James O'Keefe of Project Veritas presents a cautionary tale. He pleads with the journalist community to support him against the Deep State with the warning that what happened to him can happen to them, to ANY journalist.
Is he a fool or just naive? If principles governed institutions and industries in the US, what he says would be correct. There would be PRINCIPLED reasons for defending him as the Deep State could abuse its power and go after ANYONE who dares to a counter-narrative or dig for the deeper truth. Why would Merrick Garfinkle(aka Garland) go after the 'good dogs' who comply with deep state demands?
But principles don't govern the US. Power is what the US is all about. It is a gangstoid state, i.e. even if deep state players aren't gangsters in the literal sense, they act more like gangsters than civil servants. And if deep state players are servants to anything, it isn't to the Constitution or the People but to the oligarchic elites and the commissars, most of them Jewish at the top. Jews tend to be rather shameless, obnoxious, and paranoid in their power-mania, and as the saying goes, fish rots from the head. Jewish supremacist slime has permeated the entirety of the US system.
So, O'Keefe is foolish to appeal to the journalistic community. If anything, they are LAUGHING at him because they know what happened to him will NOT happen to them. After all, they are propagandistic minions or propagansters of the Deep State. They do as told. They please their bosses. They're focused on careerism and status/reputation(within the closed circle of 'made men'). O'Keefe's gesture is as if Donald Trump would appeal to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to support him against the Deep State that might pull the same dirty tricks on them. But why would the Deep State do such to Hillary and Biden, two complete whores of the Beltway Oligarchy? Or imagine Palestinian-Americans calling on Jewish-Americans to condemn the suppression of BDS on the supposition that the silencing of Palestinian speech might affect Jewish speech as well. Why, Jews would laugh in the Palestinian face. Why should Zionists worry when they are in the position of total power to mandate pro-Zionism and anti-Palestinianism as US policy? Jews know US is governed by power, not principles.
In a system where power prevails over principles, the only thing that matters is whether the Power approves or disapproves of you. If you're approved, you are protected and shall be untouched. Why would the Power go after you when just about everything you do has its stamp of approval? And once you've taken this path of craven careerism(and mock-self-righteous virtue based on fashion-morality of 'wokery'), you don't look back. If anything, you seek more approval from the Power and do its bidding, even if it means violating the fundamental principles of free speech and attacking the rights of other journalists(who will never be part of the 'made' community).
Of course, while craven careerism is a huge incentive, it alone might sow some doubt and pangs of conscience among the opportunists. That is why Jews are so adamant about controlling the gods, the dynamics of holy vs unholy, and insisting on a mantric mentality(where certain matters become truisms based solely on rote repetition, e.g. the mantra of 'race is just a social construct'). This way, if craven careerists feel any sense of guilt about their whoring out to Power, their sense of 'moral outrage' can always serve as reminder that they themselves are at least BETTER than the other side for being 'more evolved'(on matters like homo-worship), more committed(on stuff like BLM, a total lie that bears no resemblance to facts on the ground), and more 'progressive'(because it's ahead of the curve on social issues, no matter how ludicrous, such as men-being-'women' and silly games with pronouns). Of course, the mantric and quasi-holy characteristics of 'wokery' don't allow for critical thinking or fact-based checking; some things just simply ARE because all the 'good' people repeat the platitudes over and over in 'Manchurian Candidate' fashion.
This is why patriots and truth-seekers must stop invoking the principle of "If it happened to me, it could happen to you." That would be true enough in a principle-based order but not one dominated by gangstoid power. Imagine a captured prisoner-slave in ancient times appealing to a Roman Centurion, "please free me and oppose slavery because what happened to me could happen to you." The Centurion would be totally LOL. Why would Roman Power enslave him, a centurion, who serves to execute and expand Roman power? No, captivity and slavery were for captured 'barbarians' and foreigners in war. Likewise, why would the libby-dib and even many conzo-wonzo journalists come to the defense of people like James O'Keefe and others like him — kudos to the usually useless Sean Hannity for covering this issue — when they know they themselves shall remain untouched by the Power? If anything, they know they will be the next target of the Deep State if and only if they decide to act like James O'Keefe or the more estimable Julian Assange. But as long as they do the bidding of the Deep State or dare not venture outside the Overton Window, they got nothing to worry about. They merely need to upgrade their 'wokery' so that their sense of 'moral outrage' will be up to date with the Current Year(or Month or Week).
Now, there was a time when the journalistic community did stand behind Daniel Ellsberg, but that was a special period in US history. The WASP order was in decline and Jewish power was on the rise. Also, there was a huge generation rift, not only between boomers and the 'greatest generation' but between the latter(that proudly defined itself in relation to the New Deal and victories in WWII against the radical right) and their more brazenly(and awesomely) race-ist predecessors like Henry Ford and Woodrow Wilson(who loved D.W. Griffith's masterpiece THE BIRTH OF A NATION). Indeed, on the political front, all the great changes of the 1950s and 1960s were the doing of the GG. With one social order in decline and another coming into being, there was less consolidation of power in any single institution, ethnic group, ideological faction, and etc. Thus, principles could override power for a brief period in US history as various groups and factions, unable to consolidate total power, had to invoke principles to secure their place in the system. This was when ACLU seemed most idealistic.
But since then, the end of the Cold War brought about the 'End of History', or the struggle over ideology. It was replaced by Idolatry, mainly of Jews who chose homos as main deep state partners and blacks as main symbolic allies, thereby making the Tridolatry of Jews, Homos, and Negroes the defining themes of the 21st century West. Also, Wasps have become a bunch of pathetic Anglo-cucks or Anglucks of Jewish Power. Even HBD Anglos are such saphead cucks to the Jews.
Looking back, George H.W. Bush and James Baker tried to be somewhat fair to the Palestinians, and Jews had the knives out for them. Billy Boy Clinton became president but in his second term tried to be like Jimmy Carter and make history with a peace plan for Jews and Palestinians, but the two-state solution simply couldn't work because Jews had colonized too much of West Bank and continued to build settlements; Clinton applied pressure on Israel and ended up with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Next president George W. Bush learned the lesson. According to the official narrative, W. sought to correct H.W.'s legacy by going all in on Iraq. But the real lesson was APPEASE JEWS 100%, which is why W. turned over foreign policy totally to the Neocons and kicked Palestinians in the teeth even as Israel continued to gobble up more land. But then, too much of a good thing could be a bad thing. Neocons messed up foreign policy so badly(and the Jews in Wall Street messed up the economy so spectacularly) that it paved the way for Obama. Of course, Jews blamed it all on Dubya and promoted Obama as the guy who reverse course. But what did Obama do but bail out Jewish Wall Street and serve War Street in smashing more Muslim nations and antagonizing Russia and China? What Clinton, Dubya, and Obama have in common is they ran on the Iron Lesson of "Kiss the Jewish Butt If You Want to Win". The reason why Jews hate Donald Trump so much was the wild man won despite having pissed off Jews often during his campaign. No wonder then the Jews and its deep state attack dogs did everything to bring Trump down. The tragicomedy of it all was that despite all his talk, Trump never meant to do anything but take it up the ass from Jewish Power.
Anyway, Jewish Power is now absolute in America. Even Catholicism has turned into one big 'woke' cult with that devil pope Francis. Blacks are totally in the pocket of Jews. The days of Jesse Jackson's hustle-tussle with Jews is long over. Just consider the transformation of Al Sharpton and Spike, who once used to bait Jews, into cotton-picking blucks(black cucks) of Jewish Power. Look at Obama and Kamala. And what is the new messianism of the US about when not waving the Israeli flag or BLM banner? It's the globo-homo 'rainbow' flag, and the whole 'gay' thing is totally a proxy of Jewish Power. Jews got all the academia, media, finance, entertainment, gambling, real estate, big tech, and etc. And the kind of 'journalists' who are vetted and hired by Jewish-run media conglomerates are either Jewish Zionists, craven-cuck goy types(who will sell their mother down the river to get ahead), or 'woke' idiots who are dumb enough to fall for the mantric nonsense of PC.
So, people like O'Keefe need to stop appealing to the journalistic or whore-nalistic community. The whornalists are gleefully laughing at his dilemma because their are libby-dib careerists(who would never dare displease the ruling elites) or deranged foaming-in-the-mouth 'woke' morons who really think Trump is 'literally Hitler' and O Keefe is Joe Goebbels. The whole Russia Collusion Hoax, Covid Hysteria, Assad-Gas Hoax, and Electoral 'Fortification' should tell us all we need to know about the wink-wink cooperation among big state, big tech, big media, and big finance. The master stroke by Jewish Power is having not only bought people off with money but convinced them of their righteousness with mantric mindlessness; most journalists are mantric candidates. So, the biggest whores of mendacity in the media really think they are the biggest crusaders of justice.
Instead of wasting time by pathetically pleading with the corrupt whornalistic community(and institutions like ACLU that is really nothing but a Jewish supremacist front), people like O'Keefe would do better to call out the media companies and their hirelings for what they are: Propagangsters or propagangstoids of the Deep State that do the bidding of Jewish Supremacism. They are information hitmen motivated by approval from the system. But then, even O'Keefe dare not discuss Jewish Power, and that's why he too is ultimately useless.
Every 4th of July, Americans love to pontificate about 1776. Some now rhapsodize about 1619.
But most relevant and significant for us is the stealth revolution that began in 1992 when the boomers took over. Among boomers, Jews were the most powerful, something that wasn't true up to the 'greatest generation'. So, the ascendancy of the boomers meant the rise of the Jews and their eventual supremacist takeover. Billy Boy Clinton was, in this sense, the First Jewish President. Still, being a Sixties guy, he had just enough idealism to try to broker a deal between Jews and Palestinians, albeit one heavily tilted in favor of the Jews. Liberal Jews used him for this end, but many other Jews were angered by his partial empowerment of Palestinians and cut him off at the knees with the Monica Blewinsky scandal. The next boomer president, George W. Bush, operated on the basis of Jew-Envy. Jews are the richest and most influential in top institutions. Also, they gained holy credit via Holocaust Narrative. But most Jews are Democrats. Furthermore, most Republican voters disagreed with the Jewish domestic agenda of globo-homo and anti-whiteness, thus alienating powerful Jews. This meant the Democrats had a bigger schwarz than the GOP, leaving it anxious with schwarz-envy.
So, how could the GOP win over the Jews? Give Neocons everything they want. Let them triumph and become the premier Jews with the most prestige. Hopefully, that just might persuade more Jews to become Neocons and come over to the GOP than remain as nay-saying 'Liberal Jews' among the Democrats. So, we had 9/11 and Iraq War. Dubya would be like the New Churchill standing side-by-side by heroic Neocons who would remake the world for the better. And Jews would be so shocked-and-awed by this that more of them would won over to neoconservatism. Well, the Iraq War didn't go so well. Also, Dubya was an embarrassment, a caricature of the dumb silver-spoon Wasp in decline, and the bi-partisan handing over all the financial decisions to Wall Street Jews led to massive bust in real estate that led to the Great Recession. (Besides, after the yuppie 80s, the fall of the Soviet Union, and Bill Clinton's New Democrat singularity-triangulation strategy that adopted free trade and financial deregulation, there wasn't all that much difference between the two parties. Neo-Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews were essentially two sides of the same coin, working under the table to further Jewish supremacy uber alles. Thus, both the 'left' and 'right' had no real home in either party.) Jews used the foreign policy debacle and financial crisis to push through the Big One. The first mulatto president, a product of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. The message was white wombs exist to be colonized by black seed, and white folks must worship the product of jungle fever. Obama's significance was most crucial in terms of sexual politics. His rise meant whites were totally cucked, much like South Vietnamese who offered their women as whores to US invaders. Also, it was under Obama that Jews pushed through globo-homo and without any GOP opposition. The Zeroeth Amendment of America became "If Jews want it, they get it." It's no wonder GOP is so eager to attack China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and etc. Even though Jews are the main enemy of white patriots, the cuck elites are too afraid of Jews to confront them and seek out external enemies, often imagined or exaggerated, instead. They are like dogs that, afraid of master's stick, bark at strangers and other animals.
So, we need to revise the discussion of US history and talk about this Stealth Revolution. It was a profound transformation, no less than the fall of the Soviet Union, aka Russian Empire in 1991. But because of the semblance of political continuity, conceit of 'muh democracy', and continued prosperity, it was assumed that the American system remained intact. No, something profound took place and seriously altered the trajectory of American History. All of US history had been about Wasp-Christian domination until the Rise of the Boomers. That American reality quasi-officially ended in 1992 with the boomer-Jewish takeover. Pat Buchanan was correct in the 1992 Republican Convention speech. He called it a Culture War, but it was essentially an Ethnic War as it was the Jews who drove the New Agenda to subvert, discredit, and undermine White Christian America. Of course, the Wasp order was already on wobbly legs by 1992(indeed even by the Sixties). It was on its last legs as the children of the Wasps had already been indoctrinated in elite colleges by Jews and their useful idiots, the shabbos goy collaborators. Jews have big minds, whites have small minds, and big minds control small minds. Prophets direct the priesthood. Jews think like prophets with the vision(now satanic), and whites go about like priests who receive dogma and enforce it.
This Stealth Revolution took off in 1992 and was completed in 2008 with Barack Obama. Donald Trump seemed to promise to reverse things in a Counter-Revolution or a kind of Restoration, but how could he when he (1) couldn't name the Jew and (2) his Jewish Policy was same as the Dubya Neocon strategy: Mindless support of Israel, deranged vilification of Iran, hostility toward Russia... even though he ran on an essentially anti-war platform in regards to Syria and anti-cold-war proposition in regard to Russia?
So, forget about 1776. That was about the beginning of the Wasp-American nation, now fallen and turned to dust. Forget about 1619. That's just Jews using CRT to guilt-bait whites into moral paralysis, all the better to use them as 'redemptive' cucks beholden to Jewish masters. No, what must really be discussed is 1992 or 1992-2008, the total Jewish takeover. Since then, we are living in a New America. Unless this ethno-revolution is addressed, there can't be any honest assessment of what is really happening in America. And there can be no White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism, the only hope for mankind as Jewish Evil will collapse without white cuck-collaboration, just like British Imperialism came tumbling down in India when the natives refused to collaborate with the empire.
Incidentally, US and Russia fell to Jewish Takeover around the same time. Fall of communism paved the way for the rise of Jewish oligarchs in Russia. The Clinton presidency heralded the Jewish-boomer takeover of just about everything. Paradoxically, the weakness of Rule of Law and sheer gangsterism of Russian realities allowed Russians like Vladimir Putin to regain a measure of autonomy and independence from Jewish supremacist power. In Russia, Jews played dirty but so did the Russians, especially the veterans of the KGB seasoned in gangster tricks. Lack of Rule of Law meant Jews could pull all manner of dirty tricks and take over much of the economy, but it also meant Russians could play dirty and use the same gangster tricks on the Jews. In contrast, American Jews, though no less gangster-like, used the Rule of Law established by Anglo-America to gain power & dominance and continue to rely on the long-existing legal infrastructure to maintain their power. Thus, their power has more legal protections. Putin could go 'Michael Corleone' on the Jewish oligarchs in Russia, but such is nearly impossible in the US where Rule of Law still matters. But as American Jews do think and act like gangsters, the Rule of Law has become more ethno-centric, arbitrary, unprincipled, and corrupt. Jonathan Pollard walks free, moves to Israel, gives middle finger to the US and urges more Jews to betray the US to serve Zion, and stands next to beaming Netanyahu, at whose feet US politicians of both parties groveled. The New Rule of Law allows such things. We were told 'Jeffrey Epstein killed himself', and there's been no real inquiry into what really happened. Those who pushed Russia Collusion Hoax face no punishment, just like no Jewish Wall Street crook got jail time after the 2008 fiasco. Jews allow BLM and Antifa to attack patriots in the streets, and the cops protect BLM and Antifa scum and arrest patriots when they fight back. Jews bitch and whine about how Rule of Law in America had been 'systemically racist' in favor of whites over non-whites for most of its history(which is true enough), BUT their agenda isn't to make the law color-blind but to favor Jews over Palestinians(thus the suppression of BDS), homos over moralists(thus the attack on Christian bakers and florists by trannies and homos), and illegals over American citizens.
And yet, because of stealth revolution of 1992 and the Jewish takeover as the godlike overlords of America, all we get from both political parties is, "We worship, honor, and serve Jews." Jewish Power f---d Trump in the rump, and his message to Jews is, "Can I suck your dic*?" It'd be more honest if we did away with the pretense of democracy and announced that, especially since 1992, the US has undergone a profound revolution that elevated Jews as the master class in the US. As such, Jews are above the law and can do as they wish. The worst kind of Jewish crooks are pardoned by US puppet-presidents, not least Trump, while white patriots are put in solitary confinement and tortured, waiting to be hit with stiff sentences for minor infractions. Jews keep invoking defense of 'liberal democracy' to justify their rule, but their power is about ethnic supremacism, distortion of rule of law, betrayal of Constitutional principles, massive censchwarzship, denial of financial services to patriots(despite banks being bailed out by ALL tax payers), and even use of BLM-Antifa gangsterism to suppress dissent. When politicians run for office in the US, they don't sign a pledge to defend the Constitution but a pledge to blindly support AIPAC and the Zionist Yinon-Plan.
BLM got totally crazy in 2020 because of the bidding war for holy blackness.
Usually, Jews and Libby-Dibs needed not worry about the black vote because it was reliably Democratic. And the kind of bland generic white candidates put up by the GOP had no appeal to blacks. Even though the great majority of blacks voted Democratic in 2016 and 2020, Trump was the GOP candidate in a long long time with any appeal to a segment of the black population. If Billy Boy Clinton was the 'first black president', Donald Trump was the 'first ni**a president'. Clinton was a jazz man, but Trump rubbed shoulders with rappers and had a rapport with the likes of Mike Tyson. For Democrats to win in some states, black support has to be HUGE. So, even a slight shaving off of black votes can mean electoral loss for Democrats. If GOP relies on whites voting 60% Republican, Democrats rely on blacks voting way over 90% Democratic. Democrats took the black vote for granted, just like they did with white working class and ethnics in the past, especially following the Great Depression and New Deal.
But eventually, the Democrats began to lose the white working class, the ethnics, and the Southern whites. A lot of this had to do with blacks. When the Democrats were about 'class justice', many have-lesser whites voted for the Democratic Party. Working class, ethnic whites, and southern whites were reliably Democratic for a long time. But when the Democrats moved more toward 'racial justice' rhetoric, followed by black pathology and crime unloosed on the nation, many whites began to move to the GOP. Also, with booming times, many children of working class parents rose up the ranks to become middle class and higher, and back then, money and success were associated with WASP-heavy GOP. It's like Italian-Americans became more Republican with socio-economic improvement. Back then, the GOP stood for tradition and respectability, concerns that still mattered. Today, no one cares for tradition. Also, respectability means nothing in a degraded culture where even adults have green hair and tattoos. What matters now is the cachet of being faddish and fashionable; that's what appeals to the successful, and today's affluent and educated are far more likely to be Democratic, especially as the Party is now shamelessly pro-money and pro-success. Democrats lost the white working class but gained something far more valuable: the white educated and elite classes who hold the more valuable cards. Also, globalism is geared to favor the urban rich and has little room for white working class unless one is a truck driver(that is until self-driving cars become a thing). So, Democrats won over the useful kinds of whites whereas the GOP hasn't a clue what to do with the 'loser' white working class that voted for Donald Trump as the Party's been for so long a wing of the Chamber of Commerce. As for Trump, he got their votes and they showed up at his rallies in droves, but his presidency has been about 'Muh Israel' and 'Muh Negroes'.
In the foreseeable future, the Democrats may no longer need the black votes so much. In California, for example, the black vote is meaningless. But in places like Atlanta, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and etc., black votes can tip the scale. So, for the time being, the Democrats need all the black votes they can get. Before Trump, this wasn't much of a concern as it's difficult to imagine blacks voting for the likes of Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. But Trump struck a nerve with a segment of the black population.
And in a way, the Democrats do have a reason to worry about the black vote. The Obama presidency blindsided Jews and Democrats to this fact. Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama, and it seemed like Democrats had an effortless lock on the black vote. And yet, it's possible that black support for the Democrats actually eroded from 2008 to 2016 despite their record support for Obama. After all, the Democrats increasingly became the party of the rich, the privileged, the gentrifiers, the great replacers(with mass immigration replacing not only whites but black Americans), and globo-homo. Indeed, but for his race, the Obama presidency was most memorable for its globo-homo glitz. In a way, Obama was the 'first gay president'. And even more than Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, he was a tool and invention of Jews, therefore the 'first Jewish president'. He tried to salvage his black credentials with BLM near the end of his second term, but Michael Brown was too much of a hard sell and the craziness led to Dallas shootings of white policemen. (Of course, no one took a knee for the dead cops.)
In 2016, Hillary lost narrowly largely because the black vote wasn't out in force for her. And Biden, the favorite of the Establishment(along with Kamala), got the nomination because of black votes in the South. So, 2020 victory hinged heavily on the black vote and black complicity in election rigging. And this time, Jews felt they needed to enter into a real bidding war for black loyalty. In the past against milquetoast GOP candidates, the Democrats need not worry too much about the black vote. But there was the chance that Trump might shave off just enough black vote to push him over the top. If Jews and Democrats took the black vote for granted, they had to jealously guard it and bribe it with lavish prizes in 2020. And that's why the George Floyd and BLM thing got so out of control. Of course, Jews hate Trump because his swaggering style had an awakening effect on White America, and BLM & Floyd Cult were also to reinforce the 'white guilt' mechanism.
Anyway, as the saying goes, "Why pay for something when you can get it for free?" And that's how Jews and Democrats had come to feel about the black vote. As blacks were so resolutely pro-Democratic and anti-GOP, it didn't require much effort to keep blacks voting for the Party. Black votes were essentially free, and of course, it was even more so with Obama. Even if Obama didn't do much for blacks, his blackness had blacks voting for him as a 'bro'. But post-Obama was like a rude awakening for blacks. They were happy to have a brotha in the White House for eight years, but when the jig was up, blacks were feeling like Janet Jackson singing, "What have you done for me lately?" Obama yrs were mostly about gentrification, more mass immigration, more globo-homo, and etc. Indeed, it seemed as if black issues were pushed to the rear in favor of not only homos but freaking trannies. Also, Obama didn't say anything about policies like Stop-and-Frisk and, if anything, mostly seemed in be in cahoots with the urban yuppie gentrifier class. In a way, all this BLM hysteria is about Jews and libby-dib elites trying to distract blacks from the fact that THEY did most to lock up record number of blacks, replace blacks with immigrants, favor globo-homo over black issues, and have the IDF teach US police a few tricks on how to control the colored folks. Obama years to blacks were, in a way, sort of like Reagan years to True Conservatives and the Clinton years to True Liberals. Because Reagan was president for 8 yrs(and George H.W. Bush for 4 more yrs), it seemed as if Conservatism really won, but during that period, the US became more soulless and less socially conservative. And while the Clinton years seemed like the triumph of Good Ole Liberalism and boomer idealism, it was actually a time of hyper-capitalism and massive deregulation. It took the passing of the Reagan-Bush era for conservatives to finally wake up and realize nothing had been conserved. And it took the end of the Clinton Era for liberals to realize how Clinton had been the tool of the chamber of commerce and the rise of the oligarchs. And it took the end of the Obama era for blacks to wake up and realize, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, we ain't got nothing in them eight fa**oty years."
And this explains why certain segments of the black population were receptive to Trump in 2016. Obamagic had had a sandman effect on them. They were asleep thinking a brotha was in charge when, in fact, the trends during the Obama years favored the urban yuppie class, the Wall Street oligarchs, and globo-homo types. In a way, this is the danger of having 'your guy' in office. His position creates the impression that your side is on top when, very likely, it is losing out to other forces obfuscated by the false comfort of 'your guy' being on top. Blacks felt a post-Obama funk as his presidency wound down. After Obama, blacks were no longer interested in a white leader. Also, there wasn't another black candidate around that could appeal to white voters, which were crucial to Obama's wins as a Nice Negro. Then, it's understandable why Trump's message of America First had a certain appeal to blacks who feel they themselves should be favored over immigrants, and this sentiment goes back to Booker T. Washington who appealed to American elites to end immigration and hire blacks for jobs.
So, in a long while, Jews and Democrats actually had to fight for black votes and hearts & minds. While they could rest assured that the great majority of blacks would still vote Democratic, they feared that Trump might shave off just enough black votes to win a second term. Or not enough blacks might show up to vote, which is why Covid hysteria was useful to carry out election fraud on an unprecedented scale. Anyway, to win over blacks in 2020, Jews went crazy in the bidding war. For a long time, it was understood that the GOP wouldn't even try to win over black votes. GOP would do the bare minimum to look 'un-racist', and Democrats could be assured of the black vote. But Trump made a real play for the black vote, and this meant that the Democrats couldn't rely on the old tricks once again and rest on their laurels. They had to bid up higher and higher in the Afro-auction. Jews took no chances. What they did for Michael Brown wasn't enough. And BLM-as-movement wasn't enough. George Floyd had to be sanctified. Not merely a victim but a saint. And BLM was transformed from righteous rage to rapturous religion. Jews and Democrats pulled all the stops in showering blacks with glittering prizes.
So, if the Black Vote would have fetched $1,000 in past auctions, the bidding wars in 2020 raised it to about a million dollars. Jews did for BLM what some people did for Bitcoin. Made it rise through the roof. If Hillary had won in 2016 and if she ran for re-election against someone like Jeb Bush or Rick Santorum, none of this would have been necessary. Jews and Democrats could have rested assured that the black votes would be there. Also, it wouldn't be the end of the world if Jeb Bush or his ilk won because he's such a total wussy cuck. But Jews truly hated Trump and what he stood for, and they were willing to DO ANYTHING to unseat him. Indeed, what Jews pulled off in 2020 is like what South Korea did with the steal in the 1988 Olympics. It was obvious Roy Jones clearly won the match, but SK wanted the gold. People always knew there was corruption in the Olympics, but they thought there's no way South Korea would pull something so low, so obvious, so foul IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD. But yep, their provincial pride overrode sense and decency, and so, the steal happened right in front of eyes of the world. Approaching 2020, many wondered what Jews would do to beat Trump. After all, they pulled all sorts of dirty tricks with 'Russia Collusion', 'Ukraine scandal', and other BS. But few people thought Jews would go totally crazy and pull off Covid nuttery and BLM lunacy just to win an election. But they did just that in front of the whole world. Jews have no sense of limits in having their way. But because Jews control the media and top institutions, they fooled just enough people and got away with it. Unlike South Korea that fooled no one, Jews were able to fool so much of the world with their utter BS. But then, even people who were not fooled nevertheless gladly went along with it because they've been led to think they're the 'best and the brightest', therefore ANYTHING is justified in wresting back control from Trump the Nazi and the Deplorables(even though the people in charge in the Trump White House were the same Israel-Firsters).
In a way, blacks have much to thank Trump. Thanks to Trump, Jews and Democrats went all in to win back the blacks. Even Covid hysteria was put aside to let BLM run riot. Blacks got both the spiritual prize as the holiest race and the material prize as they got to run wild and loot and steal. Indeed, even as their stores were being stripped clean by crazy Negroes, the 'woke' companies were singing paeans to BLM under the guidance of Jews who control the gods. The Jewish Mind uses the Black Body to attack whites, body and soul.
If not for Trump, all this attention and adulation wouldn't have been showered upon blacks. Blacks became especially precious in 2020 precisely because Jews feared that record number of blacks might vote for the Orange Man. Of course, Jews know the real truth. They know George Floyd was just a scumbag who died of drug overdose(like so many white working class), and they know Derek Chauvin is a victim of legal lynching. It's like Jews knew Russia Collusion thing was a hoax but pushed it just the same. And they attacked Trump on the Ukraine scandal because it was really ruinous to Biden, the real crook involved with regime in Ukraine installed by US-instigated coup. The real problem for Jews wasn't that Trump was 'racist' but that he came across as least 'racist', at least when it came to blacks. (When it came to Mexicans and Chinese, it was a different story.)
In a way, we see a pattern here. Jews are a 'jealous god' and didn't want Trump to take any credit. They didn't want Trump to take credit for ending the war in Afghanistan, so they delayed it... until Biden could take credit. And notice how Jews are now talking with Russians to arrive to some agreement. The very Jews who howled about Trump being a puppet of Putin are now dealing with Russia. Again, Jews didn't want Trump to take any credit in world affairs. What they shamed Trump for doing, they are doing it themselves. It's like the Kate Beckinsdale character in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO. She says she could never date a guy in advertising but it's really to dissuade a friend from dating a guy that SHE wants. Jews will tell you not to do something, but when you choose not to, they do it and reap the rewards for themselves.
American culture and politics have devolved into a ritual of appeasing Jews, homos, and blacks. Wall Street bailouts, Wars for Israel, globo-homo mania, tranny nuttery, BLM riots, Floyd cult, and etc. This is no way to have a healthy society. But as the fish rots from the head, Jews deserve the most blame for leading America by the nose into the abyss. And yet, all we get from conzos is 'Muh Israel' and "Please don't call me 'racist-wacist'."
Ironically, Limbaugh paved the way for the triumph of the New Liberals who should now be called Uberalls as they stand for Shlomo-Globo hegemony uber alles. Maybe, Limbaugh should be called a 'Limberal' given he unwittingly lent a hand to the Globerals and Uberalls in their total usurpation of power. How was Limbaugh a tool in this?
He was a total cheerleader for US corporations, 'free trade', 'private enterprise', Wall Street, Las Vegas, and money-money-money on the supposition that those are intrinsically 'conservative' forces. His was a pro-rich message though his main appeal was to the rubes. Thus, he helped create the situation of "What's the Matter with Kansas", i.e. so many American social conservatives who were have-lesses supporting policies that favored the have-mores and have-lot-mores in the mistaken belief that Big Money was on the side of Americanism. Perhaps, Limbaugh's blind spot could be forgiven as his formative years were the Cold War when global conflict according to the US Narrative boiled down to God, Enterprise, & American Patriotism versus Godless Communism & Anti-Americanism. Also, when Rush Limbaugh was young, the face of capitalism was General Motors and good ole boys making things in factories. And the GOP was powerful in California — none other than Ronald Reagan won twice there as governor and dominated in 1980 and 1984 — , and the initial high-tech start-ups had many libertarian-leaning individuals who preferred GOP's pro-entrepreneur policies.
Limbaugh was blind, willfully or otherwise, as to how much things had changed in American Capitalism with the ascendancy of boomers(among whom Jews were especially powerful). And had he inspected matters more carefully, he would have realized that Eastern Bloc communist nations were, in more ways than one, culturally and socially more conservative than the Liberal West(that, under the power of PC, became both less conservative and less liberal, rejecting both traditional values and civil liberties in favor of the Tri-Supremacist Idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos enshrined as the Holy Three). Limbaugh clung to Cold War formulations of the Left vs Right, and his continuing influence after the Cold War turned out to be corrosive. In his twilight, he warmed to Donald Trump, but it was too little too late(and besides Trump turned out to be a clown).
In the 1990s, a boomer civil war broke out between Rush Limbaugh(and Newt Gingrich) and Billy Boy Clinton(and Jews securing their position as the new ruling elites). With the defeat of George H.W. Bush, the so-called Greatest Generation's fall from power(and grace) was swift, and the boomers, biggest generation in US history, took total power(though Clinton did appoint some of the older generation). Bob Dole was useless in 1996, and the death of Richard Nixon marked an end of an era. According to Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and his crowd represented the Radical Sixties, Socialism, and Anti-Americanism. But the real conflict wasn't about capitalism vs socialism but about trying to win over Big Capital. Under Bill Clinton, the Democrats had pretty much given up on Big Labor and fixed their gaze on Wall Street, Big Tech, and other Big Money players as the main prizes. It was as if both Limbaugh and Clinton in drag were doing lap dance for Bill Gates and the like. They were both going 'me so horny, we sucky sucky long time'. In time, Boomer Big Money went with the Democrats, something American Conservatives were reluctant to face until the likes of Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson finally began to gripe about traitorous Chamber of Commerce and 'woke capital'. But even now, so many American Conzos yap about 'socialism', 'communism', and blah blah. Right, the mega-billionaires of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Hollywood, Wall Street, and etc. are all a bunch of 'communists'. And those vain homos and trannies funded by the super-rich represent what? Leninism and Stalinism? Bill Clinton, a sleazebag but an astute observer of human nature, understood that the rich aren't only materially greedy but morally vain and status-anxious. As long as Democratic policies were overly punitive on the wealthy, many among the rich would reluctantly stick with the stuffy-and-square GOP as the pro-business party. But once the Democratic Party became reasonably pro-business, many(even most) rich folks would come over to the Democrats(even if GOP remained more pro-business) because the Democrats control the gods and own the 'cool'. Especially with Jewish control of academia and media, the gods of the US became the Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and increasingly Holy Homos. As the Democratic Party was the home of most Jews and blacks, it held the moral high ground. And as Jewish Power made homos ever holier, the young generation increasingly went with the Democrats as the happy globo-homo party.
Of course, the GOP had given up 'racism' long ago, but why would blacks accept racial equality from the GOP when they can get racial sanctity from the Democrats? Some Jews, as 'Neocons', did join the GOP because it was even more pro-Zionist than the Democratic Party, but it was a matter of inches(and besides, the Neocons were merely using the GOP without offering much in return: "I eat your lunch, and I eat my lunch."). If the Democratic Party was 200% for Israel, the GOP claimed it was 210% for Israel. It hardly made a difference. Also, despite GOP's ultra-hardline support for Israel, many American Conservatives opposed or or were at least less enthused about Jewish-favored policies in the US, such as gun-banning, more mass-immigration, anti-white rhetoric, Christianity-bashing, and promotion of globo-homo. Indeed, GOP's extreme obeisance to Israel and Zionism was really a crutch, a desperate compensation for its disfavor among most Jews. If anything, it betrayed GOP's anxiety as the party of disdain among Jews. In a sane world, those attacked by Jews should attack them back, but as Jews became holy in the US, you had to praise them and seek their approval EVEN when they attacked you. As the GOP couldn't win favor from Jews on domestic issues, it went full-steroids on Israel. GOP gushed as if Jews are the very best, and yet most Jews stuck with the Democrats. If indeed Jews are the best yet most remained with the Democratic Party, didn't it imply that Democrats are morally superior? After all, it seems a happier home for the Very Best.
Anyway, as the party of the three most 'sacralized' groups(of Jews, blacks, and homos), the Democrats had a decisive moral advantage over the GOP, and this state of affairs hasn't changed after four years of Donald Trump whose message was, "I love Negroes, even as they riot and loot! I love Jews even as they ram me in the arse! And, Trannies can use women's room at Trump Tower." Rich people love money but are also anxious about their reputation, and as the Jews/Democrats controlled the gods, most rich folks moseyed on over to the Democratic Party. Besides, it was also the party of big Hollywood stars and rock stars, thus more fashionable and 'cool'. In contrast, GOP was associated with 'racist' redneck Neo-Confederate South & 'homophobes' and Nashville hillbillies. (Its moralism came down to Ann Coulter and Dinesh D'Souza yapping about how the Democrats are the 'real racists' because the KKK members were historically Democratic.) And when the Jew-run media made Trump and 'Deplorables' out to be Worse-than-Hitler and the new nazis, most rich folks(shallow and vain) wanted nothing to do with it. And the likes of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney know only one trick: Try to win back the rich with even more tax cuts and other cucktivities.
Limbaugh of the Cold War mentality thought that the triumph of global capitalism was synonymous with victory for conservatism against Godless Communism and leftover radicalism from the Sixties, but the success of everything he'd championed came to mean the death knell of American Conservatism(and also of American Liberalism as the current power is anything but liberal in the traditional or even radical sense). The great irony is that Limbaugh lost precisely because he won. The Big Money that he so idolized won many times over, and its power led to censorship of conservatives, deplatforming of patriots, denial of financial services to rightists, defamation of people like him, and the rise of global-gangster-fascism(as opposed to good humanist fascism). Limbaugh and the dittoheads assumed that Big Capital was at war with Big Government, and the triumph of the former would ensure more liberty, more freedom, and more patriotism. Actually, the result was the fusion of Deep Pockets and Deep State. Also, Limbaugh and his ilk hoped that Jews could be wooed over to Conservatism because Jews are rich and GOP is 210% pro-Israel(than merely 200% that the Democrats are). They failed to realize that Jews have an agenda all their own. Jews weren't looking to pick sides but take over both parties and manipulate them to Jewish supremacist ends.
In the end(and from the beginning), Limbaugh was more style than substance, and Trump turned out to be no different. For all his maverick playacting, he cared more about money, success, fame, and celebrity than integrity and truth. Though he stood up to the GOP on occasion, he was more often than not a reliable cheerleader and whore for all its destructive policies.
Could Limbaugh have made a difference? Yes, but he missed the chance. Looking back, the most prescient presidential candidate of the last fifty years was Ross Perot whose campaign took on both the GOP and the Democratic Party as the tweedle dee and tweedle dum of globalism and 'free trade'. Though Perot was far from perfect and a rather unstable personality, he was more right than wrong about the dangers posed to American sovereignty by the rise of globalism and the New World Order. Because the GOP was more invested in 'free trade' than the Democrats back then, Perot was hit harder by the Republicans. Limbaugh, a Reagan Romantic of the Cold War mindset, joined with the GOP in mercilessly mocking not only Perot's looks and personality but his warnings and policies. Rush, the attack dog of the GOP, assured all the dittoheads across the fruited plains(soon to become tutti-fruity plains) to denounce Perot and go with George H.W. Bush, 'free trade', and New World Order policies. Thus, Limbaugh missed the boat. Another chance came with Patrick Buchanan's remarkable speech at the 1992 GOP convention where he spoke for the common man and the American Worker threatened by globalist 'free trade'. Again, Limbaugh reliably sided with the GOP and repeated all the talking points about how Walmart and the like are the wave of the future, and the American Worker had nothing to fear and nothing to lose and had everything to gain. Or, maybe they can learn to code and become big earners in High-Tech. And of course, 'true conservatives' know that capitalists are all such swell fellows, mostly patriots and natural conservatives(or at the very least libertarians committed to small government and liberty). They would never betray the GOP for all it has done for them with lower taxes, de-regulation, and the like. Limbaugh and dittoheads were fooling themselves.
While capitalists are surely people of talent, drive, ambition, creativity, and even vision, the world of money isn't exactly one of integrity or loyalty. As it's mainly driven by materialism and status-anxiety, loyalty and integrity are the last thing on the mind of capitalists. Capitalism is useful and productive but shouldn't be the core of any meaningful identity, ideology, or value system. Like Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER 2, "all our people are businessmen... their loyalty is based on that..." One may admire businessmen for their ability but never mistake it for integrity.
If Limbaugh had taken a nationalist-populist stance in support of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, perhaps he would have been booted off 'conservative talk radio' that, more often than not, was a propaganda wing of Zionists and the GOP, much like most of so-called MSM is little more than Ministry of Information for the Democratic Party and ADL. Still, he would have been a man of integrity, and had he overcome the obstacles with a populist message, he and his following could have served as a formidable counter-force against globalism pushed not only by the GOP but the Democrats. But, by working with the GOP to crush people like Perot and Buchanan, Limbaugh unwittingly strengthened the future Democrats who would turn out to be the main beneficiaries of 'free trade', deregulation, Big Tech monopoly, and anarcho-oligarcho-tyrannism. Limbaugh banked on the false hope that triumph of New Capital would ensure dominance of the GOP and American Conservatism. And most dittoheads fell for the myth that the power struggle was about American Capitalism & Conservatism(and Neocons & Israel) versus International Socialism & Liberalism(and all those 'Anti-Semites' eager to throw Israel under the bus) when, in fact, the real tug-of-war between GOP and the Democratic Party was for the 'hearts and minds'(or wallets and vanity) of the rich donor class.
The sad irony is that the rich capitalist oligarchic class won bigger than ever(exactly as Limbaugh and dittoheads wished), and it was this very class(especially dominated by Zio-Globalist Jews) that waged total war on American Nationalism, the white race, Christianity, and populist-conservatism. But American Conzos learned nothing. Again with Obama's win in 2008, there was more nonsensical talk about 'socialism'! True, Obama had links with certain radical figures from the Sixties, some of them Jewish, but most of them had moved on from communism to Zionist-capitalist-supremacism. (Besides, Neocons had Trotskyite backgrounds.) Wall Street was bailed out under Obama, the puppet of the Jews, and Jews got even richer when Main Street took it up the arse. And it was Big Capital that funded globo-homo and tranny-wanny nonsense. It was the capitalists who promoted 'gay burgers'. And it was the capitalists at Chick-Fil-A who, despite so much support from the conservative consumers, caved under Jewish Capitalist pressure and became Dick-Fil-Ass. And while uber-capitalist banks were shutting down accounts of conservatives and rightists, some of the biggest corporations were pumping many millions, even billions, into groups like BLM and SPLC. It was super-rich Hollywood Jews and Silicon Valley Zionists who pumped record cash into Georgia to ensure Democratic Senatorial wins. Joe Biden raised record money in 2020 thanks to Big Capital and super-rich Jews. And Big Capital conspired with the Deep State and Big Media to turn 2020 into a hellhole with Covid nonsense and BLM nuttery just to punish America for having elected Trump. So, the notion that capitalism is automatically conservative was a boomer myth, a byproduct of Cold War mentality.
But the kind of 'conservatism' set by Limbaugh and dittoheads failed to see the big picture because it was stuck on framing the world in terms of capitalism = conservatism versus socialism = liberalism. What's-the-Matter-with-Kansas was a case of "What's the matter with Limby-Dim and the Dittoheads?" Now, it's true that Limbaugh's reach and influence waned in the age of the internet, but much of the talking points remained. So, Steven Crowder the chowder-head still thinks the big enemy is 'socialism'. Andrew Torba, though laudable as founder of Gab and defender of free speech, gripes about 'communism', ROTFL. (China may be ruled by the CCP, but China gave up communism long ago... or haven't they heard? CCP today is about as Maoist as the current Democrats are Pro-Confederate and Pro-Working-Class.) And so many even in the Dissident Right speak of THE LEFTISTS. Anyone with sense would have realized long ago that true leftism is deader than conservatism, though it may not seem that way on the surface as radical 'wokeness' seem to be everywhere. But it's all just labels over trivia and trifles. Jewish supremacist capitalist-Zionism hides behind the 'leftist' label to create the false impression that its side is about 'equity' and 'justice' when it's totally about supremacism, hierarchy, hegemony, and privilege. If the Democrats are really about equal justice for all, what's with all their 'Muh Israel' catechisms and submission to Zionist Jews and total support for More Wars for Zion?
Alt Right could have introduced something new, but idiot Richard Spencer and his retardo crew decided to larp as Nazis and fall into the enemy's trap, which made it even harder for Trump to try something different.
At any rate, one thing Perot got right was going beyond the stunted worldview of left vs right. The Reform Party was a third party that appealed to both rightist and leftist sentiments. Though Nazism 2.0 turned out to be insane with its imperialism and wars, Nazism 1.0 was essentially sound precisely because it combined rightism with leftism. National Socialism was about German Pride but also about the German worker, the backbone volk of the nation. Perot instinctively understood this, and free-thinking Democrats and Republicans were willing to give him a chance. It attempted a counter-convergence against the convergence happening within both the GOP and the Democratic Party. After the end of the Cold War, the establishment elites of both parties were converging on 'free trade', globalism, the gods of PC, and total sucking up to Jews. For all the bitterness between Billy Boy Clinton and Newt Gingrich, they were totally agreed on More for Wall Street and More for Big Money. Perot's challenge envisioned a different kind of convergence. Not among the elites but among the masses. The American People, instead of being divided by and manipulated with the false dichotomy of 'left' vs 'right', would converge as a broad mass of patriots in defense of national sovereignty and economic justice. Convergence of the people against the convergence of the elites. If not for Perot's instability and the dirty tricks played by both parties(especially by the GOP), it's possible Perot could have changed the course of US history. And Limbaugh could have been part of something truly remarkable but he opted to be the lapdog of the GOP and cheered on the Walmartians.
A third party is useless if it appeals only to one side. Another 'liberal' party will merely take votes away from the Democrats, ensuring victory for the GOP, and another 'conservative' party will shave votes from the GOP, ensuring victory for the Democrats. The only chance for a Third Party is to win over disillusioned people from both sides. Also, its message must be both left and right. After all, there is much that is good about leftism(without which Western progress is inconceivable) and much that is good about rightism(without which there is no civilizational continuity and stability). Conservatism allows for tradition, caution, and continuance. Liberalism allows for novelty, experimentation, and daring. It's like how evolution works. Without mutations, organisms would have remained the same. And yet, most mutations are harmful and must be rejected. Without leftism, there is just moribund conservatism, and many civilizations grew weak and weary as a result, like Ancient Egypt and Byzantium. The West made great leaps because of the revolutionary spirit. And yet, without the stabilizing gyrational force of conservatism, leftism can turn cancerous and crazy, mistaking every novelty as the 'most evolved' truth. Imagine an organism where the mutations take over. It will turn into Elephant Man.
Looking back on 2016, it would have been better for Trump to run as a third-party candidate. Because he ran as a Republican, he was compelled to play the 'rightist', thus needlessly alienating many people with leftist inclinations. Had he run on a combination of nationalism and socialism, he could have done so much more. Of course, had he won as a third party candidate in 2016, he would have been squeezed by both parties in Congress for four grueling years, but many more Americans would have been with him. Being alone with the people isn't the worst thing, and his tragedy would have been heroic. Instead, as a sham 'rightist' in a cucked GOP, the tragedy of 2020 was a clown-show, a farce. Two realities decide the fate of America: JEWS CONTROL THE GODS and JEWS GIVE YOU MONEY. In the end, despite all his bluster, Rush Limbaugh bowed to the Jewish-controlled gods and took their money as Talk Radio Industry was controlled by Uber-Zionists.
Why call them 'leftist', thereby giving them undeserving credit? The current PC is about Tri-Supremacism, that of Jews, blacks, and homos. No one else matters. Some idiot black criminal, Fentanyl Floyd, died of OD under police custody but became big, big news and we must hail him to high heaven; even Donald Trump was compelled to join the chorus. But all those people attacked and even killed by black mobs didn't count. All those whose properties were destroyed by blacks have been ignored. Blacks have the right to riot, at least when Jewish Power gives the go-ahead. Even though blue cities were attacked by BLM & Antifa mobs and black looters, most white urbanites are still firmly on the 'progressive' side. They feel it's their 'spiritual' duty. Homos are above the law. They spread HIV and caused myriad problems, but we are to weep for them as hapless victims and celebrate sodomy in traditional houses of worship. And June is the crazed 'gay pride' month, with the most powerful industries and institutions all flying the homo flag as the main symbol of 'global values'. All these yrs, what did we see in public spaces but 'gay' flags and BLM signs? (They serve as 'passover' markings for corporations to be spared from the ire of Political Correctness.) And of course, the Jews! The big kahuna of the New globo-homo Order. They get away with everything. They make sure the US favors Zionists over Palestinians and Israel over Iran even though Jews occupy Palestinian lands and Israel has nukes but Iran doesn't. Jews insist on Jewish Supremacism as default US policy but constantly berate whites about 'white supremacism'. Goy whores of both parties deliriously chant "Israel is America's greatest ally" at AIPAC rallies.
The 'woke' order is about supremacism of three groups: Jews, homos, and blacks. White cucks and non-white idiots are told to rally around those three holies. They themselves don't count. If the US is really leftist and cares for the underdog, why is there NOTHING about BDS and Palestinian Lives Matter on the so-called 'left'? There are grassroots elements on left and right that condemn Zionist Supremacism, but their voices never make it to the top. Most Democrats consent to blue states/cities shutting down BDS. Trumpers howl with approval when Trump pledges more support for Israel while dumping on Iran and Palestinians EVEN THOUGH Jews hate white American populists even more than Arabs and Muslims.
So, we need to start by STOP calling the current Western Power 'leftist'. Stop giving it the credit it doesn't deserve. It should be called 'Tri-Supremacist', and Tri-Supremacism dominates elite discourse and dogma. It will also raise consciousness among most non-white groups that Jews, blacks, and homos are favored over them.
In Russia, the Left actually did its part in bringing down the Yeltsin-Jewish-oligarch system. The Communist Party opposed the gangster-capitalism and could have won the election in 1996 if not for Zionist-US interference. Later, Russian leftists joined with nationalists against the globalists.
The problem with the West is there is no real left anymore. The 'left' has been refashioned to celebrate the idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks, thus Tri-Supremacism. So we should call it 'tri-supremacism' because that's what it is, and then, scales may fall from more eyes. Terminology matters. Call it 'leftist', and it gives the impression that progs are for 'social justice' when they're for idolatry of three supremacist groups. Just ask the Palestinians how much progs care about peace and justice for the underdog. Tulsi Gabbard took an anti-imperialist position, and she was totally ignored. Instead, most progs, under the influence of Jewish-controlled media, actually condemned Trump for trying to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan. They are aligned with the Deep State and military-industrial complex. And they embraced the ridiculous Russia-Collusion hysteria that would have made Joe McCarthy blush.
The difference between Russia in the 90s and US now is that, even though Jewish oligarchs gained immense power and wealth under Boris Yeltsin, they hadn't as yet transformed popular thought. As such, most Russians still thought in nationalist and socialist terms. Even though communism was bad for Russia, its one silver lining was the suppression of Jewish Capital. Capitalism has been the real instrument of Jewish Power as sky is the limit for gaining profits and privilege. Communism suppressed the rise of capitalist oligarchy. Also, communist nations tended to be more insular and conservative on social matters. And they were fairly patriotic because nationalism, like socialism, stressed unity and the collective over mere individualism. No wonder then that in the 1970s and 80s, the Soviet Communist Party tolerated Russian nationalists more than Russian 'Liberals'(many of whom were Jewish/Zionist) who looked to the West for all the answers. So, even though Jewish oligarchs gained super-power in Russia of the 90s, they had no popular support. Most Russians were in nationalist and socialist mode, and Vladimir Putin exploited this reality to consolidate power to the detriment of Jewish oligarchs. Also, as the economic plan of the 90s was so calamitous in a nation without social safety nets, many Russians faced destitution and turned against the shock doctrine of gangster capitalism and globalist 'liberal democracy', aka puppet government of the Zionist-run West.
But things are different in the West. As Jews have had control of media and academia for a long time, they managed to persuade great many folks that Tri-Supremacism constitutes the highest virtues and values of 'Western Civilization'. Howls of 'racism' means we must worship blacks as moral superiors. Sports and Pop Culture inculcated generations of white people with worship of blacks as idols of cool and badassery. Accusations of 'antisemitism' and endless Holocaust remembrance obligate whites to bless and obey Jews as their highest duty. And 80% of Americans think 'gay marriage' is a good thing. That means a huge number of 'conservatives' also feel that way. So, there is insufficient national-popular will in the West to push back against Jewish Power. Jews had the money and connections in Russia of the 90s but not the control of the Russian Soul. In contrast, Jews have such total control over what now constitutes 'Western Values' or 'American Exceptionalism' that even the American 'right' and populism couch their arguments in terms of 'We love blacks more' or 'We love Jews more'. And 'conservatives' have already come a long way to accept homosexuality and even tranny-craziness as something wonderful. Consider how the 'conservative' judge Gorsuch decided in favor of tranny nonsense. Whether 'left' or 'right', the basic premise in the West is Tri-Supremacism, i.e. "Our side is better because we suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos more than your side does." It's pure idolatry, not ideology.
Also, unlike bankrupt Russia of the 90s, the US and much of the West have an effective social safety net system. Maybe this won't last forever, but no one in the US starved even during the 2008 financial debacle and bigger mess with Covid hysteria. The problem even now is too much obesity. We've seen how even when the so-called 'left' loses to the so-called 'right' in the West, NOTHING changes. Brexit only led to MORE IMMIGRATION of non-whites and more PC censorship. Under Trump and Republican control of both houses, we only got more tax cuts for Wall Street, more anti-Russian/Iran hysteria, more sucking up to Jews, more sucking up to blacks, and more gay-gay-gay.
Words matter, and calling globalists the 'left' has been utterly damaging by lending the false impression, especially among the naive young, that the Jews, blacks, and homos stand for 'leftism' when they are in supremacist gangster-capitalist mode. And of course, Jews are in militarist mode as they push for more Wars for Israel. And as many blacks serve in the military, they are complicit in neo-imperialist ventures to destroy so many lives. Black generals and soldiers got blood on their hands. But where is the cry of 'Arab Lives Matter', 'Muslim Lives Matter', 'Iranian Lives Matter', 'Syrian Lives Matter', 'Yemenese Lives Matter'? There is only silence because the so-called 'left' is totally bogus. They only care about Jewish power, blacks ego, and homo vanity. Call it Tri-Supremacism. One dead lousy Negro Fentanyl Floyd matters more than millions of Arab/Muslim lives destroyed by Wars for Israel and their proxies.
Republican Party is useless because Billy Boy Clinton in the 1990s merged Republicanism with Democratism. What animates elite mentality? Material Greed and Moral Vanity. In politics, material greed amounts to the freedom of capital to make more money; and moral vanity amounts to the perception of being on the side of angels, be it spiritual or social or whatever. No wonder that the ruling elites in Western History both hogged the wealth and hoisted the banner of Christ. Material greed and moral vanity.
In the past, the GOP offered material greed to the elites, whereas the Democratic Party, especially in association with the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement, came to define moral vanity for the elites. So, the elites looked to the GOP for material greed and looked to Democrats for moral vanity. Because of its deep connections to Big Labor and legacy of the Great Depression(which, according to New Deal lore, the Democrats overcame by favoring labor over capital), the Democrats were limited in offering material greed to the elites. So, the elites had no choice but to go to the GOP for material greed, all the while inching ever closer to the Democrats on moral vanity.
But then, Clinton comes along and severs ties between Democrats and the Working Class. He signs onto 'free trade' and ramps up mass immigration of peon labor. And he deregulates Wall Street and hastens the rise of posh cities. Also, leftism is altered from Mayday to Gayday, which is great for the rich as homos love to cater to the powerful and privileged.
In other words, the Democrats could now offer both material greed and moral vanity to the elites. So, why would the elites need the GOP anymore? Elites got the bundle of greed and vanity in one package from Democrats. At this point, it's difficult for the GOP to offer even MORE GREED to the elites as the elites have done so well under 'Neo-Liberalism'. Didn't Obama bail out the banks? Aren't Hillary and Biden the darlings of Wall Street? With the Democratic Party, the elites can make super-profits and make symbolic gestures with homo flags and BLM signs.
GOP has a future if it becomes a genuine populist party of the have-lesses, but Trumpism proved that's far from doable. So, it's better to get rid of the party. Its only impact is to divide the white vote along false dichotomies of 'left' and 'right'. US would do better as a one-party system where all Republicans become Democrats and form alliances with saner groups against the elites, especially the Jews.
An excellent summary of the plot and themes of AFTER HOURS is presented in the video below by Kevin Michael Grace.
The 1980s were not a good decade for Martin Scorsese. This may sound odd considering he began with a bang, RAGING BULL, a work that was voted by American critics as the best film of the decade. Furthermore, even though KING OF COMEDY, AFTER HOURS, and LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST weren’t commercial successes — TKOC was a total flop — , plenty of critics defended or championed them. (Personally, I’d say TKOC works as mordant satire, AH is amusing but mostly fluff, and LTOC is like, Sam Peckinpah’s BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, powerful as concept but handled poorly, a casualty of self-indulgence.) Scorsese had a moderate hit with COLOR OF MONEY, not least because of its dynamo cast of Paul Newman and Tom Cruise, but I don’t think I ever bothered to watch it from beginning to end; Scorsese seemed more interested in billiard balls than characters or story. Anyway, given the drift of Scorsese’s career in the 1980s, from the strong RAGING BULL and THE KING OF COMEDY to works that were either superficial or confused, I pretty much wrote him off(like Francis Ford Coppola who’s been unable to make a masterpiece after APOCALYPSE NOW). I felt pretty much the same way about Steven Spielberg who, like Scorsese, began the decade strongly with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and E.T., THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. Then, he got mired in silly stuff like a mini-movie in TWILIGHT ZONE, two lame sequels of Indiana Jones, and the remake ALWAYS(which is nice but hardly special except for Holly Hunter who still had the magic before she made a total ass of herself in the putrid PIANO, a cinematic crime for which there can be no forgiveness for all involved). There was COLOR PURPLE, a movie I haven’t seen. From what I read of it, Spielberg took a rather simple book by Alice Walker and gave it the David Lean treatment, probably as dumb as what Francis Ford Coppola did with THE OUTSIDERS, a story of a bunch of young ne’er-do-wells inflated to GONE WITH THE WIND proportions. But then, there was EMPIRE OF THE SUN, which for all its faults, is truly an audacious and amazing work. Still, by the end of the decade, one couldn’t help but feel that Scorsese and Spielberg had run out of creative fuel; they would just become tired and tiresome journeyman directors like the latter-day Coppola and Mike Nichols(who lost any sign of spark he showed in films from THE GRADUATE to CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, indeed even THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN). Then, it was all the more surprising that Scorsese and Spielberg had their best decade yet in the 1990s as film-makers still possessed of youthful energy but maturing beyond earlier fixations and limitations.
Personally, I never thought very highly of AFTER HOURS even though Kevin Michael Grace makes a good case for reevaluation. But, there is a certain fondness for associative reasons: 1985 was was the year I started college, the rite of passage where one becomes a full adult. Also, regardless of whether 1985 was one of the great years in cinema or not, I remember certain films from that year vividly, partly because some of them were indeed remarkable and partly because I was of a more excitable state of mind — full independence will have that effect. It was the bridge year between finality of youth and beginning of adulthood. Among the great or remarkable works of that year — ones I still revisit with utmost pleasure — are TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A.(dir. William Friedkin), RAN(dir. Akira Kurosawa), WHEN FATHER WAS AWAY ON BUSINESS(dir. Emir Kusterica), LOST IN AMERICA(dir. Albert Brooks), MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE(dir. Stephen Frears), DEATH OF A SALESMAN(dir. Volker Schlondorff), RUNAWAY TRAIN(dir. Andrei Konchalovsky), and HIMATSURI(dir. Mitsuo Yanagimachi). Below top tier were notable works such as COLONEL REDL, ELENI, EMERALD FOREST, THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN, FANDANGO, PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, THE HOME AND THE WORLD, KING DAVID, MISHIMA, THE OFFICIAL STORY, PEE WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE, PRIZZI’S HONOR, REAL GENIUS, REVOLUTION, THE SURE THING, TAMPOPO, THE TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL, TROUBLE IN MIND, TWICE IN A LIFETIME, DREAMCHILD, 28 UP, and VAGABOND. Not so good and even terrible are certain movies for which I have a special like, if only out of nostalgia: YEAR OF THE DRAGON, WEIRD SCIENCE, WITNESS, VISION QUEST, TUFF TURF, ST. ELMO’S FIRE, RED SONJA, THE QUIET EARTH, PALE RIDER, MASK, MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME, THE JEWEL OF THE NILE, HAIL MARY, DAY OF THE DEAD, DANCE WITH A STRANGER, CODE OF SILENCE, THE BREAKFAST CLUB, and BRAZIL. If I had a time machine and could go back to any year, my first choice would be 1985 or 1986 when all seemed possible.
Of all the 1985 films, the two I prize most are TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. and RAN. By a happy chance, I got to see a double-feature of TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A.(my second viewing) and AFTER HOURS, and so, the two films became inexorably fused in my mind though I believe one is infinitely greater than the other. Even though both films are very much works of their time — Friedkin’s crime thriller was marketed as cinematic MIAMI VICE — , AFTER HOURS now seems a bit dated in its yuppisms whereas TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. seems like a timeless work of mythic proportions. Though the scope of AFTER HOURS is as small as that of TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. is big, both were relatively low-budget works that go to show what a talented director can squeeze out from limited funds. And as social critique, both works conveyed the soulless materialism and narcissism of the time, though one could argue that there is a certain mad heroism to the reckless drive for revenge in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. One key difference is that, even though the characters of TLADILA seem more childlike in their game of cops and robbers in contrast to the more ‘cultured’ individuals of AFTER HOURS who apparently live for ideas & creativity, there’s no denying that the former are real men whereas the latter are big children. Even though ‘contact sports’ are simpler than ‘creative pursuits’, there is something real, tough, sobering, and unmistakable about physical conflict — win or lose, a matter of life and death — that is absent in cerebral life that can allow for deep thought & great art but also, more often than not, sophistry, nonsense, and craziness. While cops(or even federal agents) may not be the brightest bulbs or refined sophisticates, they know what crime and race relations are about. One cannot make it as a cop with social constructs and ideological delusions. Bullet from the gun of a thug cannot be stopped with a thought or idea. It's telling that the elderly agent in TLADILA is blasted in the head by a shotgun. It's not a war of words but of sticks and stones that break bones. In contrast, a college professor or some intellectual can make up his own reality with theories favored by his morally narcissistic egotism. (Granted, this can lead to much agony as well, as evinced in David Mamet's OLEANNA.) This is why people-of-mind can use reason & reflection to attain wisdom OR misuse intellect to surround their know-it-all selves with lies or half-truths to stoke their delusions. Same goes for artists. Genuine artists can create great works that reveal something about truth, beauty, and/or the human condition. Or they can demonstrate the gift of mythic imagination or psychological insight. But because art has an escapist component(and entertainment value) and/or, in the modernist context, the conceit of the avant-garde, it can just as easily lead people away from the truth. Consider how so many people prefer to lose themselves in horror, fantasy, sci-fi, or romance genres than face up to the hard truths of reality. But then, even more dangerous is lies sold as truth, fantasy sold as fact. Tragically, too much of current media and ‘art’-cinema/TV are participants in the Great Cover-Up. Because they offer their views and narratives in the form of ‘fair & balanced’ News or ‘Serious’ movies or TV docu-drama, people may be fooled into believing something like HIDDEN FIGURES or SOCIAL NETWORK have something 'important' to tell us about the world. But, most ‘serious’ movies and TV shows are propaganda that would have you believe that ‘white supremacists’ are responsible for most violence in the US while blacks are always ‘victims’. Or, how about the Russia Collusion Hoax carried out by combination of Deep State, Courts, and Mass Media(while the academia either sat silent or surreptitiously added fuel to the hysteria). Incredibly, the news media now resemble advertising more than serious reporting. And the very Progs who lamented the commercialization of visual medium in the movie BROADCAST NEWS(which itself is dishonest schlock if one thinks about it) are now only too happy that it’s the mouthpiece of the oligarchy. After all, Jewish oligarchs own the media, and most media operators(and Hollywood bigshots) are Jews, and Jews tend to stick together.
Anyway, what can we say about AFTER HOURS and why is it relevant to our times? The film is about a young yuppie(not yet a hipster type exactly) trapped in fast-changing Soho(or So-Homo), a neo-bohemian world of homos, post-beatniks, artists(more like artniks), deracinated yuppies, punks, alienated remnants of urban working class, lonely people, petty criminals, and infantile eccentrics of all kind. There isn’t a single child in the entire movie, but just about everyone is so childish. The lead played by Paul Hackett(Griffin Dunne) is hardly mature himself but an adult compared to nearly everyone else in the film who seemed to have been weaned on junk culture & attitudes, with growth stunted at around 15 or younger. Some of these people may be reasonably intelligent or talented, but a namby-pamby quality infects most of them. Thankfully, this is not a P.T. Anderson film as each of the characters would have been revealed to possess a heart of gold and for whom we need to lend our shoulders to cry on, boo hoo hoo. Scorsese, the product of Little Italy where youth culture hadn’t fully taken root during his formative years, is made of tougher stuff, at least as an artist(as his public pronouncements on social issues are as inane as those of just about anyone in Hollywood). Also, anyone who grew up in NY in the 60s, 70s, and 80s would have been all-too-aware of the crime problem, especially pertaining to blacks. The millennial children of NY yupsters(yuppie-hipsters as yuppism and hipsterism fully melded together in the 90s) know a very different reality. NY, one of the most dangerous cities, underwent dramatic decline in crime since the Clinton presidency and under mayors such as Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. The New York of the 1990s and 2000s could produce a spoiled brat like Lena Dunham who takes everything for granted in the Big Crapple. Of course, there were always nice parts of NY, and if one knows NY mostly from Woody Allen films like ANNIE HALL, MANHATTAN, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, and MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY, one would hardly know the city has a black population and a crime problem. Two most memorable murders in Allen’s movies are both by elderly Jews. In MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY, some Jewish guy who looks like Stanley Kauffmann bumps off his wife to go off with some young pretty shikse bimbo who looks like Mia Farrow. In CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, an aging Jewish doctor has his underworld brother hire goons to take out a blackmailing mistress. Allen’s first movie, TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN was about crime but as spoof. But then, given sensitivities about blacks and ‘racism’, Hollywood has never been fully honest about crime. DIRTY HARRY movies presents some black thugs, but the big villains are invariably white. DEATH WISH has some black criminals as well, but the worst crooks seem to be white or Hispanic. In reality, the worst criminals are blacks, but in movies, you’re more likely to see blacks as cops, lawyers, and judges than as criminals.
What is interesting about watching AFTER HOURS today is all the oddities, neuroses, and imbecilities in the film now seem so commonplace and even institutionalized. When the film came out, the US was hardly a ‘traditional’ nation. Though the 80s were called the Reagan Decade or Reagan Era, in cultural terms it was the age of Frat Parties and Neon Hedonism. ‘Frat parties’ culturally imply something more than the college partying scene. It’s a cultural template, and the frat-party atmosphere has been a staple of countless movies about youth. Though RISKY BUSINESS is about high-schoolers, it is essentially a frat-party movie. So is SIXTEEN CANDLES. The way young people act in such movies, it’s as if they are prepping for the day when they can go to real frat parties, like the one near the end of THE SURE THING. Even movies about brainy people, such as REVENGE OF THE NERDS and REAL GENIUS, riff on frat-party motifs. Neither is really about geeks and nerds validating their worth with brain-power but more about proving their worth as people who can party and have a good time like anyone else. (In contrast, SOCIAL NETWORK is the real revenge of the nerd tale as its main character appears to eschew social life to gain money and power. But it is also a big lie. Mark Zuckerberg wasn't driven by ethnic resentment but simply by greed and megalomania.) Suburbia featured prominently in the ‘Reagan Era’ culture of the 80s, but it was so different from the family-based suburbia of 1950s TV and Advertising. Especially with the rise of Youth Culture beginning in the mid 50s and reaching unforeseen heights in the 60s and thereafter, even the suburban home in Pop Culture was usually bereft of anyone but young people. Parents were virtually non-existent, and if they were seen, they were usually, at best, a nuisance, and more often than not, ‘uncool’ pests, which grew increasingly ironic as the parental figures increasingly became the boomers themselves. (If boomer birth began in 1946, the oldest boomers were already 40 by mid 80s.) Teachers generally fared worse in most movies catering to youth. (Most of these movies and TV shows were written, directed, and/or produced by formerly uncool kids who wanted to be thought 'cool' via the stuff they made.) In a movie like RISKY BUSINESS, the parents are conveniently gone, and we see young people in a world of their own doing their thing. In a way, being an upper highschool student or college student was to have the best of both worlds. On the one hand, one was still young enough not to work and worry about paying taxes and insurance. Also, parents still provided essential necessities, like allowance, use of car, rent-free living space, and even college tuition. Yet, one was legally an adult and free to pursue one’s whims and dreams.
Tom Cruise in RISKY BUSINESS
Still, the reason why the 80s(especially of highschool/college scene and expanding suburbia, not least due to urban problems of black blight that led to white flight) were seen as ‘conservative’ and ‘normal’ despite excesses of hedonism, narcissism, and immaturism had to do with recognizable themes and fixations. So, even if people weren’t exactly moral, traditionalist, sober, or responsible, they were acting recognizably human in the most normal and obvious sense of the word. They represented the Id(in the Freudian sense) of the majority. The young men and women in RISKY BUSINESS are seen acting rather sordid, but it’s readily apparent what it’s all about: Sex, Money, and Good Times. One may say it’s morally wrong, but it’s not weird. We see healthy human drives put to bad use, but there’s no mistake as to what they are after. Naturally, boys in the movie audience are going to identify with good-looking Tom Cruise. Girls in the audience are going to swoon over cute Tom. And everyone’s gonna be grinning from ear to ear as teenage fantasies come true. The characters get to acting risky, even reckless. They overstep their bounds and get in too deep. But it’s a very ‘normal’ movie in that even the excesses are extensions of all-too-common human drives. It’s like someone eating to excess isn’t commendable but understandable. We all want to have another scoop of ice cream or another serving of pie. It’s not like eating bugs, drinking blood, or making foodstuff out of vaginal yeast or placenta. Following the counterculture conceits of the 60s and militant radicalism of the 70s, there was the hunger for the Return(if not exactly Revenge) of the Normal. It seemed everyone and everything had failed big time. The Left disgraced itself with radicals who turned to terrorism. The black movement spiraled out of control with militants and then with crime. The Right felt betrayed by Richard Nixon’s bold moves with the USSR and China. And then Watergate disgraced Nixon. People looked to Jimmy Carter as the new hope, but the late 70s were marked by stagflation and sense of America’s decline. With the demise of Counterculture and Hippies, the 70s turned to the nihilism of rage(punk music) and nihilism of nightlife(disco), but neither panned out for long. For Middle America, punk was too ugly & abnormal, and disco was too ‘gay’ & polyester. The rise of ‘cultural neo-conservatism’ was anticipated less by pop music than by Hollywood’s Movie Brat directors. ‘Cultural Neo-Conservatism’ is key here because most of the participants, except for John Milius, were not politically conservative even though they were certainly not on the Hard Left either(like Hollywood communists of the 40s and 50s). People like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were essentially limousine liberals whose cultural instincts were, at least relative to their peers in arts & culture, rather ‘conventional’, ‘conservative’, and ‘traditionalist’. George Lucas’ paean to youth, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, is set in an America that is still ‘innocent’ and ‘clean-cut’ before Free Love & Drugs really became a thing. Spielberg was in love with Suburbia. To him, it wasn’t boring but a wonderland of low crime where kids could run or bike around freely and dream about the stars. Indeed, many urban folks loved Spielberg movies as a fantasy of escape from urban crime and grime. Unlike city-scape, there was plenty of space out there in the suburbs. And you might even smell the soil, capture fireflies, and gaze at the constellation(though increasing sprawl since the 70s pretty much blotted out most stars even from the suburbs). While Martin Scorsese presented New York as a menacing & degenerate place in TAXI DRIVER — big cities didn’t come across much better in films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and DIRTY HARRY — , you might find Lost America in the suburban fantasies of Spielberg. The suburbs were cleaner, quieter, and whiter. (Intellectual Woody Allen, though very different from childlike Spielberg, did something similar for NY in films like ANNIE HALL, MANHATTAN, and HANNAH AND HER SISTERS. Though the stories are set in NY of late 70s and 80s with plenty of messed-up artists, thinkers, & poseurs, there is an old-fashioned sentimentality not unlike what is shown in RADIO DAYS and BROADCAST DANNY ROSE; it’s as if Allen blocked out much of the social & cultural shift that took place since the 60s even though he is very much a product of those changes: A 60s icon whose favored cultural references are of an older New York. There is something old-fashioned about the Coens as well, but then, unlike the world of Pop Culture, the Cinematic Community tends to look deeper into the past[and other cultures, many of them more conservative than the West] for remembrance and appreciation. What Pop Star looks back to the 19th century for inspiration? But Coens remade TRUE GRIT set in a bygone time.) MTV, though mostly inane and trashy, was part of the ‘cultural neo-conservatism’ in this sense: It catered mainly to the White Suburban demographic. It rejected black acts except for those with crossover appeal, especially to White Middle America. And though MTV celebrated excess, self-indulgence, and wantonness, it was, like RISKY BUSINESS, in tune with majority tastes, appetites, and fantasies. (It was with YO, MTV RAPS that the channel turned decisively urban, jungle, and Anti-Middle-America, especially as it arrived around the time madonna, the top white female pop star, began to parade her jungle fever to white girls all across America.) Given the vast changes since Reagan left office, one might think the Age of Deviancy would have set in soon enough, but it didn’t. The 90s might be called the Black Decade, or the Jungle Era. Not only did the L.A. Riots rock the nation, but there was Bill Clinton as the 'first black president’. Michael Jordan was seen as a demigod(in a decade when Larry Bird, the 80s sports idol, had faded as a factor). Blacks celebrated over O.J. Simpson. Jews, monopolizers of erotica, finally decided to make pornography ‘interracial’. TV shows began to feature black males and white females as mates. Rap and Hip Hop became huge. Though some of these trends intensified further in later years, the template really took hold in the 90s. Given Bill Clinton’s huge support from the homo community, one might have thought deviancy would have emerged victorious in the 90s, but there was too much of the Old Guard left as voters and players. They had to retire and/or die off for the Age of Deviancy to really take off. (The Old Guard obviously failed to pass down their values, themes, narratives, and symbols to their children and grandchildren because, once they were out of the picture, Old America died almost instantly. In contrast, because older Jews passed down their stories and passions to their children and grandchildren, even their passing will not affect the power of Jewish Tribalism. If the old torch fails to pass the flame to the new torch, its light will fade forever once its fire goes out no matter how brightly it had once burned. It's like even the biggest forest fire comes to a total end when the last flames are snuffed out.) Because of the backlash against Clintonism with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, the Age of Deviancy spearheaded by homos & freaks had to wait even though Jews and homos worked tirelessly behind the scenes to lay the groundwork for the eventual takeover. With the Reagan Era dead(not least because of George H.W. Bush’s lackluster one-term presidency[alongside the insipid Dan Quayle], the end of the Cold War, and Clintonism’s appropriation of ‘free trade’ and ‘law & order’ themes from the GOP) and without Deviancy to take front and center of the New Culture, blackness became the dominant theme of the 1990s. (There was Quentin Tarantino and Eminem, but they seem to see themselves as 'white niggers'.) The 90s was also the Decade of the Geek as the Internet changed America like nothing before. It also made overnight tech billionaires who became the New Oligarchs. But as rich and powerful as geeks are, they are too lacking in personality and charm to define the zeitgeist of an era. And then, 9/11 and the Iraq War sidelined Cultural Trends for awhile as much of the talk was about Terrorism, WMD, and Spreading Democracy, aka the Return of 'History'. The financial collapse of 2008 was the final death knell for Bush II and the GOP, and one might have thought that the rise of Obama would have heralded a New Era of Black Power, but more than anything, he was a tool of Jews and Homos, and it was through him that US made the full lurch into the Age of Deviancy. As different as White Middle America 80s and Black Urban America 90s were from each other, they had one thing in common: They were about excesses and indulgences of normal drives of the respective racial communities. While many white figures in 80s pop culture acted stupid and loutish, they were nevertheless normal white people acting out their fantasies of sex, money, and pleasure. And even though rap thug culture was plenty demented, it was ‘healthy’ and ‘normal’ in the sense that it represented the unleashed Id of most blacks who, once reverted to their jungle-savage state, have little on their minds but ‘muh fist’, ‘muh dick’, and ‘muh booty’. As such, Jews found both Middle American excesses and Black Thug-and-Biatch excesses problematic. Jews handsomely profited from both, but the 80s put White Gentiles at the center, and 90s put Black Gentiles at the center. How could Jews put their interests at the center? Jews were only 2% of the population and known mainly for neuroticism. What group is most like Jews in high achievement, neuroticism, and being a small minority? It was the homos, of course. And homos were especially useful because they lack continuity + autonomy. In some ways, homos are both the most fragile and most resilient community in the world. There is no homo lineage like there is Jewish lineage or Greek lineage that may go back 1000s of yrs. A Jew can trace his ancestry back to the time of King David. Conceivably, Jews can produce more Jews who produce more Jews ad infinitum to keep the Jewish Race alive forever. There is organic, cultural, and genetic continuity to Jewishness. In contrast, even if a homo man and homo woman procreate, the chances are that the child will be straight. Thus, there is no such thing as homo ancestry(and, of course, homo ‘sex’ cannot produce life). However, there are homos in EVERY COMMUNITY, even in ones that are most anti-homo. The most anti-homo couple can have a homo child. And even if all existing homos were exterminated, new homos will arise in the future from straight couples. If all Jews or all Greeks are killed, that’s the end of the Jewish or Greek race. But homos can never be eradicated from the Earth because no one knows when, where, and to whom the next homo will be born. Jews understood the advantages and disadvantages of homo power. Due to lack of ancestry & continuity, homos needed the support of a community with a strong sense of continuity and unity, and that was the Jews. But precisely because homos are born and exist all over the world, Jews could recruit them in all nations to serve Jewish interests. And why wouldn’t vain & narcissistic homos collaborate with Jews when doing so means the expansion of ‘gay pride’ as the new world faith? Furthermore, because Jews felt that placing themselves at the cultural center might lead to a backlash(borne of envy and resentment), they figured it’d be safer to use homos as proxies of Urban Elite Neuroticist Supremacism. Jews are too small in number(and perhaps too Semitic in looks) to represent Normal America, which had long been defined as White Middle Class(the groups with most aesthetic appeal). And Jews don’t have the athleticism and vocality to command attention like blacks do. Jews have high-intelligence, but except in comedy(increasingly repressed in range by PC), most people don’t much care for ‘geek’ stuff. If Jews can’t command America by the numbers, looks, sports, & (increasingly rambunctious)music, how can their ilk(mainly known for neuroticism & idiosyncracies) command the cultural center? The solution was through homos as a kind of Proxy Jews with more color, pizzazz(than often off-putting chutzpah), flair, and flamboyance. Unlike Jews whose main mode of expression is the complaint or insult(which can be funny but also annoying and even infuriating), homos have a celebratory air about everything. And yet, no matter how much Homomania becomes part of the New Normal, ‘gay’ stuff will always be deviant because most people are not tootkins. Also, there’s a difference between deviance and Deviance. Little ‘d’ deviance is just a part of life as no society is totally normal or ‘natural’, just like no plate of food is totally devoid of germs. It’s like every box of cereal has some trace amount of insect parts and rat feces. In contrast, big ‘D’ Deviance goes out of its way to convince people that the ‘impurities’ are the best part of the serving. Imagine if cereals were especially promoted on account of containing rat shit, insect parts, and other such contents. Naturally, people will recoil from such product. They want ‘normal’ cereal, not ‘deviant’ components. But suppose the cereal box was designed in a colorful way that made rat shit, insect parts, and other impurities seem like the ‘heartiest’ part of breakfast. Such would be the PROMOTION of Deviance as opposed to the mere TOLERATION of deviance. And this is why homos were so useful to Jews. Jews had tried to normalize neuroticism through their ideologues, ‘experts’, and humorists, but no amount of Woody-Allen-isms, Mel-Brooks-isms, and Seinfeld-isms could really make America embrace Urban Neuroticism(esp of the Tribe) as the heart and soul of America. People came back to White Middle America. Now, a more effective bludgeon against White Middle America was Jungle Fever as black prowess is natural and virile(though savage and dangerous). As such, blackness has visceral power against whiteness that Jewishness doesn’t have. And indeed, Jews used blackness extensively to subvert white pride and white power. Jews used blackness to turn white males into hapless cucks and white girls into ‘mudsharks’. Then, why didn’t Jews just stick with blacks? Because on some level Jews also feel intimidated by blacks. They notice Jewish women turning ‘mudfish’ too. Also, as blackness is about brawn whereas Jewishness is about brains, the black-Jewish alliance has always been one fraught with contradictions and anxieties. The Jew-Black tension was powerfully dramatized in the encounter between the Jewish cop and black criminal in David Mamet’s HOMICIDE.
HOMICIDE by David Mamet. Jewish Cop trying to talk sense with the mother of a big black thug.
So, even as Jews use blackness as bludgeon against whites, they also feel uneasy about blackness as the dominant expression of Americanism because the logic of blackness militates against everything Jews stand for: Intellect, neuroticism, anxiety, geekery, nerdonics, ‘faggoty-ass’-ness, and etc. Negroes are the People of the Drum; Jews are the People of the Book. A world of drums will burn the books. Also, even though blackness is wild, savage, and crazy, its essence isn't deviant or decadent. The black way will seem different(even offensively so) to certain non-black groups, but it’s just blacks naturally being black. It’s like chimps acting like chimps, baboons acting like baboons, and hippos acting like hippos.
Blacks are just heeding the call of nature to be what they really be: Jungle-Jiving Afro-Savages. While black savagery has been amplified by modern technology, the black way is to return to nature. In contrast, there is something very neurotic about Jews and Homos. In some way, their mode is a return to nature as well. Zionist Jews rediscovered their tribalism, and homos now shamelessly indulge in their naturally deviant lusts of bung-banging. And yet, unlike blacks who shamelessly ‘twerk’ and wallow in their savagery, Jews and Homos, due to higher level of intellect and cultural sophistication, have gone about idealizing or theorizing their obsessions and hang-ups. It's like Sigmund Freud wrote about sex than blew into a sax(as brassy-ass whore). Instead of rejecting civilizational means like black neo-savages do so shamelessly, Jews and homos cling to arts, culture, & theory to explain and justify why they feel the way they do. Blacks are happy to turn off their brains and let their dongs and butts go on auto-afro-pilot. In contrast, everything must be processed through the mind and theory by homos and especially by Jews. If we let body parts decide the winners of The Culture, blacks can beat Jews as blacks got bigger buns, bigger dongs, and more muscle. But if the ‘owners’ of culture are deemed to be those who are most clever, ‘brilliant’, and ‘insightful’ about their own excessive behaviors, then talk has advantage over walk. Thus, Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz can be cultural competitors because they’ve expressed their bodily excesses in the form of ‘satire’, ‘manifesto’, or statement. What really distinguishes homo pride is it rests not on absolute superiority but the sheer joy of deviance. After all, homos aren’t the best in anything but maybe fashion. In brains, Jews beat homos. In sports, blacks beat homos(and black straights beat black homos). Homo pseudo-‘sex’ cannot produce life. And even though homos have been disproportionately represented in certain endeavors, especially in creative fields, their sexual 'orientation' and 'lifestyle' are too weird for widespread appeal. (Indeed, the popularization of the Holy Homo via TV shows relied upon white-washing much of what really happens in the homo community or cum-unity, just like the Magic Negro myth requires much suppression of facts of black criminality and violence.) After all, women love to swoon over straight men, not homo men, especially ones with curvy ‘gay’ lips. And most men don’t care for lesbians(and I mean REAL lesbians, not straight women play-pretending ‘lesbians’ in male fantasies). What really distinguishes homos is their poopchutzpah, a form of no-holds-barred exhibitionism that wants to be the center of attention and attraction at all times, even if it means risking ridicule. Indeed, homos even used Camp as their Trojan Horse to slip into Mainstream Culture. They acted with good humor, as if they were laughing along with us laughing at them. But once they gained a foothold, they began to gradually turn Camp into Sainthood. Increasingly, homos went from objects of ridicule to objects of reverence... like in movies such as PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. And now, we’ve arrived at a point where we are not supposed to find men in women’s dresses as hilarious. Indeed, even to look at such creatures with bemusement is the New Sin. We are to regard and treat them as angels. Thus, we have the Triumph of Neuroticism(sought by Jews), and its final march to victory happened under Obama, the tool of Jews. The Age of Deviance.
This is why AFTER HOURS makes for interesting view in this current age. Though the 1980s had plenty of kooks, there was still a sense of what constituted Middle America & Normality and what constituted Deviant Bohemianism & Neuroticism. Now, both domains have value. A healthy society needs a strong sense of what is normal, natural, and healthy. But the creative impulses of civilization often derive from odd eccentrics and weird outcasts. It’s like the human body must generally function according to its needs. Lungs must pump air, heart must pump blood, stomach must digest food, and etc. Most of society must be like bodily organs. They must perform their natural duties and function normally. And even the mind must, at most times, be sensible and functional, acting in accordance to reality. The last thing we need is the eccentric driver or pilot. When we call a plumber, we want him to use his mind and knowledge to fix the faucet, not pull some weird shit. And yet, there is the part of the mind that can imagine things or see reality in ways hidden to most. And such visions and observations make for a more interesting society. It’s like art isn’t purely the product of reason but inspiration that arises from strange, irrational, and even perverse regions of the soul/mind. And some of the most important artists, philosophers, and intellectuals have been rather odd, one way or another. Obsessive or neurotic. And it’s been a great advantage to the West to give sufficient room for sparks of originality, individuality, and inspiration. What a loss to humanity if Beethoven and Wagner had been forced to lead just normal lives.
And yet, what happens when bohemianism goes from a creative opportunity to a trendy lifestyle for people who are by-and-large untalented, unwilling, and uninteresting? It loses the rebellious edge of carving out free space to fulfill one’s calling and instead cops an attitude of dabbling in tired cliches in the name of ‘art’ that no one really believes anymore. Also, what is the point of bohemianism in a world without bourgeois, let alone aristocratic, restraints? After all, even MTV, beamed into every middle class home, was chock-full of images & sound effects taken from experimental film and video. (Indeed, unemployed graduates of film-school were often hired to make music videos, thereby merging avant-garde-ism with after-school teen commerce.) Looking back into history, even as bohemianism rebelled against the bourgeoisie & aristocracy from the outset, it gained something from the culture of respectability and seriousness. Prior to vulgarizing impact of mass culture and mass markets, bohemians made works for the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. So, no matter how much the bohemians may have detested the aristocrats for being oppressive and the bourgeoisie for being stuffy & conventional, they still had to cater to an audience that believed in respectability, romanticism, seriousness, beauty, and/or transcendence in art. In the 20th century, bourgeois tastes had changed drastically to tolerate and even encourage more ‘radical’ forms of expression, but the element of seriousness was still there. The artist had to be more than clever, glib, egotistical, or fashionable. Someone like Andy Warhol wouldn’t have gotten anywhere in the first half of the 20th century. But, seriousness in art eventually lost out, and there was little if any of it in the 1980s, a time when someone like Basquiat could be deemed an important artist. It was understandable given the rise of Pop Culture, even to the point of transforming elite culture. (HAMILTON and BLACK PANTHER are now rhapsodized by the cultural elites.) Also, as Modernism was predicated on novelty that was soon exhausted in painting, sculpture, music, and architecture, the conceit of ‘novelty’ could only existed in ‘canned form’, which perhaps is why Warhol’s images of cans of Campbell Soup resonated with the art crowd. A bohemianism that is no longer bound to respectability, seriousness, and originality has nothing to go on except as status valve for soulless materialists. So, naturally the yuppies in the 80s moved into and gentrified neighborhoods that were associated with bohemianism(which would be repeated in a more spectacular way in San Francisco as center of high tech industry). The creative types complained that the yuppies were pricing them out of once-affordable places for artists, writers, eccentrics, and mavericks, but the denunciation was more than a bit disingenuous as many of these run-down neighborhoods were producing drug addicts, lunatics, freaks, and hangers-on than first-rate thinkers or artists in the 70s and 80s. Bohemians need something to struggle and rebel against. They need the stern bourgeois as target of both their frustration and aspiration. To go beyond the bourgeoisie hampered by respectability and conventionality, they must reach further and probe deeper. The bohemian gripe against the Old Bourgeoisie was that the respectable class draped itself in seriousness without fully understanding and appreciating genius, truth, and beauty. It was a shallow seriousness as a matter of status. It was about maintaining the aura of being 'cultured' and 'respectable'. In contrast, the bohemian artist or thinker, as rebel and maverick, confronted the problems of existence and delved into truth with TRUE seriousness aided by brilliance, originality, & genius. Bourgeoisie worshiped 'gods' as revealed or canonized by others, whereas bohemians got to see and touch the gods for themselves and stole fire from them. But in the 1980s of New York, yuppies were hardly bourgeois in the traditional sense. They were shallow materialists who bid farewell to the warped idealism of the 60s and had almost no memory or interest in the world prior to the boomer generation. Paul's favored choice of literature, TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller, is self-absorbed to the point of being almost ahistorical. And even though the 80s saw the Return of the Normal, it was a gross and gluttonous kind of Normal without sobriety of restraint. After all, even Normal Appetites are gross if indulged. It’s normal to like hamburgers, but that doesn’t mean you should pig out on a dozen of them. Return of the Normal without the requisite Return of the Sober was bound to cause problems, and boy, did it ever in the 80s, laying the groundwork for bigger problems later. The 60s youth culture unleashed hedonism and self-indulgence within alternative lifestyles. By the 80s, most of those social experiments had fallen out of favor, but what remained was the shameless outlook on life. And the 80s came to be about Return of Capitalism as a Pig-Out Fest. The Conservatives had been right in their criticism of socialism, big government, and the welfare state. They were right about the superiority of capitalism, market economics, and property rights as basis for an economic system. But what they, at least the libertarian-minded ones, overlooked was that the US had once been far more a Shame Culture prior to the rise of Youth Culture, Black Culture, and Jewish Culture. The culture of shame and propriety had some restraining effect on capitalist tendency toward piggery. It’s like there used to be a time when it was seen as shameful to be grossly obese. (It was during the Gilded Age in the late 19th century and early 20th century where it was a sign of wealth & privilege for a man to have a big tummy like Robert Taft, but that ugly norm passed away thankfully.) Oliver Stone’s WALL STREET makes this very point(though Stone’s personality is naturally very self-indulgent and adulating, if only viscerally, of people who push things to extremes for self-aggrandizement). Greed was always a part of capitalism, but something happened in the 1980s with New Wall Street. And Albert Brooks’ LOST IN AMERICA gave us a glimpse of the New Las Vegas. Wall Street became more like a casino, and Las Vegas became more like Disneyland. The Counterculture of the 60s had faded in ideological terms, but its attitude of unfettered self-indulgence had lived on and spread to Middle America. For Jordan Belforts of the World, it was time to be wolves on Wall Street. As for low-IQ Americans, it was bread-and-circus of the Jerry Springer Show and ugly professional wrestling. In a way, many people acted as if it was all for the better on account of people being more natural and less ‘repressed’ about what they want in terms of money, sex, and fun. And yet, it was also a new kind of repression because not everyone has the same personality. Some people are naturally more inhibited and cautious than others(like cats are in contrast to dogs), but EVERYONE was now under pressure by society to put out like a lout. Women used to be shamed in the past for being a slut; now girls are shamed for not losing their virginity sooner than later. Furthermore, most people have some natural sense of shame, and a society that tells people to be ashamed of feeling shame is pushing a new kind of repression. The shame of shame. RISKY BUSINESS is, in some ways, the perfect Reagan Era Return-of-the-Normal Movie. It’s about Middle America(or upper-middle America) and All-American cast of characters. It’s about healthy and virile young men dreaming about and going after what they want: Sex and Money. But the ‘what the fuck’ attitude removes the brakes from Normal Appetites or Accelerator, and things soon go off the rails. When Normal is allowed to indulge in its appetites, it paves the way for the abnormal. Liking pizza is normal, but eating too much leads to obesity that makes way for a host of diseases that messes up the normal functions of the body. The body is soon overcome with all sorts of illnesses and germs that take advantage of failing immunity. In a way, the rise of the Abnormal in the US(and the West & East) has to do with the excesses of the Normal. Conservatives were right in arguing that communism and leftism in general misunderstood human nature. Human Nature is naturally about self-interest. Individuals working for self-interests is natural and good. But then, this turned into ‘greed is good’. It’s one thing to be self-interested. It’s another thing to push self-interest into a kind of nihilistic self-indulgence of egotism, the New Virtue. But Conservatives, so sure of capitalism as the guarantor of virtue of hard work & enterprise and of socialism as the enabler of vice of laziness & parasitism, didn’t worry about unfettered capitalism and pushed for more and more. And then, Clinton saw the writing on the wall — the triumph of capitalism over socialism, esp. with the fall of the Soviet Union and rise of Free Trade over Big Labor — and decided to throw his lot with Big Capital. And then, both 'left' and 'right' were telling us that New Finance and New Tech are going to transform the world and make everyone rich and etc. But what did the culture of soulless greed and materialism produce? A cancerous world of warped values and twisted priorities. Everything, no matter how normal, when pushed to excess, turns cancerous. Nationalism is normal, but when Nazis pushed it to excess, it led to German Imperialism and Genocide. Tribalism is normal, but when Jews push it to excess, there is the ongoing tyranny over Palestinians, devastating Wars for Israel, Hate Campaign against Russia & Iran, and Jewish megalomania. Sexual desire is natural, but a shameless society turns even mainstream culture into yet another branch of pornography. So, when we survey the recent degeneracy and decadence, it’s not enough to explain it in terms of Normal vs Abnormal. Rather, the cancerous rise of the abnormal owes much to the unrestrained indulgence of the normal. When Normal Society gave into excess and self-indulgence, it lost its moral & spiritual bearing. Instead of appetite serving the body, the body came to serve the appetite. Since anything-for–pleasure became the paramount virtue, it was discomfiting for Normal Society to say NO to rise of homo decadence and degeneracy. Even if the sexuality is normal and straight, an ‘orgiastic’ culture is one of excess that has lost a sense of limits. And a society without a sense of limits will have a hard time saying NO to anything.
In AFTER HOURS, we see two kinds of people in the bohemian neighborhood. We see the weirdos, eccentrics, and freaks. We also see people who could have and should have been normal except that they feign bohemianism or hang around weirdos because it’s the ‘hip’ thing to do. In a world without a sense of culture and community, people will gravitate to ANYTHING to make them feel a part of something. Indeed, any 'alternative' community is composed of real weirdos and wanna-be-weirdos(who are actually normal) who want to feel ‘special’ by casting off ‘lame’ and ‘square’ normality. There is Kiki(Linda Fiorentino), the bogus ‘artist’ who makes bagel paper weights and worthless plaster sculptures. She’s all lazy attitude. There is Marcy(Rosanna Arquette), the suicidal airhead who pretends like she’s a burn victim and mostly talks nonsense. A poor judge of character, she seems to go from man to man, with whom she shares her insipid stories of relations with OTHER ridiculous men. There is Julie(Teri Garr) who seems to be in her 30s or 40s but acts like a teenybopper in the 1960s. Her small apartment infested with rats is her own little ‘neverland’. If Marcy’s husband has a fetish for THE WIZARD OF OZ, Julie the beehive queen still seems starstruck with the Monkees. From Kiki, Marcie, and Julie, one doesn’t get any sense of seriousness or maturity. Granted, one of the advantages of bohemianism is to cut oneself loose from tradition and obligations to find something new and remarkable. This could be said of men like Paul Gauguin. But the world of AFTER HOURS has an air of smugness and comfort. It’s not about individuals boldly going the extra-mile to find new meaning but about the bored and tired(and tiresome) seeking sanctuary from reality or clutching onto their niches as ‘artists’ in a city that is too cynical to sincerely believe in anything. There seems to be some blue-collar types, mostly men like the high-strung taxi driver or the sullen waiter at the diner, but they seem as alienated as anyone in a city that is, at once, too big and too atomized. Most of the characters in AFTER HOURS seem to live on whims of the moment, the glue they sniff. Stuck in a life of whims, fetishes, fantasies, and rages(that come and go like taxis), maturity is a precious commodity in this ‘community’. The ice-cream seller Gail(Catherine O’Hara) looks like the prototype of the ‘woke’ cat-lady. Had she been born couple of decades later, she might have green or purple hair. And maybe tattoos and piercings, which thankfully wasn’t so common in the 80s(and if anything, some boomers were trying to be rid of them as they sought out professions). Without maturity, seriousness is impossible. The result is a kind of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood for ‘bobos’(David Brooks’ term for bohemian-bourgeoisie), freaks, weirdos, eccentrics, twerps, and idiots. While the bohemian community of INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS has its share of weirdos and losers, it features a time when bourgeois respectability & seriousness still exerted some influence influence on society. Folk Music was supposed to be sincere, heartfelt, meaningful, and authentic. It required the meeting of the heart and mind. Llewyn Davis is an irresponsible and often selfish character, but he isn’t intentionally not trying to grow up(like Big Lebowski). He’s just negligent in so much of what he does. But he is not without effort and sincerity behind the effort. He really believes in what he does. He has a kind of faith, a sense of calling. In contrast, there is an emptiness in AFTER HOURS, which followed THE KING OF COMEDY, which came out one year before Robert Bresson’s L’ARGENT.
I don’t know how France compared with the US during this time, but Bresson’s last bitter film about soulless modernity may offer a hint that it was a universal problem. Bresson’s films were always on the depressing side, but they weren’t entirely despairing as there was the element of grace, personal redemption, and tragedy grounded in Catholic themes and/or fascination with art/beauty. But by the time he made L’ARGENT, there was the omnipresent sense of a society inhabited by zombies, a world where sainthood isn’t possible or worth the bother. A forsaken world that is either unaware or uncaring of its unforsaken-ness. Unlike Bresson who didn't want to make art in a world of dead souls, Scorsese took the opposite tact. But then, Scorsese always felt closer to sinners whereas Bresson felt closest to saints(or the saintly heart within the sinner). Saints always had a difficult place in the world but nevertheless a place, possibly the most meaningful and precious, in a world bound by certain spiritual and moral precepts, however imperfectly. Think of the fool-saint of STALKER(by Andrei Tarkovsky). History was always about greed and power but not only about them.
Robert Bresson's Au hasard Balthazar
But Bresson sensed a shift sometime in the late 60s that grew worse in the 70s. The Right was increasingly only about money and materialism, and the Left went crazy with fetish for radical fashions. Both were soul-destroying and vapid, and in a way, L’ARGENT was like a muted prophecy of what France was to become in the coming decades. France now has Macron as president, and there is SERIOUS discussion of turning burned-out Notre Dame into something more 'fashionable'. Unlike Bresson, Scorsese always had an element of Charles-Manson-like satanism about him, a quality shared by Roman Polanski. But then, this is why he’s been the artist that he is. Though a Catholic and moralist, Scorsese’s too empathetic, curious, and fascinated not to give the devil his due. Though not an outright satanist or devil-worshiper, Scorsese understands the allure of sin, serving as both Satan’s chef and God’s inspector. In serving up the devil’s delicious dishes in GOODFELLAS, CASINO, and THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, Scorsese exposes how the power of sin entices and envelops us. And yet, his talent as chef and server is such that one wonders if he’s done more to promote sin as the only thing worth living and dying for. Besides, the nature of cinema is more suited for celebrating sin than commemorating virtue. Bresson could cope in a world of sin; indeed, one might even say he thrived in it as an artist because a saint without sin is like a fish outside water. Would Jesus have been Crucified without sinners? Sainthood only makes sense against sin, just like liver exists to filter germs. So, the problem wasn’t with sin per se for Bresson. It was modernity’s abandonment altogether of any idea of the soul. Both the Right and the Left became utterly materialist or ideological in their fixation with social problems. Individuals as mere consumers or complainers. Evil became banal, vice became nice, just another lifestyle. The very notion of sin became passe, irrelevant. (Indeed, notice how homos never take honest stock of their role in the HIV crisis. Instead of soul-searching, they only demanded technology to solve the problem so they could safely indulge in their 'lifestyle'. Worse, even as they rejected the traditional notion of sin, they conceived of the mock-spirituality of Homomania that would have us believe homos are angels and that those who don't bow before them are guilty of the 'new sin' of 'homophobia'. What an insane world.) Scorsese was better able to cope with modernity. He was born later and was more comfortable with a changing world. Also, it was difficult to be intensely devoted to anything in a city like New York that had no unifying theme like Catholic France once did. But as deracinating as New York was(a process that accelerated after the 60s), Scorsese’s sense of meaning derived from the resilience of roots and heritage. Unlike the utterly atomized and alienated creatures in AFTER HOURS, Scorsese always defined himself as a member of a cultural and tribal community. He is the product of Little Italy, pretty much the only world he knew before he ventured into larger New York and then America. So, despite his interest in 60s Counterculture and bohemian life, a part of him was always rooted in the Italian-American community of his youth. He even made a film about his parents, something most people of his generation would have considered too ‘uncool’ to even imagine. And it was that sense of community and Church that lent Scorsese some hope of spiritual redemption despite the ruthlessly transformative power of modernity and capitalism. Though one senses that the Church, like the Mafia, is corrupt in MEAN STREETS, it nevertheless stands for something: God and Tradition. There must be SOMETHING there. And even though Italian-American life was rife with crime and corruption, it nevertheless had some sense of solidarity, hierarchy, connectivity, and respect, something increasingly missing in an America where individualist atomization and pop culture came to dominate everything. It is from tradition and customs, however frayed and torn, that Scorsese has been able to cobble together some semblance of Meaning against Modernity. Elements of this is found in MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, and RAGING BULL. Charlie(Harvey Keitel) wants to find Jesus in the streets. Travis Bickle(Robert De Niro) sees himself as killer angel. Jake La Motta(DeNiro) is crucified in the ring and arrives at some kind of redemption. In contrast, the worlds in THE KING OF COMEDY and AFTER HOURS are like the modern France of L’ARGENT in their utter lack of meaning. Rupert Pupkin only knows TV. Celebrity is his televangelism. And the people of AFTER HOURS might as well be characters in Pee Wee Herman’s Playhouse. Though adults, they seem utterly without meaning, direction, or purpose except to burrow into their niches in vapid modernity. But then, what is one to expect from a community based on homosexuality and freakery? A cultural community like Little Italy is(or was) about history, culture, religion, and families(despite all the compromises, vulgarity, and betrayals). But what is a ‘gay community’ about? It’s about people, mostly men, forming a Boys’ Town so that it will be easier for guys to find others to pork in the ass. It lacks cultural rhyme or reason as the homos could be Jewish, Italian, Irish, German, Anglo, Hispanic, black, or whatever. They just want dongs up bungs. As for yuppies moving into such a neighborhood, they just want a touch of the bohemian as something chic and hip. It’s the sort of appeal that one understands among young art school students and the like, but it’s hardly meaningful as a point of unity and continuity. The result of such outlook is a creature like Lena Dunham, the product of parents for whom life is all about being ‘artists’ and ‘hipsters’ making stuff for vapid yuppies who’ve since transmuted into ‘yupsters’(yuppie hipsters).
Now, Scorsese had a lot of fun with THE KING OF COMEDY and AFTER HOURS, and there are many amusing, funny, and outright hilarious moments in both films. And whatever one may say about New York, it is called ‘the city that never sleeps’ for a reason. There is an exciting and even exhilarating feeling of a world so crazy and zany that SOMETHING is happening at any moment. And one might say both films are, in a way, acts of self-congratulation(not unlike Woody Allen’s films) that take pride in being about a city that is so wild and crazy all the time. "Sure, we are crazy, but YOU are looking at us than we are looking at you, because we are so damned interesting and living in the center of the world." And I’m sure the people of THE LAST PICTURE SHOW would rather look at the people of AFTER HOURS than vice versa. And I recall being dazzled and entertained more than anything in my first viewing of AFTER HOURS. But in subsequent viewings, the utter vapidity of everyone and everything stuck out most. (One could argue that the movie is about soulless modernity, as suggested in the opening scene where Paul's attention drifts from a co-worker he is advising to others in the office with family photos on desks. In that moment of haze, we hear classical music and sense in Paul a longing for grace & harmony, but he's soon shaken out of the reverie. At the very least, some of the other workers have families to go home to. Paul is the modern bachelor who may remain single for the remainder of his life. He is 'dilbert'. And New York, as a place of action, is where you sink or swim, which is the game of atomized individualism. In a traditional community, you are SOMETHING despite success or failure. Your life has meaning as, say, a Sicilian, a kinsman, a Catholic, or the son of so-and-so regardless of what you do or is done to you. But individualism says your worth arises only from individual achievements or pursuits. If YOU don't make it, you are nothing. New York, even with its millions, is not an organic community but boiling cauldron of individuals, some of whom bubble up to the top and many of whom just sink and melt in the bottom. Anyway, if indeed AFTER HOURS was meant to be about vapidity itself, why doesn't it do anything to address the problem? Instead of boring a hole through the wall of vapidity to arrive at some kind of answer, however flawed or incomplete, as in SOMETHING WILD[dir. Jonathan Demme], THE FIGHT CLUB, or ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, all we get is Paul as Mr. Vapidity bounce off like a billiard ball against other vapid oddballs. The story runs from the problem it poses without ever confronting it. But then, it was based on a film school project and has all the signs of an over-eager beginner firing all the pistons without clear sense of direction, rather like the crazy taxi driver in the movie.)
People more vapid than the loons in MIDNIGHT COWBOY. At least Joe Buck had some sense of Texas roots and Ratso still knew something of his Italian ancestry, however tenuously. In AFTER HOURS, the roots have been severed for good.
In its defense, one could argue it’s meant as light-comedy, and the characters aren’t meant to be anything more than two-dimensional cut-outs and caricatures of NY neurotics. And yet, what is truly dispiriting is that the film may not be all that much OFF in depicting such people as they really are: They are real-life caricatures. From our vantage-point, it seems even worse because such immature, ridiculous, shallow, and vapid types now seem to be all over the academia, media, arts, culture, government, and the deep state. Also, consider their Hive Mentality. Despite their conceit of being ‘different’, these deviants or wanna-be-deviants are prone to mob mentality and act like a lynch-mob to string up Paul Hackett(Griffin Dunne). And what are we to make of Paul? He seems saner and more normal than anyone else in the film. Given his short stature and high-strung personality(when he wants to be), one might say he serves as Scorsese’s alter ego. A fish out of water. Scorsese was a man between two worlds: The Tribal and relatively traditional world of Little Italy AND the cosmopolitan and fractured world of NY as a whole. Likewise, Paul seems like a typical ‘bobo’. On the one hand, he is very much a yuppie, the new Babbitt, the crass materialist much mocked and ridiculed by the arts & culture community in the 80s. And yet, the yuppie vs hipster divide was more illusory than real as plenty of yuppies were immersed in alternative cultures and lifestyles, and plenty of hipsters and ‘artistic’ types were either children of rich parents or moochers of yuppies, their main clientele. Still, the world of AFTER HOURS is prior to the Great Convergence that happened under Clinton when yuppies became overwhelmingly Democratic. In the early 80s, one could see the culture in terms of pro-business yuppies who sympathized with Reaganism(if not with Reagan himself) against the Democrats who seem to be fatally associated with black crime, failing Big Labor, confused foreign policy, and 60s nostalgia. Consider the Yuppie Satire of Jackson Browne's "Lawyers in Love" and David & David's "Welcome to the Boomtown". And there was the movie BILL CHILL by Lawrence Kasdan about how the 60s radical dreams didn't pan out. Blacks didn't turn out to be angels; some of them were criminal 'scum'. It wasn't so fun to teach kids in the Harlem ghetto. And cops didn't turn out to be so bad. They were defenders of the Order for middle class yuppies and property owners. Out of college, privileged boomer radicals discovered the real world was about career, money, and status. And about getting older and settling down. And so-called radicals, especially Jews, began to show their cryto-elitist face. The successful female lawyer in the movie wants to have a child with Tom Berenger's character because he has 'good genes'. Once-radicals are now into the business of law, entertainment, and finance(even sharing tips illegally). One seems to be a drug-dealer with narcotics having gone from agent of enlightenment to dreary habit. Kasdan called his movie THE BIG CHILL because his generation's grappling with reality was like a freeze from the idealistic glow of the 60s. It came out in 1983(and maybe inspired THE BREAKFAST CLUB for all I know) when boomers had yet to gain dominance. But when they did grab power in the 90s under Clinton, the Big Chill turned into the Great Thrill as the boomers, especially 'liberal' and 'leftist' Jews, cashed in big time in finance, entertainment, gambling, 'free trade', and high-tech. As for white goyim, it was the Age of the Big Shill, as they turned into servile cucks of Jews. With so much money and success, the boomers could have the best of both worlds: Money and Hipster Status as they could afford to alter 'progressivism' into full-throttled hedonism and worship of globo-homo Mammon. BIG CHILL, with its self-congratulatory and self-pitying aggrandizement of the boomer generation is pretty insufferable. A far more interesting boomer reunion movie from the same year is Sam Peckinpah's THE OSTERMAN WEEKEND. At any rate, mid-80s were still a time when the yuppies and hipsters hadn't really fused into one.
So, it’s understandable why the hipster types would look upon yuppie Paul with trepidation and even hostility. It was before yuppies and hipsters could come together to hate Trump Voters. And it was a time when black crime was still a huge problem in New York(though it’s not featured in AFTER HOURS where the burglars are the lovable duo Cheech and Chong). A year before AFTER HOURS, Bernie Goetz gunned down black hoodlums who appeared to threaten him. Back then, many New Yorkers saw Goetz as a kind of hero. (And Ed Koch routinely referred to black criminals as ‘animals’.) But all said and done, Paul is a shallow character himself. More normal, yes, but essentially a jerk who looks for easy thrills and can’t think beyond ‘tonight’. Like Edward Norton in THE FIGHT CLUB, he is defined by his job, apartment, and latest gadgets. People like Paul fill up offices and do jobs that keep the city bustling with money and data. But people with money want "art, culture, and leisure" after hours, and since NY has the most money, it also attracts most people who would be artists, entertainers, and gurus to cater to those with money. Paul isn’t rich, but he is an earner flush with disposable income. And one day, his after hours are spent in a bohemian quarter of would-be artists, entertainers, hipsters, and the like. But as most would-be artists can hardly make a living, they must work at some job too, like running an ice cream truck or waitressing. And then, there are businesses that cater to such people too, like the neighborhood bar and the diner.
Paul is, at once, too cosmopolitan & urbane to be conservative or ‘ethnic’ and yet too middle-of-the-road to feel at home in the world of bohemian Soho. He’s too ‘bohemian’ to be ‘bourgeois’(in the classic sense) and too ‘bourgeois’ to be ‘bohemian’. And yet, the two worlds were then converging, not least because people like Paul were moving into Soho for cheaper real estate(though making things more expensive for its ‘creative’ denizens) and trendy vibes. In the present, whether New York, San Francisco, or Chicago, it’s almost quaint to speak of the yuppie vs hipster divide since the two have merged so seamlessly over the years, not least due to Homomania being their main ‘sacrament’ or ‘exsacrement’(excremental-sacrament, as when the foul and filthy are made the object of near-worship). Once yuppies took to Homomania, they left behind the vestiges of traditional Middle American Values and embrace globo-homo wholeheartedly, and it became more difficult for homos, freaks, and hipsters to pigeonhole yuppies as ‘square’. In a world where yuppies work for Wall Street and Silicon Valley whose main banners are globo-homo symbols, one might say Big Capital appropriated hipsterism and ‘alternative lifestyles’(as the New Normal), or the Left conquered capitalism via ‘Cultural Marxism’. But what really happened is Jews control the US, and they pushed homomania as the New Leftism(and even the New Conservatism as ‘gay marriage’ is said to be about ‘family values’) because vain, narcissistic, and materialistic homos are the most trustworthy allies of Jewish globalist-imperialist supremacists. In the 80s, the term ‘yuppie’ implied Reaganomics, Alex-Keatonism(FAMILY TIES), libertarianism, rejection of 60s ‘idealism’, and the new anti-Soviet nationalism. This was so in both the US and UK, where yuppies were associated with Margaret Thatcher. In Mike Leigh’s NAKED, the most vicious character is a soulless yuppie who turns rapist. And Bret Easton Ellis’ AMERICAN PSYCHO featured the yuppie killer as the archetype of soulless Reaganism, a point that so angered George Will.
And Paul Hackett isn’t a very sympathetic character either. (Consider his last name.) He’s presented as overly content & complacent with his youth and place in the world(even though his daydreams suggest yearning for something more). In the opening scene, a younger man he is training says he has bigger dreams: To run a magazine. He doesn’t want to do what Paul does for a living forever. The scene can be taken in two ways. The younger man seeks meaning beyond money and comfort whereas Paul was born for the office space. Or, the younger man is just deluded & stuck-up and will likely end up just like Paul. After all, right out of college, who doesn’t want to pursue one’s own dreams and do something ‘significant’? But then, imagine all the kids out of college who want to start their own enterprises? Dime-a-dozen. If Paul ultimately does come across as more sympathetic in the end, it’s because others are much worse and drive him to near-madness in a neon-lit Edgar Allan Poe story. I’m not sure to what extent this owes to Scorsese, a political liberal with certain cultural and emotional instincts that feel conservative, moralist, or at least highly skeptical of modernity. Scorsese is someone who is liberal enough to join an orgy but conservative enough to fret about the sin of some girl or guy sucking his penis.
Anyway, the vapid yuppie of soulless Reaganism and heartless Thatcherism somehow transformed into the ‘yupster’. It happened under the radar in the Clinton years but came to full fruition in the Obama years as the yuppie-hipsters or yupsters marched at the front of ‘gay pride’ parades. It seems the proggy community totally missed the irony. It had been railing against Reagan/Thatcher as greedy, materialistic, and soulless, but it was they, as the ‘creative class’, that benefited most from globalism and ‘free trade’ spearheaded initially by the GOP and the Tories. Also, the progs were heartless in dumping Big Labor in favor of "Is it good for the urban gentry?" And they were soulless in making, of all things, Homomania as the central moral and spiritual theme of their lives. Their idea of Passion revolves mainly about draping rainbow colors over homo fecal penetration, having trannies read stories to children, and insisting that men with wigs deserve to beat up women in sports. No sane or soulful people can believe in such nonsense, but that’s the current proggy community for you. It totally dumped the Middle Class in favor of ‘free trade’ that sends all profits to big cities. And all its BLM posturing was to cover up the fact that urban yupster proggies have been using gentrification and mass-immigration to replace urban black criminal elements with less violent and destructive people. And during Obama years, they were silent about Libya, Syria, and Yemen. And the very people who’d spent decades beating their chests over ‘McCarthyism’ were all-too-eager to go along with anti-Russia Hysteria. As Tucker Carlson compellingly argued for a couple of years, so-called Woke Capital means Big Money and Deep State can get away with anything as long as they drape all their dirty doings with symbols of ‘progress’.
But then, when the core of the Progressive Community is about praising homo elitists who are most renowned for fashion, vanity, narcissism, and fascination with power & privilege, there is no real left vs the real right. Also, proggies seem blind to the fact that ‘racism’ is part of everything. (But then, conzos are also BS on the matter.) According to prog logic, ‘racism’ amounts to not sucking up to Jews and blacks. What goes by ‘anti-racism’ is not a struggle for racial equality but about the obligation of all races to especially favor blacks and Jews. In other words, 'anti-racism' as practiced is about 'racism' in favor of Jews and blacks. After all, it’s never a problem to praise or admire blacks or Jews as a noble people with special talents. It only becomes a problem when it’s pointed out that blacks are deficient in some things and that Jews sometimes abuse their power. Another facet of ‘anti-racism’ is to lay almost all blame at the feet of white people, especially white-straight-goy-men, especially if they are ‘conservative’. If you’re a homo white man, you are blessed and shielded by the fact that you take dongs up your bung. And if you’re a ‘liberal’ white man, you’re okay because you believe it’s not okay to be white. But if you’re a ‘conservative’ white man and grovel less(or mainly grovel before Jews and not much to other peoples), you have a serious problem. And if you’re a ‘white nationalist’ and feel it’s perfectly fine to be white, then you’re the epitome of evil ‘white supremacism’. In other words, ‘anti-racism’ isn’t about judging people by the content of their character in a color-blind way but about apportioning virtue or villainy based on race, color, and sexual habits. Where identity matters more than ideology(or where identity is the ‘idology’), white males have both lost and gained. How could they have gained when PC paints white males as especially dubious as members of ‘progressivism’? It was mainly due to Homomania, not least because white men(along with Jewish men) are the most prominent and privileged members of the ‘gay’ power structure. Indeed, it’s even gotten to the point where a ‘gay’ white guy may have more Pokemon or Wokemon points than some ‘person of color’. But even if a white guy is not a homo, he can collect lots of Wokemon points by waving the homo flag. Unlike non-white racial identity that belongs to a specific race or ethnic group — blacks resent whites pretending to be black, for instance, and American Indians don't take kindly to Elizabeth Warren pretending to be a squaw — , Homo identity spawned Homomania that works almost like a conversionary faith. In other words, just like you don’t have to be Jewish to worship God through Jesus, you don’t have to be homo to be bless and be blessed by Homomania. All you need to do is wave the homo flag and sing ‘Homosanna, Homosanna.’
And this is why proggy white males cling so desperately to Homomania as their main ticket of relevance to the Cause. Not only are the main movers of Homomania a bunch of white males but they are welcoming of adulation and support from the straight community. In contrast, even as blacks demand that non-blacks all admire, flatter, and worship blackness, there is an element of butt-hurt rage and anger among blacks, not least because, despite success in sports and pop music, so many blacks are mired in failure, criminality, and degradation, losing out economically even to lowly Mexicans and other browns from south of the border. While homos can be a major pain in the butt, if you bend over for them they just love and adore you with their fruity ‘gay’ grin of theirs. In contrast, no matter how much a Negro delights in having his behind kissed by a white cuck, he mainly feels contempt for the ‘faggoty-ass white boy’. Compare the fruitkin played by William Patton in NO WAY OUT with the political operator played by Denzel Washington in POWER(dir. Sidney Lumet). As long as Patton’s character feels that Kevin Costner’s character is onboard with the program, he’s all sincere smiles and charms. He really wants to be a good friend to an old chum. In contrast, Washington’s character exudes nothing but cold contempt for ‘white boy’ Richard Gere in POWER. And even though J. EDGAR(directed by Clint Eastwood) may be wrong about Hoover’s alleged homosexuality, it is an interesting work about how the closeted networks of homosexuals have complemented the conspiratorial nature of what happens in the corridors of power. Once homos took over culture, they carried out inversion of values that excoriated and ‘excommunicated’ any part of America that refused to bend over. Homos, with crucial support of Jews, used the courts to overturn laws to push ‘gay marriage’. And they flooded the airwaves and classrooms with Homomania with the dire result that the masses, especially the impressionable young, were persuaded that there is nothing holier than the ‘gay’ fairy.
Anyway, even though AFTER HOURS’ scenario devolves into a case of Yuppie vs Hipsters — a joke on THE WARRIORS where a bunch of gang members scramble to return home? — , the two demos have more-or-less merged over the years, and it’s difficult to imagine a remake of AFTER HOURS in today’s New York. Yuppies as ‘woke’ hipsters are welcome allies of proggies, not least because the term ‘creative class’ has come to incorporate just about any urban professional. It used to be one had to be artistic or culturally engaged to be creative. Or at the very least, one had to be inventive/innovative with technology. But now, even if you’re just an accountant, you could count as ‘creative’ if you hang around the right circles. Furthermore, the artistic and cultural community has gone from irreverent, rebellious, ironic, & libertine to censorious, judgmental, intolerant, & neo-sacramental. From the 60s to around mid-80s, liberalism and bohemianism were about tolerance of deviancy and degeneracy. But as Deviancy became tolerated, it sought normalization, and then consecration. It went from, "If you see a homo or a tranny, don’t be too quick to judge. Just laugh at him. Smile and be tolerant. No need to pathologize deviancy." And then, it was, "Try to treat him as just a normal person because you don’t want to hurt his feelings with mockery." And finally, "You must praise and revere the holy homo and transcendental tranny. If he says he’s a ‘she’, he’s a ‘she’, and if you disagree, you are a heretic and blasphemer." Today, so many fools think there is nothing more righteous than promoting ‘gay’ worship. According to PC, having a ‘gay’ pal is akin to a Christian knowing Jesus. Because just about any yuppie or yupster can claim to be part of the Creative Class — creativity is now a class than a pursuit or talent — and because the bohemian community is more about being priggish and judgmental about ‘homophobia’ and ‘racism’ than about being wild, irreverent, and rebellious(as among the punks in the 70s), the gulf between the two ‘communities’ have closed. Prior to the rise of PC and crime-reducing effects of gentrification(and mass immigration from Asian and Latin American nations), the factor of black crime made hipsters and bohemians less naively idealistic about race. One of the big NY movies of the 70s was DEATH WISH. In the 80s, Bernie Goetz filled the news. And in 1989, the ‘wilding’ rape of a white woman in Central Park set the tone for race relations in the 90s. And David ‘stinkin’ Dinkins term was seen as so disastrous that New Yorkers incredibly elected Rudy Giulini and then re-elected him on account of his crime-reduction policies. And crime reduction was so drastic in New York that the privileged millennial generation that grew up knowing mostly prosperity amidst safety was more partial to PC bloviations about Magic Negroes. Indeed, many of them knew Negroes more from PC education and Hollywood movies than from reality. Also, as the nicer white/Jewish neighborhoods filtered out the Bad Negroes, they rubbed shoulders(and bumped-n-grinded) with the fancier kind of blacks who were less prone to commit crime. If your idea of ‘experience with blacks’ is attending a cocktail party with the likes of Obama, then you might come off thinking that Negroes are nice folks who just want to gently bump fists. In the Ed Koch years, even many Liberal Jews were fuming about the crazy schvartzes and Jesse Jackson calling NY 'hympie town'. And Al Sharpton, before he was bought off, was a troublemaker and rabble-rouser, not least against the Diamond-Merchant Community. But with the race problem relatively under control in big cities, progs could indulge in their willful naivete about blacks and crime. It was sort of like return to NY before the explosion of violence in the mid-60s, the NY of INSIDE LLEYWN DAVIS where the subway wasn’t a gang-and-graffiti-infested concrete jungle. Also, hatred is a great uniter. Once both yuppies and hipsters became ‘woke’ in their worship of Homomania, Diversity, and Holy Negro, they came to share in the seething hatred for the ‘unwoke’, the kind of people who voted for Trump. When AFTER HOURS was made, it wasn’t necessarily true that people like Paul felt closer to hipsters than to Middle America. But now, they do. But it’s further complicated because even the so-called ‘square’ White Middle America is pretty degenerate, not least because even ‘flyover country’ watches the same garbage made by Hollywood and Jewish-controlled Mass Media industry. Middle America voted for Donald Trump after all, hardly a figure of traditional morality and conservative values. Indeed, it was amusing to see the very Liberals who’d mocked conservatives as ‘Sexual McCarthyites’(during the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal) having moral panics about how Trump once said bimbos want to be grabbed by the pussy. Besides, despite the increasing censoriousness of PC, sexuality was ONE area in which progs pushed for more openness, brazenness, and perviness. How a people who promote ‘twerking’, Miley Cyrus, rap music, Pornography, and endless articles about sex and orgies could claim to be shocked by Trump’s words or behavior pertaining to sex is more than a little ridiculous.
Anyway, what a world we live in. The kind of nutjobs, oddballs, ditzes, creeps, dorks, and pests we see in Soho in AFTER HOURS are now all over the culture. Now, humanity was always screwed up in one way or another, but cultural norms used to stress the importance of sobriety, maturity, respectability, and seriousness. So, there was at least a modicum of effort among people to keep up appearances and not give into childish hangups or tantrums. They had a sense of manners and limits that served as useful gates and fences around freedom that, if unregulated, turns ugly and dumb. Whether it’s ‘anarchy’ of normal appetites(as in ANIMAL HOUSE) or deviant desires(as in CRUISING directed by William Friedkin), when people just go with their feelings, they end up acting like animals or freaks. If the Old Bourgeoisie provided a steadying hand against the extremes of modernism, the soulless yuppies as the bobo’s(or the New Bohemian-Bourgeoisie) failed or refused to do likewise as they grew up in the post-60s world without mores and manners. They grew up in a culture that didn’t so much stress maturity and sobriety as being ‘cool’ and ‘hip’. So, even though most yuppies weren’t particularly ‘cool’ or ‘hip’, they didn’t want to say or do anything that would betray their deficiency. An increasingly permissive culture led to more shameless behavior among the bold(not in a good way), brazen, demented, and egotistical. And in time, these freaks, degenerates, and skanks came to define the culture in which young people grew up. And as boomer parents were stuck in ‘youth mentality’ of Counterculture, they didn’t want to be thought of as ‘uncool’ by their own kids who were allowed to grow up with junk culture that hollowed out their souls.
Indeed, consider the unseen yuppie in AFTER HOURS. At the diner, Marcy says she is actually married to the man who owns the loft in which she lives. The man is currently in Turkey, so he must be either a world-traveler or a wheeler-dealer. A man of means, very likely a yuppie. And yet, we learn that his main obsession is THE WIZARD OF OZ, and every time he ‘came’ in sex, he hollered, "Surrender Dorothy". Paul Hackett, the seen yuppie, has no defenses against such attitudes. Though it’s never good to be overly judgmental, people need some measure of moral compass, of disgust and outrage. But Paul seems just a bit bemused. Also, he isn’t put off by Marcie speaking of such things and on her first date with him. What kind of decent woman would tell such private details to strangers? But then, we learn she married him out of the blue when she was ‘young’, rather strange since she is still quite young. Obviously, she married him for money. People in AFTER HOURS are worse than disaffected. They are ‘affectless’, body-snatched soul-zombies who get most riled up over the stupidest things. Indeed, the moment when Paul seems most outraged is when he looks for some excuse, any excuse, to bolt from Marcy upon suspecting she is a burn victim. But then, her odd behavior fed his suspicions though he later discovers that she has no scars on her body. Her problem was clearly psychological, as we learn she committed suicide by overdose soon after Paul dumped her that night. But then, as if by dark providence, Paul himself becomes the subject of dark suspicions. Just like Marcie’s strangely secretive behavior had Paul thinking that she was trying to hide ugly burn scars, Paul’s odd movements around neighborhood feeds suspicions that HE is the burglar who is robbing the community blind. Reality is what people make of it. Paul, who is innocent, becomes like the ‘sacrificial lamb’ for all that goes wrong in that part of town. Facts don’t matter. Just like the current Jew-run media spread the notion that the Evil White Male is the source of all problems, the proto-SJW hipsters of the town decided Paul is The Baddie, and what ensues is like a witch-hunt. And perhaps in a way, there is poetic justice to the ‘creative’ types — though some of them look like homo yuppies — chasing after The Yuppie, who was often the figure of ridicule, resentment, and even hatred in the 1980s. The Yuppie was the convenient scapegoat for rising rents, gentrification & expulsion of creative artists, lower taxes, Reaganism, Rambo, rising crassness, and etc. The Yuppie was the traitor who turned his back on 60s Idealism, the theme of LOST IN AMERICA where Albert Brooks the yuppie decide to become a late-bloomer hippie and see the ‘Real America’ in a Winnebago. And BIG CHILL, awful movie that it is, showed how the once-hippies had become such thorough-going yuppies. For certain film-makers, yuppie-dom represented the betrayal of 60s and early 70s ideal of personal film-making. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were disdained as people who turned cinema into childlike spectacles for profit. (But then, are Francis Ford Coppola's ONE FROM THE HEART and RUMBLE FISH really any more mature?) Scorsese, being Italian-American, wasn’t quite a genuine member of any group. He was too curious and creative to be stuck in the Italian-American community. He had wide-ranging interests. And yet, the pull of ethnicity and community was such that he never fully partook in the radical 60s or the Counterculture, not least because the Italian-Americans tended to be more resistant of the social changes of the period. Consider how the character of the ‘Chic’ in BABY IT’S YOU clings to Old School music and style in rapidly changing America. Also, Scorsese absorbed the culture of respect from Italian-Americans who, at the time, had a more ‘patriarchal’ and ‘hierarchical’ social structure than most other white groups. This culture of respect and reverence can be seen in SILENCE, his masterpiece he’d been wishing to direct for many years. The hippies were too irreverent and yuppies were too smug & glib for Scorsese’s sensibility that, in some ways, was deeply shaped by Catholicism and Italian Traditionalism(even to the point where he felt compelled to make a reverent documentary about Italian Cinema and what it meant to him personally). One could even say that SILENCE was partly an allegory about his role in Hollywood. The ‘satanic’ side of him that made a pact with the Devil had to step on the Cross to make movies in Jew-run Hollywood and gain fame and success. And yet, on some hidden level, a part of him has remained true to his deepest faith. The flame went out but not the flicker. Not enough to earn his place in Heaven but just enough to whisper to God that he knows the difference between Heaven and Hell. Some have said AFTER HOURS is like Dante’s Inferno, but the comparison works only as a joke. The mock hell of AFTER HOURS is for people who cannot fathom or conceive of the truly hellish, which also prevents them from the envisioning the truly heavenly. And yet, such may be the worst kind of hell because people in such a world wouldn’t know they are in hell even if they were in it. And this is so true of our age. When people wave the homo banner as the new holiness without realizing how wicked it is, they are incapable of conceiving of hell. And for that very reason, they are in hell which they mistake for heaven. Robert Bresson was right to be worried in the making of L’ARGENT. The social and cultural transformation that he witnessed in the 70s and 80s was worse than hell. As long as souls remain intact, people can sense hell and seek redemption, even if it may be futile. The nobility is in the struggle. It’s like, as long as we have our sense of smell, we can smell the poison even if it kills us. At the very least, we know what wicked thing did us in. Joan of Arc knew she was killed by smoke and fire. But what if modernity and consumermism have aborted souls within bodies? Then, we have a society of zombies for whom everything is about freedom that is measured by fame and money. A world of vanity and narcissism(even to the point where fat and ugly demand to be acknowledged as beautiful as a 'right'; the message used to be that even fat/ugly people can be good of heart or soul while even the most beautiful people can be vapid and wicked; now, the ugly demands the right of narcissism as well, just like tranny men demand that they be regarded as 'women'). Such a society may be doomed, but even if not in the material-economic sense, it has no reason for existence because people are little more than pinball machines, commodities whose reason for existence is to be jolted with zings and zangs as the sole sign of life. Sadly, the Adult Romper-Room World of AFTER HOURS seems to have taken over most of Western Culture. What do we get from today’s ‘thinkers’, ‘artists’, writers, fashionistas, and trend-setters? They are said to be about ‘global culture’, but their main fixation seems to be about how their personal tics, hangups, fetishes, addictions, resentments, and neuroses are the Most Interesting stuff in the world to which all must pay attention. Even what goes by the name of ‘social justice’ is about endless blathering about Me-and-Me, My This-and-That, and My Oh My. Most female journalists have the self-awareness(or lack thereof) of Marcy, Kiki, Julie, and Gail. Or the lonely older lady June. As for men, they seem utterly clueless in a modernity that no longer places much value in manhood except as sexual studs. Women are lost in ditzy narcissism, and men are soulfully impotent, almost like eunuchs you see on CNN. And so, AFTER HOURS anticipated the future better than BLADE RUNNER. What is American Culture, at least White American Culture, in the 21st century? Just take the Soho of AFTER HOURS and multiply it by 1000 times.
