The Irrational Religion of WHITE GUILT

What is one of the most blaring contradictions on the Left? It is none other than the ideology or spirituality of "white guilt". This is amusing considering that the Left prides itself as the RATIONALIST inheritors of the Enlightenment tradition opposed to religion. As rational materialists, leftists staked their claim of intellectual superiority by characterizing their methods, theories, and proposals/policies as ‘scientific’ unclouded by emotions entangled in religious or spiritual notions of ‘good and evil’.
Then, how does one explain the cult of white guilt? What is its rational basis? Is it rational at all? Or, is it really a mindset rooted in spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity?
　
Science or reason explores the world of man and matter minutely and specifically and then draws theories from those observations. There is no collective truth in science or reason. Thus, if one apple is rotten, it doesn’t follow that all apples are rotten. Science will find the culprit of the rot in whatever mold or bacteria that settled on the decaying apple. In the realm of man, reason would lead us to blame certain individual, ideas, or policies than entire populations. Thus, the crimes of Nazism should be blamed on Hitler, those who served him, and on its policies. It doesn’t rationally follow that ALL Germans were to blame, and it doesn’t make any sense to say ALL Germans past, present, and future should be tagged with the crimes of the Holocaust and WWII. Yet, the concept of collective German guilt promoted and peddled by the German Left had led to exactly that kind of mentality. Is it rational? Or is it irrational? Now, irrational feelings and values are not necessarily bad. There is much we cannot answer through reason; therefore, people find meaning through faith, mysticism, the concept of the sacred, etc. The problem isn’t irrationalism per se but irrationalism posing as rationalism. And, that is indeed the essence of the modern Left.
　
Consider the quasi-spiritual ideologies of white guilt, black nobility, and Judeo-philia–aka philosemitism. They are the pillars of what passes for modern leftist view of justice and socio-political agenda. But, what do they have to do with reason? What is rational about the notion that what happened to a one people at the hands of another people should forever define and shape our views of their goodness or evil for all eternity?
Also, what is rational about saying what happened at a particular time in human history was ENTIRELY bad and deserving of eternal apologies from the descendants or racial cousins of the perpetrators. Take American slavery for example. It’s true that mostly Anglo-Americans in the South practiced this institution. But, let’s look at the bare facts. Most whites in the South didn’t own slaves. Though slavery is unjust according to modern Western values, people had different assumptions about slavery, serfdom, and different races/peoples in the past. After all, slavery was universal all over the world until the 20th century.
Black Africans, though oppressed as slaves, also made great progress by having been brought into the bosom of a much more advanced civilization.
And, after waves of immigration, the majority of white Americans are not even Anglo-American. Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, and Russians had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery in America.
If we use our REASON and deal with facts, it’s quite apparent that American slavery was not the worst evil ever committed by man–not even close–, most whites had nothing to do with it, descendants of slave owners after the Civil War didn’t own slaves(and can’t be blamed for what their parents or grandparents had done), and European immigrants who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries never owned nor profited from slavery.
　
Given these facts and relying on reason, how can anyone perpetuate the ideology of white guilt as a progressive, rational, and scientific idea? It is something that must be taken on FAITH. It is an idea that bestows eternal victimhood/nobility or wickedness/rottenness on entire groups. Thus, Polish Americans are expected to share in White Guilt though they arrived decades after the American Civil War and though they suffered tragic histories of their own at the hands of both Western Europe–Napoloeon, Prussia, Nazis, etc–and Eastern Europe, especially in the form of Russia or USSR. So, even Polish-Americans are discriminated by affirmative action. They too must pay the price for American slavery that happened long ago and was carried out by non-Polish whites.
Or, consider the fact that black African immigrants enjoy affirmative action benefits though their ancestors were not slaves in the US. If anything, African immigrants are the descendants of slave masters or slaves in Africa. In addition, US did them a great big favor by letting them in. But, instead of expecting gratitude from the African arrivals, we teach them that they are automatically and eternally noble simply because they are black and because all whites–Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc–owe them something because they are of the same race as the Anglo-Americans in the ante-bellum South owned black slaves.
　
What is rational about any of this? What is rational about passing judgment on the past with today’s values? What is rational about ennobling an entire race of people because some of their ancestors or racial cousins had been oppressed by slavery? Do we say Russians are all noble for all time since most Russian peasants had been serfs until the middle of 19th century? And, why are only white people–among all the races in the world–burdened with the guilt of oppression when oppressiveness was the rule throughout human history on all five continents until relatively recently? Even today, most non-white nations are non-democratic, oppressive, and brutal. Yet, the tendency of the Left is to explain everything in terms of white evil and white guilt.
It says non-white nations are poor, backward, and/or non-democratic because of Western imperialism or neo-imperialism, when in fact, they had always been traditionally oppressive even before the first white man set his foot on their territory.
The Left also says that the only or the main reason why the West is rich and powerful is because it robbed and exploited sweat and labor from the toiling third world masses–and does so to this day through the machinery of globalist neo-imperialism. One can argue the merits and demerits of globalism for both the West and the non-West, but it should be clear to any honest and rational person that most non-Western nations are backward because their rulers, the people, and the native cultures are stupid.
Generally, non-Western nations are ‘exploited’ because they are poor than they are poor because they are ‘exploited’. Non-Western nations with intelligent people and smart cultures LEARN from their relations with the West and develop ways to catch up and even surpass the West. The success of East Asia should have made this patently obvious to honest observers. But, the Left still prefers the irrational and convenient ideology of white guilt to explain everything.
　
The ideology of white guilt is, of course, selective. It has two sets of criteria for white people and non-white people. Thus, it was a great sin of Afrikaners to practice apartheid but not so bad for the Chinese to crush Tibetans or Uighurs. When South African whites killed a handful of blacks, it got more world news coverage than black African nations killing 100,000s.
When white people want to preserve their own racial, national, and cultural heritage, they are said to be SUPREMACIST. But, when Jews do the same vis-a-vis the Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories, it’s just Jews trying to SURVIVE. Whites are held to a higher standard while non-whites–especially blacks and Jews–are allowed to get away with just about anything. White guilt is utterly paralyzing to the white community while emboldening to the black and Jewish communities.
Also, everything white–past and present–is judged morally while most non-white cultures are approached anthropologically. Thus, if a white kingdom waged war and killed a lot of people long ago, it is remembered as having been ‘genocidal’, ‘cruel’, and ‘intolerant’. But, if a non-white culture did the same or worse, we must anthropologically UNDERSTAND why it did what it did and not be quick to pass moral judgment–lest we be ‘Eurocentric’. Never mind that European or Western cultures of the past were nearly as foreign to our modern values as non-European cultures are today. If we shouldn’t pass easy moral judgment on other cultures, then the same should apply to European and Western cultures of the past since people long ago didn’t know, believe, nor feel what we know, believe, and feel today.
　
White Guilt is also, paradoxically and irrationally, premised on the notion of eternal white domination. There seems to be a ridiculous–even a bit arrogant–conceit among white liberals that they will forever be on top and therefore in the position to feel sorry for everyone else. Indeed, there is an element of condescension on the part of white liberals and leftists, as if they are firmly lodged in positions of power to dispense compassion for all the poor and backward non-whites out there. This idiotic outlook exists not only on the left but also on the right, with such stupidities as ‘compassionate conservatism’. Since Bush Jr. is rich and privileged, he seems to think ALL white people share his power and position to dole our white-guilt-inflected favors to everyone(who isn’t white). Thus, Bush pushed for not only more affirmative action but also affirmative immigration for Mexican Illegals.
But in truth, NO power is forever permanent nor to be taken for granted. At one time, Rome as the most powerful empire in the world. Well, what happened? One time, the Chinese Empire was the most powerful and advanced in the world. By the 19th century, China was the ‘sick man of Asia’ and about to be picked apart by Western imperialist powers. So, any white person who thinks white power is assured and permanent–and therefore, white people shall forever enjoy the privilege of feeling sorry for everyone else–is a naive, ignorant, and moronic fool.
　
Of course, some white people think otherwise, in a more devious and disingenuous way. They push White Guilt as a template for what they hope will morph into Guilt of All Stripes. Some white liberals do indeed fear the day when the West and white people will be eclipsed by the power of non-whites–Chinese in the area of international trade, Mexicans or Muslims via waves of invasive immigration, blacks and Africans in terms of higher birthrates, etc. Thus, white liberals hope that if they establish the ideology of White Guilt and maintain high moral standards for themselves, they will be in a better position to judge non-whites and eventually pressure them to develop their own forms of collective guilt.
For example, if Germans apologize for the Holocaust over and over and renounce all forms of ‘racism’, then they will have gained the right to judge others who have yet to purge their ‘racist’ views. Indeed, some white liberals in Europe have admitted that they support hate crimes legislation in the hope that it may used against non-whites when they become the majority over the whites.
　
One may ask why don’t white liberals everywhere push for sensible measures such as a moratorium on non-white immigration and expulsion of illegal aliens? Wouldn’t that be the rational thing to do for the preservation of white survival and well-being? Yes, but modern white liberalism is, above all, anti-racist and cannot abide by any idea or policy that suggests that the West primarily belongs to Westerners or whites. Also, the Left has long embraced the ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ theory that all races are the same except for skin color. All truly rational and scientific people know this to be false, but what prevails in the liberal community is more scientism than real science–at least in the human realm. Scientism, as we all know, has the appearance of science but isn’t really science–any more than imitation crab meat is really crab meat.
　
White Guiltism is EMOTIONALLY paralyzing and, as such, cannot be deemed rational. Truly rational thought motivates and encourages us toward necessary action. Reason is supposed to be active and applicable, not apologetic and apathetic. Suppose rats are spreading germs and killing people left and right in a community. The rational thing would be to decrease or eradicate the rat population. But, suppose the people in the community see rats as divine creatures and feel guilt about having to kill them. That would be irrational though perhaps beautiful in a spiritual way. White Guiltism is, similarly, a one-sided pacifism which says whites cannot take necessary measures to save their race, culture, heritage, and power. It emotionally paralyzes white people from waking up to reality, facing hard facts, and doing what is necessary.
　
Of course, one could argue that even the will to RACIAL survival isn’t rational but essentially irrational. The Life Force within every living creature is not a function of reason but the fierce will to live. People use reason to facilitate their animalistic survival instinct. Also, the desire for CULTURAL survival is also irrational at its root. People want to preserve their culture because it has become ‘sacred’, just as a rare faded family photograph may be emotionally and ‘spiritually’ precious to its possessor. Reason follows universal logic, but this cannot be said of cultures or personal items. Cows are sacred to Hindus but hamburger meat for Americans. One woman’s heirloom is just old junk to another person.
So, it would be wrong to say that the White Right is rational and the White Left is irrational. Both are irrational at their intellectual root. But, the instinct for survival and self-preservation is more useful than gushy pompous emotions about the unworthiness of one’s own people. It’s better to fight to survive and hopefully win than to seek dissipation and defeat in the name of some elusive notion of ‘higher morality’. Higher morality is fine and wonderful for individual seekers of wisdom; there’s nothing wrong with gurus, hermits, or monks searching for otherworldly or inner-worldly truths. It just cannot be sought in a collective fashion.
　
Also, this isn’t to suggest that everything in life is a either/or kind of zero-sum game. There may be choices other than fight-to-win or lay-down-and-lose. The human world is not the animal world. A community can have rich and meaningful minorities groups. Indeed, human progress wouldn’t have been possible without the movements of populations and ideas. Many ancient civilizations had cities where diverse peoples arrived to travel, learn, and teach. But, stability was generally possible only when a geographical domain had a sufficient majority to maintain a degree of social, cultural, and political cohesiveness. Too much homogeneity and xenophobia led to isolation, stagnation, and eventually defeat at the hands of more advanced peoples. Too much diversity led to division, dissension, and chaos.
　
Like all religions or faith-based ideas, White Guiltism comes with taboos. Taboos are always irrational and based on notions of the sacred and profane. For example, beef is taboo among Hindus because cows are considered sacred, and pork is taboo among Jews and Muslims because pigs are seen as profane–spiritually polluted. A devout Muslim will not even eat a perfectly clean piece of pork because his revulsion goes beyond microbes or health concerns. Eating pork is seen as an affront to Allah.
True reason has no use for taboos and works according to logic regardless of whether something is regarded as sacred or profane. So, a true man of Reason must reject social and ideological taboos that get in the way of logic and truth-seeking.
But in historical reality, Reason has been as much a religion as a science. Just consider the cult of The People during the French Revolution or how Marx’s theory of history was read and revered as sacred text–and how those who dissented were labeled as heretics and treated accordingly.
So, the fact that White Guiltism is riddled with taboos is nothing new to the real history of Reason and "Progress". For all the bragging on the Left about its respect for reason and science, certain ideas are forbidden in public–sometimes even behind closed doors. Thus, James Watson got in hot water for his views on black intelligence. Instead of debating or disproving his views, the liberal academic establishment just told us to accept on faith that Watson is wrong and that views such as his have no place in ‘respectable’ discourse. Worse, some liberals have said that EVEN IF people like Watson are correct, their views should be suppressed because they may have ‘evil’ consequences. They are worried about the use of ‘racist’ ideas to oppress blacks and Jews. But, couldn’t one argue that anti-racist ideas are leading to the oppression of whites under blacks and Jews? After all, blacks are physically stronger than whites, and integration will hurt whites. And, Jews are smarter than whites and also happen to be generally leftist. Since Jews use their superior intelligence AGAINST the interests of whites, shouldn’t whites embrace racist truths than anti-racist lies?
Besides, in any true practice of real reason there is no place for ‘good or evil’. Good and evil are essentially emotional or spiritual concepts or notions. They are beyond reason. Yet, the cult of White Guiltism is all about ‘good and evil’. How is it that Rational liberals and leftists are so hung up with the concept of ‘racist evil’? To a true Rationalist, there can only be one definition of good vs bad. Truth and honesty are good, falsehood and dishonesty are bad. According to real reason, something is either true or untrue, logical or illogical, functional or dysfunctional.
A rationalist may find some things less useful, pleasant, or illuminating. For his purposes, he may say some things are worse than others. But, he cannot say something is ‘evil’, a spiritual concept which cannot be explained by reason–though many have tried.
　
White Guiltism is nothing without taboos and obligations. One is forbidden to speak or even think certain thoughts. One is obligated to ‘redeem’ one’s soul by prostrating before non-whites, especially blacks and Jews. White Guilt forbids stating the obvious and enacting necessary measures because it says all whites must pay a special price for their GREATER sins and evil throughout history–for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
　
White Guilitism also says that white people must not only suppress their racial consciousness but feel responsible for the well-being of all the less fortunate non-whites around the world–especially for blacks in Africa. Indeed, White Guiltism is at the heart of so many major issues and agendas around the world. Take the issue of Global Warming or Climate Change or Whatever It’s Being Called Today. Its proponents claim that Africa is in social and economic decline because evil and greedy white people have messed up the world climate. Whenever some ‘progressive’ activist wants donations, grants, or important positions, he adds ‘racism’ to whatever happens to be his pet cause. Thus, environmentalism gets a boost if it denounces ‘environmental racism’. Or, nutrition activists will yammer about how blacks are fatter than whites, as if it’s white people’s fault that blacks consume too much fried chicken, biscuits, and malt liquor.
　
Whatever problem that exists among non-whites, the burden always falls on whites. Consider Somalia and Rwanda. In the early 90s, US was blamed for getting involved in Somalia. Then, it was blamed for not getting involved in Rwanda. And, though the enmity between Hutus and Tutsis predated European imperialism, the liberal media told us that everything had been hunky dory between the two groups before Europeans introduced ‘racism’ in the Garden of Eden that had been Africa. So, everything that is wrong in black Africa or black America is explained in terms of having been the work of the White Serpent.
This is extended to other parts of the world as well. So, even as leftists agree that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, they argue that evil white imperialists put him in power. Now, I’m not one to deny that Western governments did their share of bad shit and are culpable for them. But, the habit of the Left is to offer one answer to why the world is so messed up. It’s always one or more of the following: (1) whites did too much (2) whites didn’t do enough (3) whites did it badly (4) whites did it stupidly (5) whites did it with ulterior motives. Just as Jews could never live up to God’s expectations, whites can never live up to White Guiltism’s expectations of White Redemption.
.
Thus, whites were blamed for conditions in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina though blacks had run that city to the ground long before the storm arrived. And after the hurricane, blacks all sat on their ass and waited for HEP than getting off their ass and trying to do something for themselves. Bush got so much blame for this that he sought to redeem his white guilty self by giving billions in aid to Black Africa. He sought forgiveness and approval from blacks and white liberals by being a good ‘compassionate conservative’ white boy. But, did they show him any gratitude, shower him with praise, or forgive him? No, Bush got nothing out of it, just like Richard Nixon had gotten nothing out of expanding Great Society programs.
　
What are the roots of White Guilt? It probably goes back to Christianity with its notion of Eternal Sin and the Promise of Redemption through the one true Messiah. According to Christianity, Jews were forever guilty of having killed the Son of God unless they converted to Christianity. But, this has roots in Judaism as well. In the Bible, God protects his Chosen People and eternally condemns and ruins entire peoples for all time for having harmed His children. Or, there is the promise that God will one day send a messiah to curse and defeat certain peoples forever. Thus, all of the Egyptians are cursed for all time in the Bible. Because of the sins of the Ham folks, it is said that the sons of Ham shall be slaves of sons of Schlam.
　
But, the concept of spiritual guilt is not a problem as long as it remains spiritual. If there is indeed God, we can never measure up to his greatness or perfection. Our lives are filled with lies, betrayals, cowardice, treachery, and etc. Even when we don’t commit transgressions, our hearts are filled with vanity, envy, hatred, and cruelty. So, in a spiritual sense we are all guilty, and religious people feel a need to pray to God and ask forgiveness. Spiritual guilt makes sense because the assumption is that the only figure who has the right to judge our souls is God.
But, when spiritual guilt is applied to the secular realm, it means some groups get to play god over other groups. Thus, Jews and blacks put on airs of divine wisdom. They act like Jesus Christ–as both the Son of God and as the saintly martyr of (white)Man. But, aren’t Jews and blacks human too? Aren’t their hands also stained with the blood of Cain? What did blacks do throughout history? They waged wars, conquered, raped, and robbed while they ruled Africa. What did Jews throughout history? They committed their share of ‘crimes’.
　
In the secular world, guilt must be defined in a legal and specific manner. So, if John commits a transgression against Roger, John must be blamed for what HE DID. And, John must pay for what he did–for his specific crime–than for the ‘wickedness’ of his soul. This is why HATE CRIME LAWS are irrational and ‘spiritual’. They force the justice system to judge people according to the ‘spiritual stain’ in their hearts. It criminalizes thoughts and emotions as well as the specific crime.
Now, this isn’t to say that intention behind crime is irrelevant. The difference between first degree and second degree murder is that the former is pre-meditated. And, we do make distinctions between murder and manslaughter. So, the judge must take into the WHY of the crime in sentencing the criminal. But, to separately criminalize the WHY is to bring spiritualism into the courtroom. The criminal is being specifically judged and sentenced for the wickedness of his soul.
Even worse is the fact that this kind of spiritual guilt, when applied to the secular realm, favors or targets specific groups. Thus, whites are held to greater account for racial hostility than other races. A white ‘hate criminal’ is not judged only for what HE did but judged within the context of what white society might have done in the past. He is being spiritually judged for the collective sins of his entire people.
God has the right to see all of us as guilty in heart and soul as He is supposedly all-knowing. But, secular law, if it claims rationality and objectivity, cannot judge individuals this way.

Who Is the Real Victim of Black Sexual Conquest? The White Female or the White Male?

Many on the White Right paint a social portrait where black males are committing wave after wave of sexual crimes against white women. According to this narrative most sexual encounters between blacks and whites are violent, with black males brutally raping, beating, and even killing white women. White women are presented as the primary victims of black sexual aggression, and for that reason, white males are reminded of their duty to unite and save their mothers, sisters, and daughters from black ‘savages’.
There is some degree of truth to this, insofar most interracial or interracist sexual violence in this country is black male-on-white female. Government statistics are pretty grim, with black-on-white rape outnumbering white-on-black rape by a zillion to one.
　
But, there is a fundamental flaw and a repressed denial in the White Right interpretation. The fact is most sexual encounters between black and white are consensual, with white women as enthusiastic partners. White women seek out black men no less than black men seek out white women. Of course, this doesn’t apply to all white women nor even to the majority of them, but their numbers are growing, and among younger white girls, it’s very possible that their IDEAL beau is someone like Will Smith, Obama, or some other black celebrity.
　
Given this reality, one could argue that the REAL victims of black-white sex are white males, not white females. The real problem is not black males raping white women but increasing numbers of white women abandoning white men and going off with black men. And the taboo against such union is all but gone. Indeed, the new taboo is criticizing miscegenation–especially involving blacks–as detrimental to white civilization. A white celebrity going with a black guy can proudly declare her love for the Negro, but no famous white person would dare say white people should sexually stick together. He or she would be castigated, stigmatized, and tarred-and-feathered by the leftist Jewish and liberal Wasp-controlled media.
There had once been laws against miscegenation. Even after such laws were repealed, there had still been an unspoken taboo against white women going with black men; respectable, popular, cool, or good white girls just didn’t do that.
But, this taboo grew weaker and weaker as sports became more dominated by blacks. Given that sports is America’s National Pastime, those commanding the field became the new archetype of masculinity.
In the beginning of the movie PATTON, the eponymous general says "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." He says Americans admire the toughest boxer, fastest runner, etc. Well, in the battlefield of sports–which Americas are obsessed with–, blacks were the winners and whites were the losers. Over time, white women couldn’t fail to notice that blacks were the hometown heroes to cheer for while white boys were the benchwarmers. Of course, whites owned many of the sports franchises, but many of these whites actually happened to be liberal Jews pushing a miscegenist agenda.
And in the realm of popular culture, black males seem to sing and dance better and have more commanding voices.
Even so, one could argue that white women were overwhelmingly sticking with their men until the late 80s and early 90s when two crucial things happened: the rise of hip-hop and the movie "Jungle Fever". Prior to the rise of hip-hop, black musical acts, though soulful and talented, had less appeal to young white people. Pre-rap black music wasn’t necessarily for young people but for all black people who wanted to boogie and dance. Therefore, most white kids stuck to white rock whose appeal was more brazenly youth-oriented and rebellious. But, hip-hop and rap changed all that. This was the music of black youth rebellion. It was nasty, vicious, badass, cool, hip, raunchy, and sexual. It had the assaultive rage of punk, the raunchy excess of heavy metal, and thuggish sneer of gangster movies. Hip hop caught on like a wild fire among young white people in the late 80s and 90s, becoming THE mainstream music among the majority of white kids.
　
Just as important was the movie JUNGLE FEVER by Spike Lee. Though we like to accuse Jewish Hollywood of promoting miscegenation, this wasn’t really the case prior to Lee’s movie. Sure, there had been interracist films such as GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, but Hollywood in general maintained racial divisions.
Indeed, one of the biggest cultural phenomenon of the 70s and 80s was the Rocky movies where the Italian Stallion beat up black guys and won the devotion of the lovely Adriane. Hollywood, either out of fear of white backlash or market conformism, preferred not to touch the theme of interracism. And when it had, it was in cheap blaxploitation B-films that existed under the radar or in overly stuffy respectable movies like GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, which was not a jungle fever movie at all but one that argued that white-black marriage is wonderful because a black guy is just a white guy with black skin. Sidney Poitier is unbelievably poised and dignified in that movie. GUESS totally ignored the darker and primal emotions at the base of black(male)/white(female) relationships.
　
Spike Lee didn’t ignore that reality but spilled the beans with jiveass boldness–though it must be said even Lee played it somewhat safe, presenting a scenario of a black male/Italian-American female sexual relationship than the more taboo-busting black male/blonde white female sexual relationship. There is a sense among both white and blacks that blue-eyed blonde women are the epitome of white beauty and purity, and therefore the greatest violation of whiteness is for a non-white male–especially black–to ravage the sacred hole of the blonde goddess that should be reserved only for the noble and proud ‘Aryan’ sexual spear. A dark-haired Spanish woman going with a Negro is less troubling to most white males than a blonde blue-eyed woman going with a Negro. Anyway, Spike Lee’s movie shattered taboos when it came to the issue of the true nature of black/white sexual relationships. His movie demonstrated that black/white lust was not color-blind but all about color or race. Black men are attracted to white women because white women are generally more feminine than black women, and white women are attracted to black men because black men are generally more masculine than white men.
　
Except for free thinkers like Steve Sailer, most white males have been afraid to address this issue in an honest way. It is too hurtful to their pride. So, they spin the narrative where all black males are brutes out to rape white women. It presents white women as helpless, duped, or naive victims of black sexual criminality or doomed consensual relationships because black men will almost always turn out to be abusive and sadistic.
So, David Duke has given us many stories about how an innocent white girl went with a black guy, only to be beaten and murdered in the most savage way imaginable. The suggestion is that the ONLY reason why white women would ever go with black men is because of Political Correctness or Jewish control of popular culture. Supposedly, PC fills white girls with racial guilt and self-doubt; therefore, they seek out non-white men to give birth to non-white babies, thus committing racial suicide in order to wash away the sin of white guilt. Or, Jewish controlled Hollywood and music industry brainwashes white women to go gaga over black dudes.
　
Though there is some truth to both assertions, it ignores a fundamental fact. The main reason for black male/white female sexual attraction is NATURAL and EVOLUTIONARY. Darwinism can be used to justify both racial unity AND miscegenation. Even if liberal Jews didn’t control the media and even if PC didn’t rule the land, there would be much natural attraction between black men and white women. Why? Because males naturally desire the prettier females–and white women are generally prettier than black women–and females naturally desire the more masculine males. Look at the natural world of animals, and males of any species are always fighting over three things: food, territory, and females. It’s all about ‘land and pussy’. And females ALWAYS go with the stronger males who triumph over other males. In the modern world, the competition among males take place in the sporting field and in popular culture. Black rappers have proven themselves tougher, meaner, and more badass than white rockers. Black movie stars have proven themselves more charismatic and commanding than guys like Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis. In politics, Obama defeated John McCain–and would have defeated others as well. In the Democratic Primaries, Obama defeated Hillary Clinton because he was, in the terms of the natural consciousness, the male buck while she was the female who should be humped by the top male. Obama first easily destroyed the white liberal pussyboy John Edwards. When it came down to Hillary and Obama, most liberals chose the charismatic male over the duck-like female. Though liberals take pride in their rationalism, enlighten values, and intellectualism, the real reason for their attraction to Obama was animalistic and instinctual. The herd submitted to the guy who seemed to have more leadership charisma as the alpha male. Of course, Obama came across as intelligent too. The animal side of us worships the strong guy, the modern side of us admires the smart guy. People look up to superstar football players and superstar computer geeks–like the boys at Google or Jewgle. If the problem of most black politicians was they were all tough noise and not enough brains, Obama carefully mixed black charisma with the geek chic he picked up from places like Harvard. He mixed black charismatics and Jew-esque intellectics. Jews, we all know by now, have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of brainpower. Blacks have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of muscle and musical power. So, it was clever on the part of Obama and his Jewish supporters to create the image of the new messiah based on the merging of badass black and radical Jewish characteristics.
　
To be sure, evolutionary impulses can be contradictory. There are plenty of white women loyal to white men, and this devotion could be explained in terms of evolutionary instinct too: a kind of herd or tribal mentality to the survive as a group. But, another kind of evolutionary instinct seeks to pass down the genes of the toughest and most virile males.
Suppose there is a deer herd dominated by a certain male. The females in the herd are bound to the toughest male and sexually give themselves to him. But, suppose another male appears, fights the leader of the herd, and defeats him. The female deer will NOT remain loyal to the defeated male who had once been their sexual master. They will give themselves to the new master. So, to a certain extent, the rising tide of black male/white female unions is a part of process rooted in evolution. When blacks were non-existent, invisible, or marginalized in white society, white women admired and were attached to the apparent superiority of white men. But, when blacks gained greater freedom in a modern democracy committed to EQUALITY FOR ALL REGARLESS OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR, they began to demonstrate that they can defeat the white men in spheres that most arouse the sexual passions of women–sports, music, performance, and etc. Thus, the sexual migration of white females to black males is not only something engineered and approved by Organized Jewry but the product of evolutionary impulses. If whites were a sizable minority in Japan, much the same would happen. Many Japanese women would likely and NATURALLY prefer the taller and beefier white males to the short and scrawny Japanese males. Indeed, though there is no Jewish control of the media in Japan, a lot of Japanese women fantasize about white males and black males. Why? Women prefer the more masculine male.
Of course, humans are more than animals. Most women will not simply prefer a mindless brute over a weaker guy. Women also look for qualities such as decency, sensitivity, intelligence, knowledge, judiciousness, integrity, etc. After all, even most white women who sow their wild oatesses by jumping into bed with black men will eventually marry a more stable white guy as marriage is NOT ONLY about sex. Madonna may have f***ed the entire NBA, but she settled down with a white guy. Even so, at least 1/3 of sexuality is still animal, brutish, and elemental.
　
So, we need to ask again, who is the real victim in this sexual equation? White males or white females? If white females are indeed the primary victims of black male sexuality, how come far many more white males are opposed to interracism than white females are? Though there is legitimate and sincere white male anger at black criminal acts against white females, the GREATER anxiety and anguish is over that many white women have WILLINGLY thrown themselves at black males. Just look at all the white girls who will stand in long lines just to bed down with a rap star, basketball player, or Tiger Woods. Just look at all the white women who wet their pants over Barack Obama. Indeed, black women are less impressed with Barack as the black men they know in their lives are many times more ‘charismatic’ and badass. White girls, in contrast, perceive and measure Barack in comparison to the white males in their lives, and Barack somehow comes across as more masculine, cool, self-assured, and etc.
Indeed, white male anger over black/white sexual unions is seen by white females not as a sign of toughness or manhood but of insecurity, frustration, fear, and resentment.
　
Though the white right talks endlessly about the danger posed to white women by black thugs, the greater fear is that many white women might be perfectly happy or happier with black males than with white males. Stories of black male assault on white women are, perversely enough, kind of reassuring to the white right as confirmations of black-as-brutal-beast. Also, white rightists may take some pleasure in the idea of a white woman getting her comeuppance by betraying the males of her own kind–since the skanky white whore willingly chose a black guy, good for her if she got beaten to a pulp by the ‘black ape’.
　
But, when white women find happiness, pleasure, and stability in relationships with black men, it is truly threatening to the racial position of the white right. They have less of a rationale to argue against miscegenation. This is the REAL danger and threat of interracism.
It is, indeed, the PSYCHO-SEXUAL RAPE of the white MALE. When a black male struts his stuff and the white female willingly chooses him over the white guy, the white male has been pussified and left high and dry. He has been betrayed and abandoned. They can either sulk in impotent white right rage or celebrate the black male/white female union as the way it should be for both natural and historical reasons. Natural, because the sexier and tougher black males should get the top females by the rules of the jungle. Historical, because the ideology of liberal white guilt says that since white males had conquered and exploited the peoples-of-color, it is now time for the reverse to happen. Thus, pussyboy Ken Burns has become the posterboy of a good darling liberal white boy who defers to black superiority in athleticism, sexuality, and creativity–JAZZ and UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS.

Moneychangers & Matchmakers. Liberal Jewish Control of Purses and Pu**ies.

　
Jews have long been associated with finance–banking, investment, speculation, etc. The profession that had once made Jews servile and dependent on the gentile elites of Europe and America eventually made them the lords of the world economy. The finance sector no longer serves the productive sector but has come to command the entire economy. The world of finance and economics, like that of computers and medicine, has become so complex and labyrinthine that most of us–especially less intelligent goyim–have essentially left it to the smarter Jews to develop, innovate, and fix. Generally, we should be distrustful of those with great power and in control of our economic destiny–especially as economic power translates into other forms of power–, but we tend to be trustful of those controlling finance and high-tech because they happen to be Jews. If not always trustful, we are afraid to speak out and demand a full auditing of masters of finance. This is because the masters of finance are largely Jewish, and we’ve all been taught that to even hint of the possibility of Jewish corruption is ‘rabidly and virulently antisemitic’. When the Bernie Madoff scandal broke, the liberal Jewish media spun it as a great tragedy for the Jewish community since many of the prominent victims were Jews. There was almost no story of the non-Jewish victims of Madoff. Even though the villain was Jewish, the media’s sermon was that Jews were the PRIMARY victims, and thus all of us should sympathize with Jews. Never mind that when the going was good, many Jews did very well by Madoff who then swindled far many more non-Jews. Anyway, it’s no mystery to anyone that Jews are essentially the moneychangers of society. Through control of finance, they get to decide the value of products and services around the world. They get decide which sectors receive investment capital or bailout money and which sectors are left high and dry.
　
As if playing moneychanger isn’t enough, Jews have now become the matchmakers of society. Through control of the brain centers–the academia–, eyes/ears/ mouth–news and information media–, and the fist–law and politics–of society, Jews(mostly liberal or leftist)have gained the power to mold our minds and shape our hearts. Since Jews control much of the entertainment industry, they also control our hips and lips. They decide what kind of movies we see, what kind of music we dance, what kind of stars and celebrities we look up to.
Thus, they’ve also come to control the genitalia–the dicks and poons–of the goy population. Jews get to decide what kinds of sexual attitudes are okay or not okay, what kinds of passions are or aren’t cool and hip. In essence, Jews have become the puppet-masters of our sexual mores and desires. And, it is within this context that the Obama ascendancy is so dangerous and powerful. The real danger of Barack Hussein Obama is not what his economic or political policies may do for America. Though Obama’s policies are pretty shitty, even the worst political or economic policies can be reversed. Germans survived the Nazi lunacy, and the Chinese overcame the Maoist madness. But, certain changes are irreversible–those pertaining to race and biology. The real danger of Obama is he is the posterboy of miscegenation marketed and promoted by the liberal Jewish matchmakers who seek to mongrelize the white race. Liberal and some Neocon Jews intend to do this in the most humiliating way possible.
Both Jewish men and women find great pleasure from the sight of black men taking white men. Jewish men have long felt intimidated by the bigger and stronger–yet less intelligent–white goy males. Jews often associate white manhood with Nazi Aryan power that humiliated, beat up, and killed Jews. But, even if white males hadn’t done anything bad to the Jews, Jews would still hate a certain aspect of white maledom because, on average, white males are better looking than Jewish males. Jews have been resentful that the less intelligent white men are more handsome–just as many white males are resentful that the less intelligent Negro has bigger muscles and a more masculine voice. Though Jews have been brutalized by blacks in urban settings, their great success moved them out of black areas and made them compete with whites.
Through this experience, many Jewish men became angry over real and perceived slights by white males. Thus, there is a desire on the part of Jewish men to destroy white malehood. The favored tactic has been to seduce white women–especially blonde upper-crust ones–with Jewish money and wit and sexually conquer them. But, this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the vengeful, subversive, and destructive obsessions of Jewish males. They can only find full satisfaction by the sight of black men whupping white men–in sports and in the streets–and sexually ravaging white women.
　
Liberal Jews know full well that there has been a long and deep history of worshipful white male appreciation of the white female beauty and grace–women seen as goddesses than as mere possessions. This goes back to the age of chivalry where noble and brave knights fought for the hand and honor of the pure maiden. The white knight fought to defend his realm and win the love of the white goddess. There has long been a racial and spiritual–or racial-spiritual–element in this romantic culture. Men were supposed to be noble and courageous, women were supposed to be pure and devoted. Love wasn’t just about ass-shaking and ugabuga–as among African savages–but something sacred. Love was also something that went beyond social custom. It was appreciated as a longing between two individual souls charged with poetry.
Among ancient Jews and non-Westerners, relationship between man and woman was determined by arrangements made by parents and matchmakers. Though marriages were arranged for most of Western history, there had still been the concept or the ideal of the sacred love between two individuals. A love worth fighting and dying for. It’s all there in Sleeping Beauty the movie. This Western concept of love wasn’t ONLY about individual freedom but about higher vision and imagination of what love should be. So, there developed the image in the West of the noble knight and the beautiful damsel. In order for the knight to win the hand of the damsel, he had to prove himself worth in body and soul. And the damsel had to be a woman of quality and purity. This tradition passed down even though modern times. In the American South, there was the chivalric tradition where white men served as the protective warrior caste while the women devoted themselves to men worthy of their love. You can see this is the film Birth of a Nation where proud Southern men do what is necessary to maintain their manhood and protect their women from the black horde.
　
For liberal Jews to destroy the white race, they had to destroy this sacred concept of traditional Western or white love. They had to convince people that it was ‘racist’, ‘reactionary’, ‘patriarchal’, ‘male chauvinist’, and etc. And, it must be admitted that the Nazis made the job rather too easy for the Jews. National Socialism claimed to defend high Western principles. It viewed the ‘Aryan’ race as noble, beautiful, and sacred. It sanctified the role of the German Mother as producer of beautiful life. It emphasized the sacred bond between ‘Aryan’ man and ‘Aryan’ woman. But, Nazis were so filled with contempt and/or hatred for non-Aryans that they failed to acknowledge the beauty and customs of other peoples and cultures. Hitler, for all his pretensions, was a vulgar and shabby cretin blind to all beauty except that which he defined narrowly. The crimes of Nazism was such that they made it easy to equate anything white, Western, racial, nationalist, or rightist with evil.
It was only a matter of time before Jews found parallels between the Nazi idea of ‘Aryan’ love and American(especially Southern)idea of white love. For Jews, white love was the source of white hate. White love was to come under the scalpel of ‘science’ and demystified. White men and women were to be ‘cured’ of their sexual repressions and oppressiveness. Love was to be understood as a sexual drive–capitalist commodity or Marxist liberation.
The implication was that white love had all been bullshit to maintain the evil power of the white male. Supposedly, white men used the excuse of white love to keep white women subservient and chained to white male power. Also, white love was also seen as the driving force behind white oppression of non-whites since white male fear of miscegenation was a major factor behind white racism. After all, white males–especially in the American South–feared the prospect of non-white males putting their swarthy hands on the pure skin of white women who ideally should be preserved for white men.
　
White love came under assault from Marxism, Freudianism, Feminism, Capitalism, and Libertarianism. Marxism saw it as reactionary and atavistic. Freudianism saw it as irrational and repressed. Feminism saw it as white males controlling white women and forbidding them to seek sexual liberation–through lesbianism or sex with smarter Jews or more muscular blacks. Capitalism saw white love as undemocratic and anti-universalist, and libertarianism saw it as anti-individualist. In time, the sacred bond between white men and white women was broken. If a man held a door open for a woman in the new order, the woman was likely to throw a feminist fit and see the gesture as condescending patriarchal attitude.
Now, we mustn’t fall into the trap of overly idealizing traditional white love. There was indeed something stifling and overly precious in the chivalric tradition and in the Western conception of woman as an overly idealized creature. In the modern world, our desire is to be free, have our own thoughts, and make our own decisions. We don’t want to feel the burden of tradition or history. We want to chart our own destinies. So, to that extent, the weakening of old values and assumptions was not necessarily a bad thing.
But, are we really free individuals thinking our own thoughts and making our own decisions? Or, have the old system of cultural mind-control been replaced by another? Consider that most of us don’t form our own values, ideas, and thoughts but RELY on powerful institutions–school and government–and powerful industries–sports, music, movies, tv, books, magazines, etc–to tell us what is right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and undesirable. So, despite all the stuff we hear about individual freedom, most individuals are the ideological and psycho-social products of those who control the institutions and industries.
So, we need to ask who controls them and what is their agenda. We know for a fact that liberal Jews are the most powerful group in this country, and we also know they exert their power for a specific goal. We know they’ve done everything to undermine the power of white love and have been eager to replace it with another kind of love. Moneychangers are also the matchmakers.
　
And what kind of matchmaking do they want for us?
Jews want to babel-ize the white population. In the story of the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament, Yahweh grows fearful of the people who might unite against and challenge his power. So, what does God do? He smashes the Babel Tower and creates diversity among the people so that they will be divided amongst themselves and unable to challenge His power. Today, Jews are the god-like overlords of America. The people that the Jewish overlords fear most is the white American population for if it becomes angry enough, it may unite and work against Jewish power and bring it down. So, it is in the interest of Jews to create as many divisions and diversity among the white population as possible. Jews want to set white women against white men, white children against their parents, white liberals against white conservatives, white Northerners against white Southerners, and etc. Jews also want to dilute and mongrelize whiteness so that a sense of WHITE IDENTITY based on pride and power will slowly dissipate.
One way of doing this is cultural, and so there is the ideology of multi-culturalism where white kids are taught to celebrate non-white cultures while hearing only harsh critiques of everything Western, white, European(or Euro-centric), or Christian. But, a more profound and totally irreversible way is inter-racialism. In America, the most damaging form of interracist mixing is between black males and white females. This isn’t only physically but also psychologically damaging to the white race for white males are turned into pussified faggotyass white boys who are helpless to stop white women infected with jungle fever from running off to stronger and more masterful black men. Though the mixing of whites and Asians or whites and Mexicans on a large scale can also be detrimental to a sense of white identity and unity, it isn’t as damaging as black male-white female mixing. For one thing, white-Asian or white-Mexican mixing is often white male and Asian or Mexican female. In any sexual union, the dominant element is the male–no matter what PC and feminism has taught us about the sexes. In wars, the winning side takes the women of the losing side. When a white guy takes an Asian girl, it is the Asian guy who feels like the wussy pussyboy who has lost his women to the dominant male of another race. Similarly, when a white woman goes with a black man, it’s the white guy who has been pussified. After all, a white woman, out of her own free will, chose to surrender herself to a black stud than to a white dud.
It is for this reason that the black race has troubled white males more than any other race. A white guy may feel upset when he sees a white girl with an Asian or Mexican guy, but he doesn’t feel emasculated as he knows that the white girl didn’t choose the Asian or Mexican for his superior studliness or manliness. But, when a white guy sees a white girl with a black guy, he suspects–correctly most of the time–that the woman consciously chose the black guy as the SUPERIOR ALPHA MALE. Thus, the white man is reduced to a pussified white boy. When a white guy sees a white girl with a black guy, he can tell by the body movements that the white girl is saying, "I found a stud and now look down on white boys" and the black guy is saying, "I got me some prime white meat, and you white boys dare not even look straight in my face because I’ll kick your white ass." Despite all the goo goo talk about how wonderful it is for all the races to mix, the fact is black-white sexual unions are essentially a black male sexual war on white maledom.
And, we see it all around. Most of the music is rap or hiphop, which means that white girls all across the nation are shaking their butts to fantasies of jungle fever. Most of the top sporting events show us black male athletes and white female cheerleaders.
The truly sad thing is so many sorryass white boys are blind to the insult to their manhood. The Jewish social scientist doctors have cut off their balls in schools and lobotomized their brains through PC popular culture. Affluent liberal white boys even find a kind of wimpy satisfaction in their approval of black male/white female matings. They pride themselves in having been cured of white male pride, power, and racism. In other words, liberalism says white males can only feel (moral)pride by having no racial or masculine pride. As for working class and underclass white morons, many act like ‘whiggers’, as if aping blacks will make them cool, badass, and sexy. Just consider the Eminem phenomenon pushed on white America by the Jewish music and movie industry. But, we know black males don’t respect no ‘faggotyass’ white boy trying to act black, and white girls will continue to go with black males. Besides, acting trashy is self-destructive, period.
As for white rightist males, many of them live in denial or the sulk in their stew of stupid neo-Nazism or skinheadism, as if nasty white trash antics are going to save the day. The idea of skinheadism or Neo-Nazism as the spearhead of white pride is laughable. How can one feel pride as a trashy thug or an ideological psychopath? As for genteel and respectable white conservatives, they are too Victorian and repressed to deal with difficult and controversial issues such as this, and they just prefer to invoke Martin Luther King, Jr. and Christian morals over and over and over.
　
But, truth will always be what it is and can’t be wished away. We must face facts about Jews, blacks, and ourselves.

Andrzej Wajda’s KATYN, a Polish Masterpiece.

　
Some people may regard Wajda’s Katyn as ‘too little, tool late’, and it’s not hard to understand why. The mass killing of Polish officers happened long ago, and the official line during the yrs under communism was that the Nazis were to blame and Soviets were the liberators. Even when the truth was confessed by Gorbachev in the late 80s, its impact outside Poland was limited. Liberal media around the world emphasized Gorbachev’s integrity over the details of Polish officers killed in cold blood. So, even as the Soviets finally admitted to the mass killings, the revelation was spun as proof of a new and humane kind of communism. This was to be expected from the Western media dominated by liberals, leftists, and Jews. Though the story of Katyn did make the pages of New York Times, it had no lasting impact on Western consciousness.
It also didn’t help that the American conservatives, being generally less interested in world affairs and other nations/cultures, didn’t pursue the crimes of communism abroad as passionately and thoroughly as Jews unearthed the crimes of Nazism. And, as the American conservative movement was taken over by Neoconservative Jews, most conservatives didn’t make too big a fuss over communism–as radical and even liberal Jews had been crucial to the movement. Hollywood certainly wasn’t going to make a movie or even TV movie about it. (The Jewish God said there shall be NO god other than himself. Modern Jews say there shall be no tragedy other than the Holocaust. A jealous god and a jealous people.) Finally, the far right in the West is still stupidly enamored of Nazism and Adolf Hitler, thus blind to the suffering of victims of WWII–other than Germans of course. The far right never had credibility on the few occasions when it condemned the massacre at Katyn since it has routinely apologized for or denied the equally vile or worse crimes committed by Nazis in Poland. So, Katyn never became the focal point of discussion around the world; it wasn’t useful nor comfortable to non-Poles. Besides, even democracies like the US and UK had adopted the ‘necessary lie’ in order to maintain the alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler.
　
But, this wasn’t the case in Poland where every Pole knew but could only whisper the truth. Over time, the memory of Katyn became a kind of potent unifying symbol, all the more so because it was an invisible symbol. Its gruesome nature exposed the essence of Stalinism, and the enforced silence was proof of the repressiveness of communism. There are times when silence is more eloquent than sound.
　
So, the movie Katyn must be seen essentially as a Polish than a world event. Though nominated for Foreign Film Oscar, it failed to win nor garner much attention. There was no special promotion of this film in the US media nor by American film critics, most of whom are leftist and/or Jewish. It wasn’t attacked nor denounced neither but only respectably acknowledged, allowed limited release, and left to die a silent death at the box office. (It’s dispiriting that the sizable Polish community in the US did so little to promote this film to the wider public. But then, most Poles, unlike Jews, are not a very intellectual or cultural people.)
　
But, this is not a necessarily bad thing for Katyn is genuine in the way that Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List is not. Katyn is a Polish masterpiece made by a Polish master for the Polish people. Schindler’s List, though powerful and masterfully executed, is a movie made by a Jew to morally impress and guilt-bludgeon gentiles all over the world. Schindler’s List was an attempt to turn the Holocaust into a mainstream religion and Disneyland epic. As horrifying and grim as it was, it didn’t lack the fairytale elements in other Spielberg films. Wonderful and darling Jews convert the cynical gentile Oscar Schindler into a do-gooder and redeem his wicked soul. In the end, it warms our hearts like E. T. or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It was made with superb artistry and directorial ingenuity, but it was really a simple-minded and manipulative Jewish version of the Christmas Carol, with a gentile Scrooge saving his soul by loving Jews. It is thus essentially a hug-a-Jew movie. The violent scenes work terrifyingly well in conveying the brutality of the Nazis. But, the dramatic parts are embarrassing and hackneyed–Sound of Music in artsy b/w. No wonder then that Atom Egoyan felt a need to make an anti-Schindler’s List in the form of Ararat, a film that not only asks us to remember the Armenian genocide but ponder the means of representation, manipulation, distortion, etc. Katyn isn’t exactly an anti-Schindler’s List but more like a counter-Schindler’s List. Wajda has never been an avant-gardist in the manner of Egoyan, but he is a critical artist than a grand entertainer like Spielberg. Katyn is similar to Schindler’s List in using in the power of cinema to make history live again, but it is also contemplative on the subject of history: history is not only what happened but what is remembered, narrated, recorded, denied, exaggerated, reclaimed.
　
Katyn was likely disappointing to many viewers, not least or especially among Poles. Many people probably expected an emotionally wrenching or physically overwhelming experience–a grandstanding expose of the bloody and monstrous face of communism/Soviet Union. They wanted to cry their eyes out, be moved to patriotic fervor, or feel self-righteous as victims of communism, Russia, and history. They wanted the sensations viewers got from Schindler’s List, The Killing Fields, Passion of the Christ, Saving Private Ryan, or Platoon.
The movie’s opening scene hints at such film, with Poles fleeing from Russians coming face to face with Poles fleeing from Germans. One might well expect the entire movie to be about hapless and noble Poles mowed down by Germans and Russians. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with such a film, but Wajda probably feels we are well aware of what war and mayhem look like in movies. Besides, Wajda already gave us blood-drenched war movies long ago. Kanal is surely one of the most harrowing war films. Wajda is now an old man and naturally wanted to reflect on and understand history than use it for sensational effect.
　
From the outset Wajda mutes the violence as if a purely visceral approach might distract the audience from the larger theme of history and the more intimate realm of personal lives. It’s as if Wajda forwent the middle shot in favor of the close-up and the long-shot. His main focus is on the things that are generally not visible. We can all easily imagine soldiers, tanks, airplanes, bomb exploding, and people getting shot. It’s harder to imagine how the dots connect in history or how the inner heart trembles in times of crisis.
Indeed, much of the story takes place AFTER the mass executions in the Katyn forest, whose grisly details are not revealed until the final scene. This may be frustrating to the viewer, but it is fitting as the truth of the Katyn tragedy was fitted together piece by piece and unveiled after considerable passage of time. Though the world now knows, without a doubt, that Polish officers were killed by the Soviets, the truth had emerged only in fragments. There is a Buddhist koan: what is the sound of a tree falling in a forest? No matter how grand or horrible an event, it might as well as never happened if no one witnessed, recorded, or remembered it. As such, Katyn isn’t just a movie about an historical event but a metaphor of rediscovery or reclamation of something lost, forgotten, and buried. This is as true of the history of the planet as of the relatively recent history of a nation. Only through archaeology have we learned of innumerable holocausts that befell this planet–when humanity hadn’t yet arrived on the scene to bear witness--, at times nearly wiping out entire species.
Had Nazis won the war and hid their genocide of the Jews while exposing the mass killings by communists, the Jewish holocaust could have been a ‘Katyn’–a horrible truth hidden by official mythmaking–while communist killings might have been remembered as The Holocaust.
So, Katyn in the movie is partly used as a metaphor. It represents history shaped and manipulated by the powers-that-be for their own ideological justification and confirmation. There was Katyn and there is ‘Katyn’. When the Nazis invaded Eastern Poland and dug up the mass graves, they used the Katyn massacre for their own purposes. The Nazis were correct in claiming that the Soviets carried out the brutal deed, but they were using the Katyn massacre to hide their own ‘Katyns’. Though the Nazis also invaded a neutral country, wiped out the native elite, and set up death camps, they sought to legitimize their occupation of Poland as a struggle against murderous communism. So, even as the Nazis were correct about who did what at Katyn, they were using this truth to hide a larger truth–that the Nazis were killing even more than the Soviets. When the Soviets later retook Poland and set up a communist regime, they devised a lie, blaming it on the Germans. If it weren’t for the horrible nature of the crime, all of this would almost be funny, like a game of ‘he said, she said’. We are even shown snippets of Nazi and Soviet documentaries, and they are eerily and amusingly near-identical.
　
Katyn, in this sense, is more than an historical event. It concerns the uses of history. Of course, Poles are not innocent of this game either. Some Poles are likely to exaggerate the number of officers killed at Katyn. They are likely to paint the victims as noble patriot saints. Worse, some Poles are likely to use Katyn to morally bully others: collective pride or nobility is as dubious as collective guilt. For many decades, Poles were notorious in denying the special Jewish nature of the Holocaust and preferred the myth that Poles and Jews had been indistinguishably targeted by the Nazis. But, Jews are no less guilty in Katyn-izing history. Jews ignore the victims of World War II other than Jews. Worse, Jews have been notorious in discounting or neglecting the mass killings carried out by communists or treating it a dry manner while giving the Holocaust a whole hog tear-jerker treatment in books, tv, and movies. Anne Applebaum, an odious neoconservative Jewess has written a book about the Soviet gulag but has whitewashed the Jewish role in communism. The damn disgusting bitch even voted for Barack Obama though he’s a stealth radical because she thought he would be better for the Jews and Jewish interests. This goes to show that some neocons cannot be trusted as their main purpose is to use conservatism for Jewish end. (However, it must be said not all neoconservatives are of her lowly rat-like ilk.)
　
Though Jews are correct about the special Jewish nature of the Holocaust, the Jewish-controlled media have pretty much suppressed the fact that 3 million Poles died during World War II. Many Poles died bravely, fighting both the Nazis and communists, but they’ve been smeared and dismissed by many historians–either liberal Jews or puppets of leftist Jews–because the Polish patriots generally happened to be right-wing and ‘antisemitic’. Though there has long been a nasty tradition of Polish anti-Jewishness, Jews never seem to ask why they’ve been hated so. The fact is Jews were never a likable people. Worse, many Jews joined communism and collaborated with the Soviet invaders in 1939 when USSR took the eastern half. And after WWII, the leading rulers of communist Poland were mostly Jews. If the Vichy regime in France has long been despised for having collaborated with Germans during WWII, it’s not hard to understand why Poles have long distrusted and disliked Jews. Too many Jews collaborated with the communists.
At any rate, all groups have their own take on history, their own way of twisting facts or spinning arguments to make themselves good and noble. Of course, this game has become essentially taboo for Western Europeans–especially Germans–and white North Americans as the new liberal Political Correct order has brainwashed white boys and girls to hate their own history, race, heritage, and achievements and ONLY dwell on what had been nasty, wicked, and cruel about white power, rule, and domination. It’s as if there can never be any pride in victory–except for Allied Victory in WWII because Nazis were evil beyond evil–, only in victimhood. In this sense, even Katyn falls into this paradigm for it ennobles Poles as victim-losers than as proud victors.
　
The elliptical approach in Katyn should be familiar with those who know something about Andrej Wajda. His landmark film Man of Marble(and the somewhat lesser Man of Iron) also presented and explored history as a labyrinth where the truth becomes simultaneously more powerful and elusive as one meanders through the maze and nears the exit.
In Man of Marble a female filmmaker searches for the ‘true story’ behind the rise and fall of a brick layer, a man once transfigured into the Immortal Proletarian Hero for propaganda purposes, only to fall from grace and disappear under the radar. Both Katyn and Man of Marble present history and politics as a maze. Journalistic inquiry in a place like communist Poland must have been both frustrating and enthralling because it was neither totally repressive nor totally free. For most of its history, communist Poland was neither a Stalinist hell hole nor a liberal democracy. It was a nation of considerable cultural freedom as long as one didn’t push the envelope. Man of Marble takes place in the late 1970s when things were relatively liberal, at least for a communist nation. Much of Katyn takes place in a period soon after the end of World War II when Soviet presence was ominous and censorship was repressive.
Nevertheless, we get a similar sense from both movies: On the one hand, history is that which is recorded, interpreted, uncovered, hidden; those who hold the clay mold it. On the other hand, there IS indeed something called historical fact. It is for the latter reason that the ending of Katyn is so important and powerful.
Throughout the movie Wajda intelligently and philosophically laid out the mechanism of history in relations to evidence, powers-that-be, political expediency, faultiness of memory, etc. Katyn was, for a long time, what those in power said it was, with the real truth lurking in the shadows. But, all said and done, history cannot be whatever we say it is. When the evidence is overwhelming and obvious, we must accept and face the truth than cling to the warp of politics or ideology. Wajda is not blind to the concept of ‘Katyn’ but he finally shows us the real Katyn. Soviets killed those Polish officers at Katyn, and that must be acknowledged as a fact. We must not give into the temptation of fashionable postmodern theory which posits that history is PURELY a matter of interpretation in the service of power. Wajda shows how that has often been true but reminds us that surrendering to the idea that such MUST ALWAYS be true is to go beyond skepticism and embrace a kind of cynical nihilism which is no better than Nazism and communism. If indeed history is nothing more than text shaped or altered by various forces in order to legitimize their power, we might as well blame the Armenians for Katyn and Palestinians for the Holocaust. If it’s all a matter of interpretation, we might as well believe the mafia, KGB, or space aliens killed Kennedy. There is indeed much in history open to debate as evidence is inconclusive, but some facts are well-established and beyond refute. Wajda tells us that, at the very least, we should face the facts of history. Nazis may have committed other ‘Katyns’ but Katyn was committed by the Soviets. Unless we accept the facts of history, history is a form of propagandistic anarchy where anything goes, where myth becomes reality and vice versa. (Granted, even acceptance of facts doesn’t necessarily
guarantee a change of perspective or ideological outlook. There are neo-Nazis who accept the Holocaust happened but then apologize for why it was necessary. There are Russians who accept the fact that Stalin invaded Poland along with the Nazis but then argue it had been NECESSARY for national defense. Most blacks knew that OJ Simpson killed Nicole but sided with OJ anyway since being black is about sticking together.)
What is remarkable about this film is not only the mastery of Wajda’s technique but his deep understanding as an artist and human being. Though, or precisely because, it is a Polish film for the Polish audience, it is a film we non-Poles can enter with a certain awe and gratitude. Wajda isn’t trying to prove something, not to himself, the Poles, or to us. He’s asking Poles to remember not only Katyn but the tormented twists and turns of modern Polish history. It’s not a chest-thumping feel-good nationalist movie, the kind about saintly Poles fighting or being trampled by monstrous beasts. It is an intimate and thoughtful portrait of a nation not only trampled by forces of destruction but cocooned alive by a web of deception.
It is also a movie about the comprised nature of Poland. We see the heroism but can’t help but notice also the all too understandable fear and cowardice.
　
We tend to think of military men as heroes or martyrs, but they are sheep churned into sausages in the actual machinery of war. Poles have every right to remember the Polish officers who died at Katyn as heroes or martyrs, but the ending of the movie surmises–rather correctly, I think–that they died as human animals–frightened, panic-stricken, pitiful.
　
Katyn is so unmistakably a Polish movie that it’s like entering another world for non-Polish viewers. For those lacking basic knowledge of Poland during WWII, a good deal will seem puzzling but therein lies the richness of this film. It doesn’t explain nor simplify everything for the universal audience. If there are universal truths to be found–and what great art is without them–, we find them through navigating through what was uniquely a Polish experience. Wajda doesn’t pander nor cater to us. We must make the effort to understand and empathize with a people generally unknown to us. Wajda’s door of Polish history is open to all, but we must be willing to enter ourselves and find our own way through the maze.
　
Schindler’s List, on the other hand, is not a movie you need to enter. It spills out of the screen and washes all over you. Nazis are evil, Jews are lovable, and Oscar is a good guy because he loves Jews. You don’t have to know anything about history. Just see what Spielberg shows and accept it as HISTORICAL FACT and feel the warm glow of the emotions he shines on you. It is a crowd-pleaser. Though Schinder’s List ends at the cemetery of Oscar Schindler, we feel we know everything we need to know about him–and about the Jews, Nazis, and WWII as well. It’s no wonder that so many Americans blindly side with Zionists and hate Palestinians. According to a movie like Schindler’s List, Jews are all good and since Israel is Jewish, it must be 100% good too, whereas those who oppose Zionism must all be a bunch of neo-Nazis.
　
Katyn too has a scene with a cemetery where a woman tries to replace a tombstone with false date with one with the right date. Indeed, much of the movie is like walking through a cemetery, trying to access what has passed and been buried. A sense of mystery pervades the entire movie, one that is not only reflective but humble, as if no artist can claim full truth to what did and didn’t happen. This is all the more reason why the final scene depicting the cold-blooded killing of Polish officers is at once powerful and jarring. For we are woken out of the smokescreen of historiography and ambiguity. Yes, some things remain mysteries or controversies, but some things are beyond doubt. Katyn is now one of them. Those who continue to deny it–mostly in Russia–are either fools or lunatics, hardly better than those who continue to deny the mass killings of Jews by the Nazis.

How American Exceptionalism Invites Anti-Americanism.

　
Good many conservatives promote the idea of American Exceptionalism as a hallmark of what America is all about. Our nation is supposed to be a ‘City on a Hill’ and a beacon of freedom to all other peoples around the world. US is supposed to stand for progress and human rights, and so forth and so on. They mention the Founding Fathers and Ronald Reagan. Didn’t the Founders establish a new kind of country, one where all people were equal and free. Didn’t Reagan speak of the struggle between Freedom and the Evil of Communism?
　
As ideas go, American Exceptionalism isn’t necessarily bad, at least in its moderate form. Yes, America has much that is unique and worthy of respect and emulation. There has never been a nation quite like the United States. And, US had probably has done more good for the world as a whole than any other country as a model, defender of freedom–against Nazism and communism–, and even as an interventionist. But, all ideas turn nasty and harmful when it becomes either dogmatic/fundamentalist or radical. Neocons took American Exceptionalism to absurd heights, whereby America could invade and rebuild other nations. One could argue that neoconservative foreign policy was really Zionism-by-other-means than a true Wilsonian policy of spreading democracy around the world–after all, no neocon ever argued for invading Sudan or Nepal. However, there have been neocons–especially the non-Jewish ones–who sincerely believed in some Messianic role America must play in order to spread human rights and democracy. They often invoke the name of Reagan, but I’m not sure Reagan would have been flattered. Though Reagan took the Cold War very seriously, what he meant by the ‘city on a hill’ metaphor was that US should try to be the best it can be; let other nations look to America as a model if they wish, but do not force the American way or system on other peoples. So, Reagan pulled out of Lebanon when things got hairy. When Asian nations like South Korea, Taiwan, and Philippines were ripe for democracy, Reagan didn’t stand in their way. But, at no point did Reagan say US should actively intervene to promote democracy in those countries. His policy was keep them as close allies, and when the people over there demand freedom, let things work out according to the inner dynamic within those countries.
　
Many of today’s American conservatives promote a rather arrogant and contemptuous–triumphalist–kind of American Exceptionalism. They constantly point to how US won the Cold War as if that has somehow vindicated American superiority for all time. They rest on their laurels and take American greatness for granted. They are blind to the dangers of this kind of dogmatic American Exceptionalism.
For starters, more one brags about oneself, the more one opens oneself to scrutiny–moral, ethical, legal, economic, political, etc. What is the biggest danger in politics? Hypocrisy. With American Exceptionalism blaring from the loudspeakers, many conservatives have become drowned in their own excessive pride. So, Americans brag that only they truly understand freedom, liberty, human rights, progress, decency, rule of law, and etc. Somehow, we are better than other peoples and nations. Naturally, this kind of attitude fills non-Americans with resentment. They understandably want to scrutinize everything about America to see if indeed America is such a great utopia of freedom, liberty, human rights, and rule of law. Even if the evidence shows America to be better than most countries, the reality is bound to fall far short of what is trumpeted by American Exceptionalists. A person calling himself a saint is stained more by a simple infraction than someone who admits he’s not perfect and commits a more grievous wrong.
When George W. Bush and his neoconservative buddies went around telling the world how great and decent America is–enough to play God in whether to invade and rebuild other countries–, most of the world was intimidated and offended. When US bombed Iraq with ‘shock and awe’, it was as if Dubya was playing righteous and almighty Jehovah or Jehubya smiting Saddam and Gomorrah. Since Americans made such a big deal of how good and decent they were, scandals such as those at Abu Gharib were bound to send shockwaves all over the world. American treatment of Iraqi POWs may not have been much worse than how other countries treat prisoners, but abuses at Abu Gharid were committed by a nation that elevated itself as a shining CITY ON A HILL. We all love to prick the self-righteous balloon with needles to see how many of its contentions are true convictions or false concoctions. The more George W. Bush and his supporters insisted on their goodness and nobility of intentions, the more their enemies at home and abroad pointed to and exposed all the things that had gone wrong in Iraq and Guantanamo. Conservatives were saying, ‘we can do whatever we want because we are so good and special’, and the rest of the world held a mirror up to them and said, ‘if you’re so good, why do you do such nasty shit?’ Thus, American Exceptionalism invites Anti-Americanism.
　
This is why we need America to be NORMAL country. This isn’t to say US is just like any other nation nor that there aren’t things about the US which are indeed admirable and even exceptional. It is rather an admittance and realization that, all said and done, Americans are people too and, as such, often fallible, foolish, deluded, and limited in what they can do. Americans should see themselves and exert themselves around the world as normal people trying to be better than as an exceptional people who can arrogantly rest on their laurels.
　
Also, we must keep in mind that American Exceptionalism today isn’t what it was long ago. Long ago, AE was displayed and practiced from a position of power. When the white man said America was a damn great country, he sure meant it and damn well intended to make sure everyone else in America agreed, whether they belonged to a minority group or recently arrived as immigrants. Back then, AE was a judgment on non-whites and newcomers, not on whites themselves. It was as if Anglo- and Northern European whites had built a great nation and had every right to ask non-whites and newcomers, ‘are you good enough to enjoy the freedom, rights, and opportunity of this great exceptional country?’ So, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics all sought to prove themselves as worthy of being good Americans. So, newly arrived immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe also sought to assimilate into the new nation by proving themselves worthy. As the traditional white elite and masses held most of the cards in the moral equation, American Exceptionalism was indeed a potent weapon for settled white Americans.
.
But, what has happened to America since the 60s? America went through a great crisis of identity, confidence, unity, and continuity. The Black Power Movement–aka Civil Rights Movement–, the hellishness of Vietnam War, the rise of youth rebellion and hedonistic nihilism, and myriad other social upheavals threw a monkey wrench–or several of them–into the fan of American Exceptionalism. AE no longer was an issue of "are non-whites and new arrivals good enough for America the Beautiful and Exceptional" but rather, "are whites good enough for the ideals they’ve been trumpeting since the founding of this country?" What had once been an offensive weapon for white America turned into a defensive shield, and the shield has been getting battered more and more every year.
Blacks began to aks, "if you honkeys be so good and noble, why you done use us as slaves, mothafucka?" Non-white immigrants began asking, "if America for no discrimination by race, creed, or color, why white people favor white immigrant over non-white immigrant?" Mexican-Americans began to ask, "hey gringo, if America no imperialismo, why you take Mexican land?" Much the same happened with Christianity. One time, it had served as the offensive weapon that justified Western domination of the world–to spread the word of God and Christian civilization. But, as time went by, the conquered peoples and liberal elements among the whites began to ask, "if Christianity is all about love and sharing, how come white Christians conquerored, raped, pillaged, murdered, and exploited so many people?" Thus, Christianity eventually became a moral liability for Western civilization.
　
The lesson to draw from this is moral HUBRIS is a bad bad thing. Eventually, it begins to undermine one’s own power by raising questions among the oppressed or less fortunate, among the conscientious of your own kind, and even among neutral observers. If you tell oppressed peoples that they are living in a wonderful and exceptional society where all are equal and free, they will one day ask, "if that’s so, how come we are not free as you are?" And, if you raise your own children with the idea that they are living in the most wonderful country in the world, there will come a day when the kids–if they are conscientious–will look around at all the bullshit, imperfections, and hypocrisies and ask, "if our country is SO GOOD, how come there’s so much that is BAD?"
　
Consider the issue of American slavery. All societies practiced slavery through the ages, and American form of slavery was actually milder and humane than most. But, why does American slavery get more negative attention than all the other kinds in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Latin America, etc. A major reason is because Americans have been telling the world that United States has always been an exceptionally free, equal, and progressive country. Now, it may well have been true that, relatively speaking, America had always been freer and more progressive than most nations–even during the time of American slavery, as rest of the world also practiced slavery, often far worse forms. But, when Americans deliriously brag about American history and society as if America had been 99% good and 1% bad, they invite the rest of the world and anti-American critics at home to dig up all the dirt about how America was no Promised Land.
　
Finally, can we really say United States today uniquely stands for human rights, freedom, and equality? There are other democracies in the world, and many happen to be more obsessed with human rights and do-goody-ism than America. Sweden and Norway, for instance, give far more in foreign aid in per capita terms than does the United States. European Human Rights commissions are busy 24/7 in trying to resolve problems around the world. European nations are more committed to the idea of egalitarianism than America is–though Americans can argue that America has always been for political and legal equality, not economic equality. (But, in a nation where lawyers who are bought and sold make the laws, can we really say everyone is equal under the law in America?)
On the subject of freedom–especially in speech and expression–, America is indeed the exception as even Western democracies like Canada and Europe now have extensive laws censoring what goes by ‘hate speech’. But, American freedom in this area is not respected around the world but increasingly regarded in the same manner as Death Penalty–as something excessive, barbaric, uncouth, and regressive. Modern concept of human rights has gone from freedom to correctness, and supposedly the most progressive countries in the world now restrict freedom of speech for the sake of human rights. Indeed, Canadians often say such nonsense as, ‘we respect freedom of speech, we don’t worship it.’ What they worship is political correctness, and much the same can be said of most of Europe.
　
Does this mean that EU is now being inflated with its own moral Hubris, what with all the human rights commissions, all the save-the-world mantras, and PC formulations for multiculturalism and ‘gay rights’? Perhaps, but EU can get away with this stuff more than Americans. Why? Because US is the premier military power in the world, thus seen as a not just a moral bully but a military bully. In the context of American world hegemony, many nations are likely to view European moral righteousness as a necessary–if sometimes unpleasant–counterbalance against American domination through business, pop culture, and the military.

Will Micro-genics(as opposed to Macro-genics, aka Eugenics) Be Morally Feasible in the Future?

Eugenics is passe, but the future will be belong to much the same thing. Think of it this way. Eugenics is macro-genics while bio-engineering is micro-genics. The goal and end-result of both are the same, but micro-genics won't face the same moral, political, and social stumbling blocks(or pariah status). This is because micro-genics is preventive, preemptive, and 'surgical'--precise and accurate--whereas macro-genics has been treatment-oriented-after-the-fact, crude, and industrial.

Chemotherapy/radiation and gene therapy seek to reverse the ravages of cancer, but why is the former dreaded while the latter is welcome(as a possibility)? Because chemo/radiation is ugly, painful, and destructive. You must half-kill the patient to save him. Eugenics has been like this. Without access to the core of the human genetics, eugenic policy could only manipulate the DNA through social selection--which entailed pressuring certain kinds of people to marry/mate while preventing others from mating through sterilization or even liquidation. This surely works in the long run but violates our principles of individual freedom and choice and the sanctity of human life.

Eugenics was like Nazism or Stalinism. It was carried out on an impersonal & industrial scale. It had to turn a blind eye to individual disaffection and/or the deaths of entire groups of people.

But now we may have micro-genics in the foreseeable future. Micro-genics is appealing because individuals get to choose what qualities they want for their kids(or possibly even themselves). With access to the genetic code, kids can be made to be intelligent, strong, healthy, emotionally stable, creative, etc. By fiddling with the DNA within the sperm and egg, a 'better' kind of human being will be created. In effect, a kind of 'murder' would take place but at a microscopic level. Just as we don't care about stem cells, we don't much care what is 'murdered' at the genetic level.

Suppose Hitler hadn't killed 6 million Jews but only tweaked their DNA so that Jews gave birth to 'Aryan' babies. Hitler would, in effect, have exterminated the Jewish gene but he wouldn't have 'industrially' and 'crudely' killed a single Jew. He would have precisely and 'surgically' altered the part of Jewish genes that disturbed him. Indeed, he could have taken credit for having 'saved' or genetically 'cured' the Jews. Indeed, sadly or otherwise, many Jews do utilize as yet crude means--plastic surgery--to 'murder' certain physical aspects of Jewishness such as the hooked nose. This is also prevalent among Asian women who have surgery on their eyes to make it more 'Aryan' looking. Some rich Asian and African women choose to be impregnated by Nordic sperm so that their children will look more Western. These are all crude forms or variations of Eugenics or Eugenic-mindedness.

Suppose retarded people are not sterilized but their sperm and egg are 'cured' of the dumbass DNA. Thus, the retarded elements of their DNA would effectively be 'murdered' and replaced by normal qualities; retarded parents would give birth to smart kids. So, as long as the 'murder' takes place at the micro-level and is at the request of individuals themselves, we may indeed be able to look forward to a brave new world.

Same thing goes for mining. We mine for gold and diamond, but think of all the pollution and myriad other headaches. Mining is industrial, messy, noisy, sweaty, dangerous, and even deadly. But, suppose the 'surgical' and precise(and elegant) nano-technology can turn carbon into diamond and lead into gold. That will be eureka x 1000.

Why Advertising Has Become the Metaphor of American Capitalism.

There is a Cable TV show called MAD MEN which has stirred up much debate on NPR, conservative websites, and many blogs(or so I'm told.) Actually, I would like to see a truly intelligent and honest movie about the advertising world whether set in the 50s, 60s or today--or anytime in history. Advertising has become the perfect metaphor for what has become of American capitalism. American capitalism is now more about the art of selling than what is actually being sold. For one thing, we no longer have a manufacturing economy that makes things but more of a service economy that schmoozes customers. For another, American students are more likely to major in business--shaking hands--than in engineering--using hands.

Of course, this has been a long-running theme in American history. As long as "there's a sucker being born every minute", why not go for the easy buck? The American West was filled with snake oil salesmen of all stripes. Prior to regulation and government control, one could advertise just about anything. Indeed, advertising men haven't been much admired through most of American history.

But, at some time in the 20th century, advertising turned into an high concept art and a prestigious institution. Just as gambling had started in the underworld but gained respectability via Las Vegas and Atlantic City, advertising became a chic and choice industry for ambitious people. And, in a way, this was understandable given changes in the economy. The reputation of capitalism that had suffered terribly during the Great Depression recovered during the postwar yrs. US economy was dominant around the world, and Americans made stuff--quality goods ranging from can openers to cars to jumbo jet engines that were envy of the world. Americans had great things to sell, and so what was being sold and how it was being sold went hand in hand. There was no shame in advertising the latest American car or refrigerator or TV set. But gradually, America become an importing nation. Advertising came to mean more about promoting foreign goods than American goods. Trade deficits mounted but advertising companies made us feel good about buying a Toyota or shopping at Walmart. Also, places like Detroit and other cities got filled with blacks who made poor workers and worse products--blacks also burdened companies with high cost due to their high rates of on-the-job thieving and absenteeism. Unions got fat and bloated and protected inferior workers as long as they had union cards. American goods in many sectors got worse and worse.

Also, despite government regulations which curbed many of the abuses of the past, pervasive hyper-consumerism emphasized the desirability than the durability of good and services. Desirability was linked to disposability. Consumerism meant always looking for the latest and hottest stuff without thinking whether one really wanted or needed it. It's as though we increasingly began to judge a book by its cover.

In a way, we all went along because we didn't want to face reality. We wanted to be told that certain drugs would make us happy. Or, if we watch this or that TV show and emulate its characters, we'll be cool and hip. If we listened to this self-help guru, we'll find enlightenment. If we followed the advice of that financial genius, we can become overnight millionaires.

And, it even extended to politics which became more about selling a candidate than finding one who's truly fit for the job. Though Reagan was indeed a great president, much of the appeal was marketing. Clinton upped the ante, playing the role of rock star celebrity. Bush sold himself as a NASCAR Mall Church beer buddy All-American. Obama was sold as Will Smith messiah, as the Son of Virgin Oprah. Palin sells herself as Moose hunting barbie. None of this necessarily new in politics, but the level of marketing and the brazen shamelessness have gone totally out of control. The old Anglo-American model of sober restraint and dignity has been replaced with the kind of trashy and splashy Latin-American politicking of the Perons of Argentina.

And, the mythic romance with capitalism has led to all sorts of frauds since the 1980s. Perhaps, David Mamet captured it most succinctly in GLENGARRY GLENROSS where the trick is to fool clients into buying worthless land. It doesn't matter what you sell, only how you sell. The main commodity is not the commodity itself but the communication.

Though capitalism is the best economic system known to man, a blind kind of Ayn Randism came to 'spiritually' prevail among many Americans who looked up to rich people as demi-god heroes and even saviors of mankind. This was understandable to some extent as the wealth of nations does indeed depend on risk-taking entrepreneurs and corporations. But, Americans forgot that powerful people must be watched, scrutinized, and criticized.

Because what passed for American conservatism and new liberalism(under Clinton) painted a simple picture where BIG GOVERNMENT is corrupt and intrusive whereas businessmen were heroic, honest, and hardworking, many of us turned a blind eye to what was happening in the corridors of American capitalism and just took faith in the idea that the rich guys were doing the right thing. But, what happened?

ENRON! Enron turned out to be more about the art of selling than having a superior product or service to sell. In a way, it was more of a advertising company for energy than an energy company. And, look at the dot.com rise and fall in the late 90s. Though an handful of internet companies were indeed the real thing, many had nothing to sell except hype. Since the mantra was 'technology is the future', clever geeks and their financial partners-in-crime were able to fool the public into thinking that their companies would be the next Microsoft and every investor would become a millionaire.

Then, there was the whole business with the so-called OWNERSHIP SOCIETY which might as well be called the UNIVERSAL HOUSE-OWNERSHIP PROGRAM. In all of this, the very people promoting, marketing, and selling this stuff may have genuinely believed in the garbage they were spewing. As the art of advertising and promotion had risen to such masterful heights, it was easy to be dazzled and fooled by the illusion--in the way that cosmetics and coaching can make even a no good bitch come across as a beautiful wonderful person.

The biggest fraud of them all was the financial instruments that enabled the housing bubble and led to the Great Recession. Again, it was more about the art of selling than what was being sold. It turned out that the financial instruments created by Wall Street wizards were really retarded, fraudulent, or delusional, but what did it matter? We were all sold on the notion that they were brilliant innovations by the best and the brightest from top business schools of Harvard and other great schools. We were assured that the financial instruments were blessed by yoda-like gurus Alan Greenspan, Bernaeke, and Hank Paulson. To question them would have been like questioning God, Jesus, and the pope during the Middle Ages. Essentially, Wall Street packaged and sold dead rats inside boxes, but as long as the boxes were beautifully wrapped in gold-leaf paper and scented with perfume, it was "DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY."

With loss of American jobs and rising trade deficits, things were not adding up to sober people. But, there was no reason to worry, we were told over and over. The admen in government, Wall Street, academia, Hollywood, media(both Milton Friedman on the right and Thomas Friedman on the left) and etc assured us that things would all work out. We could just keep borrowing and borrowing. Housing prices would go up and up, and we could live on mortgage-backed loans. Or, Green Jobs would save us as 'green was the next red, white, and blue'.

Not that Obama's 'socialism' is any better. It too is just a vast marketing ploy, more a mega conjob to empower himself and political allies than do something difficult, constructive, and longterm to set the US economy and society on the right track. The STIMULUS PLAN was an advertising fraud. We were told we had to pass it right away or unemployment would go past 8%. Well? The Banks had first gotten everything their way by effectively ending regulation of their industry. After their financial instruments and shenanigans brought down the economy, they used the media and government to sell the notion that they MUST BE bailed out or the whole economy will sink.

We see much the same in Hollywood. It no longer has new ideas but only regurgitates old ideas repackaged with bigger explosions and more expensive special effects. But, Hollywood sure knows how to market and sell their stuff. Worse, people seem to prefer this stuff if only because it makes them feel good and assured that happiness and pleasure are there to be easily had.

Journalism, the so-called Fourth Estate, is supposed to play the role of truth-speaker and skeptical commentator, but even it has become part of advertising. Just consider how the news media sold Barack Obama as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Remember the media's cheerleading for the Iraq War? Consider the fact that much of financial news has fed us Panglossian fantasies about how the world is gonna be part of a new global order in which everyone will be much better off. There may indeed be lots of good things about globalism, but the news media were more sellers than tellers of what's really going on.

Perhaps, the people deserve a lot of blame too. No one likes bad news or at least non-sensational sober news which upsets us or fills us with anxiety. It's no wonder then that most people would rather hear liberal or mainstream conservative fantasies about race than the harsh and troubling truth discussed by members of the 'alternative right'. No wonder that people would rather listen to Oprah than James Watson.

Of course, radicalism too can be sold as something fashionable and satisfying. Though the whole Climate Change movement is about gloom-n-doom, people sign up because it gives them a cartoon vision of good vs bad. Everything is simplified and easily digestible to the heart and mind, and there is the happy promise of salvation of all mankind(accompanied with glib self-righteousness) IF we do the right thing and bow down before Carbon Pope Al Gore. Christianity too is both about gloom and doom AND uplifting salvation. Indeed, simple-minded negativity and simple-minded positivity seem to go together--just as comic book superheroes need to be confronted by grand villains. No doom, no boom. Indeed, Obama's presidency is inconceivable without the economic woes, from which he's to save us like Superman saves a woman tied to railroad tracks. He's just another Superman comic hero created by liberal Jews.