafuc*as!". Of course, both films are clever enough to show some bad Americans and some good Arabs/Muslims. This way, Hollywood can give itself cover from charges of ‘Islamophobia’ or bigotry. But, it’s clear that both films are trying to woo blacks over to the Jewish side or at least against the Muslim/Arab side. Since Hollywood is world cinema, films such as these are also meant to influence stupid and gullible audiences on all five continents. But, perhaps they are not as influential because, after all, so many people hate Israel and Jews just the same.
Having black characters in leading roles also make it easier for white audiences to enjoy their hatred of or animosity toward Muslims or Arabs. In our politically correct age, white males are the lowest of the low–unless they are leftist rebels like Matt ‘Bourne’ Damon. So, an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim movie with good gung ho white guys might come across as ‘racist’, not least to liberal whites. But, if these films have ‘noble’ or ‘cool’ blacks fighting evil Arabs or Muslims, even white liberals can enjoy the spectacle of whupping Muslims or Arabs guilt free. How can it be bigoted when the good guys are black?

Yes, Jews are very clever. And, they play very dirty.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?



One of the problems I have with Holocaust remembrance is its aura of religious dogmatism.
Holocaust is a historical event but has been elevated into an article of faith than maintained as a matter of knowledge.

When it comes to the American Civil War or World War II, the relevant question is ‘do you know about this event?’ or ‘how much do you know about such-and-such?’ When it comes to the Holocaust, the question is ‘do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?’, rather like asking, ‘do you believe in God?’
Personally, I believe that the Holocaust happened because I’ve been taught in schools, books, tv programs, and movies that it happened. I have no reason to doubt all the experts. I’m not a conspiracy nut, and I think most people in the Holocaust denial industry are creepy, dishonest, or just plain crazy. There seems to be more than ample evidence that the Holocaust did take place. I’m all for Holocaust revision, and perhaps fewer than 6 million died. That should be for genuine historians to do the research and decide.

Still, what I BELIEVE about the Holocaust is inseparable from what I KNOW about the Holocaust. I don’t believe in it to be a good person, a saintly person, a correct person, or an approved person. I believe in it based on what I’ve come to know about it. I have no blind faith in the Holocaust nor in liberal historiography. Yes, most historians are liberal or on the left, but nearly all serious historians seem to accept that it happened. So, based on what I’ve read and based on my reasonable trust in experts, I believe that the Holocaust happened.
And, I think this is all we can expect from people. To believe in something based on what they’ve seen, heard, or read and thought about.
So, it’s perfectly sensible to have a conversation where you might ask someone, ‘do you know what the Khmer Rouge did?’ or ‘have you heard about the Great Famine under Stalin?’ You would not ask someone, ‘do you BELIEVE in the Killing Fields or the Great Famine?’ We can’t expect people to believe something they may know little or nothing about. Belief in God is a matter of faith. Belief in history isn’t or, at least, shouldn’t be.
If you ask someone, "do you believe in the Great Famine?’ and if the person says, "I don’t know", you would not look upon him as a scumbag. You would look upon him as someone who may need to read up on history. The person may be ignorant but ignorance is not evil.

Yet, this isn’t the case with the Holocaust. People are simply supposed to BELIEVE in it even if they know little or nothing about it. Of course, one could argue that people SHOULD believe in the Holocaust since it’s been discussed and taught everywhere. Who hasn’t heard about the Holocaust in the schools, tv news programs, tv documentaries, Hollywood movies, etc? There is no excuse for anyone to not know something about it. Fair enough. But, hearing or seeing something isn’t the same as having sound knowledge of it. After all, Chinese children are told that Mao was a great man; they’ve heard it a million times, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so! (Also, people should ask, ‘why do we hear so much about 6 million dead Jews yet almost nothing about the 100 million killed by communism?’ This state of affairs should make us more suspect of those who control popular remembrance of history and shape public morality.) Sure, we’ve all heard of or seen "Schindler’s List", but it’s an Hollywood movie. Since when is something true because it’s a movie? Also, most historical films have been notorious for their distortions of history. "Lawrence of Arabia" may be a great film, but much of it is not real history. Most Westerns about the conflict between whites and Indians are fanciful or ludicrous from a historical angle. So, just because we’ve been exposed to the Holocaust in the mainstream news and Hollywood movies doesn’t mean that we MUST believe in it. A person is obligated to believe in the Holocaust ONLY IF he has actually done honest research and pored over the evidence. Otherwise, all we have to go on are insubstantial textbooks(packed with generic and politically correct narratives), movies, and stuff like Oprah. Consider the fact that a bogus Holocaust story was featured on Oprah, and the entire nation believed in it. Was the story true because Oprah embraced it and called it ‘the greatest love story she ever heard’? The fact that certain stories or events have been over-hyped by the mainstream media should make us all the more skeptical. Skepticism isn’t the same as denial. It means having the courage not to simply follow herd instinct and having the ability to think for oneself. Of course, one has to be careful lest one fall into the trap of knee-jerk contrarian-ism where something is true simply because it goes against the grain.

Anyway, the point is the knowledge of the Holocaust is more crucial than belief in the Holocaust. Historical belief must always be based on historical knowledge. Considering that very few people have actually read anything substantial or done research on the subject of the Holocaust, it is ludicrous to ask, "do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?" That kind of question only creates a climate of moral bullying(which is, of course, what the Jews want. They want goyim to worship the Jews-as-God). It commands people with superficial knowledge of certain subject to simply believe in it because you’re scum if you don’t. (The same kind of mindless worship centers around Martin Luther King. The question is never, ‘what do you know about Martin Luther King?’ but ‘how many times do you wanna get on your knees and kiss his ass?’ People who have REAL knowledge of the Kingster knows that he was just a shrewd political operative and no saint.) How ironic that liberals and leftists take so much pride in their rationalism and skepticism yet demand that the populace take for granted certain TRUTHS. If liberals are genuinely honest, they should encourage people to learn more about the Holocaust. What people feel or believe about the Holocaust should be based on what they know about it. And, I don’t mean Hollywood movies which are based on fictional scripts and actors going through the motions. Movies are fun but have nothing to do with truth. The only truth of a movie is that it is a movie. It may dramatize an actual event or psychological truth, but it PROVES NOTHING. Documentaries can be factual, but they often serve partisan purposes. Nothing is true simply because a documentary said so. After all, Holocaust deniers have also made their own documentaries. There are documentaries that tell us that US government and Mossad carried out 9/11 attacks. That makes it true? Even many well-researched books are not too helpful in making us understand the Holocaust because their main purpose is to make us feel sympathy only or mainly for Jews. As such, those books are less about the Holocaust than about using the Holocaust to monopolize all sympathy for Jews and Jews only. In a way, every new Holocaust book is really to reinforce Jewish power. If we read about those ‘poor innocent Jews killed by Nazis’, we’ll be less likely to criticize Jewish power since it may feel Nazi-esque to do so. Or, we may think twice before criticizing Zionism and its brutality against Palestinians since Jews are the ‘eternal saintly victims’.

Of course, there are true historians and bogus historians, but it’s also true that many respected historians have been wrong on many things, sometimes willfully so. Just because a historian is intelligent, respected, and capable doesn’t mean he’s without prejudices, ideological bias, or gullibility. Recall that Trevor-Roper, one of the outstanding historians of his time, staked his reputation on the authenticity of Hitler diaries. Though he retracted later, his reputation never fully recovered.
Of course, in most cases, there is a consensus arrived at by most historians over many generations, and there isn’t much doubt that the Holocaust happened. Even David Irving came to the conclusion that Hitler not only knew about the mass killings but ordered them.

However, even consensus in an open and democratic society doesn’t guarantee that truth always prevails, especially if the academia and media are near-monopolized by one group. And, in our democratic society, much of the control of the media(eyes, ears, and mouth of society) and the academia(the brains of society) are held by people of certain ethnic group or ideological fixation. Jewish power is tremendous, and liberal and leftists control much of the media. As a result, we don’t see or hear much about what Israelis have done to Palestinians recently in Gaza. Or, the news is watered down and carefully balanced with stories of Jewish suffering. So, a 1000 dead Palestinians is treated as the equivalent to one dead Israeli.
Of course, liberals and the Left play the game of suppression or neglect than outright denial. They can play this game because they control the media. Liberals and leftists don’t deny communist horrors, and by not doing so, don’t soil their moral reputation. They quietly admit that horrors happened under communism, BUT those narratives are generally neglected or suppressed in public discourse; they are rarely revived and treated as ‘past history’, something we should let go and forget.
Liberals and leftists practice communist-burial than communist-denial. But, the effect is the same as if they had practiced communist-denial because relatively few people come to know about the full extent of communist crimes and horrors. It’s almost as if 100 million people did not die in the 20th century. (And, when the horrors of communism are discussed, it’s in a more objective and detached manner than in a morally bullying manner. Also, it’s generally treated as macro-history, a matter of statistics than as a criminal tragedy involving individual victims. Communist horrors have not been Anne-Franken-ized. We are told that Stalin killed 20 million, but we can’t match their faces with any individual victim. So, it’s almost like hearing that Stalin killed 20 million chickens. We think of them as faceless victims.)
Since liberals and leftists don’t actually say, ‘millions were not killed by communism’, they don’t come across as evil like the Holocaust-deniers who say that millions of Jews were not killed.
If the Right owned much of the media and controlled much of the academia, it could play the same game. It would run many stories, make many movies, and present many news stories about the evil history of communism while burying–rather than denying–the horrors of the Holocaust. They wouldn’t need to deny the Holocaust to produce the defacto effect of Holocaust Denial.
Since, people will hear a 100 stories about evils of communism for every story on the Holocaust, it will be as if the Holocaust was just a footnote in history.

Anyway, the point is something isn’t necessarily true or truer because it’s always in the news or has been popularly disseminated. Even in a free society such as ours, reputations can be destroyed if certain truths are dared spoken. As a result, people seeking respectability stay mum about things they know to be true but are deemed taboo by controllers of public opinion and much of the national wealth. If you offend the Jews, Jewish organizations and groups will mount pressure to have you fired, boycotted, ostracized, or isolated. People who do business with you will be pressured to disassociate themselves from you. As a result, most people seeking respectability or simple profit don’t speak out on certain matters because it may be too controversial.
As a result, the only people willing to go against the grain tend to be extreme types who, as outcasts, have nothing to lose from politics of confrontation. As a result, something true(though taboo)can come to be regarded as ‘extreme’ and ‘hateful’ due to its association with extreme groups. (The problem with extreme groups championing certain truths is that despite their courage, they do espouse ideas and views which truly are extreme or idiotic. It’s great that David Duke fearlessly takes on Jewish power, and there is much truth in what he says. But, because of his mindless Holocaust denial and blind hatred for all things Jewish, he undermines and unwittingly disqualifies, in the eyes of many, even the legitimate points that he makes. Kevin MacDonald is a much better scholar because he’s far more cautious and thoughtful in what he believes and says.)

Anyway, here’s an obvious example of a truth that most people dare not speak.
Consider the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than gentiles and that blacks are stronger than whites. These are undeniable facts, and many respectable people actually know them. But, because such views are deemed ‘racist’, very few mainstream people talk about them. The only ones with the balls to do so are people like David Duke, and as a result, such views are deemed to be ‘white supremacist’–rather iroinic since those observations point out the intellectual superiority and physical superiority of, respectively, the Jews and blacks.

The Holocaust has been turned into such a secular religion that many respectable historians are afraid to even call for honest revision of it. The very idea of revision of Holocaust is anathema to the liberal and leftist(especially Jewish)community out of fear that it may open up the floodgate of Holocaust denial. But, the real reason why they want to suppress a truly secular approach to the Holocaust–at least in the popular perception–is because reality is more complex and ambiguous than myths. To understand the Holocaust, it must be studied in the context of European and Jewish history. Such approach may not lead to Holocaust denial but may lead to something akin to Holocaust Understanding. Understanding is not the same thing as Excusing, but it undermines the simple good vs. evil religious aura that surrounds the Holocaust. The current popular narrative says that these wonderful perfectly saintly Jews were rounded up by irrational and demented Germans who just went crazy and were out to kill people just for the hell of it. In the Bible, God’s truth cannot be understand and we aren’t supposed to question it. We are merely supposed to BELIEVE. The liberal and leftist Jews want us to feel the same way about the Holocaust. Just to believe in the saintly goodness of Jews and unfathomable evil of the Germans.

Intentions do matter in history, and a full understanding of the Holocaust will require us to study why the Germans–and many others–hated the Jews. Liberal and Leftist Jews in the US don’t want us to ask this question. They simply want us to hug-a-Jew, love-a-Jew, weep-for-a-Jew, worship-a-Jew, etc. Jews know that the more we study and understand Jewish power, the more we realize that they are a threat to our way of life and values.
The reason why Jews want us to see Holocaust as a unique and singular event in history is because they want to separate it from the larger historical context. If we see the Holocaust in relation to the larger context, we may understand, if not excuse or condone, what happened. Of course, a context of sorts is supplied by Jews where the Holocaust is the culmination of Jew-hatred through the ages. But, this is a purely a morally narcissistic, self-serving, self-pitying, and self-aggrandizing Judeo-centric context.
It leaves out the other contexts, such as Jewish contempt and hatred for goyim. It doesn’t take into account the cunning and manipulative nature of Jewish finance capitalism(which still goes on today, indeed, stronger than ever). It fails to take into account the Jewish role in communism and other radical movements that set out to undermine and even destroy the world order of the goyim. It refuses to consider, for example, that the Holocaust grew out of holocausts committed by communists–many of them Jewish–in Eastern Europe. It fails to take into account the collusion between rich capitalist Jews and power-hungry socialist Jews(something we still see today) to gain more power and influence over goyim. If European Jews were indeed very much like they are today in the US, it’s understandable why there was so much hatred against Jews. What a cunning, manipulative, arrogant, contemptuous, selfish, sniveling, sneering, self-righteous, and hypocritical people many of these Jews are. I think there would a lot of anti-Jewish feelings in the US today if it weren’t for the fact that Jews have such control of media and academia and have been brainwashing us to love them and feel sympathy/guilt for them. If European Jews were indeed like American Jews today, ‘anti-semitism’ back then was surely understandable even if not justified on the level that led to the Holocaust. Why should we like the Jews? If it’s not hard to understand why many Americans distrust and dislike the Japanese/Chinese(as The New Republic often does) or why many Europeans look upon Muslims with disgust, who says we have to like Jews? Who says Jews are likable and we must like Jews? Many people like Jews because they’ve seen too much TV and got all their news from the Jew-run media. Many people who know the ugly truth about the Jews force themselves to like Jews since they’ve been brainwashed since infancy that not liking Jews means you’re a Nazi who wants to shoot babies.

And, don’t Jews have their own biases? The Jewish owned/run media in this country allows a great deal of anti-Muslim bashing on the airwaves, print, tv, and academia. It’s perfectly okay to write respectable books on what’s wrong with them Arabs, with Islam, with Saudi economic power, etc. But, we can’t scrutinize or criticize Jewish values, Jewish attitudes, Jewish power, Jewish wealth, etc when its influence in the US is greater than the influence of rest of America combined? We have to take it on faith that Jews are good, good, good.

Understanding intentions doesn’t alter the fact of the crime, but it does alter the nature of the crime. Killing someone for revenge because he raped your wife and killing someone for the hell of it are both instances of killing resulting in a dead body. Both may be illegal and morally wrong, but one is clearly more understandable than the other. Jews want us to see the Holocaust as a case of evil people who, for no reason at all, decided to kill totally innocent people. But, was this what really happened? If European Jews acted like American Jews are acting today, wasn’t it understandable why so many people rallied around a man like Hitler who scapegoated the Jews? Of course, there is some discussion of how Jews were perceived by their persecutors, but this perception is said to have been purely delusional, paranoid, or false. But, was it?
Clearly, the perception of Nazis and their ilk was extreme, unhinged, and pathological, but was it based entirely on fantasies? Was there something about Jews in general or in particular that was threatening, hostile, and ruthless to the interests to the goy majority? Of course, there was, and there is today. Just look at the vile Jews on Wall Street, Hollywood, academia, law, business, and government. How cunning, disgusting, deceitful, and manipulative many of them are. And, utterly hypocritical and self-righteous. Just consider the likes of Woody Allen and Alan Dershowitz. Whether it’s on the Right or on the Left, we have a people who are largely very unpleasant, contemptuous, arrogant, deceitful, and sneering. Of course, there are many wonderful Jews as well, but because Jews are intelligent, we see the extremes in both good and bad. Bad Jews gain far more power than bad people of other stripe. Because of their sense of ‘eternal victimhood’, even good Jews often cover up for bad Jews. Also, because bad Jews are so smart, they can make a lot of money and buy respectability that most other bad people cannot. A bad Italian-American is likely to become a mafioso and be seen for what he is: scumbag. But, a bad Jew like Alan Dershowitz becomes a lawyer and talks intelligently and fools us into thinking he’s a man of integrity and principles when he’s just a huckster lawyer scumbag.

Anyway, faith requires us to simply believe without asking questions. Jews today want us to just BELIEVE in the Holocaust based on some Hollywood movies and TV programs. They don’t want us to study the subject further and ask questions. We are only to fixate on what the Jews and their dimwit goy puppets show and tell us about the Holocaust. Jews don’t want us to be Galileos when it comes to the Holocaust. We’re not supposed to think. We’re not supposed to revise the Holocaust or look deeply into why persecutors of Jews felt the way they did. People who hated Jews had NO rational reason, Jews tell us. It’s not possible for us to say that, though the Holocaust was a great crime against humanity, there were sound reasons why hatred against Jews existed. Just because one crime was extreme and evil doesn’t mean that its victim was totally innocent. That is the way Japanese peaceniks think; they argue that since Japan was punished so badly in WWII by the US, Japan has been cleansed of its sins and is now the moral beacon for the world. If we don’t buy this crap from the Japanese, why should we buy it from the Jews? The Holocaust was an evil and extreme reaction on the part of the German people led by pathological Nazis, BUT many Jews had done horrible and lowlife things that led to a great deal of justified anger and hatred against Jews. If Jews cannot honestly consider this fact and keep acting like eternal saints, they indeed are pompous self-righteous scum of the Earth.
Look at what Jews have done to Palestinians, yet Jews act like Palestinian hatred and anger are totally unwarranted. Alan Dershawitz’s biggest client in his role as defense attorney has been Israel, and all we hear is some weasely lawyerly bullshit. Yes, many Palestinians have become psychotic and unhinged in their hatred of Jews, but only a moral idiot–many of them in the US where people are brainwashed by the Jew-run media– would deny the fact that much of Palestinian hatred of Jews is justified.

There is little sense of historical context except the Judeo-centric kind when it comes to understanding history relating to WWII, especially when it comes to Ukraine. For instance, US government has been hunting down American citizens of Ukrainian descent who may have served as SS guards in the death camps. There is no question that those men committed horrible crimes. But, what’s missing is the context. If you were Ukrainian in the 30s, you saw 1/3 of your countrymen die at the hands of communists, many of them Jewish. Ukrainians suffered their own holocaust before the capital "H" Jewish holocaust happened. (Notice how only the Jewish holocaust gets the "H" treatment.)
So, in the way that many Europeans(including Jews)attacked and killed many Germans–guilty and innocent–out of revenge after WWII, many Ukrainians had joined up with Nazi invaders to kill Jews–out of revenge–when Nazis ‘liberated’ that part of the USSR.
Indeed, vengeance was one of the great forces of the late 19th and 20th century. French involvement in WWI had a lot to do with vengeful feelings against Germans going back to Franco-Prussian War. WWII was fueled by sense of revenge on the part of Germans. Many Jews joined the communist enterprise to avenge their persecution at the hands of the Tsarist regime. And, there were horrendous acts of revenge against Germans after WWII. The reason why USA was crucial to European peace after WWII was that it was a neutral player. Even though Americans had fought the Germans, there was a sense among Germans and other Europeans that America was a relatively impartial guarantor of the new order.
Anyway, revenge is still a major factor in the 21st century, mainly among Jews and Muslims. Blacks also operate on the basis of revenge, but I’d say it has more to do with resentment than revenge. After all, blacks hate not only whites but other peoples whom they perceive as succeeding ‘at the expense’ of blacks. With Jews, it is revenge(fueled by arrogance, condescension, and contempt). After all, Jews are the most powerful and most wealthy people on Earth. Yet, they seem so angry, bitter, venomous. Why? They want revenge against the white race for all the wrongs–real and imaginary–done to Jews in the past. Jews who fixate on the Holocaust will not be happy until all white men are castrated into pussyboy dweebs and all white girls run into the arms of negro studs. Jews want to see white men turned into a bunch of Jim Jeffries and Max Schmelings. Jews enjoy the fact that they own most of the sports franchises, that black males dominate on the field, that white women cheer for black studs, and that white boys meekly cheer along, accepting the superiority of black manliness.

Anyway, we must reject the moral bullying of those who venomously and self-righteously ask, "Do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?" No one should believe in anything unless he really knows something about it. And, to truly know about something, we need to rely on something other than what we see on TV, in the movies, or read in textbooks written by liberals and leftists. There is a large body of scholarly literature on the Holocaust and there is much film footage that documented the horrors. The Holocaust is well-documented because the Nazis lost. Though the 6 million number may be exaggerated, millions most likely did die. Of course, there is the issue of victor’s justice and the fact of Jewish domination in history and the media. Of course, Jews are going to favor data and evidence that proves than disproves the Holocaust, but there is simply too much evidence for any sensible person to deny that there had been a willful and concerted effort on the part of the Nazis to kill Jews. To be sure, questions still remain, not so much over what happened but as to the why. That Hitler hated Jews and wanted to see many of them disappear from the face of the Earth is beyond doubt. But, perhaps we’ll never know why the Holocaust happened the way and when it happened. Did Hitler use the cover of war to kill Jews? Or, did he kill Jews out of revenge for the reversal of the war in the East–and the perception that venal Jews in UK and US were pulling the strings to get Churchill and FDR deeper into war. Hitler saw Churchill and FDR as his racial brethren, and so it was appalling to him that those men would ‘do the bidding’ of the Jews.

The question should be, ‘Do you KNOW about the Holocaust?’ and ‘WHAT do you know about the Holocaust?’ What a person comes to believe should only be based on what he knows, what he knows from weighing evidence from all sides. And, we must not pretend that there are only two sides–saintly Holocaust believers and evil Holocaust deniers. In fact, there are many scholars who simply seek to know MORE about the Holocaust. They come up with different number of victims, they explain different intentions on the part of Nazis, they offer different insights and perspectives and offer differing contexts. Again, context is very important. If we take Hiroshima and Nagasaki in isolation, they are horrendous and unspeakable crimes against humanity. But, seen in the context of WWII, we know that the Japanese were not totally innocent and the Americans weren’t out to just kill for the hell of it. I wouldn’t say of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalents of the Holocaust, but we need to see the Holocaust within the contexts of its time. (Indeed, Jews–mostly liberal and leftwing–are experts of contextualism. They’ll say we must forgive Obama’s associations with Wright and Ayers since he’s a member of the ‘oppressed race’ and, as such, understandably allied with angry radical groups. Or, when blacks riot and kill whites, the Jew-run media say we must understand the violence in context of American history. Since whites committed violence against blacks in the past, blacks have a right to be angry and even attack whites on occasion. And, Jews say we must not criticize Jewish power and influence because of the historical context of ‘anti-semitism’. Since anti-semites gassed Jews during WWII, no one may criticize Jewish power anymore given the nature of the historical context. And, it’s as though Jews have some divine moral right to crush and kill Palestinians, again all because of the historical context: since Jews suffered the Holocaust, they deserve a homeland, even by expelling other peoples off their land; since Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab nations, Israel has the right to have nukes and attack and kill civilians in Lebanon and Gaza; since Jews suffered the Holocaust, they have the right to apply ‘Never Again’ at all times and even kill Palestinian women and children in order to prevent another Holocaust. If this logic goes on, Jews will commit holocausts against goyim and then say it was justified within the context of the Holocaust and Jewish history.)

Certain contexts are bound to make Jews look better, others are likely to make them look worse. Some people will surely use particular contexts to justify the Holocaust while others will use contexts to explain or understand it. We need more explanation and more understanding.

And, we need more points of views. In the US, the educational system and educational TV–very important as most people get their historical lessons from PBS and History Channel–are dominated by liberals and the left. As such, they cannot be wholly trusted. Monopoly power always corrupts. If conservatives dominated much of the media, there would be the same problem. A conservative is intrinsically no more honest or principled than a liberal. But, the fact is liberals and the left do dominate the media and education. And, just look at the kind of garbage they’ve been trying to feed us. There was the bogus PBS documentary called "Liberators" which falsely told us that black GIs liberated the death camps. This was a Holocaust hoax as odious as Holocaust denial. How were the people at PBS able to get away with a hoax this big? Why didn’t the media make a bigger stink about it? In some countries, it’s a crime to say the Holocaust didn’t happen or even to minimize its historical significance(Le Pen got fined for calling it an ‘incident’), but it appears that Jews can make up any number of lies about the Holocaust and get away with it. Though the Liberators hoax was exposed, the people involved didn’t end up with ruined careers in the way that critics of Jewish power do. And, PBS never ran a documentary about how the hoax came about or how the entire series was made despite all the protests from soldier and scholars who said it could not have happened the way it did. The only thing that mattered to the Jews who made "Liberators" was strengthening the bonds between the black and Jewish leadership. Jews tried to pull another instance of Joe Louis beating up Max Schmeling, this time against American whites who’d done so much to save Jews in WWII. Many Jews are gratuitous in their vileness and cunning than grateful for anything done for them by other peoples. Though they are richer and more powerful than others, they still want others to serve them. It’s like when Bob Dylan was a kid in Hibbing Minnesota. His family was richer than most families, and he had more pocket money, but he made the local yokels buy stuff for him. Manipulating dumb goyim to suck Jewish cock is the Jewish way.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)