Showing posts with label 'racism'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 'racism'. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Notes on the Review of THE SEARCHERS(directed by John Ford) in Counter-Currents

https://counter-currents.com/2021/04/the-searchers/

I think The Searchers is absurdly overrated, for it is far from flawless. But it is still a great work of art that plumbs deep themes and stirs deep feelings.

Its high esteem owes to several reasons. Auteur Theory, mainly established in America by Andrew Sarris who regarded John Ford very highly. Ford has been a pantheon among auteurs. Also, John Ford and the Western are considered quintessentially American, and the Western genre defined Classic Hollywood. Though Ford made several fine Westerns, THE SEARCHERS gets extra-nods for its high energy and darker themes. It is at once a Classic Western and something of an Alt-Western more in line with those of Anthony Mann. Then, there's the French Influence. Jean-Luc Godard claims to have wept at the ending of THE SEARCHERS. Of course, the Auteur Theory(or Policy) originated in France, long an influential hub of cinephilia. Then, there was the Movie Brat influence. The American filmmakers who came of prominence in the 1970s got hooked on THE SEARCHERS. Why that one than other Ford Westerns? It was old-fashioned and revisionist. As such, it had double or triple meanings open to post-modern interpretation. It was as if Ford was channeling something of Sam Fuller & Elia Kazan in slight but significant deviation from his formula, much like Alfred Hitchcock with his batch of movies such as REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO.
THE SEARCHERS offered the nostalgia of Old Hollywood but also a bit of edginess to keep it relevant in the turmoil of the 60s and 70s. THE SEARCHERS, like VERTIGO, has been prized as a bridge between the old and the new, and also an indication of what Ford(and Hitchcock) might have been capable of with greater artistic freedom, available to later filmmakers like Sam Peckinpah and Robert Altman. THE SEARCHERS and VERTIGO represent the dawn of something new in American Cinema and yet also represent what was lost with the new freedoms(that could just as easily lead to indulgence as inspiration).
If Scorsese wandered into the darker regions of Fordom, Spielberg remained in the lighter spaces, as in THE WAR HORSE. So, when film critics, film scholars, and filmmakers vote for THE SEARCHERS, they aren't necessarily saying it is really one of the top ten greatest movies. Rather, they are voting for what it represents in terms of genre, theme, and significance. It also explains why RASHOMON rates so highly in polls. Though Akira Kurosawa made several greater films, its cultural significance cannot be overstated. Its effect was electric at the time and introduced the world to Japanese cinema.

Although The Searchers is set in Texas in 1868, Ford’s treatment goes beyond the historical to the mythic and epic.

The Western genre is innately mythic, but THE SEARCHERS isn't really big on myth. It's more folkloric and picaresque. Ford generally wasn't interested in Western genre conventions of the classic gunfighter and the final showdown that served as the basis of the myth. His Westerns were more about a group of men(and good deal of womenfolks) than about the Man. SHANE has mythic overtones. Pauline Kael derided the hero as Kid Galahad on horseback. And of course, Sergio Leone pushed the Western myth to the stratosphere with ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, which is really about giants than men.
Also, THE SEARCHERS doesn't feel like an epic. It spans several years over large territory, but the treatment is usually intimate and episodic than grandiose and sprawling. Much of the movie is a like a road movie or buddy comedy with Ethan & Marty and furthermore takes place in interiors. The movies doesn't try to be Large in the style of THE BIG TRAIL or THE BIG COUNTRY, let alone THE GIANT, a modern Western. There's no air of Importance to the story-telling. The obvious use of studio sets in some scenes further undermines the sense of the epic. Also, Ethan's brooding quality reminds us that he is more an embodiment of personal rage than a symbol of Western Expansion and Progress. He is an outlier.

The silhouette of a woman appears in the doorway... It is like watching a specter, a shade, taking on an embodied form. It has the feel of a creation myth. But what is being created? The answer seems to be civilization...

Ford didn't think in such big terms. That was the folkish Irish in him. She represents family, at most community. That's what Ford really loved and felt at home in. Civilization is a big concept with highfalutin ideas and monumental architecture. Ford had no real feeling for that. Even his modern movies, like THE LAST HURRAH, are more about community and a culture. In this, Ford felt sort of Indian-ish. After all, the Anglos often characterized the Irish as brutish, tribal, kin-oriented, and backward. Irish were more about pride than principles. So, even as Ford romanticized the coming of community to the West, he sort of lamented the coming of Civilization that would do away with manly roles and womanly roles in a close-knit community.


A rider approaches across the desert. This is a lawless land, where every stranger is regarded with apprehension.

Yes and No. There are Indian hostiles about for sure, and you never know when they might form a war party. But homestead is also part of an intimate community. Because there aren't as yet many people in the area, it seems all the white folks know each other by name. They are awful neighborly and supportive of one another, unlike city folks who are mostly strangers unto one another. So, unless there's Indian smoke and war drums, a figure on the horizon would likely be a familiar face and be welcomed into the house for coffee or broth.

Ethan clearly aims to stop fighting and make a home there... But Ethan’s attempt to reenter society and enjoy the fruits of peace does not last a single day, for there’s trouble afoot.

Ethan still can't get over the fact that the South lost. He has some of that Jesse James rage. If the Civil War were still on, he'd be in the fight as warring comes naturally to him. But by the time he reaches the home of his brother, he's come to bitterly accept that the North won and there's no way of turning back history. But deep down inside, he's smoldering over the defeat. He will fight with the Yankees against the Indians, but his Southern folks have been defeated by the Yankees, much like the Indians are being beaten by the cowboys. Also, he sides with white folks against the Red Man, but he probably feels bitter that the Yankee North waged war to free the semi-savage ni**ers against white Southern folks. The Yankees wage race war against the Red Man but also waged war on Southern White Man to free the black man who, being stronger and donger, could whup the white man.

In one way, the Indians disrupt his chance for peace and stability. In another way, the crisis saves him from a life of slow dissolution as just another farmer or rancher(like Eastwood character in the beginning of UNFORGIVEN before he embarks on a quest). He has reason to be a man of action once again, and he truly feels at home on the move. It's like the guy in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., while genuinely enraged over his partner's death, uses the opportunity to get his nihilist kicks. War is tragic, but peace is tragic for the man of action. It's like what Douglas MacArthur said about old soldiers just fading away. And the men in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, while glad to be back home, feel so humdrum. In war, they were heroes. And the military guy in WORLD TRADE CENTER(by Oliver Stone), though saddened by the terrorist attack, also welcomes it as godsend. He can finally do what his kind is meant for: To fight and destroy.

Who is Ethan Edwards? He is a warrior and a wanderer in wild spaces: the space between warring civilizations and the space between civilization and savagery. He lives in the state of nature, not civil society.

Ethan is functional in both. Unlike Travis Bickle who is a bundle of neuroticism, Ethan is an all-around personality who fits equally well in civil society and war zone. He can be sociable and chummy as well as fearsome and aggressive. He's in his environment as a wandering 'cowboy', but people of the community feel comfortable when he's around. He gets along with everyone while simultaneously standing his ground. In other words, Ethan is very much a John Wayne character. He's sort of like Pat Buchanan. Pugnacious and always relishing a fight but also amiable and sociable with people of all stripes.

Once the Confederacy was defeated, he fought for the Emperor Maximilian for money. But war is a young man’s game. Ethan is getting too old for it.

Age isn't really a factor in the movie. Sure, Ethan isn't a strapping young man anymore, but he's still younger than some others in the community. And his reason for 'coming home' was the bitter acceptance of the lost Southern cause. He stopped fighting because the Southern defeat was total. It seems that, for a time, in Jesse-James fashion, he took part in revenge violence against Yankees and Carpetbagger types. But it became pointless as the South was lost. It was a bitter pill to swallow but swallow he did.

On two occasions, the Ranger Captain Clayton chooses to ignore Ethan’s possible crimes because they need his help. They sense that Ethan is like them: a guardian of peace and family life...

It's mainly because Ethan is a tough guardian of self. It won't be easy to force one's will on a man like Ethan. While he's useful as another white man against the Indians, there's just enough outlaw in him to intimidate even a proud and tough man like Captain Clayton. Clayton knows Ethan will not come peaceably if he tries to arrest him. And other men would also think twice about arresting him. Besides, as fellow Texans who share the bitterness of the Southern defeat, they sort of empathize with Ethan's vengeful feelings and actions against the Yankees. It's like even law-abiding Southerners who didn't take part in Jesse James' criminality looked the other way because "it was for Dixie and nothing else".

For instance, when a fight breaks out at a wedding at the Jorgenson home, Ethan shoos Mrs. Jorgenson inside because he doesn’t think a woman should see such things.

I think he was just clowning, a way for him to say, "You womenfolk pretend to be for home and hearth but love to see a good fight like anyone else." So, his action was sarcastic than moralistic. It's like when Laurie pleads with Ethan to stop the fight, he tells SHE started it, and soon enough she's reveling in the sight of two men whupping each other over her.

When Ethan finds the bodies of Martha and Lucy, both of whom were presumably raped, he spares others the sight. He has peered into the abyss so that others don’t have to.

That was more personal than anything else. He loved Martha and feels that Marty setting his eyes on her ravaged naked body would be more violation of her dignity. As for Lucy's body, he kept that secret so that young Jorgenson wouldn't lose his head. Just as he predicted, once Jorgenson hears what really happened, he burns with rage and rides off into an Indian camp and gets killed. In a way, Ethan despairs what happened but also understands Jorgenson died a manly death.

Ethan doesn't try to protect Marty from the horrors of the world. He was certainly about to kill Debbie right in Marty's presence. And when he shot the eyes out of the dead Indian, Marty was there as witness.

Mrs. Jorgenson says, “A Texican’s nothin’ but a human man out on a limb . . . This year and next and maybe for a hundred more. But I don’t think it’ll be forever. Someday this country will be a fine good place to be . . . Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come . . .”

She was a school teacher, you know.

Texas is a pagan land that demands human sacrifices before it becomes a decent place to live. This is why Ethan interrupts the Christian burial of his family to begin the search for the killers. Texas is not yet ready for such niceties. It needs more blood and bones, and Ethan is ready to lay down his own.

This is over-interpreting Ethan's motives. He's just impatient for action. He is not a high concept person who thinks in terms of history, meaning, and significance. He lives for what is his, whom he knows and cares for. The only larger loyalty he had was to the South and only because of the Civil War that divided the US into North vs South. Even if Ethan lived in a civilized setting without red savages, he would always be impatient and a bit impulsive, like the Burt Reynolds character in DELIVERANCE who is eager to reach the river. (Why? Because it's there.) Or the Stampers of SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Ethan isn't acting for civilization or even for Texas. The school teacher may see her life as part of something bigger, but Ethan lives for himself. Even his rescue mission for Debbie is really about his feelings, his sense of revenge, his personal vendetta.

Ethan is a man in a hurry. The proximate reason for haste is that with each passing minute, the girls are closer to rape, torture, and death. The deeper cause is that he’s over the hill, so his time is short.

With Lucy, that's true. She is a young woman, therefore a sexual target for the Indians. But even as victim of rape and murder, she would still be a white woman who resisted and understood the horror of what had happened. But it's different with Debbie. She wouldn't be raped. She would be turned Indian. She would be accepted into the very fabric of Indian life, and her loyalties would be with the Indians. She wouldn't be sexually violated but sexually initiated into Indian life to produce braves whom she would love as her own sons. In some ways, this is worse. It's like turning Greek boys into Janissary who genuinely accepted Islam and fought for Allah against Christendom.

It's like a white race-ist being killed by terrible Negroes is less tragic than white kids being turned into 'woke' enemies of their own race, essentially tools of vile Jewish Supremacists and ghastly Negroes.

He is cold and ruthless, using Martin as bait to trap and kill the treacherous merchant Futterman.

Actually, cold-and-ruthless would have been less unnerving. What's truly unsettling about the scene is Ethan's casual camaraderie with Marty. He uses Marty as bait but treats him like a long-lost little brother. Of course, one could say Ethan was just playacting, but his fondness for Marty(by that time) seems as genuine as the ploy is calculating. Thus, Ethan has the odd combination of warmth and ruthlessness(which could be said of Ford himself, a real son of a bitch but not without a heart). And the crazy-funny thing is Ford did it with comic touch. It's almost as if Marty passed the test of manhood with Ethan, much like Paulie saying, "You broke your cherry" to Henry in GOODFELLAS. It's the warrior's code. Warriors are a band of brothers but also expendable. It's just the name of the game. Ford made a movie called THEY WERE EXPENDABLE. So, the more Marty comes to accept his expendability, the more he becomes valuable to Ethan who lives his life like it's expendable.

He is also increasingly savage... He even slaughters buffalo simply to starve the Indians.

Modern times make us wonder what is and isn't savage. During World War I, the entire German civilian population was targeted for starvation with naval blockades. In the 1990s, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, both products of elite institutions, implemented ruthless sanctions on Iraq that killed countless lives of children. And the US uses food-and-medicine as weapons in its Jewish-Supremacist war on Syria. So, Ethan's 'savagery' was pure amateur stuff compared to what civilizations do.
In a way, the dichotomy of civilization vs savagery misses the mark. American Indians were more 'war-like' because there were many competing tribes. But there was peace within the tribe. So, if Indians fought more, it wasn't because they were naturally more warlike or savage but because the sphere of peace was smaller for them. They belonged to a tribe surrounded by other tribes. Civilization has much wider sphere of peace but only because more peoples have been conquered and forced into the sphere. But when we ponder America's war-making on nations and entities that remain outside, independent of, or hostile to the Globalist Empire, it's utterly 'savage' and ruthless. Just ask the Syrians. Just ask the Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians in the Donbass. Just ask the Palestinians hated by the Jewish supremacist masters of America. We speak of civilization conquering savagery in the American West, but civilization itself is an amalgam of conquered peoples. The Irish who collaborated under the Anglos to conquer the West had themselves been forced into Pax Anglo. Same with Negroes. 20% of cowboys were Negroes, and they too warred with Indians. They too had been forced into Pax Anglo. So, spread of civilization is often about the conquered conquering the 'savages' yet to be conquered.

Ethan’s search for Debbie quickly takes on the quality of an obsession.

She is kin, the child of his brother. Also, she's the child of Martha, the woman Ethan loved. He lost Martha to Aaron, his own brother, and he's not about to lose the child of Martha to the Indians. Because she was abducted when young, the real problem is she can be raised to love the Indians. With Lucy, the Indians had to force their lust on her. But with Debbie, she could put out to some brave out of love. That would be the greatest betrayal.

There’s a lot to dislike about Ethan Edwards, but he’s the only man who could have rescued Debbie.

But the rescue is purely accidental, and her survival owes more to Marty. Despite all those years of wandering and searching, Ethan failed to rescue Debbie. He came close to killing her at one point, but Marty stood in his way.
The final raid on the Indian Camp wasn't about Debbie. The cavalry was going to attack anyway, and she just happened to be there. And she could have easily gotten killed if the cavalry charged in. After all, plenty of Indian women and children were mowed down by the US cavalry. This is why Marty asks to sneak into the camp prior to the charge. And it is he who kills Scar. It wasn't Ethan's plan, but by this time, he's gained enough respect for Marty, who'd grown into full manhood, to let him have his way.

The central hangup of most critical writing about The Searchers is that Ethan is a “racist,” even a “virulent” one.

There is a virulent quality about Ethan, but what is impassioned among whites is usually called 'rabid' and 'virulent' by Jews. Of course, when Jews exhibit similar passions, those are noble and inspiring.
Anyway, calling Ethan a 'racist' in the context of THE SEARCHERS seems pointless. I mean, who isn't a 'racist' in that setting? The movie features a race war between whites and Indians. Every white person in THE SEARCHERS is for the eradication of Indian savages to make way for white communities. Even the North, which abolished slavery in the South, was totally committed to Westward Expansion and the 'genocide' of the Indians. Whether Mr. Futterman the merchant is Jewish or not, plenty of Jewish merchants sold rifles and ammo to cowboys to go kill Indians with. Perhaps, the difference is other whites just do it as a necessary evil whereas Ethan really feels the 'racism' as a kind of all-consuming obsession.

A racist, in the words of Jim Goad, means “a vicious loser who hates people with different continental ancestry . . . merely to compensate for being an inadequate psychopath and to avoid taking responsibility for his own problems.”

There are people like that. Some white supremacist types are indeed the biggest losers. They aren't smart or strong. Their 'racism' is a crutch. They inflate their own egos and put down others to feel better about themselves. But this is true of all groups. Black supremacists tend to exaggerate 'we wuz kangz' BS to compensate for their loserdom in many fields.
Now, if 'racism' was meant in this way, it wouldn't be a problem. The real problem is 'racism' now applies to ANY expression of white desire for self-preservation. So, any European nation that doesn't want to be swamped by the Third World is 'far right' and 'white supremacist'. Of course, Jews push this invective, but then, they demand that whites, who must forsake their own blood-and-territorial inheritance, totally support Jewish right of identity, pride, nationhood, and even hegemony over others.

It used to be 'racist' meant a nasty hateful jerk who hated just to hate. Now, a 'racist' is any white person who won't totally grovel before Jews and Negroes. And even if they do grovel, they would still be charged of 'white fragility' or some nonsense. But the fact that so many whites fall for this goes to show they are idiots. It seems white greatness owed to great white elites leading the white masses. Most white people are only good for following like sheeple. Once white elites abandoned their roles as proudly race-ist white rulers/leaders, the white masses just turned to the new Jewish elites for answers, and it's been ever increasing levels of cuckery.

Ethan clearly isn’t a racist in this sense. First of all, he is not ignorant of the Comanches. He knows their language and their myths. He respects them as enemies. He clearly hates them. But he doesn’t hate them because they are merely “different” or because he is a “loser.” He hates them because of their treachery, violence, and cruelty. They butchered his family after raping the women, something they did to countless other white families.

Comanches are a fearsome bunch, but whites are invading Comanche territories. Comanches fight back like the Germanic barbarians did against the Romans. So, even though whites are understandably horrified by Comanche brutality, it's hardly surprising that Comanches would react this way to white encroachment on their ancestral hunting and burial grounds.
The thing about Ethan is he's a natural tribalist(though always wandering off into the turfs of other tribes). He feels most comfortable with us-versus-them view of the world. He even feels this way about whites. He surely killed lots of whites in the Civil War and even after the war. As a Southerner, he resented the North telling his kind what they can and can't do. As a white man, he's at war with Indians. As the brother of Aaron, he takes the massacre personally. If the Comanches had spared Aaron and Martha's family and gone after the Jorgensons, Ethan's anger wouldn't have been sufficient to become a 'searcher'. With Ethan, the personal is political and vice versa. The fact that he even fought in Mexico goes to show his main loyalty isn't to country or principles. It's about what feels right to him at the moment.

Critics are also exercised over the fact that Ethan would rather kill Debbie than allow her to stay with the Indians. Surely this is an expression of irrational “racism” and “hate.” But is it?

This is understandable. After all, Marty himself is shocked that Ethan would even dream of such thing. And Ford as storyteller is with Marty though privy to Ethan's motives.
It's a variation of 'better dead than red'. It's been a common theme for people to prefer death with dignity than defeat with humiliation. In STAGECOACH, a southern gentleman saves the last bullet for the white woman lest she be taken by the Indians. Indeed, this rule applied to men as well. Better to save the last bullet for yourself than be taken hostage by Indians who might torture you in the most horrible way. In MASADA, the Zealots choose to end their lives than surrender to the Romans. In DOWNFALL, the Goebbels' wife would rather kill her kids than have them grow up as 'slaves' in defeated Germany. Many Japanese committed suicide than accept defeat in the Pacific War. A woman in13TH WARRIOR instructs another to kill the children than have them be taken as captives by the invaders if the defenses were to fail. The black woman in Toni Morrison's BELOVED killed her child than have her grow up as a slave. If white men had abducted an Indian child and raised him to fight on the side of whites against Indians, the boy's Indian father or uncle might have wanted him killed. Better than than have a red man fight for whites and kill fellow Indians.

Still, Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is deeply disturbing because she is wholly innocent. She was taken as a child by the Indians and raised as one. Under the circumstances, she is what she is. To kill her seems over-the-top, more an expression and realization of Ethan's personal rage than anything to do with justice or purpose. (Ethan would want to kill her even if or especially if she found happiness with the Indians.)
Debbie's 'betrayal' isn't something she chose. She was acculturated into another world that accepted her as one of its own. It's like what happens to the white kid in THE EMERALD FOREST by John Boorman. He becomes a genuine Noble Savage. Now, in THE SEARCHERS, it's revealed at the end that Debbie never fully gave herself to the Indians. She did grow fond of them and came to regard them as her people, but deep down inside, she still remained true to her real family, like the priest in THE SILENCE(Martin Scorsese) kept the flame alive deep in his heart under captivity in Japan.

The real question about Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is, "Was it more for her sake or his sake?" I think it was more about his feelings, and on that note, it is wrong. It was his rage more than her interests that drove him to such extreme resolve.

Ethan also knows that once Debbie reaches puberty she will be raped. Maybe she will be killed then. Maybe she will be made into a squaw. Ethan would rather die than suffer that fate. He wants to spare Debbie from it. This isn’t racism and hate. It is an act of love in a terrible situation.

No, the rape issue was with Lucy. The problem with Debbie is she will be wed to an Indian. This is worse than rape as far as Ethan is concerned. At least in rape, there is the act of resistance. It's like the scene in THE BIRTH OF A NATION and THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS(by Michael Mann) where white women kill themselves than be taken by the Negro or Indian. White male 'racists' may be outraged by black-on-white rape but they are truly enraged by white-on-black love, aka Jungle Fever. At least the white rape victim resisted the Negro. In contrast, there is white lust and desire for the Negro in jungle fever. A white woman happily surrenders herself to black men. So, as horrible as Lucy's death was, Debbie's acculturation into Indian life seems worse to Ethan. She won't be raped but may 'freely' give herself to some Indian brave she regards as her husband to serve and obey.

Ethan would rather die than suffer such fate? You mean Ethan would rather kill her than suffer the fate of knowing of her 'betrayal'.

Whatever it is, can't it be race-ist and hate and love and honor all rolled into one? Why think in binaries? Ethan hates what has become of Debbie, but that hate exists only because of his love for her. It's often the case that the person you come to hate the most was the one you loved the most. You feel most betrayed when the person you trusted the most turns out the wrong way. The notion that Ethan, in his fit of rage and on the cusp of killing Debbie, was acting out of love is a bit of a stretch. There is love buried somewhere in Ethan's heart but also unhinged rage and hatred. He's not acting rationally based on questions of ethics(in terrible situations) but burning with fury of the moment.

The problem men face with women is twofold. In SEVEN SAMURAI, a woman abducted by bandits feels great shame, and later, face to face with husband, she would rather throw herself into the fire than have him look at her fallen self. (That peasant's rage makes Ethan's seem pale by comparison.)
In THE WILD BUNCH however, it's not the case. When Angel asks the village elder if his woman Teresa was molested and taken, the old man says, "No, the bitchass ho ran off with General Mapache who has more blings to give her." Later when Angel encounters Teresa at Mapache's compound, she laughs at him, and he grows so enraged that he kills her.
Kurosawa idealized the woman-as-saint, whereas Peckinpah saw women as natural whores, true enough in STRAW DOGS.

Raped by Black Savage or Jungle Fever? Long ago, maybe sex between black male and white female had a good chance of involving rape. Today, most of them are products of jungle fever, and furthermore, it's promoted by Jews and endorsed even by Conservatives and Donald Trump, the friend of Kim Kardashian.

TAXI DRIVER and HARDCORE, both written by Paul Schrader, reveal that the girls ran off on their own and chose to be whores than 'chores' and 'bores' in small town setting. And so many small town girls go to Hollywood and prefer to work as skanks than be stuck in nowhere-ville with the prospect of settling down with Average Joe. Even in PATTI HEARST where a white woman was really kidnapped and raped, she becomes one of the radicals soon enough.
Coen Brothers did a variation on this with the porn girl in THE BIG LEBOWSKI:

And it is this question that haunts Ethan. How much of Debbie's 'betrayal' was forced on her and how much of it was voluntary? Is she a mere victim or a willing accomplice with the Indians?

Martin Scorsese was deeply influenced by The Searchers.

True, but his yammering about Ethan-the-'racist' is so sickening in that series he did on the Western. Sometimes, an Irishman
would do well to paint his house.

Ford makes Martin Pawley one-eighth Cherokee. He first appears riding a horse bareback, then neatly dismounts while it is still trotting. He’s also late to dinner. Later we see that he is highly emotional and impulsive, although he is still a teenager. When he is a little older, he does not fight “fair” in a fist-fight. All this suggests that he has a bit of Indian wildness in him.

His entrance comes later to accentuate his 'intrusion' into the family setting as preferred by Ethan. The very sight of him triggers Ethan's deep-seated hostility. Ethan's reaction is 'animal', like when a dog instinctively feels wary of another creature. It takes time for Ethan's memory(of having saved Marty) and the family's affection for Marty to ease him back into the family setting. His mind knows that Marty is 'part of the family', but his heart remains wary of him. He feels tolerance but not bond.

As for being emotional and impulsive, those are more Irishy traits than Indian ones, whose stereotype was stone-faced stolidity. It's like Scar speaks in monotones.
We learn that Ethan rescued Marty as a baby, and this foreshadows Ethan's rescuing(or sparing) of Debbie at the end. Both 'rescues' have an air of ambivalence. The white-man-side of Ethan didn't particularly care to save a 'half-breed' child, but perhaps the Christian side made him do, though he shunted the kid off to another family than raise him on his own. Likewise, we don't know until the very end what Ethan will do when he gets his hands on Debbie. He doesn't know it either, also the case with revisionist NOAH of Darren Aronofsky's movie that combines the Noah story with that of Abram. In the end, this 'Noah' just couldn't do it. The difference between Marty and Debbie is Ethan's heart wasn't into saving baby Marty but his mind was — he knew it was the right thing to do even though he didn't really care — , whereas with Debbie, his mind is set on killing her but his heart isn't, which is revealed at the end.

When Ethan sees him, he blurts out that he could be mistaken for a half-breed. In truth, he cannot. Played by Jeffrey Hunter, Marty has strikingly handsome Caucasian features

Yeah, Marty is supposed to have distinguishable Indian features. Back then, it was the norm in Hollywood to cast white actors for non-white roles. So, we must go with what Ethan says than what we see.


When Laurie suggests that it might be better for Debbie to die than stay with the Comanches, it is obviously not because she has a horror of miscegenation. Instead, she has a horror of rape.

No, it's more due to her feelings about mixing with savages. She doesn't like the idea of Debbie having Indian babies and living as a squaw-woman. She's high-spirited and proud but not particularly sympathetic. She's a bit vain and selfish, at least to the extent allowed by frontier experience. When Marty rides off to find Debbie, she takes it as personal slight and grievance. She wants Marty's attention on her than on Debbie. In this, she is sort of like Ethan. Both act like the world revolves around their feelings.

The characters of Marty and Laurie bring us to the main faults of The Searchers. They are incredibly annoying: less characters than caricatures. Perhaps these characters could have been saved by good acting, but both Jeffrey Hunter and Vera Miles as Laurie are committed over-actors. Marty is annoyingly whiny and buffoonish, and Laurie tends to be shrill.

I like Marty, but the performance is problematic because the actor was too old for the role, especially in the early years of the search. He acts too boyish for a full-grown man. Also, he plays the most morally and socially/racially complex character in the movie, but Ford wasn't sure whether he wanted Marty to be a comic sidekick or the voice of conscience.
Vera Miles on the other hand shines like an apple. Her performance isn't subtle or complicated but from the heart, but Laurie is a simple girl with strong passions and full of spunk. She's a girl blossoming into womanhood, and it is peak Miles. It's a hearty and heartbreaking performance. She is bound by duty and does her chores and more but also defiant and self-centered. Her life revolves around work, but she wants the world, or at least Marty, to revolve around her. She's responsibility and vanity in one tight bundle. Even when she wails at Marty for choosing the search for Debbie over her, she goes through the trouble of retrieving the horse and handing(or hurling) him the rifle.

There is a great deal of childish flirting and bickering. It is often painful. But the worst thing about it is that Ford left nothing to accident. He clearly wanted it exactly this way, which is a terrible lapse of taste.

The problem lies in taking Ford and THE SEARCHERS too seriously. Ford never aspired to be a pure artist, and his movies are essentially folkloric popular entertainments. Much of the appeal owes to the air of familiarity. When you watch a Ford movie, you expect the similar cast of characters. It's like the Irish returning to Ireland to bask in Irishness. Ford's movies feel like 'home', even when set in the Western wilderness. Ford created his universe of characters, and the appeal was to popular and even vulgar taste. Ford wasn't exactly about good taste or sophistication. An average Ford movie was perhaps more complex than the usual Hollywood fare but not by much. His movies weren't Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. And much of THE SEARCHERS has to seen as Family Entertainment. It had nostalgic appeal, especially in the 1950s when Teen Culture was on the rise with the birth of the Cool. There's nothing cool about Ford's movies. When Laurie receives a letter, her parents hardly have any concept of privacy and tell her to read it out loud. It's old-fashioned and homey.
Though Ford could be somewhat complex, his movies have to be taken like Norman Rockwell paintings(than Rembrandts). Naturally, they are filled with archetypes and caricatures than three-dimensional characters. THE SEARCHERS is very much the usual Ford fare but something a bit more, as if entertainment has been miscegenated with art into something promising to be wondrous, or monstrous.

terrible possibility that Lucas also copied Luke’s annoying whining from Marty and the juvenile bickering between Luke, Leia, and Han from similar scenes in The Searchers.

That owes more to screwball comedies.

By the end of the film, (Marty) is man enough to defy Ethan then fight off Laurie’s would-be groom, a grinning, drawling buffoon about whom the less said the better.

That 'grinning, drawling buffoon' is wonderful. It's hilarious because he talks like a hee-haw tard but sings like an angel. But the single most memorable character is Old Mose who looks racially ambiguous and is wonderfully goofy. He looks both infantile and senile. Inspired personality and performance. One thing for sure, characters like Old Mose show that the movie was as much bawdy comedy for the unwashed masses as a dark tale of race and redemption for thinking folks.

What happened? Obviously, Ethan has had a change of heart. But it makes perfect sense. He wanted to kill Debbie when she wanted to stay with Scar. But Scar is now dead, his people will be killed or captured, and Debbie has run away from the Comanches. So she has had a change of heart too. Now Ethan can rescue her, so he does. But that was Plan A all along.

No, this is too neat and rational. His murderous feelings toward Debbie went deeper than the problem of her loyalty to the Comanches. She'd been defiled in his eyes and is beyond redemption. Sure, his rage has abated some since his attempt to kill her, but the rage is still there, as Marty noticed many times. (Marty says that whenever Ethan talks about Debbie, his face goes 'red rum, red rum'.) And when Marty sneaks into the Indian camp, it is as much to protect her from Ethan as to save her from Scar. Marty fears that the US cavalry raid might serve as perfect moral cover for Ethan to kill Debbie(as surely some women and children will get killed in the melee). Even to the very end, Marty tries to stop Ethan, and Ethan strikes Marty to the ground and rides off in pursuit of Debbie. It is only when he holds her in his arms that he knows for sure that he won't harm her. It's like John Wayne's character wasn't sure what he was really going to do with Montgomery Clift's character in RED RIVER, an emotional precursor to THE SEARCHERS. On the one hand, Wayne's character vowed to kill the 'traitor', but face to face with the young man, he refuses to shoot him and slugs him instead until he is slugged back... until they make up. This element of THE SEARCHERS has something of 'existentialism'(fashionable at the time). In the end, we cannot sum up Ethan's final decision with recourse to logic, ethics, philosophy. He was torn between killing her and sparing her, and he didn't know what he'd really do until the very end when she was in his arms. In a way, she saves him as much as he saves her. That sense of mystery is what adds power to that scene. It's like the closing line of Scorsese's RAGING BULL.

"So, for the second time, [the Pharisees]
summoned the man who had been blind and said:
'Speak the truth before God.
We know this fellow is a sinner.'
'Whether or not he is a sinner, I do not know.'
the man replied.
'All I know is this:
once I was blind and now I can see.'

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Accusations of 'Antisemitism' serve as Moral Cover for Jews who act out Antisemitic Stereotypes — Blacks use 'Racism' the same way — Jewish Supremacism requires more than mere Meritocracy — The Myth of Jewish Sainthood as Jews are after Worldly Power, not Spiritual Truth(except in worship of themselves as the new god)

The monstrous Sackler Family whose pharmaceuticals led to the deaths of 100,000s of white people, but NO ONE cares in the Media run by Jews
JEWISH DIAMOND MERCHANT 'TROPES'

The Antisemitism Paradox is as follows: Jews accuse people of 'antisemitism' to get away with acting like 'antisemitic' stereotypes. There's also the 'Racism' Paradox. Blacks accuse people of 'racism' to get away with acting like 'racist' stereotypes. It's like bad people accusing others of defaming them as 'bad' in order to get away with acting bad.

While Anti-Jewish feelings and attitudes can get out of control(and even become cancerous as with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), there's no getting around the fact that broad stereotypes about certain groups are based on reality. Indeed, something like Nazism was an extreme reaction to bad Jewish behavior. The radical character of this hatred was pathological, but it was not an animus based on insane fantasies that slandered totally innocent Jews. (Furthermore, Nazi evil had much in common with Jewish evil as both were expressions of racial supremacism and arrogance.) It's like communism was an extreme and dangerous reaction to capitalism, but many of its criticism and condemnations of capitalism were justified(and even defenders of capitalism noted its problems and saw the need for reform and some measure of socialism as counter-balance.)
If the dark tragedy of extreme antisemitism, such as Nazism, was that it could only see the BAD in Jews, thereby condemning all Jews into objects deserving of hatred and even elimination, the dark tragedy of the post-WWII period has been a mindless Philosemitism that could see only the GOOD in Jews. This wouldn't have mattered if Jews were a powerless people or a middling population, but it became the most dangerous mindset in a world where Jews have amassed supremacist power over the world. An attitude of willful naivete and sappy obeisance to the most powerful people in the world is dangerous, especially when the attitude of many Jews isn't much different from their arch-enemy of history, the Nazis. Jewish Power is based on Master Race contempt for goyim, though this aspect is obfuscated by Jewish-controlled media's mantras about 'social justice'. Right, all that talk of 'equity', that must be white Jews are in an equitable position vis-a-vis goyim. Notice that even in industries and institutions where white presence/power has been slashed to smithereens, there are cries of 'too many whites', but there can never be talk of 'too many Jews' even in fields where the 2% constitute the overwhelming majority as owners, managers, or influencers.

The problem for Jews is, even as they fear 'antisemitic' stereotypes or 'tropes' that cast them in a negative light, they are committed to and obsessed with(and even addicted to) doing the things associated with 'antisemitic stereotypes/tropes'. This is because too many Jews(especially at the top) aren't content merely to be good Jews who get along on equal footing with goyim. They aren't even satisfied with the surplus wealth, privilege, and power that come via meritocracy. As Jews have higher IQ, a purely meritocratic system will ensure that Jews will attain and control more; and as all barriers to Jewish access and ascension have faded over the years, Jews have much to gain from meritocracy alone. But even that isn't enough for Jews because meritocracy, properly applied, puts a limit even on the talented. While meritocracy favors the more talented group over others, it doesn't ensure total power for the advantaged group. Jews aren't content with mere over-representation; they must have overwhelming control over key institutions and industries, which is why Jewish finance sector is propped up by Jews in the justice department and deep state. (The notion of 'too big to fail' means Jews have more cards up their sleeve than mere meritocracy. Even when they gamble and lose, they are bailed out. And even when Neocon pundits were so wrong about the Iraq War, they are favored for hiring by Jewish-run media and think-tanks. Consider that miserable worm Max Boot.) And of course, Jewish finance sector favors Jewish ventures in Big Tech and other areas. If a Jew and a goy come up with the same great idea, guess who will receive favorable financing?

And Jews want to control the icons and idols that ensure irrational emotions in favor of Jewish Agenda. Manipulation of icons means Jews get to control the gods, and then Jews can preach: Jews = Holocaust = Holiness. Yet, 'sacralization' of Jews, far from ensuring saintly Jewish behavior, has only encouraged Jewish gangster behavior. Shielded by the aura of holiness(whereby any critical view of Jewish people, power, and/or culture could be deemed 'antisemitic', thereby 'nazi'), Jews became the 'made men' of America.
It's the law of human nature that, 99 times out of 100, more exaltation leads to more execrable behavior. Why were so many princes and princesses such spoiled snotty louts? All the adulation made Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong more megalomaniacal, arrogant, and tyrannical. (No wonder the Christian Mythology of Man ascending to God-status in Heaven necessitated that He be dragged through the mud and pay the dues. But then, the mythology says Jesus was God to begin with.) When man is allowed god-status, his ego is filled up with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, which leads to hubris. Apotheosis leads to appalling behavior.

This is why saints and holy men are expected to relinquish worldly power and wealth. To gain higher spiritual worth, one must abandon material ambition in the world of man. But Jews paint themselves as the new christs on account of the Shoah Narrative, and then use their sham-holiness as moral shield to amass more wealth, privilege, and power than mankind has ever before. Thus, Jewish saintliness is a fraud. While there are surely individual Jews who, as survivors or historians, tried to derive wisdom from the tragedy, too many Jews have used the Shoah as Shoah-business or a moral license to cheat, lie, steal, and even commit mass-murders against peoples deemed as enemies or rivals of Jews.
And this is what's so frustrating about the lectures, sermons, and warnings about 'Antisemitism'. Instead of cautioning goyim about the dangers of 'antisemitic' stereotypes while, at the same time, reminding Jews not to confirm them by practice, anti-antisemitism has come down to Jews doing whatever they please(thus certifying some of the hoariest 'antisemitic' cliches) regardless of morality or decency while the rest of us must forgo any criticism of Jewish power & abuses lest it be 'antisemitic'. It's turned into a sick game of 'Heads We Win, Tails You Lose'. Thus emboldened, Jewish behavior has gotten worse and worse, culminating in the dark year of 2020 when Jewish Power paralyzed the world economy with Covid Hysteria nonsense and terrorized the Western World with BLM madness to bully the white race into shame and submission. Of course, when it comes to sheer death and mayhem, the biggest victims of Jewish Insanity have been the Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East, at least those who live under regimes that refuse to be puppet-partners of the Zionist-controlled US.

Jews and blacks are the biggest destroyers of the West with their use of moral outrage as cover for outrageous immorality. So, blacks will say there's this 'racist' stereotype of blacks as criminals, implying that anyone who notices reality is a 'racist'. And if one can't help noticing it despite the admonition, just pretend it's 'teens' or 'youths' who are doing it. And on occasion that blacks do admit the criminality, it is blamed on systemic racism or 'history of white supremacism', which means black crime is reparations-by-other-means or rightful-revenge against Evil Whitey. Of course, blacks coast on such delusions with crucial support from Jews who are experts at moral sophistry. Because of Jewish support(and use of blacks), status-aspiring blacks tend to develop a moral blind spot where Jewish Power is concerned. If blacks are indeed opposed to all forms of supremacism, they would call out on Zionism but know all-too-well that they'll be relegated to Field Ni--er status whereas those who denounce Evil Whitey but overlook Evil Jew will be awarded with House Negro status, and of course, Oprah and Obama were mega-advertisers in this regard.

At any rate, the group doing the most harm to the West from above is the Jews, and the one doing the most harm from below is the blacks. If Jewish finance won't get you, black fist will. And yet, both groups are shielded from criticism because of the taboos of 'antisemitism' and 'racism', which are designed less to suppress unthinking bigotry against Jews and blacks than to protect truly bad Jewish and black behaviors from exposure and criticism. In other words, Jews privately know they are addicted to supremacist power and ethno-arrogance; they want everything and know that they must play dirty to get it; only playing clean according to principles won't do it. That means Jews must often act like 'antisemitic' stereotypes to get what they want, and what better way to shield this behavior from scrutiny than by howling about 'antisemitism' at every turn?
Same goes with blacks. Blacks are no longer content with promises of equality and freedom. They savor being the thug and acting like dey be kangz and shi*. They love to thump people in the streets, rob & loot, rape & pillage, and howl like idiots. They are addicted to acting like crazyass ni--az. So, just like Jews with their constant alarmism over 'antisemitism', what better way to shield bad black behavior from pushback than by hollering about 'racism' at every turn?

So, neither 'antisemitism' taboo nor 'racism' taboo exists to remind us that there are good Jews along with bad Jews(as the case is with all other groups) but to silence our noticing of bad Jews and bad blacks. Normal morality would lead us to praise the good about a people while condemning the bad. So, good things done by whites deserve admiration whereas bad things done by whites are reason for condemnation. And this should apply to every group. But with Jews and blacks, normal morality doesn't apply. Even the bad things done by Jews must either be praised(as somehow 'good') or ignored. Same with blacks.
Of course, normal morality doesn't apply to whites either as even the good things they've done must come under hyper-scrutiny and somehow be spun to seem 'bad' or at least questionable or marred. It's as if Jews are observed through the telescope whereas whites through a microscope. Jews are like gods in heaven who are far above us, and we must peer through a telescope for a glimpse of their greatness. In contrast, whites are pored through a microscope for every blemish. It's like Jews as diamond merchants. They examine the diamond for the slightest flaw and emphasize it over the soundness of the diamond as a whole. We are supposed to see radiant holocaust-holiness even in a Jew covered in muck whereas note the slightest blemish(of 'micro-aggression') even in a white of great achievement. This way, even a terrible Jew seen through a telescope will seem better than a good white seen through a microscope. Whiteness is like the stained fork in the Monty Python restaurant skit. No matter how trivial, it is cause for guilt, shame, and self-annihilation. Fork politics against Folk politics.

Examples of Jews using the 'antisemitic' card to cover up actions confirming 'antisemitic' stereotypes abound. Consider Jews and Pat Buchanan. In the runup to the Gulf War in 1990, Buchanan wrote a column noting that the biggest promoters for war were Israeli Firsters whereas most of the casualties will come from whites and blacks. Abe Rosenthal of New York Times howled 'antisemitism' and accused Buchanan of Blood Libel, i.e. Buchanan suggested Jewish sacrifice of gentile blood for Jewish interests. Soon after, even William F. Buckley Jr. was piling on Pat Buchanan who, in a few years, would become persona non grata in the GOP, especially as he reversed his support of 'free trade'.

Now, what is Neocon Foreign Policy but a case of exploiting goy muscle and sacrificing goy blood for Jewish ends? If anything, Buchanan's criticism wasn't strong enough. Indeed, US foreign policy as Blood Libel has been true whether Democrats or Republicans were in control of government(as US politics is a game of who-gets-to-be-top-puppets-of-Jews). Puppet Bill Clinton appointed heartless Madeleine Albright who said it was 'worth it' to sacrifice countless Arab lives. George W. Bush and his Neocon crew waged wars in which many thousands of American soldiers were killed or wounded and countless more Arab lives were destroyed, and these conflicts were essentially Wars for Israel. And Barack Obama was no better, laying Libya and Syria to waste at the behest of Jews who gave him money.
So, Abe Rosenthal's shrieking about 'antisemitism' wasn't to prove the falsehood of 'antisemitic' stereotypes but to give moral cover to Jewish behavior that all-too-often validates those stereotypes.
It's like blacks going on a looting spree and then bitching about how it's 'racist' to stereotype blacks as robbers and looters. That the West has willingly succumbed to such foulness is a sure sign of soul-sickness at the core, not least because cancerous Jewish Power has taken over the institutions. The sheer disregard for goyim is evident in what the Sackler dynasty did to white working class by addicting them to opioids. But even the GOP, the so-called white party, was deathly silent on that matter. One worthless Negro, George Floyd, dies from drug overdose, and Jews turn him into the biggest thing since Anne Frank, but when hundreds of thousands of whites died from dangerously addictive drugs peddled by Jewish crooks, and no one cared, and of course, white working class demise continued under Trump who, to save his own skin from Jewish attacks, had little to say but 'Muh Israel'.

Abe Foxman the Jew and Joe Biden the Goy: Master and Dog

Of course, the Neocon Wars validate yet another 'antisemitic' stereotype. Not only are Jews willing to sacrifice goy blood for Jewish ends but Jews use the power of money to control goy politicians and deep state goons like so many puppets and dogs. What honest person, in this day and age, can deny that Jewish Power controls virtually all politicians in a dog-and-pony show? Even Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor, though vilified 24/7 by Jews high and low, have little to say but "Muh Israel" and "I gladly sucked Netanyahu's pud." The relationship between US politicians and Jewish donors is like that between Hollywood celebrities and Jewish moguls. If you want to be a star, you have to get on your knees, suck, and make sure to swallow. There's truth to the notion of D.C. as Hollywood for Ugly People(though Hollywood isn't exactly pretty either these days).

The 'antisemitic trope' of Jewish Money in politics leads us to another 'antisemitic trope'(that too is demonstrated as truer than false by Jewish behavior). Jews throw a lot of money around, but why are they so rich? Now, Jews are bound to be richer than other groups because they are smarter and thrive in a meritocratic system. It explains why there are so many Jewish doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants, professors, and etc. But it's not Jewish doctors and lawyers who dominate money in politics. It's the billionaires and mega-billionaires. Did all those billionaire Jews on Wall Street really rake in all that cash by brilliance alone? Or is there a New Boys Network?
Worse, if the Old Boys Network dominated by Wasps could be called out(because there was no taboo against anti-Wasp sentiments and, furthermore, plenty of reform-minded whites were committed to self-criticism), the New Boys Network is a closed system because of the taboo against calling out on bad Jewish behavior(why, it'd be 'antisemitic'!) and the knee-jerk tribalism among Jews to circle the wagons against goyim. And with Jews in law firms & courts with further support from Jews in the Fed and Deep State, Wall Street Jews can play a rigged game and rake in countless billions... and if their reckless gambles were to fail, they could always count on bail-outs premised on 'Too Big To Fail', which really means 'Too Jew to be Through'.
And even legal means by which some Jews got stinking rich only validate 'antisemitic tropes' of Jews and their close association with the vice industry. Take gambling, which became cancerous and spread all over America as Jews consolidated elite power in the US(and of course, Jews have also spearheaded marijuana legalization and are positioned to dominate the business). Gambling is really mass-theft, and it has utterly degraded the 'family values' theme of the GOP that relies on Vegas money. What do Jewish casino moguls do with all that money? They turn politicians into servants of Mammon and puppets of Israel. That the GOP profusely eulogized a cretin like Sheldon Adelson illustrates how far the cancer has spread.

Another 'antisemitic' stereotype is the suspicion that Jews care more about their own kind, aka World Jewry, than about any goy-majority nation in which they are citizens. But who can deny this? Jewish behavior has been signaling this forever. Who can deny that Jews in Russia, Jews in Poland, Jews in Germany, Jews in UK, Jews in the US, Jews in Mexico, and etc. all feel closer to one another than to goy folks in the respective nations? How else can the New Cold War with Russia be explained except as a case of Russian Jews, US Jews, and World Jewry in general conspiring to gain total control of that nation, much like Jews have already done so in the US and UK?
One thing for sure, the last thing a Jew in a goy nation wants to see is goy nationalism. Now, if a Jew in Poland were indeed a Polish patriot(without 'dual loyalty'), he would welcome Polish nationalism, that is, if indeed, the 'antisemitic trope' of Jews being unpatriotic and/or treasonous is untrue. But, Jews in Poland hate Polish patriotism, and Jews in Hungary hate Hungarian nationalism. Not only do they want nothing to do with goy national pride but they seek to suppress it. Now, some Jews will say that they oppose goy nationalism because it's small-minded and potentially prejudiced. Therefore, Jews support a colorblind value system where no one is judged by the color of his skin or the label of his ethnicity, i.e. all the world must be turned into the brotherhood-of-man. Jews have especially made this argument in the US, supposedly a nation founded on universal principles of liberty and justice. Thus, even if it's true that Jews are disloyal to goy patriotism in any given nation, it's not out of wickedness or treachery(as 'Anti-Semites' charge) but out of higher idealism and humanitarian principles. But such self-justification yet proves another 'antisemitic trope', that of the two-faced weasely Jew.

After all, if American Jews were indeed committed to colorblindness and universal justice, they would reject Jewish identity & interests as they demand and expect whites to abandon white identity & interests. But the very Jews who tell whites to give up their own identity & interests in favor of universality & equality then turn around and say whites must favor Jews & Israel uber alles. It's two-faced and weasely. So, whites must give up white identity in favor of universality but then betray universality in favor of Jewish identity. It's just bait-and-switch. It's enough to drive a people schizo, and perhaps it explains why so many white people today seem to be totally nutsoid. Under the spell of Jews, their minds are filled with an unresolvable contradiction but must carry on as if it all makes sense because the 'antisemitism' taboo is too powerful. After all, if you question Jews, you must be a 'Nazi', and there's nothing worse than that. In a nation where even Donald Trump and white conservatives(who are much-abused and constantly mocked by Jews) go out of their way to bleat 'Muh Israel', questioning Jewish Power is simply out of the question. In a way, white conzos who are being destroyed by Jews are like the victims of Stalin. Even as the latter were sent to the Gulag or condemned for execution, they continued to believe in Stalin and sang praises to him... to their last breath.

So, if we examine the Jewish con-game, it goes as follows. Jews say Goy Nationalism is bad. Jews say Universalism is good. So, Goyim give up their own nationalism in favor of universalism. But then, Jews say goy must favor Jewish Identity-Politics(or Jewish Idolatry) over universalism. Why? Because... it's the 'patriotic' thing to do. In other words, American Patriotism is fundamentally about sucking up to Jews. Imagine that. The trick is really to make goyim reject their own identity to favor Jewish identity. But then, precisely because Jews fear that some goyim might catch on to the BS, they use media, academia, and whore politicians to fool the masses that praising Jews and supporting Israel are the highest form of patriotism.
Now, why would the case of a goy people of a goy majority nation championing Israel, a foreign nation, be the highest expression of patriotism? Since when is the celebration of the Other a matter of 'true patriotism'? After all, patriotism is about Our People and Our Nation, not Those People and Their Nation(or Empire). Imagine British Imperialists telling Hindus in India that the highest form of Indian patriotism is allegiance to England and the British Empire. Sadly, the collaborator elites can be bought with money and/or threatened with disgrace/destruction, and the masses are just dumb enough to fall under mantric sway. When something is said over and over and over by authorities of both 'left' and 'right', it just becomes one of those New Normals that no one really thinks about. Jews toy with the goy as if they are god messing with Job.

Some members of the Italian Mafia once tried to pull the same stunt that Jews have pulled over America. To protect Mafia or Cosa Nostra activities from scrutiny and criticism, they fronted Italian-American 'civil rights' organizations that complained it was prejudiced against Italian-Americans to cast light on organized crime within the community. So, exposing the mafia or Italian-American criminality was tantamount to defamation against the Italian-American community as a whole. But, this shtickolini was really to protect those very criminal activities from investigation. But just like the Rosato Brothers and Pantengeli were small potatoes to Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2, the Italian-Americans didn't have the mental sparks, financial firepower, tribal unity(as family loyalty divided the Italian-Americans into warring clans), and spiritual inspiration(such as Shoah Business that proved to be invaluable to Jews as moral shield and cudgel) to gain power over America, especially by ousting Wasps from the top position.

IT'S NOT THE RUSSIANS OR CHINESE; WHO HAS TOTAL SUPREMACY OVER AMERICA

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

The Great Anomaly? Just when the US was rejecting 'Racism' among white Americans, It was promoting 'Racism' among Jewish Zionists — The Main Source of Double-Standards in America is Both Parties have allowed to Jews to do as they please in the upper echelons of power

People talk of double-standards, and it's true that double-standards apply to different groups and individuals. Democrat leaders get to encourage BLM riots and face no consequences. Antifa scum go free. The Antifa and other scum who were rounded up for burning a limousine and committing other acts of vandalism in the 2017 Inauguration were all set free. The community college professor who bashed someone's skull got a slap on the wrist from the California court. Antifa can attack Proud Boys, but when Proud Boys fight back, the police only arrests the latter. Twitter and other platforms turn a blind eye to hatred expressed by blacks, Jews, and the like but force a ban those who speak up for whites and Christians.
But as the saying goes, "Fish rots from the head." So, why should it surprise us that double-standards define American Justice when they are entrenched in the highest echelons of power and with total support of both parties and their mass supporters? The biggest double-standard that defines America from top to bottom is the supremacism of Jews and the pervasive favoritism they enjoy from all quarters. Both the Democrats and Republicans have been totally complicit in this. All races and ethnic groups have been complicit as well, out of fear, cowardice, pressure, philosemitism, or money(as Jews have plenty of cash to throw around).

Do most so-called 'liberals' raise alarm when their elected politicians favor Jews uber Palestinians even though Jews stole Palestinian Land and continue to occupy West Bank and steal more of it? Do most so-called 'conservatives protest when their elected politicians favor Jews uber Palestinians? No, both the politicians and the people who vote for them are not only complicit in this grave injustice but feel hardly any guilt or pangs of conscience.

When the uppermost echelons of power act like this and not only get away with it but have the total support of both parties, why should anyone be surprised that double-standards(especially as devised by Jews) are such a prominent feature of America? All these 'conservatives' and patriots bitching about double-standards... well, where the hell were they when Donald Trump was hailing Israel and praising Jews regardless of what they do? Sadly and pathetically, most 'conservatives' and a good number of patriots were cheering the Jews/Israel First line while mocking the grievances of Palestinians.

So, if anyone wants real credibility on the issue of equal justice and rule of law, he or she must address that the US practices double-standards at the very top, with Jews in effect doing as they please with full compliance of craven goy elites, and that most certainly includes Donald Trump who, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama before him, pardoned some of the sleaziest lowlife Jews that ever walked the Earth. So, before white conservative males spout off about how Joe Biden, as the puppet of Jews, is putting whites(and especially white males) in the back of the bus, they should have some self-awareness and ask themselves, "Why did we support Jews in their agenda to dispossess, murder, humiliate, and destroy the Palestinian people, land, and culture when Palestinians did NOTHING to us? Why was it okay to force Palestinians to the back of the bus when it came to US foreign policy and 'human rights'?
And if the destruction of an innocent people was just fine with white conservatives(indeed with them patting Jews on the back and kissing their ass), why are they now so upset that Jewish Power is now doing to them what it did to the Palestinians... with the full support of white conservatives?" Indeed, why was Palestinian Nakba a great thing but White Nakba is a bad thing? If you happily fed your next-door neighbor to an alligator, should you be complaining when the alligator comes for you next? Did you expect gratitude from the alligator? Alligators exists to devour everything, and Jewish Supremacists are determined to enslave and control goyim. You can no more bargain with Jewish Supremacists than with Nazis or the Terminator. Of course, most Jews won't admit as much, and the majority of Jews don't believe they are supremacist, but if Jews are judged by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, they are totally supremacist and 'exceptionalist'. So, any 'conservative' or patriot who refuses to address this problem — Jews and cuck-goyim have instituted double-standards in favor of Jews at the highest stratums of power — should just shut up about double-standards at the lower levels of society. It's like complaining the river is foul without acknowledging that the source of the river itself is foul. It's like complaining about the symptoms of cancer without ever naming the cancer.

Indeed, isn't it odd that just when the US was moving toward a single-standard on one matter, it was also moving toward a double-standards on another matter? In the 1950s and 1960s, the US decided that Segregation and Racial Discrimination were wrong. There had to be a same set of rules for both whites and blacks(and measures had to be taken to enforce these standard for the latter). The idea was the American History was marred by two sets of rules, one that advantaged whites and disadvantaged everyone else, especially blacks. Given that the US was founded on principles of freedom and the proposition that 'all men are created equal', it was deemed not only wrong but shameful that America had for so long failed to enforce equality under the law for all peoples.

And yet, exactly at the same time, the US was moving toward a Jews-uber-Arabs policy, one of double-standards where Jews were free to do anything while the Palestinians/Arabs were called foul on just about everything. The American nation was loudly atoning for its past sins of racial discrimination and favoritism while, at the same time, totally prioritizing one group's ruthless dispossession, oppression, and dehumanization of another.
Worse, US support of Israel defied all foreign policy norms. It was nothing new for the US to have morally dubious allies, but it was in the name of national interest, aka realpolitik. As FDR said of a certain foreign leader, "He's a son-of-a-bitch but our son-of-a-bitch." Also, the Cold War necessitated that US form alliances with unsavory allies to form a bulwark against the Soviet Empire. But, this logic hardly applied to US support of Israel as the sensible and practical thing would have been to form alliances with the Arab/Muslim world against the Soviets. If anything, the US support of Israel was the main reason why several key Arab states allied with the USSR. Furthermore, the US had no reason to do any favors to Jews who'd been among the most radical, seditious, subversive, and hostile elements in the US. Not only were Jews prominent in organized crime but in espionage for the Soviet Union. Even the idealistic reason, or idealpolitik, didn't pass muster upon scrutiny as the Jews had taken the land from another people, one that had no role in the Holocaust. But the combination of Jewish Money & Media power, Christian sentimentalism, chutzpah, Wasp deracination, and awe of Jewish Genius led the US to favor the Jews regardless of what was being done to Palestinians.

This was the Great Contradiction or the Great Hypocrisy of the US in the second half of the 20th century. Just when it was proclaiming to be moving away from the bad old ways of favoring the white race over non-white races, it was doing everything to favor Jews & Zionists over Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims regardless of morality, ethics, and principles. Whites had to be equal with other races, BUT Jews could be superior to Palestinians(and eventually over all other goyim, which is the current state of affairs in America). Jim Crow was bad, but Jim Crowitz was okay. South African apartheid was evil, but Israeli apartheid mustn't even be mentioned. Of course, Jews could get away with it as the Civil Rights was a domestic issue whereas the Arab-Israeli Conflict was a foreign matter(though Israel today hardly counts as a foreign nation but the symbolic metropole to which America must pay tribute).

On the other hand, American opinion on the Vietnam War came to parallel developments in the nation itself, and when Muhammad Ali, perhaps the most famous black person in the 60s after MLK, chose prison instead of service, it gelled in the minds of many that the white 'racism' toward blacks and American 'imperialism' in Vietnam were two sides of the same coin: The Cowboys and Indians view of the world where whites were justified in conquering, killing, and triumphing at any cost. Indeed, not a few Jews drew parallels between US war in Vietnam and the Holocaust, as if the US had become the new nazi nation. So, if American view of foreign policy and American view of domestic issues could merge into a common thread with Vietnam, why didn't this happen with the Arab-Israeli Conflict as well? One might say it was because the Vietnam War was intense and involved 100,000s of servicemen(and 55,000 deaths), whereas the US was not militarily involved in the Middle East(except for Israel's attempt to sink the USS Liberty and pretend it was an accident, with total complicity of the US media, even then dominated by Jews). Curiously enough, MLK also took money from Jews and supported the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians. The irony is rich. He marched for equal rights in the US and denounced America's 'racist' war in Vietnam, BUT he was totally onboard with Jewish supremacism and imperialism against the Palestinians and Arabs. Hmm. His hypocrisy sort of betrayed what Jews were really up to.

But then, whereas the Vietnam War ended for the US by 1973, the Arab-Israeli Conflict lingered in the headlines all throughout the 80s, 90s, and beyond, though far less since the Zionists consolidated near total control in the West Bank and the Jew-run media began to look the other way. And through all those years, despite pro-Zionist bias in the media and US politics, surely any perceptive American could have noted that Palestinians had legitimate grievances and not only lost their nation but their remaining territories were being stolen by Jews. Today, Jewish Caravans freely enter West Bank and carve up more territory with virtually no opposition from US politicians. (And whenever Trump mentioned Israel, conservatives and populists cheered loudly for the double-standards favoring the Jews.)
So, whereas Vietnam just became a memory after the war, the Arab-Israeli Conflict was always in the news. Furthermore, South Africa became very big news in the 80s and 90s, especially with the sanctions/boycott movement. And because Apartheid South Africa and Israel were the closest allies, one didn't have to be a rocket scientist to see the parallels between the conditions of blacks in South Africa and of Palestinians in Israel & West Bank. And yet, Mandela was anointed whereas Arafat continued to be portrayed as a 'terrorist'. And the great majority of American Jews denounced South Africa while simultaneously demanding that US support Israel's repressive and discriminatory practices against Palestinians.

So, despite media bias, there was enough news and information out there for Americans to realize what was happening to the Palestinians and how it paralleled America's historical 'sins' of slavery of blacks and 'genocide' of the Indians. And yet, Americans never made any real effort to take notice(which goes to show that American Moralism is mostly the product of external pressure than internal conscience). They just pretended to see Jews as forever Holocaust People even though Shoah was carried out by Europeans, not by Palestinians who, however, were made to pay the price. And any attempt to bring some measure of balance was thwarted in both parties by Jewish money; it had to be Jews uber Arabs.
Black Democrats who complained were soon bought off or defamed. The 'Arabists' in the GOP were soon shunted aside by Zionist Neocons for whom the red carpet was rolled out. As the Western Right was more tainted with 'racism' and 'antisemitism', American Conservatism wooed the white Jews(as blacks were a bridge too far) over to the GOP as the more pro-Jewish Party.
Of course, the main reason for GOP's support of Jews against Palestinians was hardly different from the racially discriminatory policies of the past. Jews were seen as fellow whites whereas the Arabs were deemed the brown Other, aka 'sand niggers'. And Jews took advantage of this even while secretly loathing American Conservatives as crypto-Anti-Semites. And then, there were Evangelicals who had both racial and spiritual reasons for favoring Jews over Arabs. Jews were revered as the People of the Book(though slated to be wiped out when Jesus returns)whereas Muslims were just heretics. But what about Arab Christians? Well, they were the brown Other and less worthy than white Jews. Due to the Civil Rights Movement and canonization of MLK, it became racially taboo for whites to be anti-black, but they could transfer their racial animus toward brown Arabs via Zionism. Besides, the Holocaust Narrative made it convenient to support Zionist oppression of Palestinians in the name of defending Jews from Another Holocaust being hatched by Arabs as the 'new nazis'. It all became so disingenuous.

Yet, was the Great Contradiction really a contradiction? On the surface, it would seem so: A case of Jews denouncing white 'racism' against blacks but demanding that the US unconditionally support Zionist 'racism' against Palestinians in Israel(and even Wars for Israel that have led to deaths of innumerable lives); also, a case of White America making a big show of how it's seen the light and is on bended knees to atone for what was done to non-whites, especially blacks, while, at the same time, deliriously championing Israel's ruthless and supremacist policies of racial domination over Palestinians and Arabs.
One may ask why the Jews, who were the most vociferous white leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the biggest critics of white 'racism', were also the most zealous proponents of US policy that must always favor Jews/Zionists over Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims regardless of whether Jews are in the right or in the wrong. Why is it that Jews, who condemn the view that white lives are more precious than black lives, push policies that clearly insist that a single hair on a Jew is more precious than a thousand Arab lives? An insane contradiction?

And yet, the contradiction isn't such a contradiction if we dig a little deeper. Beneath the surface rhetoric, both Jewish support of black civil rights and Jewish suppression of Palestinian rights are of a kind designed to favor Jewish Supremacism. There is an inner-consistency beneath the outer-contradiction. In truth, Jews pushed the Civil Rights Movement in the US not because they cared about blacks but because they regarded White Christians as their main rivals(even enemies) for power. So, Jews were less motivated by altruism and sympathy(though some were) than by Jewish Supremacism that needed to topple whites and put them in their place. As white goyim greatly outnumbered the Jews, the most effective way was to demoralize whites with 'white guilt', which could be instantly disseminated to millions of white hearts-and-minds via the electronic media controlled by Jews. Just broadcast ROOTS a bunch of times, and whites will feel real sorry.

So, to Jews, blacks were less a people than a moral cudgel to beat whites with. Of course, blacks were also useful to Jews because, being tougher and stronger, they could rob the white man of his 'iconic' status in the pantheon of American Manhood. So, blacks were essentially a weapon for Jews to use against whites, not so much to bring about racial equality for all but to pave the way for eventual Jewish Supremacism. With whites demonized & demoralized and therefore sucking up to Jews and blacks for atonement, who would stand in the way of Jews for total supremacy? And indeed, that's exactly what happened through the years. Also, with blacks as bribed and dependent allies of Jews and with whites as guilt-ridden cucks(who worship Jews as the holy holocaust people), Jews had a free hand and could do as they pleased in the Middle East. Though some blacks may see the wrongness of what is going on, they are too dependent on Jews for money and media support; besides, what blacks care most about is "what's mine!" So, Jews can pose with blacks as the two great victim groups: The Holy Holocaust People and the Sad Slavery People. And what with whites burdened with Holocaust Guilt and Slavery Guilt, they dare not expend any sympathy on the Palestinians as every last ounce of compassion must be reserved for Jews(and blacks and then homos). It's the Guilt Tax. Of course, as Jews control the Narrative, people don't know about all the evil things Jews have done throughout history, and so, Jews are exempted from any burdens.

So, just like Tom Hagen says Hyman Roth played the Pantangeli Affair beautifully, it seems the Jews played the game masterfully. By feigning sympathy for blacks in the Civil Rights Movement, Jews gained the alliance of blacks and the moral servitude of whites plagued with 'white guilt' about blacks in the US and about Jews in World War II. That made it foolproof for Jews to do as they pleased in the Middle East and North Africa, finding any excuse to topple nations, kill countless people, tyrannize the Palestinian population(like Spartans did with the Helots), and act like nasty Judeo-Nazis. Jews sure know how to play the world like a game of chess. But with truth and honesty, we can expose them for what they are. Truth is to evil what light is to vampires.

Whites keep losing to Jews because they approach one another differently. Jews look upon whites with fear, suspicion, hatred, and paranoia. Jews see whites as the rival, even enemy, that must be defeated and subjugated. Just read the anti-white rants of Tim Wise and other Jewish Supremacists posing as 'human rights' activists. And so, Jews look for the most vulnerable spots, the Achilles Heels, of whites to make them bleed and fall. Jews have 20/20 vision on whites as the people who must be conquered and enslaved. Jews play the game.
In contrast, whites approach Jews as their best friends and wisest teachers. Whites look upon Jews with reverence, admiration, and trust. Whites see Jews as the best of the best, a people so wonderful that whites must be willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect Jews(though the idea of Jews sacrificing their own lives to save goyim is hilarious to them). So, whites never look for the Achilles Heel of Jews but use all their power to shield Jews from any sling or arrow. In other words, whites shield Jews who stab them in the back. Whites have blinders on that prevent them from seeing the Jews as the rival or enemy. So, even when the Jew attacks whites, whites don't see the Jew but see the Russian, the Chinese, the Iranian, the Arab, the Palestinian, the whatever. Whites constantly seek to scapegoat others because they are incapable of seeing that it's the Jew who is behind White Demise or White Nakba. But then, even many who do see the Jews know that the current climate is such that it's career suicide to name the Jew. Furthermore, Jews are not only going after your jobs but your bank accounts. The denial is funniest among white guys who talk loud and act tough, like Alex Jones. He acts like a barbarian-he-man, but whenever Jews kick his ass, he blames the 'Chicoms'. The Jew must be named because nothing is possible without doing so.

DON'T CALL THEM "DOMESTIC TERRORISTS", I'M SYRIAN LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT TERRORISM!