How the Nexus of Jewish-Dominated Media and Jewish-Led or Jewish-Funded Watchdog Groups Really Operate - Paul Nehlen and Kevin MacDonald

Consider this news story. Wisconsin candidate Paul Nehlen has recruited Kevin MacDonald to be a spokesman for his campaign. Nehlen is a Christian patriot and a free-enterpriser. But he also loves his own race, culture, and history... just like Jews love their own. Recently, Nehlen learned of the true nature of Power in the US. Thanks to open sharing of information on the internet, he was able to draw his own conclusions about what’s really going on. After all, it must be pretty strange for a White Conservative in America to make sense of GOP logic. Republicans say white Americans, indeed ALL Americans, must stand with Israel(unshakeably too) and praise Jewish people, culture, and history to high heaven... but the fact is most Jews are Democrats, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-morality(at least for gentiles who are to be turned into cattle), and scapegoat white gentiles all the time. While Jews sometimes tell their non-white allies(of convenience) that they, as Jews, aren’t really white-white, they blame gentile whites for all the power, privilege, and abuses of Jewish whites. Jews push causes like #OscarSoWhite because it distracts people from the fact that Hollywood is really totally Jewish. Jews also run Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Ivy League universities, the Legal institutions, and the Deep State, but if anything goes wrong or if people complain about too much concentration of Power, Jews just blame it all on ‘white privilege’.

Paul Nehlen may not be the brightest bulb in town, but he has what most politicians don’t have: Curiosity and courage. It wasn’t enough for Nehlen to just make money and get along with the Power. He asked questions and drew his own conclusions. And he arrived at the irrefutable fact that the US is controlled by Jews, that Jews are tribal & loyal mainly to Judea(aka World Jewry) than to fellow Americans, and that Jews are a hostile minority that seeks to usurp power from the majority via (1) control of media, propaganda, and the narrative (2) vilifying and dehumanizing the gentile majority and, if possible, instilling them with ‘guilt’ or self-loathing (3) gaining financial monopoly and cutting off funds and loans to groups counter-hostile to Jewish nastiness (4) Diversity by mass immigration-invasion that turns the majority population into a minority. "With Jews, We Lose."
Indeed, the destruction of Palestine was a dress rehearsal for what Jews have in store for all white people. There was a time when Palestine was mostly Arab-Palestinian. Initially, a few Jews trickled into Palestine here and there, and they hardly seemed like a threat. But rich and powerful Jews bought off politicians of great powers like the British Empire. With the backing of imperialist might, Jews undermined Palestinian resistance against further invasive-immigration. As more and more Jews arrived, Arabs grew alarmed and beseeched the British to stop letting Jews in. Arabs got so angry that the British felt compelled to restrain the Jewish invasion somewhat. How did Jews respond? They used ultra-violence to attack the British and indeed pioneered modern terrorism. And when the British Empire was exhausted by WWII, the Jews went to the Americans and Soviets to back the Zionist project. Against the will of the Palestinians(who were still the much bigger majority), Palestine was cut in two and one-half was given to the Jewish minority. Naturally, the Arabs rose up, but Jews had it all planned out to carry out massive ethnic cleansing of the Arab population known as Nakba to the Palestinians. Thus, Jews(who bitch about other peoples trying to ‘wipe Israel off the map’) wiped Palestine off the map. To this day, there is no Right of Return for Palestinians whereas any Jew can move to Israel. And Jews continue to occupy West Bank and use forced segregation(or apartheid policies) to keep the ‘peace’ through threat of violence. What Jews did to Palestinians, they are now doing to the West. If Jews themselves could take over Palestine, Jews don’t have the numbers(enough of their own kind) to take over the West. So, they use non-white invader-immigrants. Since Jews let them in, these non-whites side with Jewish globalism even though they don’t much like Jews. Some, especially Arabs and Muslims, hate Jews, but they still side with Jewish globalists(even though Jews destroy Muslim nations) because their main dream is to gain access to the West for material advantage. In the end, most people are organisms above all, and they will do anything(even betray principles or their own kind) for more comfort and convenience. Since white gentiles(especially people of Northern European stock) made the nicest societies, non-whites want access to them as shortcut to the Good Life. Since Jewish elites control the whore-cuck-politicians who let them in, the non-white immigrants(even anti-Jewish ones) vote for globalist candidates.

Some people argue that because non-whites have less guilt about Shoah and don’t care for Jews as much as whites do, the rise of non-white demographics will be bad for Jews in the long run. This may be somewhat valid in European nations that are filling up with too many Muslims. But Muslims will never be a major force in the US. They will always be dwarfed by other peoples, and most Muslims don’t have the brains to rise very high to challenge Jewish power. Also, even if non-Muslim minorities aren’t particularly reverential toward Shoah and Jews, they tend to see White People as the main enemy, especially as Jews control the media, academia, and whore politicians. (Non-whites hate whites because they love white societies. They want to live in nice white nations built by whites, but in order to do so, white defenses must be lowered, and this is done by vilifying whites and instilling them with 'white guilt'. It is ironic that the main purpose of anti-white rhetoric is to bring non-whites closer to whites than away from whites.)
California is full of Diversity, but the academia and media raise kids of all color to hate white people. Jews manipulate blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims to hate white people uber alles. And because most people are stupid sheeple, they just go along with the Jew-run Narrative. And of course, whore politicians, Jewish or non-Jewish, play along too. Jews are for Jews and non-Jewish politicians are for Jews. Since every society needs a scapegoat, Jews have made the White Majority the voodoo doll to stick needles into by all groups.

Also, even if we were to suppose that all the diverse groups were anti-Jewish, they are also likely to be anti-each-other. Thus, they won’t be able to unite to challenge and topple the supremacist power of Judea that has sunk its claws into America. Jews remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire in which many groups distrusted and disliked Jews but they couldn’t unite against the Jews since they were divided among their own kind.

Now, most white people have been friendly and supportive of Jews in the US, especially after WWII and double-especially since the 1960s when whites were made to feel especially guilty for ‘racism’ and ‘atone’ for their 'historical sins'. So, most white people became especially mindful of black and Jewish demands. And both political parties made it taboo to say anything critical about Jews. Virtually all Christian Churches praised Jews and pledged total support of Israel, Israel, Israel. White Christians slobber over Jews like dogs over their masters.

But Jews are nothing if not prophetic and forward-looking. Jews figure this pro-Jewish sympathy may not last forever. Why not? Because excessive Jewish success, power, and privilege may lead to whites noticing who the real masters are. But the bigger reason is that Jews know of their own insatiable greed and hideous nastiness. Jews know they can’t help being arrogant, abrasive, contemptuous, and vicious jerks. The likes of Albert Brooks, Jordan Belfort, Anthony Weiner, Sarah Silverman, Tim Wise, Bernie Madoff, James Toback, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, and etc. can’t stop being what they are. It’s just too much a part of their DNA. So, Jews figure that no matter how much white people try to like Jews and no matter how much sober Jews like David Brooks try to admonish his Tribesmen to act less obnoxiously, too many Jews will act like appalling a**holes and alienate everyone. Also, because Jewish DNA evolved as merchants and hustlers, one side of Jewish DNA tends to be craven and cowardly despite all the chutzpah. Even though Jews are aggressive and pushy to get things their way, when their whole scheme blows up, as with Wall Street or Iraq War, they blame everyone and everything but themselves. It’s like Dark Helmut blaming the other guy for the accident in SPACEBALLS. Jews simply don’t have a honor culture that defined the European gentile aristocrats. Of course, there were plenty of aristocrats who were heinous, nasty, dishonest, corrupt, vile, and craven, BUT, it was part of the aristocratic culture to maintain a good reputation and a sense of honor... and be willing to put one's life on the line to defend one's honor, which is why duels were so important among them. If a man was dishonored, he had to defend his honor. (Granted, proving one’s honor by shooting or stabbing is kind of stupid, but it still required courage and nerves.) Another reason why white gentiles had a higher sense of ideal was Christianity, the moral teachings of which were simple, pure, and consistent.

In contrast, Jews evolved as merchants, and those with haggly-waggly merchant-like genes were favored over those without. Also, Jewish theology was different from the Christian kind. Even though there were plenty of Christian liars, apologists, and propagandists, it preached sincerity, honesty, and earnestness as the highest virtues. Indeed, the fact that Christians failed to live up to these principles is what continues to haunt their conscience. In contrast, Jewish theology was about Jewish chauvinism and "Is it good for the Jews?" Also, like Arabs, Jews in the Middle East evolved in a far more tribal and clannish environment than people did in Northern Europe. So, Jewish theology didn’t instill Jews with virtues of sincerity and purity-of-heart. Rather, the Talmudic-minded Jews learned to twist logic, play word games, and use whatever tricks available to fool the goyim. And over time, Jews with such intellectual personalities were favored as Rabbis, and they came to define the Jewish Way. Though honesty is ideal in Judaism, it is permissible to harm other groups through deception and trickery IF it is good for the Jews. Thus, Jews feel no guilt about having used morally dubious means to get the better of goyim. Jews are like high-IQ gypsies in some ways.

Because of the Jewish Way and its tendency toward deceit, trickery, corruption, and nastiness, Jews fear that it will only be a matter of time before whites tire of Jews and even come to hate them. After all, deep down inside, Jews must know that Jewish expulsions from so many places couldn't have been entirely the fault of gentiles. Of course, the Official Narrative of the Jews is that Jews were guiltless and goyim were entirely to blame, but among themselves, Jews must know that simply can’t be true. It’s like adults will tell children one thing, but among themselves they know the truth isn’t so simple. Jews must know that they have a natural tendency to be obnoxious, abrasive, insulting, and exploitative. It partly owes to the tradition of the Covenant that said Jews have a special contract with God. But in modern times, it has to do with the combination of Jewish intelligence, Jewish spark/brilliance, and Jewish chutzpah/neurosis that led to tremendous amounts of wealth, prestige, and power. Objectively speaking, it’s fair to say Jews have been, pound for pound, the most accomplished people on Earth in the past 150 yrs. Now, Jews feeling pride over this is no problem. But pride can turn into arrogance and, worse, contempt for the less accomplished. Such arrogance can be self-defeating because those who are snubbed and made to feel inferior will hate the snotty a**holes. And this is why Jews pretend to care for the poor ‘victims’ around the world. Paradoxically, because Jews win so much as the Top Victors, they need to associate themselves with the Biggest Losers. That way, Jews launder their supremacist arrogance with ‘good work’, made all the easier by making the LGBTQ community, which is joined at the hip with Jewish Power, the favorite ‘victim group’. If Jews were high IQ but had personalities of Episcopalians, they would just be seen as rich people. But because of their nastiness and contempt, Jews could eventually come to be seen as something like super-rich Puerto Ricans. A people with all the money but no honor. Imagine Representative Luis Guiterrez with the IQ of Episcopalians, and there you have Anthony Weiner, the repulsive a**hole whose excessive behavior was so out of control that even Jews had no choice but to dump him. Or consider Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz, both of whom are half-Jewish and utterly blind to their utter foulness. And even gentiles who come under Jewish management turn out crazy. Consider Miley Cyrus, a goy girl raised more by her Jewish handlers than by her trashy father who’s bad enough, by the way.

Jews no longer believe they can control their behavior. Their chutzpah is out of the bag and running wild. Jews pioneered pornography in the US, and Jewish porn-performers like Ron Jeremy saw America as just a white pussy. Oliver Stone, half-Jewish, projected the Jewish feelings about America on Tony Montana who says it is like a ‘big fat pussy just waiting to get fuc*ed’. To Jews and their black allies, white women are just pussies waiting to get fuc*ed by their dongs and white wombs exist to hatch Jewish or black babies.

And that is why Jews need Massive Immigration-Invasion of Diverse Non-Whites from all over the world. Without Diversity that Jews can manipulate with divide-and-rule strategy, a majority population will eventually rise up against Jews because Jewish attitudes and behavior are too appalling, indeed so much so that even Jews carried out a holocaust against other Jews like the Edward G. Robinson character in TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Of course, non-whites will come to hate Jews too, but they come from all over the world, and as such, they won’t be able to unite against the Jews either. Indeed, what do Mexicans, Hindus, Chinese, Turks, Iranians, Filipinos, Guatemalans, Colombians, Brazilians, Palestinians, and etc have in common? Nothing. Now, if ONLY the Muslims poured into the US, Jews might think twice. After all, plenty of Jews in EU are wondering if it was wise to support Muslim immigration, especially as the European Left is forging an alliance with the Muslim community to hate on Israel and Zionism. But American Jews have no such fears because most immigrant-invaders to the US are NOT Muslim, indeed far from it.

Anyway, Paul Nehlen noticed mounting evidence of Jewish BS, and after awhile, he did his own research and came to the OBVIOUSLY true conclusion that (1) Jews are the real ruling elites of America (2) Jews despise white goyim as cattle (3) Jews are carrying out massive ethnic-cleansing of whites in EU and US via endless invasive-immigration (4) Jews promote ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) on the premise that white wombs don’t belong to the white race but to blacks and Jews (5) Jews use massive censorship to shut down dissident voices willing to speak truth to power.

Nehlen sticks out because he is so different from the cuck white politicians who fill up elite institutions. Because Jews rule the US and because Jews dictate the terms of admittance to the Elysium club, whites with craven and cowardly genes are favored. In time, white elites will grow ever more craven and cowardly due to genetic selection. Whites who tend to have courage and conviction will be shut out by Jews. Jews will ban Courage genes and favor Cuck genes. So, those with Cuck genes will be allowed into the elite world, and they will marry others with cuck genes and their kids will be born with cuck genes. In contrast, whites with Courage genes(like Nehlen) will be kept on the outside. Richard Spencer and Paul Nehlen have too much Courage genes in their DNA to take the thirty pieces of silver and sell out... like that fake former-southern-avenger Jack Hunter the dork whose career choice is wussier than his squeaky cuck voice. Jews weed out the cocky and favor only the cucky. Men like Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Jeb Bush, and Lindsey Graham will say and do anything to get ‘what is mine’. They are useful to Jews as cucky-wucks. But Jews hate, hate, and hate Donald Trump because he’s cocky than cucky. But given the immense Power of Jews, even the Donald has to suck Jewish cock(though he only pretends to swallow). Jews know that the Donald spits out the Jew cum after sucking the Jewish Cock... unlike guys like Clinton, Biden, Bush, and Graham who not only swallow but plead, "Can I have a little more?" like Oliver Twist. And then, you have super-cucks like Paul Ryan who not only sucks and swallows but pleads, "Can you please fuc* me in the ass to Hava Nagila?" (There are four kinds of goyim in relation to Jewish Power. There are the Swallowers who not only suck the Jewish Penis but swallow the cum. Most goyim in high position are Swallowers. John McCain, Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and etc not only suck but swallow. Then, there are Spitters who suck the Jewish Cock and pretend to swallow but spit it out. They are like Randall McMurphy in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST who takes the pill only to spit it out later. Jews get awful antsy with Spitters who are, however, tolerated as long as they don’t rise up too high in the ranks. Jews are angry with Trump because a Spitter became president. Trump does a lot of sucking of Jewish cock, but he later spits out the jism. And then you got the Swatters who swat the Jewish Cock away and refuse to suck it. Jews hate these people like a Pimp hates a whore who won’t do as told and suck. Just like pimps beat up prostitutes to make them suck, swallow, and spread, Jewish Power uses all its muscle to punish those who swat the Jewish dick away and won't suck. This is why Jewish Power punches hard at Swatters like Paul Nehlen who slaps the Jewish cock away and says, "Ewww, gross, I ain’t sucking it." And then, there are the Slicers. Slicers feel that it’s not enough to say NO and swat the Jewish cock away. Jews will never stop coming after goyim, just like Harvey Weinstein wouldn’t say NO to women who rebuffed him. They had to watch him, suck him, and fuc* him. He had the power, and this ‘god’[according to Meryl Street] demanded that women around him be suckers and Swallowers. And for that reason, Slicers believe that Swatters aren’t enough to deal with the Jewish Cockuestion. Just like Zeus dealt with Cronus by cutting off his balls, the Slicers believe that the Evil Scrotum of Jewish Power must be sliced open. Nehlen isn’t yet a Slicer but he is an adamant Swatter.)


Anyway, Nehlen, with the aid of scholars like Kevin MacDonald, felt the scales fall from his eyes, and he saw the truth of Jewish Power. So, he recruited MacDonald to be his spokesman. Nehlen won’t back down even though he was censored and then even banned by Twitter that works with Zionist-imperialist Jewish-supremacist organization ADL to shut down patriotic voices. (Granted, what Jews fear most isn’t someone like David Duke whose reputation has been sullied long time ago by association with the KKK but someone more mainstream and respectable like Jared Taylor and Nehlen who don’t have that ‘white supremacist’ baggage. Jews target such people and then hang the label of ‘white supremacist’ on them. Unlike Jared Taylor who totally cucks out on Jews despite being dehumanized and deplatformed by the Tribe, Nehlen will name the Jew.) Though one may disagree with certain details or theories of MacDonald’s thesis, it is no longer tenable to deny the fact that Judea, aka World Jewry, controls the US(that controls the world) and that Jews are working overtime to destroy white identity, white pride, white power, and white unity... all the while brainwashing or coercing whites to support Jewish supremacism, Jewish identity & interests, and Jewish-Zionist imperialism over Palestinians and across the Middle East. Jews are also behind the ‘new cold war’ with Russia, all the sicker since Jews financially raped Russia in the 90s and bought-and-sold countless Russian and Ukrainian women as whores in a vast White Slavery ring all around the world.

So, how do the media react to Paul Nehlen’s partnership with Macdonald? The Talking Points Meme article linked below is an prime example of Jewish-Supremacist mendacity and perfidy made possible by their incestuous nexus between Jewish-run media and Jewish-funded-or-controlled ‘watchdog’ groups. Since the Jewish media cannot refute the factual claims of MacDonald and Nehlen, they try to discredit them by appealing to the ‘expertise’ and knowledge of ADL. In other words, Jews in media outsource final judgement to Jews who run a watchdog group lavishly funded by Jews. Imagine if Arab-Americans ran the Media and, faced with controversy that might undermine Arab-American power, just call on some Arab-funded organization to provide Final Say on the matter. It’d be ludicrous, right? But that is exactly what the Jewish Nexus of Power does. Jews in media collude with Jews in organizations funded by Jews. It’s Jews talking to Jews talking to Jews. Now, these Jews will hire cuck gentiles, aka shabbos goyim, to break the news, but then, these gentile journalists hired by Jews better report the news as Jews demand... or else they are OUT. The media are supposed to be skeptical, but on key racial issues, the media just call on SPLC(aka $PLC) and ADL, both mostly funded by Jews, to act as the final arbiters on the truth. Just like Jews fixed the World Series in 1919, Jews fix Free Speech with three-strikes-you're-out on Youtube. Of course, Jews get to play referee in calling strikes. They never call strikes on Jewish supremacism and go after whites who reject White Submissivism to Jews.

Now, what can be said about Nehlan and MacDonald? And what about MacDonald’s claims about Jewish agenda and power? Since looking into the claims of men like Nehlen and MacDonald might uncover inconvenient truths, the media just call on ADL(or SPLC) to offer their ‘expert’ opinion. Now, since ADL is a blatantly Zionist-supremacist group and since SPLC is funded mainly by Jews, what do you think their ‘advice’ and views will be? Of course, the usual platitudes about ‘antisemitism’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘hate’, and etc. In other words, if whites don’t go into White Submissive mode before their Jewish masters, they are ‘white supremacists’.

Consider this article in Talking Points Memo: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/paul-ryan-challenger-hires-anti-semite-spox

It says:

A controversial Republican candidate challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced Friday that his campaign hired Kevin MacDonald as its spokesperson, a former professor at California State University, Long Beach who is widely recognized as an anti-Semite.

Widely? By whom? Oh yeah, the Jews who control the media and academia who see gentiles as dogs to train than as individuals with independent minds. It’s all the funnier since Jewish media people and academic personnel are filled with all kinds of hatred, hostility, and vitriol against whites. But if someone notices Jewish viciousness toward whites(and a long history of it), he is an ‘anti-Semite’. Of course, Kevin Macdonald didn’t just wake up one day to ‘hate’ Jews. Rather, he couldn’t help noticing social and political trends wherein increasing Jewish power piled on more and more hatred on the white race. MacDonald noticed that Jews act as a tribe with a group strategy. ADL is supposed to be ‘anti-defamation’ but it is actually a PRO-defamation league. It defames any white patriot, Russia, Iran, Palestinians, or any people who won’t bend over backward to Jews. Also, its definition of ‘antisemitism’ is a complete joke. Anyone who notices Jewish power and realizes that what-is-good-for-Jews can be bad-for-my-people is an ‘anti-Semite’. Anyone who notices that Jews have power far beyond their numbers is an ‘anti-Semite’.

Now, Jews may argue that Jewish success and wealth owes to hard work and intelligence, but then, it’s ‘antisemitic’ to surmise that Jews may have higher IQ. Also, Jews who defend meritocracy for Jews excoriate whites for having too much power and wealth. Worse, ‘white privilege’ is invoked to mask what is really Jewish privilege. Do ‘whites’ really run Hollywood? According to ADL, America is ‘antisemitic’ unless it agrees 100% that American Interests are exactly the same as Jewish and Zionist interests. Jews claim to be ‘progressive’ and side with the underdogs against the Power, but they refuse to admit that they have The Power in the US, and they smear as ‘antisemitic’ anyone who notices the truth of Jewish power and realizes that what-is-good-for-Jews could be harmful to his own people. So, a Palestinian is also an ‘anti-Semite’ for realizing that Zionism led to Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map and reduced Palestinians into a permanent refugee population living under IDF terror and Jewish apartheid. And a white person who realizes that the Jewish Agenda is Ethnic Cleansing for whites in the US and EU is also an ‘anti-Semite’. A more accurate term would be Anti-PhiloSemite. Philosemitism is blind and childish worship and admiration of anything Jewish. A Philo-Semite looks upon Jews like a dog looks upon his master. A Philo-Semite acts toward Jews like the servant to his master in TWELVE CHAIRS.

Kevin MacDonald is an Anti-Philosemite, and that is why Jews hate him so. MacDonald has expressed admiration for Jewish intelligence and achievements, but he is not is fetishist of ability or the Other. Macdonald believes that white people's positiveness toward Jews should be conditional. If Jews are good to whites, whites should be good to Jews. But if Jews do bad to whites, whites should reciprocate in kind. White-Jewish relations mustn't be unconditional like between dog and master. But Jews demand exactly that kind of dynamics. Even when Jews beat on the goy dog, the latter is supposed to honor Jews.
We are supposed to revere Jews as a superior breed because of their great achievements, but power, wealth, and ability don’t necessarily mean truth, meaning, morality, and honor. Nazi Germany was a powerful nation with many men of talent and ability, but it was evil just the same. George Soros is a wizard at making money, but wealth doesn’t make him better or wiser as a human being.

Philosemites worship Jews for their wealth and power. It has little to do with Shoah or ‘guilt’. If Jews have an average IQ of 90 and achieved precious little since WWII, how many white Americans would be mindless Philosemites worshiping Jews? All this Jew-worship is really a nihilistic fandom of money and power. To be sure, Jews have cleverly used the Shoah narrative to fend off any criticism or challenge to their power. Jews just say, ‘Nazi’ or ‘anti-Semite’ as they do to MacDonald and Nehlen.

Unfortunately, this Jew worship is found on the White Right as well. Jared Taylor is so enamored of Jewish money and power that his dream is to have Jews come over to his side. Bill Buckley gave Neocons everything they demanded but Jews still didn’t come over to the American Conservatism. So, what chance is there that Jews will join with Jared Taylor? Taylor is like Sal in THE GODFATHER who hangs his hopes on Barzini whose power threatens to eclipse the Corleones'. Because Taylor knows a few Jewish HBD individuals, he seems to think some kind of Jewish-White alliance is possible. But it’s comical because Jews used all their might to smear Taylor, kick him off Twitter, ban him from Paypal, and etc. Jews can smell weakness. A chutzpah-istic people, they can only be dealt with counter-chutzpah. Any good will on the part of gentile is seen by Jews as a vulnerability, a hole through which Jews can worm in and take over. Also, Jews can spot craven opportunism when they see it. Jews know that most politicians praise Israel, Israel, Israel out of careerism than conviction. They know that these goy politicians are a bunch of cucks. Politicians are their whores. Even as Jews take care of such people, they feel utter contempt for them. What Jew respects a total wussy boy like Mitt Romney or Lindsey Graham? Or Paul Ryan? They are total wussy cucks who suck and swallow for doggy biscuits from Jews. They are like goy actors and crew in Hollywood who work for Jewish bosses.

Talking Point Memo cannot refute anything Nehlen or MacDonald have said, so it does what the rest of the media do: It refers to ADL:

According to the Anti-Defamation League, MacDonald was first recognized for his anti-Semitic views when he wrote a series of books arguing that Jews are “a hostile elite” in the U.S. whose goal is to undermine America’s European ties and “destroy Europeans.” He is also the leader of the American Freedom Party, a white supremacist group whose goal is to “to restore and preserve the legitimacy of White identity, White heritage, and expressions of White interests,” according to the ADL.

That’s how journalism works in the US. On any issue or subject that involves Jewish Power and their critics, just ask the ADL and it’s sure to give an unbiased opinion, right? And notice how white identity and white interests are conflated with ‘white supremacism’. According to Jew-run media, any white person who refuses to kowtow to Jewish Supremacism, i.e. rejects White Submissivism, is a ‘white supremacist’. This is how the Smear Media, or Smedia, operates. Jew-run US journalism is just a Jew-run operation that consults Jew-run ‘watchdog groups’ for 'expertise' and opinion. (Jew-run media and Jew-run watchdogs scratch each other's back. As the go-to-voice by Big Media, groups like ADL gain prestige as a 'respectable' organization. And since such 'esteemed' organizations cater to Big Media, the media is bestowed with respectability in turn. It's mutual reinforcement society. It's like how the financial bubble began in the US with all these Jew-run-institutions and organizations patting each other on the back. This is also how Jews get to say a certain view is 'widely discredited'. They create all these dummy front organizations that mutually reinforce each other's biases and interests. So, there's no need to actually think about Kevin Macdonald's thesis. Just have all these Jews and cucks in their front-organizations spout the same line and fire anyone who refuses to do so. And it is also how Jews make something 'valuable', like those financial derivatives during the Housing Bubble. Since Jews control so many industries and financial rating firms, they all wink-wink reinforced one another. Same thing with Russia-Hacking nonsense. Jews had no truth but created the illusion of collusion by having all the institutions that they control to spout the same Narrative points. Jews really colluded to create the illusion of collusion between Trump and Russia. And Jews also did this with BLACK PANTHER, creating a climate where ALL critics were obligated to praise it to high heaven. Well, if so many 'experts' say it is super, it must be. Jews just create an echo chamber where only their voices reverberate and are heard. Now, it's not like Jews call everyone up to tell them what to do. Because Jews control so much of media and academia, they cultivated and conditioned everyone to pick up the Correct Signals and act accordingly.)

Now, imagine if the Media on a host of controversial issues just called on the American Freedom Party(instead of ADL) for its views, advice, and expertise? How fair and objective would that be? Not very.
And yet, the media see no problem in just relying on ADL and SPLC to offer the final say on a host of matters. ADL and SPLC are the High Priesthood of Jew-run Political Correctness. Indeed, the media don’t even provide the reader with a disclaimer that ADL is a Zionist-imperialist organization funded by Jewish globalist supremacists. But then, if the media were truly honest, they would also remind readers and watchers on a daily basis as to WHO really own and control the media operation. But if they did, we would wake up to the fact that Jewish supremacists control the US.

Jews Galore in the Jew-run media

Yes, that is how the corrupt Jew-run Media operate. Jews bitch about how Russia, Iran, and China don’t have free press, but the US doesn’t either. All the media and platforms are owned and run by Jews. Jewish publishers and moguls hire Jews to run the operations, and if gentiles want to be part of the team, they better serve Israel and say NO to BDS. Don't be like Rick Sanchez who noticed Jewish domination at CNN, and don't be like Helen Thomas who called on Zionists as European Jews who stole land from Palestinians.
So, as with politicians, the Courage & Conviction genes will be weeded out among media gentiles. Only those who are Craven & Cowardly will be hired and promoted, and those Craven & Cowardly gentiles will produce the cuck-elites of the future. The US has freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution, but the only speech and expression that really matter are Power Speech that is EXPENSIVE as hell. It takes billions of dollars to own media operations.

Jews rigged the game so that they can work for Jewish identity, interests, and power. Consider AIPAC. Judeo-Nazis can have Nuremberg Rallies for Israel. Look at ADL. Jews can unite to oppose criticism of Jewish power. And no matter how disproportionately Jews are represented in elite institutions and industries, you better not say anything lest you be labeled as an ‘anti-Semite’. If you’re a gentile and want IN to the elite institutions that Jews control, you better be like Nikki Haley or Amy Chua. Even Jordan Peterson, who has courage to stand up to trans-gender freaks and Marxists, goes weak in the knees at the mere mention of Jews.

Jewish censorship, paranoia, and hysteria have grown only worse for two reasons: Donald Trump’s presidency and internet open forum. Trump sucks Jewish cocks, but Jews know he’s a spitter than a swallower. And this makes Jews angry as hell. They demand total subservience to Jewish supremacist power from goyim. Jews demand that white elites serve Judea’s globalism and morally ‘identify’ with People of Color. It’s like Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Jeb Bush, and John McCain praise Jewish oligarchs and speak for Diversity but NEVER EVER speak for the white middle class, white working class, and white poor. NEVER! Jews fear that if white elites connect with white masses, the organic reunion will constitute a force that will weaken white elite’s submission to the Jews. Consider what happened to Moses in TEN COMMANDMENTS when he reconnected with Jews. He no longer served the Egyptians and returned from exile to save and lead the Jewish people from bondage. Jews are the Pharaohs of the US, and white people are, ironically, the New Hebrews waiting for a savior and prophet to lead them to the Promised Land. This is why Jews hate Trump. Even though Trump is no white Moses, Jews see him as awakening something in White America... just like Napoleon feared the awakening of the Chinese dragon: 'China is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will move the world.' Jews feel the same way about White People. Jews want white people doped out on TV, drugs, porn, and pop culture. Jews want white elites to grovel for thirty pieces of silver. It is to keep white elites as compradore-cuck-collaborators of Jews. And if white elites serve Jews, they won’t lead the white masses. And the masses on their own without leadership will always dissipate and decay and lose their way. That's what Jews want, and white masses are to be replaced by Diversity Helots or Helottery.

The other reason why Jews are freaked is that Open Internet empowered independent voices. Suddenly, an ordinary middle class person could offer his views on Youtube and gain an audience as big or even bigger than those for Jew-run mega-media conglomerates. Though Pewdiepie is not an ideas or news person, his super-success with a simple Youtube channel demonstrated the power of the internet. Jews also fear that these independent voices have one key advantage over hired journalists. They don’t have Big Jew looking over their shoulder. While many journalists in the profession are smart, experienced, and have impressive credentials, the fact is they must stick to the Narrative dictated by their Jewish supremacist globalist masters. As such, much of their intelligence and research go to waste because their editors will say NO. Worse, they can’t have any real integrity as reporters of truth.

In contrast, independent voices on the internet may be less credentialed, less experienced, and less erudite, but they have integrity in speaking their minds on issues they care about. This is why Jews began to freak and shut down & censor content on the internet. As Jews control most of the platforms and have the support of Media, Wall Street, and Deep State, they can get away with it. Some people blame the ‘left’ for the censorship, but Jews also go after BDS Movement that is generally associated with the Left. Also, Ryan Dawson is not part of the Alt Right, but his Youtube channel has also been nixed because Jews at Google work with ADL Zionist supremacists to shut down dissident pro-Palestinian voices. As for craven academics like George Hee-Hawley, he’s too busy bitching about ‘white supremacism’ and ‘racism’ to notice that it’s Jews who have supremacist power in the US. America doesn’t face a threat from Neo-Nazis but from Judeo-Nazis as it’s the Jews who now act like Nazis and have Nazi-like Powers. GAP, or Go Ask the Palestinians.

Granted, just because Jews act like Judeo-Nazis doesn’t mean the White Right should condone Neo-Nazism or some such. It’s true enough that Kevin Macdonald has been associated with such people, but then, losers can’t be choosers. When your voice is shut down and your kind are exiled, the chances are you’re going to make common cause with other exiles, even if they’re extreme. So, it’s true enough that MacDonald has regrettably been associated with certain despicable Neo-Nazi elements. Robert Griffin who writes for OCCIDENTAL OBSERVER is especially contemptible as a soft-Hitler-apologist. Furthermore, Occidental Observer can be pretty censorious too. When I tried to post the following comment to rebut Griffin's fanboy article on Adolf Hitler, it was rejected.


Hitler can't be understood apart from his temperament, character, and personality.
Some of Hitler's ideas were valid, some were invalid, some were nutty. Granted, even many of the ideas and attitudes of the Progressives of the time would be appalling to many people today. Woodrow Wilson, the icon of post-WWI reconstruction, had no love for blacks. Winston Churchill was a bigot about Hindus. Eugenics caught the imagination of many Liberals and progressives. The US media ran anti-Japanese propaganda as a Race War. The Yellow Folks were totally dehumanized... as the Japanese had dehumanized Americans.
So, not everything that seems extreme about Hitler was so extreme within the context of his times.
Then, why did Hitler cause so much trouble?
It was his personality, character, and temperament.
I would wager a man with sound personality, character, and temperament with BAD ideas is less dangerous than a man with foul personality, character, and temperament with GOOD ideas. Notice demented people made foul use of even a loving religion like Christianity. Jim Jones for instance.
In contrast, had National Socialist Germany been led by someone more sound and stable like Albert Speer, I don't think it would have led to WWII and Shoah. Speer was a not a psychopath. He took up National Socialist ideology but wasn't a pathological gambler who would have played fire with history.
Same in China. Mao had a crazy personality and used communism to tear China apart. Deng also grew up believing in communism, but he had a more moderate and cooperative personality. He was willing to compromise and go easy. So, Mao used communism to wreck China. Deng used communism to restore China and even adopted other ideas in a spirit of pragmatism.
Some of Hitler's ideas were horrible. But if Hitler had the character and temperament of someone like Kemal Ataturk or Franco, he wouldn't have gambled so recklessly. He would have acted more cautiously and soberly.
And he wouldn't have been so utterly heartless in his wars of conquests that were meant to ultimately raze Moscow to the ground, kill tens of millions of Slavs, and turn all surviving Slavs into slave helots for the German master race.
Problem with Hitler was he not only had some bad ideas but a crazy personality that was willing to gamble everything. It was classic megalomania. Also, Hitler's grand vision was beyond crazy.
In war, every side does crazy things. UK and US bombed entire cities in Germany. Japan was nuked. All sides committed horrible atrocities. But the US, upon winning the war, used peace to restore order and sanity in the world. Soviets were more brutal in their victory over Germans, especially in the mass rapes. But when the dust settled, Soviets regarded Germans as fellow comrades. Soviets didn't deny the humanity of Germans, Poles, Czechs, and etc. The Iron curtain was repressive, but the governing ideology regarded all peoples are comrades and fellow humans.
In contrast, had Hitler won in Russia, the Peace would have been total genocide and enslavement for the Russians. Unlike Italian Fascism and Spanish Fascism, the German variant of fascism had some truly insane ideas about race that envisioned and justified mass extermination and enslavement of entire peoples.
And that makes Hitler a very evil man.
Now, one could argue that Hitler had some good sides. And there were wonderful things about National Socialism that surely would have worked HAD it remained national and not turned imperialist.
But because his pathological side was so dark and because his crimes were so heinous, the evil totally overshadows whatever was good.
Imagine if someone comes to your house, rapes and murders your entire family after torturing them. But then, suppose he pets and feeds the dog and waters plants in the garden. Sure, he's nice with the dog and good with gardening. So, is he 50/50 good and bad?
But those are irrelevant considerations when compared to the gravity of the crime.
Hitler loved animals and appreciated nature. But he had a murderous contempt for Slavs. And even though he began as a German patriot, he came to regard himself as bigger than Germany. He saw himself as God. As Hess says in TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, Germany is Hitler and Hitler is Germany. In other words, German people exist to serve him, glorify him, obey him. And when Germany was falling in the end, did Hitler blame himself? Did he apologize to the Germans who'd followed him like dogs? No, he blamed them for failing him. He ordered Albert Speer to blow up everything. He wanted Germans to be wiped out for their failure to fulfill his vision. Hitler's punishment for the Germans went far beyond the Morgenthau Plan. Hitler also ordered Paris to be blown up. But thankfully, Speer disobeyed him. And his officers in Paris also disobeyed him. Maybe they shared his ideology but they didn't share is pathology. Personality matters, and from childhood, Hitler was born 'evil'. In that sense, can we really blame him? If a child is born with extreme pathological personality, is it his fault?
Today, it's the Jews who've gone pathological. Any people have its share of extremist personalities. And any people can be misled by lunatics. It happened with Germany and Japan in WWII.
Now, Jews are intoxicated with power and going nuts, restarting a new cold war with Russia and using US power to wage Wars for Israel that have destroyed millions of lives. And Jews are engineering total lebensraum for the West whereupon white nations will be flooded with non-whites to be used as Janissary by Jewish lunatics.
Jews suffered greatly under Hitler, but they are the new Hitlers.

But then, let’s not forget Barack Obama was chum-chummy with Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, and Zionist supremacists, but that was no disqualification for him to be President. And let’s keep in mind CNN hired avowed communist Van Jones. And Howard Zinn was good friends with Bob Avakian who, to this day, admires mass-killers Stalin and Mao. So, MacDonald is hardly alone in having some extreme associates. If anything, it’s no big deal for those on the ‘left’ to be associated with all sorts of extremists. NYU hired a professor who was fired from Drexel university for calling for ‘white genocide’. And Nikki Haley and Amy Chua are cheerleaders for Jewish globalist power that have destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and crushes the hopes of Palestinians. So, for globalist snakes to accuse people like MacDonald of ‘extremism’ is disingenuous to say the least. If the elites don't want extremism, maybe they shouldn't have let the colleges be taken over by insane Jewish Supremacists, Homo degenerates, and anti-white lunatics.

Holodolatry(or Holocaust-Idolatry) needs to be countered with Holo-Correction and Holo-Context — Don't Deny the Horrors of World War II but Correct the Falsehoods and Provide the Contexts

Why Not Question “the Holocaust” in Schools? - The standard narrative does not stand up to serious historical scrutiny - by PHILIP GIRALDI — https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/why-not-question-the-holocaust-in-schools/#comment-4993303

This Texas proposal might as well be a gift to Jewish Power because it defines the discussion into "Holocaust Did Happen" and "Holocaust Didn't Happen", with precious little in between. It's like posing the Soviet Question as one of "Stalin killed 30 million people" and "Stalin hardly killed anyone." What about the possibility that Stalin might have killed 20 million, 10 million, or 5 million? Should the question about the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodia Tragedy boil down to "Did Pol Pot kill 3 million?" or "Did Pol Pot kill no one"? It's a false dichotomy, the kind which has long dogged the discourse on the Shoah.

What we need is to treat the Holocaust as history, thereby opening up discussion and allowing questions, some of them inconvenient(given the current political/moral climate). The real problem is the Holocaust is treated as dogma, even a quasi-religion. We are to believe that 6 million Jews were killed(and one digit less is tantamount to 'denial') and that Jews were totally innocent and pure-as-snow, i.e. the German and other Anti-Semites just went bat-shit crazy due to history of European Christianity and 'scientific racism'.
But this is like saying 200,000 Japanese perished instantly in the nuking of Hiroshima(and don't you dare ask if the casualty number might have been less, say 100,000 or 80,000 as that would be Denial!) and that the bombing was done just for the hell of it(because America couldn't resist doing something horribly 'racist', which is part of its DNA). Now, it's true that many innocents died in Hiroshima and there was a lot of anti-Japanese and anti-Asian animus in the US. But the nuking cannot be understood without the larger context of the Pacific War and Japan's aggressive role in it. Even if one concludes the nuking was unjustified or believes that countless innocents died(even if the nuking was justified), it'd be foolish to argue that it happened simply because white Americans, riled up by anti-Asian prejudice, decided to nuke Japan for the fun of it. Japan too had been a player in the imperial conflict for hegemony over the Pacific and had plenty of blood on its hands. Of course, just because Japan did bad doesn't mean the US did good. And even if one were to argue the US did bad in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it doesn't follow that Japan was good. After all, gangsters fight and kill one another all the time. It's possible that all sides are bad in one way or another. Some may be worse, but that still doesn't make the less psychotic gangsters good. They too are thugs after all. Foreign Affairs have always been gangster politics, and genuine good guys on the international scale have been as rare as the white tiger or two-headed snake.

Then, in order to have a deeper and more meaningful discussion of World War II and Shoah, there must be an honest discussion of the historical-social-economic context. Now, care must be taken so as not to use the context as mere excuse or rationale. After all, that would be too easy. Any side can say, "We did it cuz they did it" or "They did bad, so we did bad too to get even." It's like a trial where lawyers for the prosecution and the defense frame events in such manner to favor their side.
History isn't about who is innocent and who is guilty. While it's reasonably simple and fair-minded to ascribe guilt or innocence to individuals, matters are far more complicated as players and participants in History aren't lone individuals but entire systems, vast populations, and agendas across entire eras. Thus, one can be part of a nation or population that was once victimized by aggressors but later became powerful and aggressive toward others. Americans, for instance, can see themselves as rebels against British Tyranny, 'genocidal' invaders against the American Indians, the enslavers of blacks, the liberators of blacks(and enders of slavery), spreaders of liberty(and democracy), champions of free enterprise, neo-imperialist exploiters, robbers of Mexican lands, slayers of evil German and Japanese empires(and saviors of Jews), and/or enablers of Jewish Supremacism.
And in some events, a nation could be both good and bad. Some see the US role in Vietnam as noble, an attempt to spare the Southern Half from the brutality of communism in the North. Others see US as neo-imperialist interventionists trying to prevent the natural unification of a nation that had finally freed itself from French Colonialism.

Even when it comes to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists, one will not understand history if they're merely seen as evil. If Hitler was little more than Charles Manson and if National Socialism was about nothing but murderous nuttery, how did they come to power? Why did they gain such popularity? Isn't it more likely that they had some good ideas that appealed to the long-suffering German masses and had some genuine policy triumphs before Hitler increasingly embarked on a game of 'chicken' with neighboring nations that, since late 19th century, developed a certain dread about German power? So, even if National Socialism steered toward the abyss by gambling with history, it had come to power with a measure of legitimacy because its platform and criticism struck a chord with many German folks who'd directly witnessed the degenerate dystopianism of the Weimar years. (If the Weimar era and National Socialist era demonstrate one thing, it's that neither brazen dystopianism nor radical utopianism is the answer). If National Socialism and the Germans who supported it weren't all bad, then it follows that the Jews, who became its main victims, weren't all good.

Besides, it's not as if the Germans picked on some hapless and powerless minority. It was not like a cat attacking a sparrow that poses no harm. Rather, the Germans targeted Jews as the most powerful and problematic minority group in Europe(and the UK and US). Germans felt especially betrayed by Jewish crimes during the Weimar Period because their nation, relatively speaking, had been nicer to Jews than, say, Poland and France have been. Germans-against-Jews wasn't like a cat picking on a sparrow or a dog attacking a rabbit. It was like a dog attacking a fox or weasel in the henhouse. Many Jews weren't a hapless and powerless group of kindly merchants selling toys(as depicted in THE TIN DRUM the film by Volker Schlondorff) but gangsters, financial thieves, cultural degenerates, and/or part of the global World Jewry cabal. Of course, there were nice Jewish merchants who had no part in Jewish Evil, and the National Socialism was demented in targeting all Jews, but Germans had good reasons to tackle the Jewish Question as Jews were an extraordinary people with tremendous potential for good or evil, or both, but that could also be said for National Socialism, a movement that did much good before it did much bad.

It's true that context is often invoked(especially by polemicists) to excuse a certain power and its actions, but history cannot be understood without context. Nothing just happens out of the blue. People react to conditions and events. They may misdiagnose the problem and do foolish and even horrible things. Also, the so-called response or solution may make things worse. It's like we can understand why Ugandans and other black Africans were upset with the domination of Asian Indian merchants in the aftermath of British Empire's departure. But the solution was also misdiagnosed because, while it was true enough that Asian-Indians took advantage of a world order established by British Imperialism, they also gained market dominance because blacks lacked the skills to run modern economies or even a sincere willingness to learn. And so, the forced departure of the Asian-Indians didn't lead to economic boom for the blacks but depression and shortages(that soon fueled more social strife and political crises).
Still, we can understand why the native majorities were upset with so much of the economy being dominated by a foreign minority, a sentiment also widespread in Southeast Asia and Philippines in regards to the Chinese. Part of the reason is envy, but it is also a matter of anxiety. How can any patriot be certain that the foreign minority influence, especially in bribing and corrupting politicians, may well undermine the sovereignty of the nation? (Indeed, what have Jewish wealth and power done to the sovereignty of Western nations?) And the super-rich rarely happen to be men of integrity or principles. While plenty of successful people have smarts and talent, few rarely reach the top without dirty tricks; it takes a certain sociopathy to violate so many rules for personal gain. Then, it should be of no surprise that European native majorities found Jewish Minority Power to be deeply problematic. Not only were Jews smart and successful but many of them were devious, cunning, and even downright criminal(and without scruples). Also, even if good many Jews had redeeming qualities and were capable of loyalty, their fealty and devotion were mainly tribal than for the goy nation and people in which they made their fortune. It's like Sheldon Adelson made his billions in the US and the goy world, but his stated regret is having donned the uniform of the US military than of the IDF. So, Adelson's one redeeming quality, that of patriotism and loyalty, wasn't to the majority goy America but to the Jewish Israel.

The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it concentrates on 'Anne Frank' Jews while wholly ignoring 'Leo Frank' Jews. (Leo Frank was an American Jew, but we're using him as a metaphor here.) The Narrative would have us believe Jews were all or mostly sweet and innocent like Anne Frank, but deranged 'Anti-Semites' just went crazy and decided to murder a whole bunch of the nicest people in the world. In truth, there were many Jews who were more like Leo Frank, especially in the upper echelons of Jewish Power. Indeed, the Leo Frank case offers a glimpse into how World Jewry operates. Instead of good Jews standing with good goyim against bad people(Jews and goyim alike), Jews(even more than goyim) stick with the bad among them on the basis of tribal loyalty and supremacism.
So, the Shoah was more like goyim reacting to Leo-Frank-Jews of the world but then, tragically enough, even going after Anne-Frank-Jews.
Sadly, it's often been the case that war on one tribal pathology led to another tribal pathology, which is what National Socialism turned out to be. But then, there was a time when Neo-Conservatism was greeted with much interest as having set forth a new path for American Conservatism that had grown moribund over the years — indeed the old-school Republicans in the late Sixties and Eighties capitalized on Liberal/Democratic failures than came up with winning formulas of their own. It was at this time that Neo-Conservatism saw their opportunity as the energetic and creative wing of American Conservatism. It gained traction for valid reasons. But just like National Socialism had a pathological core, the innermost agenda of Neo-Conservatism turned out to be pathological Jewish supremacism, and once the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton's synthesis of 'economic conservatism' and 'social liberalism' was achieved(which is exactly what most Jews wanted), the so-called Neocons had little on their minds but Wars for Israel. Zionist fingerprints are not only all over the plans for war but on events like 9/11 that finally pushed the American Public over the edge in supporting massive troop deployments to the Middle East to transform the entire region into puppet-democracies(the strings of which would be pulled by US in the palm of Zion) or a ceaseless war zone where Arabs and others, driven into sectarian distrust, would end up slaughtering one another while NATO and Zion armed the various sides to further the blood-letting. But as with National Socialism, the evil of Neoconservatism cannot be understood without taking the larger context into account. One wonders if Neoconservatism was always demented at the core with future war plans to bring about Jewish-Zionist hegemony or it became demented over time because power has a way of growing bolder, more arrogant, and more reckless with every victory. Given the Zionist fingerprints all over 9/11, it suggests Neocons were always dark agents of Zion or, at the very least, inseparable from the Zionist or Yinonist Agenda. Still, Neoconservatives gained influence by proposing some useful ideas to an American Conservatism that had grown staid and stale.

Now, if Jews were a poor and powerless people, it wouldn't much matter what we believed about the Holocaust. It's like what we believe about the American Indians or Australian Aborigines hardly matters because they are a powerless group. But the Holocaust Narrative has had a malignant impact because Jews are the most powerful people in the world, not least because they tamed the Northern European stock to be their war horse. It's one thing to be willfully naive about a powerless people but quite another to be that way about the most powerful people whose megalomania, political-spiritual-moral-historical-intellectual-etc., is totally out of control. It's like the West's willful naivete about blacks-as-innocent-childlike-saints has done great harm, especially in the Era of St. George Floyd. In truth, the black comprises some of the most aggressive, most criminal, most brutal, and most savage thugs in the West, BUT the Jewish-run Narrative holds that innocent blacks are being brutalized and murdered by 'racist' white cops and whites in general. Result has been demands to 'defund the police' while defending the thugs, leading to more murders and mayhem in city after city.

Now, just because Jews are powerful and have done lots of bad doesn't mean that the Shoah didn't happen or that many innocent Jews perished in it, no more and no less than the fact that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in World War II, even those who opposed their regimes and the wars. Also, even the worst Jews deserve their day in court. It's like the dire facts of black brutality and aggression(that largely arise from black genetic character) don't mean that blacks weren't exploited as slaves and were victimized by whites in the past. It'd be fallacious to say, just because Jewish Power is currently so evil, innocent Jews weren't met with goy evil, or just because so many blacks are now deranged thugs, they didn't suffer in the past under white domination. But it's also fallacy to assume that, just because Jews experienced a great horror in WWII, Jews today are a bunch of Anne Franks radiating with victim-sanctity, or just because blacks were once slaves or faced racial discrimination, blacks today are upright and struggling for a righteous cause. If the character of a people become affixed to an event in history, it all depends on the event that is memorialized. It's like 1776 makes Americans out to be resisting tyranny and struggling for independence. If we focus on the years in which Japan invaded China, the Japanese come across as a bunch of murderous aggressors. But if we focus on post-war Japan when the nation developed into a peaceful 'democracy', Japanese seem a kindly people. But history never stands still. Just because Romans once kicked Germanic Barbarian butt didn't meant Romans/Italians were eternal victor-invaders while Germanics were eternal victim-conquered. Indeed, it wasn't long before Rome was sacked by the Germanic barbarians.

The problem is the Holocaust is treated less as history than idolatry or Holodolatry, canonization of a historical event into quasi-spiritual matter. Worse, Holodolatry forces us to speak of Jews as a single entity. So, we can't speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, good Jews and bad Jews, radical Jews and moderate Jews. When it comes to most peoples, we speak of the powerful and the powerless. For example, we don't blame all Japanese for all time for what happened in the Pacific War. The main blame goes to the militarist rulers. This allows for one perspective on powerful Japanese and another on powerless Japanese, such as civilians who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, there is no absolute dividing line between the powerful and the powerless, as so many of the powerless often support the powerful. Lines become blurred. Many Japanese supported their ruling regime, and many powerless Jews looked to powerful Jews for direction and purpose.
Still, there are decision-and-opinion-makers(the powerful) and those who blindly follow along(the powerless) because they don't know any better, have been hoodwinked, or feel obligated out of tribal loyalty. Any interpretation of events must hold to account the powerful with greater burden of responsibility. Such approach can make us understand Jewish Power and 'antisemitism' better. Some powerful Jews acted badly, and it led to anti-Jewish sentiments, not least because the Jewish Community as a whole didn't take a stance against bad powerful Jews. (And when some Jews did stand up to Jewish Greed, they took it to radical extremes with ideologies like communism that devastated societies.) If we speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, we can better distinguish between guilty Jews and innocent Jews. But Holodolatry forces us to look upon ALL Jews as sacred victims of 'antisemitism'. This would be like bunching together Tojo and other Japanese militarists with the Japanese victims in Hiroshima. Holodolatry has turned into trickery whereby powerful Jews morally shield their abuses from scrutiny and criticism by hiding behind the cult of Jewish Innocence. When will the world admit that bad Jews must partly answer for the plight of good Jews? If bad Jews didn't act so bad, good Jews wouldn't have gotten burned in the goyim's overreaction against bad Jews... just like so many good decent innocent Germans and Japanese would have spared the horrors of WWII if the bad and powerful among them didn't play fire with History. But if the world holds the bad/powerful Germans and bad/powerful Japanese accountable for the suffering of innocent Germans and Japanese, it has yet to do the same with bad/powerful Jews whose vile deeds led to a backlash that destroyed many good Jews. If anything, whereas all Germans, even good/powerless ones, have been tainted with the guilt of Nazism, all Jews, even bad/powerful ones, have been sainted with the aura of Holy Holocaust.

If ALL Jews must be regarded as holy-schmoly innocent victims, then ALL Germans must be regarded as evil-schrivel guilty murderers, which is why every new generation of Germans is inculcated with the cult of eternal guilt regarding Jews. Under rules of Holodolatry, even the worst Jewish thug-murderer is a holy victim while even the nicest German must bear the burden of guilt. Holodolatry has merely led to a new kind of quasi-spiritualized racial supremacism where a certain historic tragedy absolves everyone within a certain group of guilt while abasing everyone of another population to the status of forever-damned. Notice how even the foulest Jew, like Michael Cohen, seeks a way out by yammering about how his so-and-so relative may have been a 'holocaust survivor'. This is why, in the current climate, if a Jew raped and murdered a white goy's mother, the white goy is likely to praise the attack as justified because a holy Jew done it. Just ask the Palestinians how morality works in the current West. Jews can do no wrong because Holodolatry elevated them to permanent status of holy-hood.

If someone has clearly been murdered, it'd be retarded to turn the discussion into a matter of "It was the greatest and worst murder of all time" vs "It didn't happen." Rather, the murder should be investigated thoroughly and understood within the larger context. Was the victim a totally innocent saint who was killed for no good reason by some deranged nutter, or was it more complicated? Among individuals, moral simplicity is sufficient for understanding murder: A real sicko killed a perfectly nice person for no rational reason. But on the historical level where every nation/group is made up of so many individuals, some good and some bad, moral dynamics becomes far more complicated. As for WWII, it's reasonable to say the Jew acted badly and the German overreacted with brutality and even murder. Why deny the murder when it did happen? But then, was it the greatest murder of all time? And did the German really stab the Jew six million times?

Of course, many Jews will spin even the most sincere attempt to better understand WWII and the Shoah as just another kind of 'holocaust denial'. To these Jews, anything shy of the narrative claiming that "totally innocent six million Jews died at the hands of totally deranged Germans" is tantamount to 'denial'. But whatever such rabid Jews say, responsible people can and should support a new historical approach that tries to understand the context in which the horrors happened.
Indeed, this is the approach with communism. While most historians will agree that millions perished under communism, they nevertheless take into consideration the context in which these things happened. Communism gained in influence because there were real problems with capitalism. Bolsheviks did terrible things but had popular support because the Old System had failed on so many fronts(and because White Armies offered nothing new). Khmer Rouge came to power because the CIA destabilized Cambodia and the US rained tons of bombs on the country. And even though the Khmer Rouge were genuinely nuts, many Cambodians turned to them for a reason. So, even without justifying the evils of communism, one at least tries to understand the events and why they happened under the historical circumstances.

And the same kind of perspective is necessary in regards to the Holocaust. Why did so many people come to hate Jews, and not just in Germany? Was Hitler simply evil or were some of his decisions justified given the challenges? Also, should we speak of simple good guys and bad guys when the British, Americans, French, and Russians were also super-imperialists with blood on their hands in the creation of their empires? And what was the Jewish role in geo-politics(of World War I, Russian Revolution, and World War II) that made the tensions between National Socialist Germany and World Jewry all the worse and more dangerous?

In other words, we don't need the Denial Narrative to better understand WWII and the Shoah. We only need the Corrective Narrative(to revise the falsehoods about the Holocaust) and better contextual understanding to understand why such a thing could have happened. And if Jews had many enemies, why should that be surprising? Many peoples throughout history were hated or dreaded for some reason or another. Romans, Germanic Barbarians, Huns, Assyrians, Egyptians, Vikings, Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Japanese, and etc. They had fans but also haters. Given that Jews amassed vast fortunes and used influence to steer world events(to the detriment of certain peoples), why is anyone surprised that some of this led to Jew-hatred? We aren't surprised that those under British Imperialism came to hate the Anglos. Or that Poles came to hate Germans and Russians. We understand why the Chinese came to hate the Japanese. Then, it should be understandable why some peoples came to resent or hate Jews. Indeed, should Palestinians be marked as 'irrational anti-semites' for hating Jews given what Jews did to Palestinians? You see, anti-Jewish hatred can be totally justifiable. If Germans and Japanese came to be hated and died in large numbers as a result of the backlash from their enemies, then why is anyone surprised that Jews were also met with violent backlash? (Jews bitch about past pogroms against Jews but usually rationalize black pogroms against whites and non-blacks on account of black victimization in the past. But using the same logic, pogroms against Jews could be justified on account of Jewish exploitation of goyim. But of course, Jewish Morality accords Jews the power to fix or nix any narrative. So, goy violence against Jews was, is, and shall always be bad, but black violence against whites or non-blacks can be deemed justifiable on account of 'history'. It's almost as if Jews are above history as they and their favored allies cannot be judged by it even as they tirelessly judge it.)

Instead of denying the Shoah, its falsehoods need to be corrected and questions must be asked as to what role Jewish Power played in exacerbating tensions around the world that led to the conflagrations of the 20th century. While Jews shouldn't be scapegoated as the sole villains of history, neither should they be escape-boated as the only ones with clean hands who, for no reason at all, got their knuckled smashed. (Perhaps, the hope among some goyim is that smart and pushy Jews will change their nasty ways and treat them nice IF they denounce Nazis as the worst evil and defend Jews as eternal saintly victims. Fat chance. Jews will grab the mantle of eternal victimhood but not act saintly. Result is consecration of Jewish megalomania as the summit of morality.)

GOY'S GUIDE TO KEEPING KOSHER - Brother Nathanael

Jesse Owens' Medals in the 1936 Olympics validated Race Differences, not Race Equality — Fallacy of 'Anti-Racism', one of the most pernicious ideas of the 20th Century

Jesse Owens(who won four golds in track & field in the 1936 Olympics) as an example of racial equality is laughable. He was idolized as a model of 'anti-racism' for having destroyed the myth of Aryan Supremacy. But, the Narrative would hold water ONLY IF he'd tied with the German/white runners. Then, he would have proven, black or white, it doesn’t matter, because races are equal in abilities and differ only in skin color, hair texture, and appearances. But did Owens' feat prove that races are equal in track and field?
No, Owens ran markedly faster and, if anything, proved black racial superiority in the sprint and jump. Even if Owens destroyed one racial myth, that of 'Aryan superiority' in athletics, he established another, that of black African superiority in the sprint and jump. (Incidentally, even though Adolf Hitler and National Socialists rooted for their own race/team, they didn't necessarily believe that the 'Aryans' were superior in sports. Indeed, Hitler didn't like to attend track & field events because he knew blacks would likely win.) Joe Louis proved much the same as Owens. In beating all those white boxers(and especially demolishing Max Schmeling in their second encounter), his victories didn’t prove racial equality but black advantage in fighting ability.

But PC logic dictates that ‘racism’ be pegged to supremacism or superiority only when pertaining to whites. So, anything that suggests or indicates white edge, advantage, or superiority in any field is deemed ‘racist’, a terrible myth that is ripe for busting. In contrast, any evidence of white inferiority(and especially black superiority) is lauded as ‘anti-racist’. But, if a black guy is deemed better than whites at sports, isn't that a clear sign of black superiority? As it points to racial differences, isn't it 'racist' or race-ist? Apparently, the same rules don't apply to blacks. In other words, any evidence of black lording over whites in certain fields is wonderfully 'anti-racist', whereas any evidence of whites lording over blacks in other areas is terribly 'racist'.
Some may believe that apparent white advantages deserve more criticism and skepticism(as well as condemnation) because such could be the legacy of past discrimination and bigotry, i.e. as whites were traditionally on top and socially favored, they inherited positions and privileges, whereas blacks had to climb up from the bottom against race-based obstacles. So, even if black advantages really do exist, they must be the truth for having been demonstrated against the odds.
In contrast, how can we be sure that whites are really better than other races in anything when they'd been favored in the West for as far as anyone can remember? And yet, such line of thinking is not only fallacious but disingenuous. It's a fallacy because white social advantage in the past doesn't disprove white genetic advantages in certain fields and, furthermore, white superiority in IQ over blacks has been carefully researched and documented in countless studies and data over decades and across continents. For example, if blacks were historically favored over whites and enjoyed certain privileges over whites, it still doesn't mean that blacks aren't naturally better at running and jumping. Men were certainly socially advantaged over women through most of history, but only an idiot would argue that past inequality accounts as to why men are bigger and stronger than women. Also, regardless of how blacks demonstrated their superiority, the evidence still has to be regarded as race-ist for having disproven the 'anti-racist' myth of racial equality, one of the most pernicious ideas to come out of the 20th century. But in our Politically Correct times, any sign of black racial superiority is celebrated as 'anti-racist' and 'progress' whereas any evidence of white superiority is condemned as lingering legacy of 'racism' and 'so much still to be done'.

Similar dynamics exists between Jews and whites. It’s perfectly fine for Jews to wail about white privilege and white over-representation, especially compared to blacks(and browns). Too-Many-Whites in any given field is proof of ‘racism’. But whites better not notice Too-Many-Jews in elite institutions and prized industries even though Jews, at only 2% of the US population, are the most disproportionately powerful and privileged people in the country. Even though whites have lost so much ground vis-a-vis other races due to meritocracy and/or 'affirmative action', any sign of white success or wealth is evidence of how so much more has to be done about 'white privilege'. In contrast, no matter how richer, more privileged, and more powerful Jews become, that is just awesome and Jews can never be too rich, too powerful, or too privileged. Of course, Jews control the academia & media and rigged the game so that blacks and Jews can never have enough whereas whites always have 'too much'. Whites may be smarter than blacks, but they are dumber than Jews; and this has resulted in white awe of Jewish Genius(supposedly suffused with tragic wisdom of the Holocaust) and earnest reverence for Jewish admonishment and advice. There was a time when whites knew intelligence isn't synonymous with honesty & truth and were rather skeptical of Jewish claims and tactics, but the Jewish control of media + cult of the Holocaust led to what amounts to White Worship of supposed Jewish Wisdom, indeed to the point where to be a Doubting Thomas of the Jewish Agenda is to be reviled as an 'Anti-Semite', 'hater', 'Neo-Nazi', 'white supremacist', or 'extremist'.

At any rate, it’s stupid to blame ‘white supremacism’ for white superiority in modern history. It’s like putting the cart in front of the horse. More likely, whites developed supremacist attitudes because they gained superiority first. And the superiority came about by a complex set of factors that were cultural, historical, geographic, and genetic. (Besides, it was only a handful of white groups that came to world dominance whereas most did not and some, like the Byzantine Greeks, experienced steep decline and even total defeat.)

Supremacism per se doesn’t guarantee supremacy or superiority. Chinese had supremacist attitude about being part of the Middle Kingdom, but if anything, their arrogance ran up and crashed against the reality of European Superiority in science, technology, and organization. Muslims thought they were supreme as the favored of Allah, but their faith didn't do any good against the objective superiority attained by the West in production and military domination. Great White Hopers had supremacist delusions that white guys would beat black guys like Jack Johnson. But wish didn’t come true, and white boxer after white boxer got crushed by Johnson. Supremacism sometimes arises from but isn't the guarantor of superiority. Muhammad Ali was great not because he said so, as any boxer could boast he's the 'greatest', but because he had the natural advantage to take his words to the bank.

BASIC FACTS ABOUT RACE IN 13 MINUTES - American Renaissance

Notes on Review of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE(dir. Stanley Kubrick based on Anthony Burgess Novel) in Counter-Currents

https://counter-currents.com/2021/04/a-clockwork-orange/

although A Clockwork Orange is often hailed as a classic, I thought it was dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated

Dumb, no. Distasteful, yes, but how could it be otherwise given the content. Highly rated by some but denounced by just as many, and the film continues to have detractors who, while acknowledging Kubrick's mastery, take exception to this treatment. It was as underrated as overrated.

They... use a confidence trick (“There’s been a terrible accident. Can I come in and use your phone?”) to invade a couple’s home, whereupon they beat the man, rape his wife, and trash the place. The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply be killed.

But how could it be tasteful, especially when most of the film is from Alex's subjectivity? Alex is a crazy guy, and the whole film is seen through his predatory eyes. He isn't a man of taste(by conventional standards) though he does think rather highly of himself as an aesthete who reveres the genius of Beethoven. As he sees it, he's cut above the rest, a natural leader. He is anti-christ, and his droogs are merely anti-disciples. Also, he sees himself as an artist of mayhem. There is flamboyance to his aggression, a vision to the madness. It's as if his crime spree is a performance art, an ultra-violent version of the pantomime troubadour in Michelangelo Antonioni's BLOW-UP. Alex feels as a natural aristocrat, a pop-Nietzschean star of the streets who makes up his own rules. No wonder Kubrick thought of casting Mick Jagger in the role. Sympathy for the Devil.

That Alex should be locked up or executed reads like a non-sequitur. It's social commentary unrelated to the film and its purpose. I don't know of Kubrick's stance on justice and capital punishment, but the film is not about what kind of punishment should be meted out to people like Alex. I highly doubt Kubrick was cheering on the violence or thought the Alexes of the world should be treated leniently; after all, he led a life not unlike that of the writer whose home is invaded. Rather, he features an horrific act from both objective and subjective modes, which makes the scene all the more disorienting. On the one hand, Kubrick just watches and takes note in 'cinema verite' style; it's like reportage of rape done by the Maysles Brothers. Yet, it's also like the pig-hunt in LORD OF THE FLIES. William Golding made the reader share in the ecstasy(with sexual overtones) of the pursuit and kill. It's something more than search for food. It's the thrill of violence and unfettered freedom.

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, in presenting the violence raw, oscillating between cold-eyed detachment and wild-eyed exuberance, was being daring(with unprecedented depiction of violence) and also daring us to find our own equilibrium. Traditionally, violence by bad people was presented with strong moral overtones, like when Liberty Valance robs and assaults people. It's as if even the bad guys knew of the moral equation. In being fiendishly mean and nasty, they were proving a point, paving the way for good guys to put things to right. That element made violence in older movies less disturbing and more comforting. Plenty of villains act nastily in Cecil B. DeMille movies, but we know it's bad-guys-acting-bad and furthermore our sympathy is directed toward the victims(who are often featured as noble or saintly). Or in Ida Lupino's THE HITCHHIKER, we know the villain is a real scumbag, and we never stop worrying for the hostages. Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO comes close to making us identify with Norman Bates, but the moral conundrum is resolved by featuring him as a hopelessly sick person(in the clinical sense).
In contrast, ACO is the-world-according-to-a-sociopath and hardly wavers from that position. Also, unlike BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH that halfway try to ennoble or humanize the characters — Robin Hoods in hard times or outlaws who fight for honor — , there is nothing redemptive about Alex who exults in nihilism in the final scene. One could argue Kubrick chose not to do the moral or emotional homework for us. Another director might have padded or slanted the film to make it clearer that Alex is a bad guy, a brutalizer, even a killer of innocents. (A good example is the TV movie HITLER: THE RISE OF EVIL that leaves no stone unturned that Hitler was a bad, bad, very, very bad-bad guy lest anyone get the wrong idea. Though Hitler is almost always on screen, he is made repellent at every turn. It's well-known Hitler was an animal-lover, but the TV movies denies him even that; a dog senses his demon soul, barks at him, and is killed by him. DENIAL, the movie about David Irving, is also slanted to leave no doubt that he's Mr. Miserable, evil incarnate. In contrast, Kubrick chose to give the devil his due in ACO and leave it up to us to judge or not. Alex plays it like he's the son of satan but too wily even for his other-father who'd do better with Damien in the OMEN movies.) Some might argue that Kubrick went too far and overly indulged Alex, i.e. he isn't merely presented as a sociopath but like a rock star, a rebel with cause-celebre. But then, the film is essentially seen through Alex's eyes and narrated by him. It is not an objective presentation, like with Hitler and cohorts in DOWNFALL. It makes for an interesting contrast with the next film BARRY LYNDON with its third-person narrator. While it remains with Barry from beginning to end, it's never quite his story. He is the observed than the observer. In contrast, Anthony Burgess wrote the book as a tall-tale of a demented youth, and it has the advantage of the 'unreliable narrator'. As with Voltaire's CANDIDE, we can never tell if the story is true in its entirety. In contrast, it's more difficult to suggest unreliability in movies that show everything in detail.

In some ways, the rape scene in ACO is even harder to take than the one in Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS. While both are disturbing, the violation in the latter is presented gravely, one where senses and emotions are pushed to the limit. Also, the rapist in STRAW DOGS has strong feelings for the woman, and even as she resists, a part of her surrenders to the alpha of the pack. It's a serious transgression done with serious emotions.
In contrast, the rape in ACO is like an extension of the joy-ride with the stolen car. The rape meshes tragedy with comedy(even with a musical). The gaiety of the moment(for Alex and his droogs) is utterly indifferent to the gravity of the act. At the very least, both the perpetrator and the victim in STRAW DOGS were agreed on the seriousness of the situation. The rape in ACO has an element of elation, even ecstasy, but it's also childlike, and perhaps there is a relation between sociopathy and child psychology. As deviant and nasty as Alex is(he is also intelligent), there is something 'innocent' about his deeds and emotions. Children have limited empathy, which develops later. At least in part, sociopaths may be dangerous precisely because something within them fails to grow out of childhood. So, even as they develop adult ambition and sexuality, a part of their psychology remains childlike and fails to appreciate the full consequences of their actions on others. Just like children are fixated mostly on 'my fun', sociopaths see other people as their 'toys'. The rape scene in ACO is like child-play with adult-victims as 'toys'. That creates emotional dissonance in the viewer. The scene is like an episode of Romper Room with Rape. So 'innocent' in its perversion.
It throws us off-balance. How are we to react to the scene? One possibility is to laugh along in the manner of Animal House, but then, we would have to be pretty demented. But even if one settles on moral outrage, the scene lurches between indifference and exaltation, denying us a safe-seat of judgement. And when Alex breaks into "Singin' in the Rain", it's all the more bewildering. (HENRY THE PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER takes it even further in mayhem, but the sheer grimness has a consistency and may be less exasperating than ACO is to some. As for MAN BITES DOG, that's just pointless.)

The rape scene is disorienting(precisely because it was done with skill & intelligence and can't be chalked up to mere exploitation or dementedness) and either acts as a challenge or a monkey wrench, especially in relation to our feelings about Alex through the rest of the film. If Alex were a grim and humorless figure like the character of HENRY THE PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER(which I detest as much as Nani Moretti does), it wouldn't matter so much. At the very least, it's impossible to see Henry as anything but a man-monster from beginning to end. But there are moments in ACO when Alex is funny, charming, and inspired(and even a bit endearing, but then, who says bad people can't have winning qualities?) He isn't merely funny like Joe Pesci's characters in GOODFELLAS and CASINO. There, even when you laugh at his antics, you know he's just a lowlife killer, a goomba. But Alex isn't just a sociopath but a rare breed(whose fiendish grin sweeps sins under the rug), and there's the risk of our overlooking his true nature(or even being seduced by it). There is something of the Marquis De Sade about him. Especially in the Rock Era when so many music stars' bad behavior were overlooked or even hyped for their cool factor, not to mention the effect of 007 movies and Spaghetti Westerns, it's easy to see why ACO became part of the Zeitgeist.

In a way, ACO is like a cold-eyed distillation of the driving forces behind the 60s. Boomer youths fancied themselves as idealistic and 'committed', but events like May 68 owed more to youth narcissism/nihilism than to any real understanding of the world or justice; unlike earlier forms of leftism, they were products of too-much-prosperity than too-much-poverty, more about demand for meaning than struggle for material needs, and one thing for sure, Alex's dementia can't be blamed on 'poverty', which was the pat formula for ideologues, especially in relation to bad black behavior. And yet, the search for meaning soon turned into pursuit of thrills in an era when youths were enticed with dreams of sex, music, drugs, and unfettered expressions in arts/entertainment. It's like the ending of the German film MEIN BAADER-MEINHOF KOMPLEX where the original radicals soon discover that the movement is most attractive to those with a penchant for destruction for destruction's sake; for them, ideology is really a veneer, a moral convenience, as with the would-be murderers in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD who rationalize their murder plot with 'social justice' theories of getting even with the rich 'piggies' in Hollywood.
In a way, ACO does to youth culture what DR. STRANGELOVE did to the Military-Industrial Complex. Just like the generals and wargamers of the Cold War satire are driven as much by sex and territoriality as by principles and patriotism, ACO implies that the driving spirit of youth is less idealism than ultra-narcissism. Indeed, a world where Rock Stars and the like hog the limelight of 'morality' really makes us wonder.

Alex is high-handed and cruel to his buddies as well, using treachery and violence to assert dominance over them. This merely breeds resentment.

But we can understand why. Alex is clearly superior to them in will and wit. He's got bigger brains and even bigger balls. He is the natural leader among them. In any rock band, some have more star power than others, more innate authority. Mick Jagger was the front-man for the Stones. John Lennon was the dominant force in the Beatles, even if Paul McCartney did more of the heavy-lifting. Alex is too good for his droogs, and they know it. They resent him but also envy him. They stick by him because he inspires them to do things they wouldn't on their own. But he pushes too far, and they betray him, but this happens in rock bands as well. Some have speculated that Alexander the Great was a victim of a conspiracy by his own men. Alex just can't help himself. He's a diva, he hogs the attention, and he must be boss.

All of Kubrick's films are ruminations on the game of power. ACO is about Alex who plays like knight on a chessboard but is reduced to a pawn.

The tough(and loud)talking chief guard(who could give Sgt. Hartman of FULL METAL JACKET a run for the money) can be a real son of a bitch, but he takes his job seriously and does it well. He’s totally dedicated to the system and his role in it, and such stuff interested Kubrick more than the novel’s theme about free will. ACO gave Kubrick an opportunity to delve into the workings of power. In order for the well-spoken elites to treat Alex with pseudo-civility, men like the chief guard must play the roles of enforcers, bull mastiffs. It says so much about the structure of the once-great British Empire. A world of genteel men guarded by ham-fisted men with big sticks. Those with the most power outwardly display it least because those with less power, the enforcers, strut with threat of blunt force.

The happy ending is that Alex returns to being a violent sociopath, but this time he will enjoy the patronage and protection of the state. Thus the tale veers from pat moralism to pure cynicism in the end.

But the film never dabbled in pat moralism. If anything, Kubrick upset a lot of people precisely because of the near-total lack of any kind of moralism. Indeed, Alex's troubles out-of-prison are not treated as 'lessons' as Trevor Lynch would indicate: "Let that be a lesson to you."
It's less a lesson and more a joke on him. Alex develops a strange relationship with the audience. Because of his zany devil-may-care charisma, the audience is partially with him for the ride, a vicarious participation in thug-life. But because some of his acts are unspeakable, the audience also feel sickened as voyeuristic 'accomplices'. It's almost as if Kubrick was pulling a Ludovico Technique on us but in reverse. If Alex-the-sociopath is made to feel sick about mayhem, the audience(presumably made up of mostly normal people) is made to feel almost giddy about the violence. (Over the years, the real problem has been desensitization, especially as even young ones now grow up watching slasher movies and playing violent gory video-games. Today, a normal person is probably inundated with loads and loads of violent images, the kind that used to haunt only psychopathic minds in the past. What is the long-term psycho-social consequence of this? A nation of normal people with heads filled with manifestations of abnormal psychology?) There's a kind of love/hate feeling for Alex on part of the (normal) audience.
In a way, Kubrick's lack of judgement is not without moral value, at least in that he allows the viewer the free will to find and choose his/her own responses. In contrast, what is so offensive about PULP FICTION is Tarantino opens the sewers of demented ugliness for laughs but then pretends at the end to wrap it up with hipster-sermonizing, which is totally unconvincing.

Kubrick was fascinated with the fallibility of the perfect plan or system(most notably with the Hal 9000 computer). The ruling regime and Alex arrive at an understanding of the Perfect Solution that would satisfy both parties(and the third party, the public, as well). Due to the Ludovico treatment, Alex would be set free, which is good for him. He would no longer commit crime, which would be good for the public, and it would mean good press for the government, a boost for the ruling elites. But, as so often happens in Kubrick films, the perfect system(or the perfect game) goes awry. Alex is free but becomes the hunted, public support falters, and the regime must backtrack.
At the highest levels, it's really a matter of power, a game of who rules what, than a matter of justice. The opposition that uses Alex, even driving him to attempted suicide, is capable of anything to embarrass the ruling regime so that its members can take power. And the regime changes its tune on Alex and restores him to his original self not out of any real concern for him(or the public) or ethical principles but merely to minimize the damage to their power. To take or hold onto power, both sides will do anything. Indeed, something is a bit suspect about the Ludovico Technique. If its purpose is to prevent criminality, why show images of Hitler and the Third Reich? What does that have to do with street crime or home invasions? Hitler was a killer but not a criminal in the conventional sense. It could be the Jewish Element among those who procured the treatment, and the conditioning seems to be as ideological as medical. But then, we see this with the Covid-hysteria. It was politicized and weaponized. It was promoted as a medical issue but was really driven by politics of power among the contending elites. Granted, the US is less a two-party system than a two-puppet system with both puppet-parties having their strings pulled by the Jews. Still, even among puppets, there is the wish to be the top puppet. It's like school. No matter who is class president, he or she has to take orders from adults, but there's still prestige in the label.

Had ACO's ending been truly cynical, it would have been less disturbing. After all, DR. STRANGELOVE ends on a cynical note, and it was universally praised. The problem is the triumphalism, a kind of thug-version of the Star Child at the end of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Alex, the creature of hell, has entered the heaven of ecstasy with the backing of the powers-that-be. How did Kubrick really feel about this?

One problem is Malcolm McDowell's the only one with star power whereas everyone else plays a caricature. They do it really well, but they are relatively cartoonish in comparison to the Alex who is at least three dimensional. Star power may not make a person sympathetic, and it’s hard to imagine anyone sympathizing with Alex’s vile exploits. But star power provokes a more dangerous response in us, an adulation of the ‘cool’ nihilist who has the audacity to make up his own rules. There is the Id in each of us, but we keep it caged for good reason. But even as we fear it, we are excited by it, which is why law-abiding people root for bank robbers in movies. Or for Tony Montana with ‘balls’ in SCARFACE. Alex may not be sympathetic but is certainly made pop-mythic.

If ACO has a moral problem, Alex’s balls are too big and aglow with star power whereas his victims have been flattened into two dimensional cartoon figures who look ridiculous and don’t elicit our sympathy. It didn’t matter in DR. STRANGELOVE because EVERYONE there is a caricature and there’s consistency of vision: Mad satire from beginning to end, with everyone deserving ridicule.
In contrast, ACO is like 1/3 spectacle(not unlike SPARTACUS and 2002), 1/3 drama, and 1/3 comedy. Alex is given some dramatic gravitas, which is denied to everyone else, even his hapless victims. If Alex is humanized(and even idolized), why is everyone else only good for mockery, ridicule, or unconcern?

Apparently, the book’s final chapter was “redemptive,” but this was omitted as being contrived—as if that weren’t true of the whole story.

It was excised from the American book edition, long before the making of the film. Kubrick went with the American version. I'm of two minds about the ending of the original novel. It seems plausible given that people do change with age. But it also comes across as an afterthought and even seems irrelevant as the novel is really a satire, more about society than about any fully-realized character. Alex is an embodiment of a trend, a cultural 'icon', than a realistic individual.
Still, it works better in the novel because Alex is younger. In the film, Alex is all grown-up, a young adult than someone on the verge of adulthood. And Alex of the film is far nastier than his counterpart in the novel. In contrast, we can believe in Barry Lyndon's transformation when he loses his son and everything else. He was created as a genuine character than constructed as a social symbol.

The Ludovico technique is based on the observation that normal people have a distaste for violence and cruelty directed at the innocent. Then it simply ignores the fact that normal people don’t necessarily have a distaste for violence, even cruelty, directed at bad people. It also reverses cause and effect, reasoning that since normal people feel distaste at violence, if they can create a mechanical association between violence and sickness, that will somehow make Alex a morally normal person, curing him of his violent sociopathy.

This isn't true. The people behind the Ludovico Treatment don't overlook the fact that normal people have a taste for violence, even cruelty, directed at the likes of Alex. At the presentation, a male performer humiliates and beats up Alex to the delight of 'normal' people. The audience loves the fact that Alex is getting his comeuppance. They look forward to the prospect that people like Alex, when righteously humiliated by 'good normal' people, won't be able to fight back. Try as he might, Alex is defenseless at the abuse directed at him. He wants to strike back but can't. And the crowd applauds. If anything, this becomes the undoing of the Ludovico Treatment. 'Good normal' people take advantage of Alex's defenselessness and drive him to the edge, indeed to the point where he becomes the victim.

Also, the Ludovico Treatment was never aimed at turning Alex into a morally normal person. It's made clear that the powers-that-be don't care what Alex thinks or feels AS LONG AS he is physically incapable of committing crime. The idea is to make him physically free but emotionally caged. So, Alex can be as evil as he wants to be on the inside. What the treatment promises is that he won't be capable of acting out his evil; he will be as harmless as a child on the outside. That's it. It's not a moral treatment but a behavioral one. In other words, it's not meant as a moral or 'spiritual' cure, which is precisely the theological argument presented in the film. The powers-that-be argue that, regardless of what Alex feels inside, he is harmless AS LONG AS he doesn't commit crime, which is the reverse of Christian teachings that say the SIN is essentially a matter of the heart.

Also, this has to be seen in context. There was a time when B.F. Skinner(author of WALDEN II) was a major influence in the West. He disregarded psychology & free will and focused on behavior and conditioning. Skinner's disciples rejected the notion of 'personality' & 'individuality' and believed that people are just the sum of their conditioning.

Of course, this whole theory completely ignores the element of empathy. Normal people feel disgust with violence and cruelty because they can empathize with the victims. Sociopaths lack empathy, and the Ludovico technique does not change that.

Actually, a more disturbing point would be that seemingly normal people often empathize with violent victors over the victims. Consider the Southerners who sympathized with Jesse James and the Younger Gang. Outlaws were often romanticized in American lore. 80% of blacks cheered for O.J. Simpson and celebrated his win in court. And most Americans cheer for powerful Zionists and feel zero sympathy for Palestinians. (Also, moral outrage turns off moral considerations for whom we come to hate. Jews are so morally outraged over 'antisemitism' that they are blind to the suffering of goyim, especially those suspected of anti-Jew hatred. But then, Germans under Hitler were so angry with Jews, who acted atrociously during the Weimar Period, that many of them didn't care what was done to Jews by the Nazis. And given what Jews have done to the white race in the past fifty years, I doubt if many Alt-Right types would much care if there was another Holocaust. Moral outrage makes us immoral or at least amoral toward those who outrage us.) And even normal people enjoy watching romanticized portraits of criminals. Gangster movies were sensations from the beginnings. Lots of people loved BONNIE & CLYDE. The film I watched the most times is THE WILD BUNCH. I loathe crooks and criminals, but I love that film and feel for the characters. Oliver Stone is an anti-imperialist radical but swoons over Alexander the Great and his imperialist exploits; apparently, the man who was saddened by all those dead Vietnamese rationalizes the wanton destructiveness of Alexander whose empire-building turned entire worlds upside down.
ACO as a movie phenom demonstrates the problem of 'normal morality'. Why did so many Normal People praise this film? Why did they find themselves laughing along and cheering for Alex the killer? It's almost as if charisma or the Cool Factor has a logic of its own. Alex has devilish charm. Despite his vileness, he has a winning quality. Morality takes backseat to mythology, and Alex possesses the stuff of myth-making. Consider Muhammad Ali. Boxing had many tough mean bastards, and Ali could be as nasty and brutal as the rest of them. But most boxers lacked his showmanship, his knack for performance. So, he got away with stuff that most boxers would never have. In the strictest sense, Alex is a lowlife street punk, but he has a kind of power, the means to charm and disarm, like the friend in A SEPARATE PEACE, who can talk and smile himself out of any situation.

Of course utter stupidity is no objection to most progressive social uplift schemes, so it doesn’t exactly make such a “cure” for crime implausible.

While the treatment could be deemed 'leftist', it could just as easily appeal to anti-crime rightists. If something like Ludovico Treatment could be administered to crazy Negroes, many rightists would probably be onboard. Who cares about Negro souls or free will? Wouldn't it be better if black thugs were psychologically stripped of their Jafric-Jiver tendencies? Imagine a vile Negro who wants to rob an old white lady but underwent the Ludovico treatment. Even the thought of transgressing would make him feel agony and go, "Sheeeeeiiit, dis pain be a mothafuc*a!" And imagine if, by 'accident', the treatment also made him associate fried chicken and watermelon with pain. That'd be amusing as hell. "Sheeeeiiit, I can't eat chicken no mo'!"

Burgess’s “deep” objection to the Ludovico technique is equally crude and dumb, but in a different way. The prison chaplain argues that the Ludovico technique is evil because it takes away Alex’s freedom, which takes away his humanity...
But if this is a dehumanizing assault on freedom, what are we to make of our own disgust with Alex’s behavior? Is that also a dehumanizing form of unfreedom? Presumably so. Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.

But that's gumbic logic. Actually, Burgess's objection is philosophically and morally sound.
First, free will isn't the same as freedom. Burgess and the prison chaplain are not arguing for granting freedom to Alex. They believe a man like that should be locked up, maybe forever. Because scumbags used their free will to commit heinous acts, they must pay for their crimes and, if possible, seek redemption. Free will means that each of us is an individual who is responsible for one's decisions and their consequences.
Without the Ludovico Treatment, Alex would remain in prison and would have to pay for what he'd done. Still, he would have his soul, and of course, soul can be evil. He would have his free will, and that would make him human. Now, 'human' isn't the same as 'humane'. Being human means having the freedom to choose between good and evil. According to most religions, being human is a curse, a state of fallenness, a sinfulness. Man is of flesh, and in this man is like an ape or animal that also lives by flesh and instinct. He has animal drives despite culture and civilization. Still, unlike animals that are trapped in their world of instinct, mankind has consciousness, the means to gain higher understanding, though it may take more time for some. This is possible even for sociopaths. That is the basis for human dignity. Sure, killers will be killers, and sociopaths will be sociopaths. But they still have a uniquely human quality. Dogs and cats can be full of love and affection, but they cannot understand right and wrong. But moral understanding is possible even for a sociopath. It's like what the priest says to Frank(Robert DeNiro) in THE IRISHMAN. One can BE sorry even if one doesn't FEEL sorry. Unlikely but within the realm of possibility. One can understand even without feeling it.

So, Burgess wasn't arguing for freedom for people like Alex. Rather, even they shouldn't be denied free will, the individual choice between good and evil. As the prison chaplain says, the New Alex can't really be good or reformed because true redemption requires a change of heart. But as the authorities see it, such are archaic sentiments or obsolete ideas. Science can alter behavior, and what does it matter if Alex is rotten inside as long as he doesn't cause harm on the outside?
Of course, the victims may argue it is still unfair that someone like Alex should be allowed to walk free(even if they won't cause harm) because they haven't paid their debt to society. After all, if I commit murder but is given a chance to walk free if I undergo a treatment where I can't murder again, I might take the offer; and the family of the victim would be upset that I didn't serve my full sentence and is a free person. Still, a free person without free will. Free on the outside, but imprisoned on the inside. I suppose one could argue that Alex, even following the Ludovico Treatment, has free will. He can still choose to be evil than good or choose to be genuinely good on the inside. He just can't ACT OUT bad deeds. Ludovico effect kicks in only when he tries to ACT on his vile or evil impulses. It doesn't rob him of the freedom to have bad thoughts. So, one could argue it robs him of free action than free will. His inner soul still can choose between the good and evil.

As to the restoration of Alex's 'humanity' at the end, we need to be careful with words. It's not a matter of humanity but of human-ness. 'Humanity' connotes humane-ness, where human-ness encompasses the totality of what makes us human, from good to evil. So, Alex-as-sociopath is still an inhumane monster, but he's human in the sense that he can choose good or evil out of his own free will in conflict with his twisted nature. Think of the sociopathic character played by James Woods in THE ONION FIELD. In terms of film-making prowess, it is maybe 1/10th or 1/100th that of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but it's a penetrating study of a sociopathic mind. In some ways, the killer in that film will never change. At the fundamental level, he is not like us. Still, in certain respects, he does grow as a person. Age and experience do affect him. He mellows and grows more reflective, though not sufficiently for social norms.

Since Alex the sociopath can contemplate violence without any feelings of disgust, whereas normal people cannot, does this mean that Alex is both more free and more human than normally constituted people? If so, this is a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum.

Again, you're confusing 'human' with 'humane'. Human-ness encompasses everything from dark evil to shining nobility, the full spectrum of thoughts, passions, and actions in the tragedies and comedies of Shakespeare. Also, the moral theme of the novel is about free will, which mustn't be confused with freedom. Free Will simply means one's conscious moral-personal-existential choice between good and evil. Burgess wasn't arguing for granting freedom to sociopaths. He was merely acknowledging the autonomy of free will. If people choose to do evil, make them pay the price. Lock them up and throw away the key. And if there's any chance of them reforming, it must come from within their hearts in concert with their minds. True goodness must be a conscious choice, the product of reflection and realization. (Is empathy really necessary for decency? Dogs probably can't empathize with what it means to be human, but they love us and treat us well. In contrast, many intelligent people can empathize with other people but use the knowledge only for control, often deviously and/or ruthlessly. Also, given that the world is so full of tawdry people, wouldn't empathy make us sense the tawdriness of others more acutely, making us think even less of them?)

Of course, Kubrick used Burgess's novel to explore his own ideas. ACO is like a debased pop-version of the Napoleon story. Unlike Napoleon who had revolution, nationalism, war & glory, and justice & liberation as the canvas for his megalomania, Alex has only a future world of soulless modernity defined by pop-consumer culture. He lives in a 'world of shit', a post-enlightenment world that Andy Warhol might have designed. As horrible as things were in Napoleon's times, there was faith in the future, that somehow things will get better. It was proto-modern, whereas the world of ACO is post-modern, very much the world we find ourselves today.
Yet, as trashy as Alex is, he has one thing in common with men like Napoleon. His sense of freedom is limitless. He is unbound as a free spirit who follows his bliss, however depraved it may be. Nothing stands in his way. Even in prison, as rotten as he is, there's perverse integrity in remaining true to his viciousness, as if he is the master, the king, the lord of all things.

Alex wastes his energies on pointless destruction, but he has something in common with great leaders and great artists. Alex doesn't care what anyone thinks. Artists and leaders also score high on sociopathy. Richard Wagner, for example, used and abused everyone and felt zero remorse because, so convinced of his own greatness, he felt others existed merely to serve his genius. And great leaders believe it's worth expending countless lives for greater vision, national glory, and/or higher cause. But buried beneath all those flowery concepts, how much does it have to do with egomania, narcissism, vainglory, and sense of destiny?
What sets Alex apart from artists and leaders with sociopathic tendencies is he lacks any higher vision or cause... though, unlike most hooligans, he has the greatest appreciation for Beethoven. His mayhem is like an anarcho-orchestration of Beethoven's music. In a way, it's a perverse act of sacrilege, but in some sick twisted way, he has a point. While Beethoven's music is lofty and inspired, it is the sublimated product of raw passions. It is ape-hood willed into angel-ness.

In some ways, Alex is worse due to a total lack of any concern beyond his ego, and yet, it's refreshing because his primal energies aren't speciously wrapped in high-minded concepts. He has no pretenses of saving the world, the oft-used excuse of closet-sociopath crusaders who are really driven by megalomania and power-lust.
In a way, it would be more honest if all those creeps in the Deep State exposed their Alex-side than pretended to care for stuff like 'human rights' and 'muh democracy'. They are really gangsters and thugs. People in the war department love war for war's-sake. The world is one big football game, and they want action. They invoke all sorts of principles to drop more bombs and kill more people, and all without remorse. Against such sham morality, there is an honest quality about Alex's honest immorality. It's like Charlie(Harvey Keitel) in MEAN STREETS secretly admires and envies Johnny Boy who, though utterly demented, is true to himself and without pretension. Also, when Alex destroys or kills, it's totally his thing. He decided and he did it. In contrast, deep state goons and soldiers depend on higher authority to do all their killings. Agents lack agency.

The elites fear people like Alex, an equal-opportunity attacker owned by no one. He attacks poor and rich alike. In contrast, Red Guards and Antifa are controlled goons, so useful to those in power. Antifa doesn't attack the Deep State but does its bidding. Red guards were Mao’s minions. They acted on his whims(though they did get carried away).

But to the Ludovico technique, virtue is indistinguishable from Pavlovian conditioning, and moral sentiments are indistinguishable from a sour stomach.

No, the Ludovico treatment doesn't take virtue into account at all. It is based on science or scientism. It believes concepts such as 'virtue' and 'free will' to be outdated, much like most scholars today don't take ideas like 'natural law' seriously. It seeks to bypass 'sentimental' notions such as 'virtue' and 'morality' and get right down to the business of behavior and conditioning.
Genuine virtue requires individuality and free will, but the scientists in ACO don't believe in either, or they believe such notions run counter to social policy. They would have to trust the people to make the right decision out of their own free will; they would have to only deal with the bad ones who end up in prison. They can be reactive but not proactive. But why clean up after the storm if you can prevent the storm itself?

In a way, it's the problem of modernity. More freedom for individuals means more possibility for bad behavior. Even if not outright criminal, modern freedoms have led to people making all sorts of stupid decisions with over-eating, drugs, sex, and other vices & indulgences, all of which have had degrading consequences for society. Can we rely on virtue to inspire people to clean up their acts? Moralists say yes, but most social thinkers say no. In a way, the latter is right. People were less self-indulgent in the past not so much out of virtue but as the result of repression and communal repercussion. People then only seemed to act more virtuous out of fear of the whip or the shunning(especially at a time when people couldn't escape into their own TV-worlds). People whose morality or virtue is based on fear or approval aren't truly virtuous.
A truly virtuous person chooses the righteous and good even when he has all the freedom and opportunity to indulge in the bad. For most of history, most people never had such an opportunity. They lived in a harsh world where social punishment could be swift and social rejection agonizing. But then came the modern world of tolerance and plenty with more than enough to go around. More people than ever finally had something like real freedom and real choice. But when faced with choice, they often went with vice over virtue. Virtue requires self-restraint, which stands in the way of 'liberation'. Also, capitalism depends on people choosing vice that leads to more greed, vanity, and materialism that fuel the economy. And, so-called 'liberals' disdain the notion of virtue as repressive and 'anal'. Furthermore, many believe that 'virtue' is often invoked by the powerful as a means of social control when, in fact, the men of power themselves lack virtue and maintain position & privilege by hook or by crook.
So, if virtue-as-foundation-of-social-order has been an illusion, what way is there to maintain social control in a liberated world? More rules and regulations and more reliance on technology in an ever-increasing surveillance state. As miserable as this way is, a plea for virtue won't work, and indeed, it never worked. In the past, people didn't so much choose virtue as it was chosen for them, like many marriages were arranged. But because people didn't want to admit they were coerced, they chose to believe that the decision was their own in favor of virtue. Minus the return of those old harsh social controls, the ideal of virtue alone won't work because too many people will choose vice over virtue if given the freedom.

From the chaplain’s point of view, the freedom of the mind is so separate from the body, habit, and feeling that a sociopath’s lack of virtue or moral sentiment actually make him freer and thus more human than morally healthy people.

??? You're just putting words into his mouth. He meant no such thing. He is saying true goodness requires a change of heart based on free will, something God bestowed unto each man. Also, his spiritual view does take the body into account. According to Christianity, man must wrestle with the drives of his flesh and fend off temptation if he's to reach higher states of being. Alex is very much a sensual, sexual, and physical creature. He lives for fleshly desires and thrill of the moment. The chaplain would never say the body doesn't matter. Body is always there, tempting man to act the animal than angel. At any rate, in order for man to rise above bodily desires, he must rely on free will to choose the good and pursue the way of God. For the chaplain, freedom alone isn't good enough. He knows well enough that freedom can mean freedom to be evil or good. Still, it is free will that offers man a choice between true good and true evil. There is NOTHING in what he said that would indicate that he thinks sociopaths are more 'human' than morally healthy people.

Also, the fact that the chaplain works in a prison indicates that he does believe in the power of habit. After all, prisons exist to deny bad people freedom-of-movement. Prisons exist to force bad men into daily routines and non-aggressive behavior. It is about control of bodies and conditioning them into new habits of routine and respect. And a good deal of Christianity is about how to shape and discipline the body and one's habits toward moral and spiritual goals.

Kubrick’s treatment of sex and violence veers between the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets, and dreadful over-acting.

My main issue with the film is its visceral power overrides its literary meanings. Burgess's book is a novel of ideas, but Kubrick's film is a spectacle of nihilism, especially because Kubrick prioritized cinematic expression over thematic exploration. The themes are there, but Malcolm McDowell's star power and Kubrick's visual prowess take center stage. The result is something like The Triumph of the Villains.

One may argue that anyone who enjoys the film as a thrill-ride is missing the point, the theme of free-will, but art operates on several planes, and this is especially true of cinema that not only works as story but as spectacle, made all the more overwhelming with music. Form is content; the two is inseparable. The form of ACO doesn't merely contain the message but is also the message, and it is "Wow, this is really exciting."
It's like APOCALYPSE NOW may have been intended as an anti-war film, and Colonel Kilgore is meant to be a crazy guy, but anyone who watches that film can't help but experience war as a rock opera and swoon at Kilgore as the awesome god of war. So, those who 'missed the point' actually got the bigger point, i.e. that cinema works on several levels, and the visceral experience may well overpower its 'moral intention'. Sam Peckinpah was never convincing when he said the point of the violence in THE WILD BUNCH was to make people sick in the stomach. No, it's too exciting and powerful, even beautiful, for that. Of course, some people make out-and-out specious moral arguments, like Martin Bregman's BS about Brian DePalma's SCARFACE being an anti-drug movie. Sure, the movie shows the sordid side of the drug business, and Tony Montana comes to a bad end, but what a rollercoaster while it lasted. It made morons want to be gangsters. And WALL STREET made more people want to work for the likes of Gekko or, better yet, be a Gekko. Even as Oliver Stone disdained the notion of 'greed is good', he presented Gekko as a god.

‘Sociopath’ has moral, political, and medical/clinical meanings.

Alex is a clinical sociopath who acts crazy on his own.

Most political sociopaths aren’t clinically deranged, but their ambition drives them to areas of power that are intrinsically(necessarily) and systemically amoral. If you work for the CIA, you have to be morally sociopathic to remain an insider and on grounds of ‘us vs them’.

It’s like murderers and soldiers both slaughter people, even innocent civilians. But murderers do it on their own whereas soldiers do it on orders.

Granted, extreme situations can unleash the repressed Id of blood orgy even among those who aren’t clinically sociopathic. Thus, Nanking massacre and other craziness.

One could argue that Alex, even following the Ludovico Treatment, has free will. He can still choose to be evil or good on the inside. He just can’t ACT OUT bad deeds. Ludovico effect kicks in only when he tries to ACT out his vile or evil impulses. It doesn’t rob him of the freedom to have bad thoughts. So, one could argue it robs him of free action than free will. His inner soul still can choose between the good and evil. Even as he's forced to be 'good' on the outside, he can choose to remain evil on the inside. Thus, he's not wholly robbed of free will.

Is a sociopath lacking in empathy or sympathy? Empathy means putting oneself in others’ shoes and seeing things from their points of view. Some people are capable of this, but they nevertheless feel no sympathy for others. They understand the mentalities but don’t care or share in the emotions of fellow human beings.

Also, lack of empathy doesn’t necessarily mean lack of sympathy. Dogs can’t empathize with humans or cats, but they often care about humans and cats(if friends in the same household). Some simple-minded people are too dim for empathy but they are full of love for others.

Is there a term for someone who lacks not the concern for others but the sense of autonomous self? If sociopaths care about themselves but feel nothing for others, what about someone who is totally concerned about what OTHERS think/feel about him or her but seriously lack the pride of his or her own thoughts or feelings? It seems lots of East Asians or yellows are like this. Very weak sense of self but very real concern about how OTHERS think/feel about them. Jews are into Jewishness, blacks are into blackness. But yellows seem to be about how-others-feel-about-them. Blacks attack them, but yellows say nothing about it because the dominant power would disapprove of such complaints. Instead, yellows go with the approved narrative and blame ‘white supremacism’. If sociopathy is lack of concern for others in society, could a weak sense of self or lack of autonomy be called ‘autopathy’ or ‘indepathy’ or ‘selfpathy’?

What were Alex's leadership skills like? Leadership qualities vary from context to context. You see this among animals. Certain species are more aggressive and predatory, like wolves and hyenas. To be a leader among those animals requires more forcefulness and brutality than to be a leader among sheep or prairie dogs.

If you’re a leader of a church with mostly nice people, you won’t have to be high-handed because most members are decent and trusting. Mere kindness can go a long way. But if you’re the leader of a gang, you need street cred. You must show you are tough and don’t take shit from anyone. Alex is a leader of wolves or hyenas. They are social predators, and he must always show he’s tougher than others; and if some are stronger than him, he must prove his superiority with wit and daring. If he’s seen as weak, another will try to take over as alpha. Of course, if he is too rough with the others, they could turn on him… which is what they do.
This was Leon Trotsky’s problem. In some ways, he had remarkable leadership skills, and many looked up to him. He was tough and ruthless, absolutely essential traits among radicals. But he was also supremely arrogant and insulting, and this made many choose Stalin over him. Stalin was also a mean son of a bitch who was often rude, but he could also be diplomatic and outwardly conciliatory(while plotting for future battles).

In ACO, it seems the droogs stuck by Alex for sometime. They didn’t immediately turn against him but reached a point where they decided to stick it to him.
In the world of thuggery, Alex has to walk a fine line between not appearing weak and not alienating others. It’s an unstable relationship as ‘honor among thieves’ usually is: Sociopaths or thugs trying to trust and support one another.
But such relations are common in all walks of life. Most politicians are untrustworthy as most of them will usually go with the strong horse and routinely stab anyone in the back to save their own skin or to further their own career. It's the same in the business world. Friends today, enemies tomorrow, and vice versa. The seemingly loyal underling in Akira Kurosawa's HIGH AND LOW turn on his boss and go with the rivals who gain the upper hand. Pachanga turns on his friend in CARLITO’S WAY. In those cases, the underlings thought the boss had gone soft and lost the edge.

In other cases, betrayal is about revenge, like when Carlo did a number on Sonny who beat him up in THE GODFATHER. And Fredo, long humiliated by Michael, conspired with Hyman Roth and Johnny Ola in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Carlo found Sonny overbearing, and Fredo resented the younger brother bossing him around. In contrast, Sal betrayed the family in part one because he thought the Corleones were on the decline and Barzini was the strong horse to bet on.

Donald Trump sure found out you can't trust anyone in the world of politics teeming with the likes of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Mitt Romney. Not murderous sociopaths but careerist ones who will do anything to save their own skin or play the game. Granted, Trump himself isn’t trustworthy. (But then, even Peter denied Jesus three times.)

There was a successful coup against Benito Mussolini. There was a plot against Adolf Hitler that came close to killing him. There are rumors that Josef Stalin was finally done in by his own men, perhaps with poison. Whether it’s Alex playing war in the streets or big leaders playing war among nations, such extreme games of ambition and violence are never stable in terms of loyalty and trust.

Obviously, Hitler and Alex are different creatures. For one thing, Hitler came to power in his middle age. He was ‘wiser’ by then. Alex is still young and driven by crazy hormones. What they do have in common is a bohemian(artistic) streak and love for classical music. Hitler was obsessed with Wagner, Alex is crazy about Beethoven. The difference is Hitler came of age in a more sentimental and romantic era, whereas Alex is very much the creature of post-modern irony and vapid youth culture. Had Hitler been born in the 1960s, maybe he would have taken up punk music. It’s hard to say. The skinheads in AMERICAN HISTORY X are pretty demented and degenerate, not least due to the youth culture all around them.

Difference between Hitler and Alex is the latter loves violence for violence’s sake whereas violence was a means for Hitler(though he found plenty of excitement in playing war games with the lives of millions). A combo of Hitler and Alex would be the David android in ALIEN COVENANT. Like Hitler, he has grand vision and a mythic sense of destiny; but like Alex, he revels in violence for violence’s sake and feels nothing for all the dead.

Alex is almost totally without sentimentality(though his feelings are genuinely hurt when his parents reject him upon his release). Hitler could be very sentimental and feel strong fondness and attachment to things. Alex seems to mock everything(except Beethoven, his god whose music is to art what Napoleon was to history). Julius Streicher was also sentimental. He wept over his dead canaries. He was an animal lover, as was Hitler. And yet, their feelings were narrowly restricted to certain people, things, and themes. For certain others, they not only felt indifferent but contempt and hatred bordering on pathology.
This is not uncommon among white supremacist types. Their love for their own race is genuine and true. But their disdain, derision, and hatred for outside groups can be extreme, indeed as a compulsive need to dump on the Other.
Now, it’s natural for most people to favor their own over others. It’s like a person favoring one’s own family. Still, loving one’s own family doesn’t mean one should hate other families or not acknowledge their equal value as human beings. So, even though I probably won’t be emotionally moved by the death of some neighbor I know little about, I would still understand that it’s a tragedy and people who loved him would be filled with grief. I wouldn’t feel sad but nevertheless understand it’s a sad thing that someone died and it's painful for those who loved him.

The problem with Hitler wasn’t his love for Germans or ‘Aryans’. Germans should love their own kind. It was his contempt for other peoples whom he deemed as lesser humans. Perhaps, he loved his own people too much. When you love your people too much, you may come to believe they deserve everything under the sun, indeed more than other peoples do. (An Italian mother who loves her son too much hides him from the Law even when he did something wrong and must face justice.) As other peoples stand in the way of your people’s rightful place-in-the-sun, they need to be wiped out or enslaved to serve your people. This was Hitler’s vision of Lebensraum. He came to power in Germany with his love for the German people, that much is true. But he later turned much of the world against him when his plan was Germany uber alles at their expense. Russians and Slavs had no meaningful place in Hitler’s grand plan. They would either be killed or enslaved.

So, what was Hitler? A Nationalsociopath? A person who is capable of great love for his own kind but lacking in even the modicum of human feelings for outsiders or those deemed expendable. In THE GODFATHER movies, it’s obvious Michael is capable of affection and love. He loved his father. He loved his brother. He loves Apollonia and he loves Kay. But he is also capable of having a prostitute murdered in cold blood to gain control over Senator Geary. For his empire, he will sacrifice a ‘lesser human being’.

Jews hate Hitler, but they are also big on nationalsociopathy. Just like Hitler loved Germans and ‘Aryan’s, Jews love Jews and ‘Semites’. But just like Hitler was willing to sacrifice millions of non-German lives to make room for his beloved Germans, Jews are willing to destroy countless goy lives in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Russia just to have Jews Uber Alles.
The fact that Jews did so much to get Jonathan Pollard sprung from jail is proof that Jews have strong affection and love for one another. But what about all the victims of Pollard? Pollard’s betrayal led to deaths of double-agents in the USSR. Jews don’t care. Jews feel, ‘He did it for the tribe, so he’s okay’.

So, Hitler and Jewish Supremacists have something in common. They feel real and genuine love for their own kind BUT feel zero feeling for outsiders. To Hitler, Jews and Slavs were expendable. Though he didn’t want to kill them for the hell of it, he was willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of the Germans. Likewise, Jewish Supremacists probably don’t want to kill goy lives just for the hell of it; they are not murderous or sadistic in that way. But their main obsession is Jewish Hegemony based on tribal pride and arrogance; as such, they believe anything standing in the way of Jewish Destiny must be smashed.

In some ways, Hitler was worse than Jewish Supremacists. Whereas Jews all work together as equals for the good of the Tribe, there was something of higher value in Hitler’s mind than German glory and interests. He was a megalomaniac who saw himself as a Man of Destiny, one of those gods/heroes of Wagnerian operas. Thus, he was bigger than the Germans, and even as he loved them, they existed to serve him and his vaunted role in history as the epoch-making greatest conqueror and ruler of all time. In the end, Germans existed to serve him than vice versa. Germans gave him everything in the most devastating war in world history, but he felt no pity for them in the end because they failed him. In his eyes, Germans deserved to vanish as a race because they didn’t live up to his expectations.

In this, Jews have been wiser. Jewish Power is shared, and Jews are mindful of other Jews. Jewish Power is the culmination of many Jews with strong personalities and pride. In contrast, German National Socialism was about so many Germans submitting their individualities to Hitler’s megalomania.

If a Hitlerowicz rose among Jews, other Jews would speak up and bat him down. Jews would tell the Hitlerian Jew to knock it off. They would remind him and each other that Jewishness is about Jews working together for Jewish Eternity than about a single Jew hogging the limelight as the super-Jew. It’s telling that Jews have been waiting for a messiah forever but he never came(or the Jews never accepted anyone as messiah, not even Jesus). And so, Jews keep going on and on like the energizer bunny.