Why Would Jewish Hollywood Make a Pro-Muslim Movie? We Need a Truthful and Honest Movie about the Life of Muhammad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110100617.html?hpid=sec-religion


From Wiki:

"Barrie M. Osborne was born in New York, New York, the son of Hertha Schwarz and William Osborne."

Why would a Jew make a movie that makes Muslims look good?

Didn't liberal Jewish media lambast Muslims and make us Western gentiles hate Muslims and Arabs at a primal level?

Maybe Hollywood is trying to clean up its image as an "Islamophobic" industry. For quite awhile, Jews used their media power to make us loathe Muslims. Muslims are one people we can freely blast and demean without much repercussions. Since Muslims are bitter enemies of Israel, it's been in the Jewish interest to make us hate Muslims. Since this mission has been accomplished--indeed most Americans do hate, despise, or loathe Muslims--beyond all expectations, Jews may now be trying another tactic to wash their own hands of "Islamophobia", thereby making it the sickness of white Christians.

Remember Pilate's clever trick in shifting the blame for the killing of Jesus? Romans wanted Jesus the troublemaker dead but didn't want to be blamed for the murder. So, the Romans did everything possible to achieve their desired goal--death of Jesus--while appearing as if they they had little or nothing to do with the process or outcome. JEWS got all the blame. Jews must be great students of Pilate.

Just consider...

Jews have used their formidable media power to turn us against Muslims. Most Americans are indeed 'rabidly and virulently Islamo-phobic' as a result. Since we are NOW and will be INDEFINITELY reliably anti-Muslim without much further input on the part of Jews, Jews may now be seeking a way to 'wash their hands' of the sin of 'Islamophobic' prejudice.

So, we have a this warm fuzzy movie about how Muhammad was a man of peace, a proto-multi-cultural figure, and all-around nice guy. (Similarly, remember how V for Vendetta would have us believe that people-of-color Muslims and gays are both victims of evil white male Christians? Jews manipulate and use white Christian hatred toward enemies of Israel but then also slyly condemn white gentile anti-Islamism as just another example of 'white racism'.)

With this movie about Muhammad, Jews can say they respect Islam, Arab peoples, the diversity of world religions. It's rather the white gentiles who are viciously and virulently anti-Muslims.

There is a French General in the movie PATHS OF GLORY who thinks/acts very much like of today's Jews. He would goad his officers to take great risks, but when things fell apart, wash his own hands of the tragedy and push the blame on 'overzealous', 'vain', or 'cowardly' underlings. He himself remains aloof and trans-political, looking down on everyone as a chess player looks down on chess pieces. For many Jews, "post-racial" and "trans-national" really mean Jews get to look down on us from above and exploit the racial and national hostilities and antagonisms for the good of Jews.

So, when it comes to the Middle East, Jews feed, encourage, and harness our anti-Muslim anger against those 'terrorist' Muslims. In the West, Jews feed, encourage, and harness anti-white rage among 'people-of-color' against 'racist' whites.

Notice how Harvard plays this game. It is one of the most virulently Zionist institutions in the world, yet it also makes generous concessions to Muslim students. Harvard Jews want us white gentiles to support their policies in the Middle East, but they also want Muslims--and other 'people of color' on campus--to support their anti-white and anti-Christian agenda in the name of 'diversity'.

Jews turn Western gentiles into mad dogs against mad Muslim dogs and then throw a bone at the mad dog Muslims as if to say, 'It's the Christians who are barking at you; we Jews are your friends.' Of course, Jews go to Christians and say, 'We Jews don't hate you; it's those crazy Muslims who want to kill you'. It's the Jerry Springer tactic of using big gentile guests against one another. Could be why Mel Gibson said, "Jews start all wars." Outrageous(and drunken)charge to be sure, but not without a kernal of truth.
 
We should never think that Jews are the natural or permanent friends of Christians. Most Jews are on the liberal/leftist side of the spectrum and committed to the destruction of white civilization. Jews also know that Jewish life under the Muslims had been more tolerable than under the Christians until relatively recently. Jewish merchants and scholars had been protected in Muslim-controlled Spain. Christian Crusaders slaughtered Jews who had thrived under the Muslims. The Jewish-Muslim divided happened as a result of secularization of Jews, which made them feel closer to the Rational West than to the religious East. Also, the rise of Zionism drove a wedge between world Jewry and the Muslim world. Had it not been for the creation of Israel, it could well be that many or even most Jews would be championing the Arabs and Muslims against whites--just as Jews have done so with the blacks and illegal Mexican 'immigrants' against whites.  Jews always and primarily ask, "Is it good for the Jews?"  When will whites come to their senses and ask "Is it good for whites?" before all other considerations?  We don't have to like but should be like the Jews.
 
-------------------------------------------
 
I wish someone would really make a critical historical biopic in which someone plays the role of Muhammad. Since when should we care about spiritual taboos? Artistic freedom means artistic freedom. Religious artists may have to follow their creed, but free artists don't have to.

Sadly, we wimp out so often. We try to be sensitive and 'progressive'. Multiculturalists insist that we must be sensitive to the point of self-censorship. Sensitivity is a virtue but not when it's politically correct, censorious, cowardice-masquerading-as-progress, selective, hypocritical, etc.

If we must restrain what we say based on the reaction of certain groups, we might as well flush freedom of speech/expression down the toilet. Freedom of speech would be a matter of speaking freely only about groups without the power/vocality/numbers to threaten us to shut up; in other words, we'd be able to criticize the powerless Cambodians and the Cambodian-American community but not Jews nor blacks because we are afraid of their power and/or influence. Such taboos make a mockery of freedom of speech and truthful inquiry in both journalism and academia. Why is it that Don Imus was fired but not Talk Radio or media people who put down Asian-Indians or Chinese? Because blacks are more powerful in American culture and politics than Hindus or Chinese. If we can crack jokes or put down Hindus or Chinese, we should be able to do so with anyone. Freedom of speech should mean freedom from fear of powerful groups who want to destroy the freedom of speech of their rivals or opponents.

The problem isn't just about Muhammad and crazy Muslims but the sacred myth of Martin Luther King and all the vocal groups in the West who denounce any criticism or satire of their sacred cows as 'racist', 'homophobic', or what-have-you, and insist on 'hate speech laws' so as to ban 'hateful' speech. If anyone draws a dismissive cartoon or says something critical in public about Martin Luther King, he will not only be denounced by demagogues like Al Sharpton but also by whites--conservatives included!! Even whites who don't like King urge that we be 'sensitive' and keep mum. Why? Pure cowardice.

Freedom of speech is useless unless we are willing to say what we feel, even if it leads to controversy and even violence.
Even King understood this. He knew that his words, tactics, and maneuvers would instigate threats, hostility, and even violence on the part of whites. Did that stop King and blacks from provoking American society? No, King believed that freedom of speech and equal rights meant that a person has the right to say and do things even if such offended the sensibilities or the values of many people. If advisors had told King that it would have been 'sensitive' and 'multicultural' to respect the attitudes and cultures of Southern Whites, he would have laughed and mocked such notions. King would have been right on this account(though he was a fraud because he only used the promise of peace as a Trojan Horse against white society--like Mandela would use it later in South Africa).

This Muhammad movie in production sounds stupid, but I would like to see an honest movie about Muhammad or Martin Luther King the pervert. In Cuba, any criticism of Castro land one in jail. In North Korea, a funny cartoon of Kim will get one killed. In Muslim countries, naming a Teddy Bear "Muhammad" can get one beheaded. Why should WE think and act the same way in a free society? Everyone--especially the powerful--should come under revision, criticism, and scrutiny. The myths of King and Muhammad--or any other 'great man'--should be examined.

If hell breaks loose as a result, so be it. We should make even more such movies until the other side will eventually have to accept that they cannot intimidate free peoples as to what they can say, write, make, read, or see. Whatever happened to 'Give me liberty or give me death'?

Suppose someone said no anti-Hitler or anti-KKK movies should be made since it would be insensitive to white nationalists or might lead to acts of terrorism by far right nuts. That would be ALL THE MORE REASON to make an anti-Hitler or anti-KKK movie. To show that we are for truth and won't be cowered by threats or violence.
Suppose Christians in the 19th century threatened violence unless all books by Charles Darwin were burned. Should the books have been burned for the sake of social peace? What kind of peace is that? One founded on cowardice and censorship.

Leftism's Edge in Attracting Intelligent People and How Liberal Egalitarianism/Universalism Justifies the Power of the Globalist Elite.

Crazy, radical, extreme, eccentric, and/or obsessive people may be dangerous or foolish, BUT interesting ideas arise from such people--just as most great art is made by 'crazy' artists.


Intelligent people may be drawn to leftism not so much for its truths as for its aura of excitement and revolutionism--commitment to New things, Bold ideas, Experimentation. Who gets more respect? A man who clings to established technology or a 'crazy' inventor who, despite countless mistakes, tries to come up with new gadgets? The left today may not be all that innovative--outside science and technology--, but the cache or conceit still remains. Young people are restless, and intelligent young even more so. They see the evidence of scientific, technological, economic, and social breakthroughs all around them. They are gonna gravitate to the side that stands for Change than for Constancy.
In addition, leftist egalitarianism combines moralism with radicalism. Left offers both the exciting bloodbath of revolution AND the sanctimony of saving mankind. Have the cake and eat it too--just like Che Guevara.
(To be sure, one could argue that conservatism is the real engine of progress since conservatives--at least the American kind--are conserving not so much the past nor how-things-used-to-be but the very engines--capitalism and individualism--that have brought about the greatest amount of change and innovation in American life and society. Conservatives could claim that they oppose liberalism or 'progressivism' for actually slowing down the pace of change in the name of 'social justice' or 'fairness'. Even so, many people see conservatism as seeking to preserve only the power and privilege of the rich or pandering to the ignorant populist passions of the unwashed masses. Liberalism/leftism has done a better job of marketing and promoting their ideas as progressive/revolutionary and in balancing this anxiety-ridden aspect--every call for change incites fear and apprehension--with promise of social safety-net. Left offers both fast and thrilling dive into the future and a cushion to ease the landing. This draws intelligent people fascinated in The New but also sensitive to socio-moral issues.)

In the scientific/technological fields, left and right are mostly on the same page. We all want MORE of it. But, people--even or especially those specializing in scientific or intellectual matters--are also creatively oriented, cultural, and moral beings. Love of Chemistry or Physics doesn't necessarily make a person liberal or conservative. Things OUTSIDE science/technology make people leftist or rightist. (There are anti-rationalist/anti-technology camps on both right and left, but they are negligible. Most people embrace science/technology). A smart liberal scientist most likely came to his ideology through arts, culture, or social ideas than through scientific controversies. Creationism and Intelligent Design notwitstanding, most conservatives are all for science--and the secular right is even scientifically minded than the secular left(especially in biology).

Why would a smart person aiming to specialize in fields unrelated to politics or social issues become liberal? Smart people generally have wide-ranging interests. Whatever their interest, they want to explore/discover NEW things. So, they naturally feel greater affinity with people with similar spirit in other areas. A smart scientific mind will likely identify with a ground-breaking avant-garde artist, a cutting-edge personality, or a radical intellectual as his counterparts. A smart chemist may have little in common with a radical intellectual but still sense a shared quality: passion to advance knowledge, to go the extra step.

Naturally, conservatism which apparently stresses allegiance to received wisdom may not appeal to the modern intelligent person. But, what about the modern right? Isn't it committed to science, the creative spirit, and new solutions to social problems? Modern right is not conservative in the old-fashioned sense. Even as it rejects the utopian illusions of the left, it seeks ever new and modern solutions to human problems and challenges. Also, its concept of hierarchy is based on nature than on tradition.


The modern right is open to new ideas, spiritual visions(beyond that of the established church), eccentricism, individual expression, and social experimentation by the state. It should be appealing to strong personalities, individually minded-people, crazy artist types, free thinkers, poets, and mavericks. But, there's one problem. The crimes of Nazism have forced the right to be moralistic, cautious, moderate, etc. These are not bad qualities in general but tend not to attract the most interesting people in arts, sciences, and other fields obsessed with being different, cutting-edge, contrarian, 'radical', etc.
The Left committed big historical crimes too, but they weren't as exposed nor stigmatized as the crimes of the Far Right. There's less taboo on the left, and so leftists can be as wild and radical as they wish, and this showmanship attracts smart 'cutting-edge' people. Since the right must behave well, it comes across as square and lame.

Irony: the Right is punished for good behavior while the left is admired for its bad or badass image. The Right must be good to be good. The left can be bad and still be good. 

-----------------------------------------

Isn't it funny that leftists/liberals tend to be elitist in practice yet egalitarian in theory?

Leftists and liberals are generally more ambitious for political power than conservatives. Liberal Ivy Leaguers are among the most competitive in the world. Silicon Valley is teeming with liberal geeks with dreams of becoming the next Bill Gates or Sergei Brin.
Hollywood directors wanna make the biggest blockbuster ever and win as many Oscars as possible.
Liberals and leftist compete for top academic and media positions. They are ruthless and pitiless in their drive to the top. In practice they are a bunch of Ayn Randians.
Or consider Warren Buffett or George Soros. They areny content with a few millions or even 100s of millions. Nor with a billion. They gotta have tens of billions.
Look at Hillary Clinton and Obama. They want Big Government so they can have MORE POWER. They want to rule us.

So, why are these profoundly hierarchical people so liberal/leftist/egalitarian in what they espouse? (And, don't forget the communists who grabbed all the power for themselves in actual practice.)
If liberalism and leftism are indeed egalitarian, the proof sure isn't in the pudding. Liberals and leftists want to rise above rest of humanity and become the best of the best and the highest of the highest.

And, that may be the whole trick or scam--though it could be these people actually believe in their own hogwash. Egalitarianism/leftism may simply be the most appealing moral rationale as to why certain people--the so-called 'progressives'--should be rich, powerful, influential, and have god-like power over us.

Right-wing hierarchy is more nakedly honest--whether it's from Ayn Rand or Adolf Hitler. It's 'we want power cuz we want it, and if you dont like it, suck on it.' It's a harder sell to the universal crowd than 'we want all the power and wealth in order to better serve you poor slobs.' Altruism may actually be an excuse for power than a relinquishing of power. Just look at Al Gore. For him to save the planet, it seems he must be the CEO of some multi-billion dollar company.

Leftism/liberalism is both egalitarian and universalist, therefore ostensibly on the side of the great majority of people around the world. But, consider the history of Christianity. It too was universalist, but that served as a rationale for Western Imperialism to conquer other lands and peoples for the purpose of sharing the Love of Christ with all of humanity. Globalism has often been justified in the name of bringing wealth, opportunities, and investments to nations around the world, but which group benefitted most? The global elite of course, or the global liberal elite.

Universalism and egalitarianism may also be favored since they make people feel better and lubricate social interactions on the global scale--like cocktails during lunch hour. Whether in business or politics, everyone feels better spouting the cliches about equality and universalism than about 'my race is smarter than yours', 'your race can kick my race's ass', or 'Muslims are gonna take over Europe.' Business and politics are games of interaction, handshakes, schmoozing, flattering, and deal-making. They are rarely about the naked truth. Cosmetic companies sell the dream that every woman can be beautiful rather than tell the truth that ugly women will always be ugly. People want to be beautiful--possess an elite quality--yet also believe that beauty can be accessed equally by all. A beautiful woman who honestly says "I'm beautiful and most women are ugly" will be hated. She will have to say--and even fool herself--that ALL WOMEN CAN BE BEAUTIFUL--like Oprah for instance! So, it could be that smart liberals want it all, but assuage their guilt and fear by telling us that ALL OF US can succeed like them IF ONLY we had the right social policies, which can only come about by all the power being in the hands of liberals/leftists; rich liberals feel better about themselves, and poor slobs feel less resentment if they swallow this horseshit.
 
The globalist liberal elite in the West may have to betray or abandon the interests of their poor racial/cultural/national brethren, BUT their goal is to boost their own power(and that of their children and associates)to the point where they become the new aristocracy.

Would the Right Attract More Intelligent People If It Hadn't Been for Nazism?

Suppose Nazism had been aborted and the modern(secular, spiritual, and/or socialist) right hadn't been tagged with a terrible taboo. Would there been lot more intelligent and creative people on the Right? Perhaps. The balance between the left and right in the sphere of intellectualism &creativity might be 70/30 than 95/5. 30% representation is solid and respectable.

Consider intellectualism and culture prior to WWII. Though the left was dominant, there were fertile thinkers on the right as well--and unburdened by taboos. Though the left had a decisive advantage over the religious right(with ever new discoveries in science) and over the privileged right(especially as WWI had been ignited by the aristocratic class and the Great Depression shook people's confidence in capitalism), the modern right was on the rise. Even prior to the perversions of Nazism, the mighty German universities were dominated by modern right thinkers. Many key artists of the time were on the Right--Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Henry Williamson, Celine, etc--or at least opposed to the Left(not least because of the horrors of communism). Many modern rightist ideas were so powerful that they came to define much of postwar culture; the twist is that since the modern right become taboo as a result of Nazism, the left appropriated most of its ideas.  Jean-Paul Sartre is considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, but a key influence on him was Martin Heidegger.  Michel Foucault was perhaps the most admired intellectual of the 60s/70s, but he owed more to the Nietzschean than to the Marxist tradition. Carl Jung's ideas were adopted by the 60s generation with its penchant for neo-pagan nature-worship. Mircea Eliade has a huge influence on the understanding of world cultures. Celine was one of the greatest inspirations for many modern writers--Philip Roth for one. Isaac Bashevis Singer was a great admirer of Knut Hamsun. Allen Ginsburg was a great admirer of Ezra Pound. Though Hermann Hesse was essentially apolitical and pacifist, the main inspirations for his art came from the right side of German culture--Nietzsche, German romanticism, neo-paganism, Jung, etc. His novels were read by many in the 60s counterculture. Joseph Campbell, a rightwing scholar of world cultures, exerted great influence on George Lucas and some hippies. Before revelations of his less wiser observations--such as 'they should put the Jews on the moon'--he was a favorite on PBS(with help of Bill Moyers).

Because the modern right was both materialistic and mythic, it had a certain organic advantage over the purely materialist left(at least in terms of theory). The Right had a better understanding of human psychology than the left for whom 'material reality determined consciousness'. Even leftist regimes would eventually gravitate toward rightwing ideas--nationalism, the concept of the sacred, reality of bio-social hierarchy and class divisions, etc--as time passed. The right understood that people lived with spiritual myth as well as material math. The modern right was both progressive but also realistic. The radical left was purely materialistic and idealistic.

Well, that was until Hitler came along and turned the modern right into a crazy radical ideology. Hitler did to the organic modern right what Sith and Vader did to Jedi-ism in Star Wars--mechanized, regimented, and poured concrete on what had been spiritually alive. Nazism cloned and genericized what had been eccentric, personal, and individual. Since then, modern rightist ideas became acceptable only when appropriated by the Left. Darwinism is okay as long as it's controlled by leftists. Paganism is okay as long as it's the flaky New Age kind. Socialism is good only when embraced by the left since liberals are frightened by any idea of the right holding control over Big Government and its vast powers/resources. (No problem if FDR or Obama makes government as big as possible but liberals shat bricks when they suspected George W. Bush of trying to set up a 'fascist order'.)

Even so, a survey of the post-war Third War indicates that modern rightism was a better formula for development around the world than leftism. Compare Franco's Spain with Eastern Europe, Pinochet's Chile with Castro's Cuba, quasi-fascist China since the early 80s with Maoist China from 1949 to 1976,  South Korea under militarist rule vs communist North Korea, Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan vs Mao Zedong's China, Singapore with communist Vietnam before economic reforms, etc. Modern right succeed better but we simply can't say so.

The Difference between Constructive Conservatives and Status Quo Conservatives.

Shouldn't we make a distinction between the constructive right vs the status quo right? Think of Edmund Burke or the rightish-leaning Alexis de Tocqueville. Neither was opposed to change and indeed even welcomed it. What they opposed was radicalism--the idea that a bunch of smart men or firebrands could come up with surefire formula for creating utopia or the NEW MAN overnight. They weren't arch-reactionaries but men who believed that change must grow out of past achievements, wisdom, habits, and values tested over time and serving as the foundation of social stability. They were for cautious and thoughtful change as opposed to radical and violent change; they argued that tradition and/or past experiences were the crucial map for our trajectory into the future. People like this could be intelligent--both knowledgable about the past and open to new ideas and sensible progress.

But, there's another kind of conservatives who might be called "status quo conservatives". They generally tend to lack curiosity or knowledge of the past. Their mental life has little to do with reverence for past achievements or commitment to learn/remember/preserve. They may embrace certain SYMBOLS of traditionalism, but in many cases they lack real knowledge or interest. So, what they really want to preserve or conserve is their PRESENT privilege, advantages, or domination. They oppose change not because it's wrong or foolish but simply because it challenges or disrupts their own power or privilege. This is a purely selfish kind of conservatism, and it has existed in many communities. Certain white conservatives opposed anti-discriminatory laws simply because they threatened white privilege. And today, many blacks who benefit from Affirmative Action oppose any change or reform because it threatens their power. Whites may use the symbolism of glorious tradition and blacks may use the banner of justice(for past injustices), but it really comes down to preserving their CURRENT power.

The notion that conservatism is necessarily for the preservation of tradition or the past isn't really true. (Take the NPR vs Talk Radio Test. I'll bet NPR liberals are more curious about Western history, arts and culture--even of the West--than talk radio listeners are. Though liberals are caricatured as people who obsess romantically about non-Western cultures, the fact is that THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Those with more interest in other cultures also tend to have more interest in their own past. Why else are most candidates for Ph.D in history liberals? Liberals are interested in matters beyond the HERE AND NOW.) For starters, many 'conservatives' throughout the ages have been ignorant and illiterate. In many third world countries, illiterate poor folks tend to oppose change more than the rich educated ones do. Is it because the poor and uneducated know more about the past and thus revere it? How much about the past or tradition can poor illiterate people possibly know? At best, they have a SENSE of the past and tradition-as-HABIT in daily life, but they have little or no real knowledge. Many people who claim to be traditional actually know very little about their own past, while many liberals who oppose tradition are very knowledgeable through book-reading and scholarly research. Maybe, we need to distinguish tradition-as-myth vs tradition-as-knowledge. The less you know, more mythic power it has over you. The more you know, the less magical hold it has on you--like getting closer to the Wizard exposed his bogusness in Oz-land.

A lot of liberal Bible Scholars are supremely well-read and knowledgeable about ancient and Biblical history. Some of the most passionate 'conservative' Christians mainly know the Bible through sermons, singing-and-dancing, and literal-minded reading of the text. The liberal KNOWS more about the tradition and 'believes' less, whereas a conservative knows less about the tradition but believes more. (At least that's the case with status quo conservativs as opposed to constructive conservatives like Burke who studied the past to fashion a better map for the future.)

A Response to "Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?" by Jason Richwine

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives

"Who are smarter, liberals or conservatives? This is the kind of question that could spark fierce and endless debates between political opponents, but what if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change how we think about political issues?" -- Jason Richwine.

There are too many variables. As the article stated, there are more than one way to define a 'liberal'. Blacks vote for the 'liberal' Democratic party, but they are not liberal in the original sense. Blacks vote Democratic for narrow-minded tribal reasons than to extend their sympathy and understanding to non-blacks. If we include blacks and the underclass in general in the 'liberal camp', then liberals have both the most intelligent people and the dumbest people whereas conservatives largely occupy the middle. Most Jews are liberal but so are most NAMs(non-Asian minorities). Of course, one could argue whether Jews are truly liberal in the truest senses or liberal for tribal reasons--'is it good for the Jews?'

So, suppose we narrow down this debate by focusing ONLY on white gentiles. Are white liberals more intelligent than white conservatives? Even here, the 'liberal' or Democratic side will have very smart whites but also much of the less intelligent blue-collar class. Conservative whites will be dominant in the middle(above average IQ but not brilliant)--along with some super rich busisnessmen and a good number of Bible-thumping dimbulbs(and peckerwood KKK types).

Richwine is largely correct that smarter people are more likely to question authority, orthodoxy, or tradition, BUT this hasn't always been true. It is true ONLY IF society is essentially traditionalist and repressive, in which case smart people would indeed be thinking/acting against the conformist grain. But, suppose society is generally permissive, hedonistic, infantile, consumerist, and amnesiac where it takes no courage or intelligence to be 'different'? Look at most of our dumb young people; they lack a sense of tradition nor do they have respect for authority. Kids grow up with rock n roll, rebel-as-hero imagery(and even porn on the internet). In a permissive and amnesiac world, the person who seeks to preserve, maintain, and revive tradition may be the one going against the grain, thus more intelligent than the mindless dufuses into punkism, bad attitude, or 'radical' platitudes. Someone who eagerly reads about Thomas Jefferson, Catholic tradition, or the glory of Western Civ could well be more intelligent than a guy who wants to rock n roll, join silly protests at G-20 summits, or swallow every global warming cliche by Bono and Gore at Live Aid concerts. A college student with real passion for Dante and Shakespeare may be smarter than a PC drone who reads literature only as ideological texts(as his professors taught him).
Also, while every brilliant NEW idea or ism may have been the work of a high intelligent person, those following in his footsteps tend to be less intelligent. Marx was super smart, Lenin and Trotsky were very smart, but Marxists got dumber and dumber along the way. The early Marxists were pioneers, later ones were mere sheep--which goes to show every 'liberal' or 'leftist' idea eventually turns 'conservative'. By the 1960s, Marxists were the 'conservatives' in Russia.

There also seems to be a snowball effect that determines how certain people think and act. If word gets out that smart people are supposed to think so-and-so, smart kids will gravitate toward those ideas via intellectual peer pressure without much resistance or skepticism.

Nor can 'smart stuff' be disassociated from the politics of morality. Indeed, many smart people have been subtly bullied into liberal or leftist orthodoxy. Emotionalism colors or even overrides intellectualism. For example, PBS and NPR--'smart stuff' for 'smart people'--sermonize about slavery, discrimination, 'racism', 'sexism', etc and champion egalitarianism as a secular religion. Thus, Many liberals refuse to consider the reality of race--though science is proving otherwise--because they've been morally and emotionally pressured to embrace 'anti-racism', 'progressivism' & 'diversity' as moral imperatives(masquerading as intellectual ideas or scientific truth). So, even if liberalism may indeed attract more intelligent people, it doesn't necessarily permit the full-range of intellectual freedom. (Under Marxism, one could be as intelligent as he wanted--as long as he confirmed the scientific truth of Marxism. Under Nazism, one could be as intelligent as one wanted--as long as one rejected 'Jewish science'.) Indeed, intelligence + courage is often prohibited or censored on the Left. Edwin O Wilson, James Watson, and William Shockley were attacked or vilified not for their lack of intelligence but for their courage to say what they really believe. A liberal who believes in evolution may be smarter than a conservative who believes in creationism, but a liberal is allowed to understand and study evolution only in a way that doesn't violate EGALITARIANISM. Radical correctness, no less than conservative orthodoxy, can stifle or suppress true intelligence and truth-seeking.

Also, I'm not sure that intelligence alone accounts for a person's willingness to challenge authority, tradition, or orthodoxy. There are forces of personality and social context to consider as well. A not-too-smart person with a strong personality may be more willing to challenge authority than a smart timid person. A smart Asian student is probably more likely to obey the teacher than a wild but not-too-smart black kid who refuses to sit still and loves to upset the order in the classroom.

And, a lot of well-mannered bland white liberals are practicing only the CONCEIT of being skeptical and intelligent because, in fact, all they ever do is nod their heads to whatever PC central--media and academia--tells them to think and do. They've learned to put on the 'smart' label than to think honestly or courageously. Today, if you simply agree with Jared Diamond on everything, you're smart. If you agree with Jared Taylor, you're not only dumb but EVIL. Notice that a lot of 'smart' liberals pat themselves on the back by calling everything they don't like 'racist', 'sexist', or 'fascist'.

Intelligence must also be considered within the social context. The notion that a smart person must think original thoughts or make new discoveries is a Hellenic & modern European idea/ideal. In most civilizations throughout history, the most intelligent people were expected to uphold tradition, preserve cultural memory, and maintain the social order. Indeed, preserving tradition and sacred texts was extremely time-consuming and demanded complete devotion. Books were copied page by page by scribes. Just maintaining the existing knowledge and tradition was a full-time job. Since reading materials were precious before the rise of the modern printing press, there was a much greater sense of REVERENCE than rebellion against knowledge handed down through the ages. (The wily and individualistic ancient Greeks were truly an anomaly in this regard.) Smart people just accepted Aristotle's 'discoveries' to be true for centuries.

In Stanley Kubrick's SPARTACUS, the rich and intelligent Crassus maintains the social/political order. Roman society groomed smart people to defend the order as it were. The people who rise up against Imperial Rome in the movie are the illiterate gladiators. Spartacus may have been a naturally smart guy, but his reason for rebelling had little to do with intelligence but desire for freedom.

Smart Jews and Chinese were deeply conservative for 1000s of yrs. Their histories demonstrate that intelligence can co-exist with traditionalism. Both Jews and Chinese revered their ancient texts and read them over and over;  they contemplated and interpreted than rejected or rebelled against those texts. God or Confucius was not not be questioned nor challenged(at least not in a fundamental way)... but his wisdom could be analyzed, debated, given a new subtle twist here and there. Of course, Jews were better thinkers than the Chinese. Chinese saw social reality in terms of teacher and student, whereby the student was supposed to obey the teacher and memorize things by rote. Jewish rabbis, on the other hand, encouraged their students to not just read the Bible but also to argue and find their own interpretations--a teaching method shared by certain schools of Buddhism with the use of koans. The key relationship between the rabbis and students was more like Judge and Lawyer. The Judge was indeed supreme, but the lawyer could make his case before the judge--like when Abraham pleaded with God to save Sodom and Gomorrah. God demanded obedience, but He also preferred strong personalities like Moses and David who had the will to do things their way. God didn't just want his flock to follow his orders but undergo some inner turmoil--through mistakes and foolishness--to realize what was right/wrong and act according to genuine moral understanding than mere blind obedience.

For most of Jewish history, the smartest kids were expected to preserve the tradition and go into Talmudic studies. In China, the smartest were chosen to become scholar-bureaucrats whose purpose was to maintain the status quo than to change society. In this kind of rigid world, challenge to authority was more likely to come from unwashed elements or barbarian bandits. In Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, a poor thief starts out as a free soul cyincal of authority but turns more 'conservative' after he's brought into the high-n-mighty 'intelligent' world of the warlord clan. In old Japan--and even in new Japan to some extent--, intelligence is synonymous with learning and revering knowledge-as-it-exists than rebelling against it.

The Power of Jewish Obsessiveness.

There's a Woody Allen movie called ANYTHING GOES which expresses the Jewish fear of being accepted into and co-opted by the white mainstream. On the one hand, Jews very much want to fit in and be considered part of mainstream America. But, Jews fear losing the edge, flavor, pungency--the wit and will to assert themselves.

Allen's generation probably had to put up with lot more 'antisemitism'. This could be blunt, as in a big dumb Polack at school saying 'Jews killed Jesus' and bullying Eugene Schwartz. Or, it could be subtle, as in WASP law firms kindly smiling at a Jewish applicant but turning him down. So, Jews lived in two worlds. In the white world and in their own world. They had to be scrappy, fierce, 3 or 4 steps ahead on the chessboard of social competition. Many older Jews have this very Jewishy willingness to fight--both the right and left. Michael Savage,the late Bob Novak(though later a convert to Catholicism), and Mark Levin are fierce as badgers. So are Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, and etc.

They all grew up with a huge chip on their shoulders. This may one of the reasons why neocons beat the Paleocons. Neocons knew how to fight, not just frontally but by culturally/intellectually/financially routing the enemy. White bread George Will is a prominent conservative but more of a follower than a leader. When neocons ordered him to be a good goyboy and attack Buchanan, Will did just that. Newt Gingrich was a more creative conservative than most, but he grew up in a troubled home--and so did Bill Clinton. Crisis from childhood sharpened the wits of these men and prepared them for great challenges. They never thought in terms of, "I graduate from college, find lifetime employment, and never worry for the rest of my life."

Jews have one advantage over waspy types: Obsessivness. Whether this is due to a personality trait, higher intelligence, cultural factors(legacy of Talmudic studies), or social anxiety, it is a reality among Jews. So, even if Jews become very much part of the white mainstream, their obsessiveness stoke the fire of creativity. Many of these obsessions are silly or useless, such as researching and gathering old baseball data, poring through Star Trek novels for meaning, or watching/analyzing every obscure movie from the 1930s. Much of Jewish intellectual obsessions are esoteric or apparently trivial in the eyes of most people: subtextual reading of toilet instruction manuals as a means of patriarchal domination in 19th century Vienna. Colleges are full of that stuff. But, obsessive people are using their brains, always turning over new stones, always on attack mode, always competitive. Even if 99% of their thoughts, ideas, theories, and 'discoveries' may indeed be ludicrous, they do dominate intellectual discourse both at the top and margins(two areas from which cultural changes take place, eventually to shape the middle as well--serious ideas/culture often came from the intellectual elite, pop music and everyday lingo from the underclass or underground), and occasion, do make a crucial breakthrough.

Whether it's chess, rock or movie criticism, archiving lost material, the art scene, scientific ideas, social theory, interest in other cultures, sports writing, Jews tend to be more obsessive than non-Jews. And whereas most people are interested in the LATEST STUFF and tend to be amnesiac, Jews have a strong sense of political, social, and cultural history--for the purpose of understanding, revising, or rehashing(look at Hollywood recycling of all the old stuff).

Jews tell us our own history because they study it. I'll bet a greater percentage of Jews than white gentiles know about the culture created by white gentiles. Jews are more likely to read up on US history, Shakespeare, and listen to classical music than your average white conservative whose idea of culture is country music or Hollywood Westerns(produced mostly by Jews, btw). Same is true of blacks. Jews are more likely to know about Jazz and blues than most blacks today who care about the LATEST HIPPEST stuff.

The False American Dream of the All-American Organization Man as Template for White Rule(at least in the arts & culture sphere).

Some conservatives hark back to a time when 'straight and narrow' wasp types ruled American politics, business, and culture. They fondly look back to the days of FATHER KNOWS BEST or UNTOUCHABLES. The get dreamy-eyed of the DONNA REED SHOW and the like. And, some conservatives want to return to this 'golden age'.

But, maybe the loss of wasp(or mainstream white gentile)culture had to do with this bland, colorless, and 'organization man' ideal. Americanism for conservatives became white bread and milk. It made them complacent, conformist, and consensus-oriented. White conservatives came to abhor crisis, and thus lost the wit and will to creatively take on the challenges of counter-culture and the culture war. They preferred to make concession after concession to agitators in order maintain some semblance order than fight it out. Since they didn't have the guts to fight for their whole race, they withdrew into their private worlds and chose to protect/preserve their own privileges at all costs--even when it meant betraying less fortunate whites. At most, they threw a few bones of social values--pro-life rhetoric and prayer in school--to the poorer or less well-educated conservatives in order to garner votes.

Some of us may think that the the 'golden age' of the 50s and early 60s was representative of the glory of white mainstream dominance, but maybe it was an exceptional latter-day development that only served to undermine the instinctive will and wit to survive and win.

Consider just the arts. The great writers and other creative people among white gentiles had mostly been mavericks, rebels, or strong individualists. Or, they experienced the world from a perspective of crisis. Why did the SOUTH create so many important writers like Faulkner and Flannery O'Connor? Southern whites were faced with grave social, cultural, and spiritual crisis. Old South was rotting and new forms was growing on the decay like mushrooms. Notice that Swedish-Americans up in the North have been far less interesting. Generally, the great white artists were obsessive men who didn't fit in or had strong personalities: F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, John Ford and Howard Hawks. Though there was the ideal of middle class comfort/stability throughout American history, the lives of most Americans--even whites--were filled with social drama, crisis, anxiety, challenges, etc. It was only in the postwar era that large numbers of white Americans realized the 'American Dream' and found sufficient comfort and privilege(often in the idyllic suburbs). This was all very nice in many ways, but it was a destroyer of the cowboy or the wildman spirit. (Though college boys often get wild, it's about gong along than expressing one's true identity). People who become complacent and entitled lose their edge. They either become happy in a whitebread dull way(if simple-minded or dumb) or grow neurotic due to lack of stimuli(if complex or intelligent). Or, they go looking for 'authenticity' in other cultures, as in 'stuff white people like'. The pervasiveness of the 'American Dream' washed white people of their cultural pungency with the All-American soap. Whites became scrubbed clean and polished into golden boys, but they lost the minerals necessary for creative alchemy.

Cultural ferment tends to dip without crisis. If William Faulkner or Martin Scorsese had been raised in white suburbia, he might have been just another 'organizational man'. Look at Germany in the late 19th and early part of 20th century. It was creative and interesting in many cultural fields. After WWII, Germans just wanted to be 'good' and 'normal', and they've been boring ever since. Look at Japan from the late 19th century to the late 60s. Faced with all sorts of challenges and tranformations, Japanese were forced to think, see, and grapple with things anew. Japanese culture became very interesting. By around 1970, Japan had stabilized into a middle class nation where most people could have a good steady job and stability. Japanese become white bread, or yellow cake. They've been dull ever since.