People talk of double-standards, and it's true that double-standards apply to different groups and individuals. Democrat leaders get to encourage BLM riots and face no consequences. Antifa scum go free. The Antifa and other scum who were rounded up for burning a limousine and committing other acts of vandalism in the 2017 Inauguration were all set free. The community college professor who bashed someone's skull got a slap on the wrist from the California court. Antifa can attack Proud Boys, but when Proud Boys fight back, the police only arrests the latter. Twitter and other platforms turn a blind eye to hatred expressed by blacks, Jews, and the like but force a ban those who speak up for whites and Christians. But as the saying goes, "Fish rots from the head." So, why should it surprise us that double-standards define American Justice when they are entrenched in the highest echelons of power and with total support of both parties and their mass supporters? The biggest double-standard that defines America from top to bottom is the supremacism of Jews and the pervasive favoritism they enjoy from all quarters. Both the Democrats and Republicans have been totally complicit in this. All races and ethnic groups have been complicit as well, out of fear, cowardice, pressure, philosemitism, or money(as Jews have plenty of cash to throw around).
Do most so-called 'liberals' raise alarm when their elected politicians favor Jews uber Palestinians even though Jews stole Palestinian Land and continue to occupy West Bank and steal more of it? Do most so-called 'conservatives protest when their elected politicians favor Jews uber Palestinians? No, both the politicians and the people who vote for them are not only complicit in this grave injustice but feel hardly any guilt or pangs of conscience.
When the uppermost echelons of power act like this and not only get away with it but have the total support of both parties, why should anyone be surprised that double-standards(especially as devised by Jews) are such a prominent feature of America? All these 'conservatives' and patriots bitching about double-standards... well, where the hell were they when Donald Trump was hailing Israel and praising Jews regardless of what they do? Sadly and pathetically, most 'conservatives' and a good number of patriots were cheering the Jews/Israel First line while mocking the grievances of Palestinians.
So, if anyone wants real credibility on the issue of equal justice and rule of law, he or she must address that the US practices double-standards at the very top, with Jews in effect doing as they please with full compliance of craven goy elites, and that most certainly includes Donald Trump who, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama before him, pardoned some of the sleaziest lowlife Jews that ever walked the Earth. So, before white conservative males spout off about how Joe Biden, as the puppet of Jews, is putting whites(and especially white males) in the back of the bus, they should have some self-awareness and ask themselves, "Why did we support Jews in their agenda to dispossess, murder, humiliate, and destroy the Palestinian people, land, and culture when Palestinians did NOTHING to us? Why was it okay to force Palestinians to the back of the bus when it came to US foreign policy and 'human rights'? And if the destruction of an innocent people was just fine with white conservatives(indeed with them patting Jews on the back and kissing their ass), why are they now so upset that Jewish Power is now doing to them what it did to the Palestinians... with the full support of white conservatives?" Indeed, why was Palestinian Nakba a great thing but White Nakba is a bad thing? If you happily fed your next-door neighbor to an alligator, should you be complaining when the alligator comes for you next? Did you expect gratitude from the alligator? Alligators exists to devour everything, and Jewish Supremacists are determined to enslave and control goyim. You can no more bargain with Jewish Supremacists than with Nazis or the Terminator. Of course, most Jews won't admit as much, and the majority of Jews don't believe they are supremacist, but if Jews are judged by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, they are totally supremacist and 'exceptionalist'. So, any 'conservative' or patriot who refuses to address this problem — Jews and cuck-goyim have instituted double-standards in favor of Jews at the highest stratums of power — should just shut up about double-standards at the lower levels of society. It's like complaining the river is foul without acknowledging that the source of the river itself is foul. It's like complaining about the symptoms of cancer without ever naming the cancer.
Indeed, isn't it odd that just when the US was moving toward a single-standard on one matter, it was also moving toward a double-standards on another matter? In the 1950s and 1960s, the US decided that Segregation and Racial Discrimination were wrong. There had to be a same set of rules for both whites and blacks(and measures had to be taken to enforce these standard for the latter). The idea was the American History was marred by two sets of rules, one that advantaged whites and disadvantaged everyone else, especially blacks. Given that the US was founded on principles of freedom and the proposition that 'all men are created equal', it was deemed not only wrong but shameful that America had for so long failed to enforce equality under the law for all peoples.
And yet, exactly at the same time, the US was moving toward a Jews-uber-Arabs policy, one of double-standards where Jews were free to do anything while the Palestinians/Arabs were called foul on just about everything. The American nation was loudly atoning for its past sins of racial discrimination and favoritism while, at the same time, totally prioritizing one group's ruthless dispossession, oppression, and dehumanization of another. Worse, US support of Israel defied all foreign policy norms. It was nothing new for the US to have morally dubious allies, but it was in the name of national interest, aka realpolitik. As FDR said of a certain foreign leader, "He's a son-of-a-bitch but our son-of-a-bitch." Also, the Cold War necessitated that US form alliances with unsavory allies to form a bulwark against the Soviet Empire. But, this logic hardly applied to US support of Israel as the sensible and practical thing would have been to form alliances with the Arab/Muslim world against the Soviets. If anything, the US support of Israel was the main reason why several key Arab states allied with the USSR. Furthermore, the US had no reason to do any favors to Jews who'd been among the most radical, seditious, subversive, and hostile elements in the US. Not only were Jews prominent in organized crime but in espionage for the Soviet Union. Even the idealistic reason, or idealpolitik, didn't pass muster upon scrutiny as the Jews had taken the land from another people, one that had no role in the Holocaust. But the combination of Jewish Money & Media power, Christian sentimentalism, chutzpah, Wasp deracination, and awe of Jewish Genius led the US to favor the Jews regardless of what was being done to Palestinians.
This was the Great Contradiction or the Great Hypocrisy of the US in the second half of the 20th century. Just when it was proclaiming to be moving away from the bad old ways of favoring the white race over non-white races, it was doing everything to favor Jews & Zionists over Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims regardless of morality, ethics, and principles. Whites had to be equal with other races, BUT Jews could be superior to Palestinians(and eventually over all other goyim, which is the current state of affairs in America). Jim Crow was bad, but Jim Crowitz was okay. South African apartheid was evil, but Israeli apartheid mustn't even be mentioned. Of course, Jews could get away with it as the Civil Rights was a domestic issue whereas the Arab-Israeli Conflict was a foreign matter(though Israel today hardly counts as a foreign nation but the symbolic metropole to which America must pay tribute).
On the other hand, American opinion on the Vietnam War came to parallel developments in the nation itself, and when Muhammad Ali, perhaps the most famous black person in the 60s after MLK, chose prison instead of service, it gelled in the minds of many that the white 'racism' toward blacks and American 'imperialism' in Vietnam were two sides of the same coin: The Cowboys and Indians view of the world where whites were justified in conquering, killing, and triumphing at any cost. Indeed, not a few Jews drew parallels between US war in Vietnam and the Holocaust, as if the US had become the new nazi nation. So, if American view of foreign policy and American view of domestic issues could merge into a common thread with Vietnam, why didn't this happen with the Arab-Israeli Conflict as well? One might say it was because the Vietnam War was intense and involved 100,000s of servicemen(and 55,000 deaths), whereas the US was not militarily involved in the Middle East(except for Israel's attempt to sink the USS Liberty and pretend it was an accident, with total complicity of the US media, even then dominated by Jews). Curiously enough, MLK also took money from Jews and supported the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians. The irony is rich. He marched for equal rights in the US and denounced America's 'racist' war in Vietnam, BUT he was totally onboard with Jewish supremacism and imperialism against the Palestinians and Arabs. Hmm. His hypocrisy sort of betrayed what Jews were really up to.
But then, whereas the Vietnam War ended for the US by 1973, the Arab-Israeli Conflict lingered in the headlines all throughout the 80s, 90s, and beyond, though far less since the Zionists consolidated near total control in the West Bank and the Jew-run media began to look the other way. And through all those years, despite pro-Zionist bias in the media and US politics, surely any perceptive American could have noted that Palestinians had legitimate grievances and not only lost their nation but their remaining territories were being stolen by Jews. Today, Jewish Caravans freely enter West Bank and carve up more territory with virtually no opposition from US politicians. (And whenever Trump mentioned Israel, conservatives and populists cheered loudly for the double-standards favoring the Jews.) So, whereas Vietnam just became a memory after the war, the Arab-Israeli Conflict was always in the news. Furthermore, South Africa became very big news in the 80s and 90s, especially with the sanctions/boycott movement. And because Apartheid South Africa and Israel were the closest allies, one didn't have to be a rocket scientist to see the parallels between the conditions of blacks in South Africa and of Palestinians in Israel & West Bank. And yet, Mandela was anointed whereas Arafat continued to be portrayed as a 'terrorist'. And the great majority of American Jews denounced South Africa while simultaneously demanding that US support Israel's repressive and discriminatory practices against Palestinians.
So, despite media bias, there was enough news and information out there for Americans to realize what was happening to the Palestinians and how it paralleled America's historical 'sins' of slavery of blacks and 'genocide' of the Indians. And yet, Americans never made any real effort to take notice(which goes to show that American Moralism is mostly the product of external pressure than internal conscience). They just pretended to see Jews as forever Holocaust People even though Shoah was carried out by Europeans, not by Palestinians who, however, were made to pay the price. And any attempt to bring some measure of balance was thwarted in both parties by Jewish money; it had to be Jews uber Arabs. Black Democrats who complained were soon bought off or defamed. The 'Arabists' in the GOP were soon shunted aside by Zionist Neocons for whom the red carpet was rolled out. As the Western Right was more tainted with 'racism' and 'antisemitism', American Conservatism wooed the white Jews(as blacks were a bridge too far) over to the GOP as the more pro-Jewish Party. Of course, the main reason for GOP's support of Jews against Palestinians was hardly different from the racially discriminatory policies of the past. Jews were seen as fellow whites whereas the Arabs were deemed the brown Other, aka 'sand niggers'. And Jews took advantage of this even while secretly loathing American Conservatives as crypto-Anti-Semites. And then, there were Evangelicals who had both racial and spiritual reasons for favoring Jews over Arabs. Jews were revered as the People of the Book(though slated to be wiped out when Jesus returns)whereas Muslims were just heretics. But what about Arab Christians? Well, they were the brown Other and less worthy than white Jews. Due to the Civil Rights Movement and canonization of MLK, it became racially taboo for whites to be anti-black, but they could transfer their racial animus toward brown Arabs via Zionism. Besides, the Holocaust Narrative made it convenient to support Zionist oppression of Palestinians in the name of defending Jews from Another Holocaust being hatched by Arabs as the 'new nazis'. It all became so disingenuous.
Yet, was the Great Contradiction really a contradiction? On the surface, it would seem so: A case of Jews denouncing white 'racism' against blacks but demanding that the US unconditionally support Zionist 'racism' against Palestinians in Israel(and even Wars for Israel that have led to deaths of innumerable lives); also, a case of White America making a big show of how it's seen the light and is on bended knees to atone for what was done to non-whites, especially blacks, while, at the same time, deliriously championing Israel's ruthless and supremacist policies of racial domination over Palestinians and Arabs. One may ask why the Jews, who were the most vociferous white leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the biggest critics of white 'racism', were also the most zealous proponents of US policy that must always favor Jews/Zionists over Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims regardless of whether Jews are in the right or in the wrong. Why is it that Jews, who condemn the view that white lives are more precious than black lives, push policies that clearly insist that a single hair on a Jew is more precious than a thousand Arab lives? An insane contradiction?
And yet, the contradiction isn't such a contradiction if we dig a little deeper. Beneath the surface rhetoric, both Jewish support of black civil rights and Jewish suppression of Palestinian rights are of a kind designed to favor Jewish Supremacism. There is an inner-consistency beneath the outer-contradiction. In truth, Jews pushed the Civil Rights Movement in the US not because they cared about blacks but because they regarded White Christians as their main rivals(even enemies) for power. So, Jews were less motivated by altruism and sympathy(though some were) than by Jewish Supremacism that needed to topple whites and put them in their place. As white goyim greatly outnumbered the Jews, the most effective way was to demoralize whites with 'white guilt', which could be instantly disseminated to millions of white hearts-and-minds via the electronic media controlled by Jews. Just broadcast ROOTS a bunch of times, and whites will feel real sorry.
So, to Jews, blacks were less a people than a moral cudgel to beat whites with. Of course, blacks were also useful to Jews because, being tougher and stronger, they could rob the white man of his 'iconic' status in the pantheon of American Manhood. So, blacks were essentially a weapon for Jews to use against whites, not so much to bring about racial equality for all but to pave the way for eventual Jewish Supremacism. With whites demonized & demoralized and therefore sucking up to Jews and blacks for atonement, who would stand in the way of Jews for total supremacy? And indeed, that's exactly what happened through the years. Also, with blacks as bribed and dependent allies of Jews and with whites as guilt-ridden cucks(who worship Jews as the holy holocaust people), Jews had a free hand and could do as they pleased in the Middle East. Though some blacks may see the wrongness of what is going on, they are too dependent on Jews for money and media support; besides, what blacks care most about is "what's mine!" So, Jews can pose with blacks as the two great victim groups: The Holy Holocaust People and the Sad Slavery People. And what with whites burdened with Holocaust Guilt and Slavery Guilt, they dare not expend any sympathy on the Palestinians as every last ounce of compassion must be reserved for Jews(and blacks and then homos). It's the Guilt Tax. Of course, as Jews control the Narrative, people don't know about all the evil things Jews have done throughout history, and so, Jews are exempted from any burdens.
So, just like Tom Hagen says Hyman Roth played the Pantangeli Affair beautifully, it seems the Jews played the game masterfully. By feigning sympathy for blacks in the Civil Rights Movement, Jews gained the alliance of blacks and the moral servitude of whites plagued with 'white guilt' about blacks in the US and about Jews in World War II. That made it foolproof for Jews to do as they pleased in the Middle East and North Africa, finding any excuse to topple nations, kill countless people, tyrannize the Palestinian population(like Spartans did with the Helots), and act like nasty Judeo-Nazis. Jews sure know how to play the world like a game of chess. But with truth and honesty, we can expose them for what they are. Truth is to evil what light is to vampires.
Whites keep losing to Jews because they approach one another differently. Jews look upon whites with fear, suspicion, hatred, and paranoia. Jews see whites as the rival, even enemy, that must be defeated and subjugated. Just read the anti-white rants of Tim Wise and other Jewish Supremacists posing as 'human rights' activists. And so, Jews look for the most vulnerable spots, the Achilles Heels, of whites to make them bleed and fall. Jews have 20/20 vision on whites as the people who must be conquered and enslaved. Jews play the game. In contrast, whites approach Jews as their best friends and wisest teachers. Whites look upon Jews with reverence, admiration, and trust. Whites see Jews as the best of the best, a people so wonderful that whites must be willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect Jews(though the idea of Jews sacrificing their own lives to save goyim is hilarious to them). So, whites never look for the Achilles Heel of Jews but use all their power to shield Jews from any sling or arrow. In other words, whites shield Jews who stab them in the back. Whites have blinders on that prevent them from seeing the Jews as the rival or enemy. So, even when the Jew attacks whites, whites don't see the Jew but see the Russian, the Chinese, the Iranian, the Arab, the Palestinian, the whatever. Whites constantly seek to scapegoat others because they are incapable of seeing that it's the Jew who is behind White Demise or White Nakba. But then, even many who do see the Jews know that the current climate is such that it's career suicide to name the Jew. Furthermore, Jews are not only going after your jobs but your bank accounts. The denial is funniest among white guys who talk loud and act tough, like Alex Jones. He acts like a barbarian-he-man, but whenever Jews kick his ass, he blames the 'Chicoms'. The Jew must be named because nothing is possible without doing so.
First off, the Boomer generation was not of a single mind or attitude. If anything, polls show that close to half or more of the boomers in the 60s and 70s were Conservative/Patriotic. Many supported the Vietnam War and voted for Nixon. And the majority of Boomers were not into the Drug Culture or crazy about Sexual Revolution. The majority wouldn't have attended Woodstock even if they could have. And yet, the most iconic images of the 1960s are associated with the Counterculture, Hippies, Antiwar Movement, Drug Culture, Youth Rebellion, and/or Radical Politics. It just goes to show that society is reflective less of the ‘silent majority’ than of Vocal Minority. While it’s true that the loudest voices and splashiest personalities could be speaking in the name of the People — this phenomenon is called Populism — , it is often the case that certain elements of the minority(ethnic, religious, commercial, or ideological) speak much louder than the majority that happens to be content, complacent, apathetic, clueless, bored & tired, and/or passive(even timid). Some may regard this is as politically sound as it allows some degree of balance of power between the majority and minority, i.e. since the majority have the advantage of volume, the minority deserves the advantage of voice. For those who subscribe to such a view, Populism is most ‘unfair’ and ‘dangerous’ because it gives the majority both the power of volume and voice. To many Jews, Donald Trump is dangerous precisely because he is the Vocal Leader of the Voluminous Majority(though white numbers are fast declining as share of the overall US population). If capitalists and leftist radicals have one thing in common, it is an hostility to populism. Capitalist entrepreneurs(especially the big ones) are vastly outnumbered by disgruntled workers and dissatisfied consumers, and so, it is in their interest to control the means of information to maintain some kind of balance. No wonder then that all the Big Media are owned by oligarchic powers like Gail Wynand(of THE FOUNTAINHEAD). And even though Charles Foster Kane began as a millionaire populist, his empire eventually grows more cynical and elitist. Though communists spoke of People Power and Social Justice, the fact is the majority of workers in most nations never wanted communism. As such, the radical left constituted an ideological minority in most societies. What they lacked in numbers, they hoped to gain with vociferousness. The Left had to shout louder, march harder, and make a bigger nuisance of itself to get people’s attention. They had to crank up the noise to be heard. And of course, Jews have favored both the elite commercial class(especially the Advertisers) and the Radical Left because both, in their own way, waged war on the Great Majority. And Jews also did everything possible to suppress Populism of both Right and Left. Nationalist Populism could mean a real challenge to Jewish Power. And Leftist Populism could mean strong opposition to Jewish capitalist elites. Thus, Jews have favored both elitist Right and elitist Left. In America, the elitist Right doesn’t speak for the People. It speaks for ‘low taxes’ and ‘liberty’ so that the rich can grow richer. And the elitist Left has, over the years, increasingly altered Progressivism from a broad movement to a fractured movements of various identities fired up by radical intellectual(often pseudo-intellectual in character) theories that have no hope of making much sense to most people. And even when a certain ideology gains support of the great majority, the effect is to favor minority-over-majority interests: Majority of Americans support Zionism and Homomania, but this isn’t Populism because it’s about the Majority being manipulated and goaded into supporting Minority Privilege and Supremacism.
Anyway, the Boomers who gained the most Power were those on the Left. There were several reasons for this. Jews, the most intelligent and ambitious group in the US, were overwhelmingly on the Left. Having Jews on your side in competition for Elite Power was like a sports team having blacks. Jews had increasing presence in media, academia, finance, and law. Another reason was that the American Consensus since the Great Depression was leftist-liberal for decades after WWII. Granted, what passed for leftism and liberalism in the 1930s and 1940s was different from their manifestations later, especially beginning in the 1960s, but a kind of proto-End-of-History outlook had set in during the FDR yrs and after World War II. Incredibly, FDR was elected four times, and even after Conservatives regained the presidency with Eisenhower, Congress was solidly in Democratic hands until the 1990s. With expanding federal power and vast government projects that came to be associated with social betterment, economic justice, necessary regulation(to prevent another Great Depression), and America’s role as World’s reluctant but necessary policeman, there was no going back to the Conservative or Classic Liberal ideal of ‘small government’. Even Dwight Eisenhower expanded government, which grew bigger still under Richard Nixon beginning in 1969. So, no matter which Party won the Presidency, the ideas of Keynes and Galbraith were deemed essential. Even though the Boomers rebelled against much of traditional Liberalism and Orthodox Leftism, the leftists among them were regarded more favorably by the Older Liberal Establishment. Even though moderate Liberals may have had more in common with moderate Conservatives, they tended to lean more to the Left than side with the center-Right. Part of this had to do with Leftists being more committed and passionate(even if delusional and foolish), a fact that made Liberals feel morally inferior due to their ‘bourgeois’ preference for moderation and compromise than total commitment to (the cult of)Justice.
Another reason why the Leftist Boomers were advantaged was due to the WWII Narrative and problem of Race in America. The main villains of the war were deemed as the ‘far right’: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy. The Allies were Liberal Democracies and Soviet Union. Also, Japan was no ordinary enemy but one that ambushed the US navy at Pearl Harbor. And Nazi Germany wasn’t just an authoritarian power(as in WWI) but an evil empire led by a psychopath under whom some of the most ghastly crimes-against-humanity had been perpetrated(especially against Jews). This gave a huge moral boost to the Left in the US, even more so in Europe. Granted, the Cold War and anti-communism aided the Right, but the Soviet Union wasn’t recklessly aggressive like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. For one thing, the Soviet empire was already vast, and they last thing they needed was more land. Also, communism’s role in the Third World was morally ambiguous. On the one hand, it meant another part of the world falling under Leninist-Stalinist dictatorship, but on the other hand, it meant the hope of National Liberation & resistance against European Imperialism or American ‘Neo-Imperialism’. Thus, Cuba and Vietnam turned out to be a net moral negative for the US. Fidel Castro, for all his tyrannical whims, was seen as the proud Latino who’d stood up to Yankee-CIA-mafia imperialism. Anti-communism also led the US to support or even install(via CIA dirty tricks) brutal right-wing regimes that used any-means-necessary(even 'death squads') against ruthless radical insurgencies. US alliance with Shah of Iran and right-wing juntas in Latin America sullied its image around the world, not least among the influential intelligentsia. And the Vietnamese came to be seen around the world as martyrs who stood up to US militarism. Also, many anti-communists were generally intellectually inferior to the thinkers and activists on the Left, and the media-and-military complex eventually found a way to bring down Joe McCarthy. Soon thereafter, Jews and Liberals in the media spun an elaborate hyperbolic Narrative that made those suspected of communist-espionage-or-sympathy as the prima donna victims of the ‘Red Scare’. This was especially important to Jews as their kind were disproportionately involved in spying for the Soviet Union and spreading radical leftist propaganda via media, academia, and government. To discourage any honest probe into Jewish role in radical politics, Jewish Narrative cooked up a wild hysteria about how the US under HUAC and Joe McCarthy had been rabidly and virulently hallucinating about communists-under-every-bed. By focusing the Narrative on the most ludicrous examples of Red Scare, Jews gave the false impression that the bulk of anti-communism had to do with paranoid fantasies when, in fact, there had been incredible amounts of pro-communist espionage and activity especially under FDR. (Not that FDR himself was pro-communist, but he was naive about Stalin and many people around him were either sympathetic to communism or even had ties with the USSR.) Another reason the Leftist Boomers were favored had to do with the Race Issue that came to the fore under Eisenhower and then totally exploded in the 1960s, especially under Lyndon B. Johnson. Billed as the Civil Rights Movement, it became the defining Moral Issue of the Decade(and thereafter). There was no denying the history of slavery and racial discrimination in the US, and of course, blacks bore the brunt of it because they were by far the most numerous minority. On the black issue, the Left was totally committed, and Liberals very much committed. On the Right, the attitudes ranged from moderate support to outright hostility. Granted, by the ‘Right’, it wasn’t necessarily a Republican vs Democratic affair because many Republicans back then were ‘moderate’ Eastern Establishment types and many Democrats were Southern Dixiecrats who were hostile to ending Segregation and granting blacks more rights. Even though the Left’s position on the Civil Rights Movement was either naive or cynical — the Left often supported any cause or movement that might subvert the nation, thereby preparing the US for the eventual Revolution — , it was presented as a coherent and forceful argument: Equal Rights for blacks. Against this, the Right could only mutter about State’s Rights, which was a weak moral argument because it basically meant States could deny certain people Constitutional Rights on the basis of race. There was a compelling argument against Racial Integration and Attempted Equality between whites and blacks — BAMMAMA Factor, or Blacks Are More Muscular and More Aggressive, thereby a threat to the physical and psychological well-being of whites — , but excessive White Male Pride prevented the white race from spelling out the understandable fear that Southern Whites had of blacks. Failing to address that fact, all confrontations between whites and blacks, especially in the South, was framed in terms of helpless innocent blacks asking for justice versus white ‘racists’ and ‘rednecks’ who just liked to call people ‘nigger’ and act like hooligans in front of the TV camera.
There was also the fact of Youth Culture, and even though much of this was just hedonism and not strictly political, it gave boost to the Liberals and Left because it was seen as part of the broader rebellion against The Man and The Order. Even though elderly Leftists were confused and even offended by 60s Youth Rebels(who seemed to indulge in the crass narcissism, hedonism, and materialism of Capitalist Consumerist culture), the Middle Finger of the Youth Movement was bound to offend the conservative elements of society more. Even though many of the key Rock figures of the 1960s weren’t particularly political or ideological, their neo-Romantic Dionysian immersion in revelry and ‘liberation’ endeared them more to the Left, which explains why the Left, far more than the Right, was so eager to recruit singers and other celebrities into the Movement. As with the English Romantics of the 19th century, the Boomer Dionysians were, in some ways, reactionary at least in the ecological back-to-nature sense. They were appalled by the excessive industrialization, materialization, and ‘plasticization’ of society. And as the war in Vietnam dragged on, the Antiwar forces gained greater traction and sympathy. Though originally a Democratic Party war, it came to be seen as Nixon’s right-wing military-industrial slaughter, especially as the war expanded into Cambodia and Laos in a big way. Though boomers were split 50/50 on the Vietnam War for most of its duration, the Antiwar forces gained greater validity as the war seemed unwinnable, America ‘war crimes’ sullied its image around the world(not least among its European allies), and men like Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara came to be lionized even among Liberals as ‘freedom fighters’. (It is no wonder that Conservatives were so eager to re-fight the War in the Reagan 80s, not least with movies like RAMBO, HANOI HILTON, GARDENS OF STONE, HAMBURGER HILL, and UNCOMMON VALOR. John Milius’ RED DAWN even imagined American boys as the New Viet Cong resisting Soviet Occupation of the US. But then, the Leftist Boomers got the best of the Narrative when Oliver Stone appeared on the scene with PLATOON, followed up by BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. At the very least, Stone had been there, which couldn’t be said of Conservative revisionists who’d sat out the war with college deferments or strings pulled by their parents.)
Anyway, in the War of Boomers, the Left-Boomers won decisively over the Right-Boomers. In the end, men like Bill Clinton seemed far more impressive than people like Dan Quayle and George W. Bush. Sure, Billy Boy Clinton turned out to be one sleazy slimeball, but he was a true political visionary with the foresight and skills necessary to turn the Order upside down. That said, most politicians of both Parties are pieces of turds, hardly impressive material. Where the Left-Boomers really won the war against Right-boomers were in academia, media, entertainment, and law. Those institutions not only create, shape, and control the Big Ideas but the Idols and Icons. Academia, Media-Entertainment, and Law constitute the church of secularism. Control those and you end up controlling even your enemies or at least their children. Consider the children of George W. Bush and how they’re all for ‘gay marriage’. Why? Because even if they grew up under an Evangelical father, they were bombarded with pro-homo Pop Culture(that idolizes homos and trannies) and were educated in elite institutions where over 95% of the professors are PC scribes and priests. If PC won’t get you, it will get your children who are impressionable when they enter school and easily made addicted to Pop Culture. Take someone like Bill Gates who grew up mostly apolitical and only cared about technology and geeky stuff. Why did he turn ‘leftist’? Because the media that he relies on for information is controlled by globalist Jews. Even if we were to suppose that many business majors in the 60s and 70s were on the Right(and pro-capitalist), business only teaches people how to make money. It doesn’t teach people about the higher meaning of life or true path to justice. Capitalism is essentially about how to maximize profits. So, even if many ‘rightist’ pro-market types were to succeed in business, they must seek moral and spiritual meaning elsewhere. In the past, they might have belonged to a Church or an ethnic community, i.e. Irish Catholics who cared about their own kin and culture. But in a deracinating, de-spiritualizing, and atomizing America, there was no longer a traditional faith or community to hold onto. So, where was one to find the higher meaning? And this is where the academia-media-law complex came to constitute the new holy trinity. Since Liberals and Leftists controlled most of it, even the successful ‘rightists’ and their children were bound to be gradually molded into the ‘leftist’ way of thinking. Is it any wonder that so many on the Right don’t question the basic assumptions of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘homophobia’ but accept them as legitimate and then try to argue that the Other Side comprise the ‘real racists’, ‘real sexists’, and even ‘real homophobes’? (Supposedly, the Liberals are the ‘real homophobes’ since they welcome Muslims who might throw men who boof off the roof.)
But on the other hand, it is almost pointless to speak of the triumphant Left because what passes for the ‘left’ today bears hardly any resemblance of the Left of yesteryear, even of the 60s and 70s. There’s a common gripe on the Right that American Conservatives merely trail American Liberals by ten to twenty years, but it is worth asking if the Left has gotten more leftist or less leftist? Didn’t the Left abandon socialism? Didn’t the Left abandon the Working Class? Didn’t the Left welcome the Deep State, militarism, capitalism, consumerism, Wall Street, gambling, culture of narcissism, ‘xenophobic’ paranoia(about Russia especially), and etc.? So, even as the Right seems to be following in the footsteps of the Left, the Left seems to have been following in the footsteps of the Right. Clinton reached out to Wall Street, Trump reached out to the Working Class. What is going on here? In this sense, even though the Left-Boomers won, the leftist idealism that had fired up their youth seems to have evaporated over the years, leaving only a naked greed for power, prestige, and privilege.
On the one hand, it is clear that the Left-Boomers, as they grew older, became more jaded about values & meanings and came to care only for power and status. In the end, they came to understand the true nature of power. It is always an elite thing, and you have to know the right people and have to be in the right places. Nothing else matters... if you want to be where the action is. In LOST IN AMERICA, a Jewish guy decides to give up his yuppie job and see rural and small-town America. He wants to Touch Indians and meet with regular folks. What he finds outside the Big Cities is just a lot of boredom, mediocrity, and stasis. In the end, being one of the regular people means working as a crossing-guard. He decides to return to the Big City where the action is. Where the ONLY ACTION that counts is. It was said that Hillary Clinton grew impatient and insulting when she passed through some Nowhere-ville. She didn’t see the point of appealing to such losers who had nothing to offer her but some piddling votes. She wanted to shake hands with the Powerful and the Connected.
In INSIDE LLEYWN DAVIS, the lead character is a folk singer, an artist who is supposed to be about the People, especially in folksy small towns and rural America. But his act is strictly an urban-bohemian affair. He knows who’s who in NY and Chicago but feels totally like an outsider and alien in the rural and small-town areas between those two great cities. And when the folkie joint finally presents a bonafide act from bumble-ville, he spews insults at the performer to the point of making her flee the stage in tears, unwittingly angering her husband who returns to punch him in the nose like George Bailey got in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE for having said mean things to a school teacher.
Anyway, the point is it would be foolish to think that the Triumph of the Left means true victory of Classic Leftism or even radical Boomer Leftism. Classic Leftism of Communism died with the Fall of the Soviet Union and with China & Vietnam’s shift to capitalism and market economy. And the New Deal Leftism also lost out to Free Trade and Globalism that came to be embraced by the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. Even Bruce Springsteen, the supposed voice of Blue Collar America, came to perform mainly for yuppies and yap mostly about homos and trannies. When we say the Left-Boomers won, we mean as individuals and personalities, not as ideologues. In the end, their ideological conviction proved to be weak or shallow. What really mattered was their lust for power, and it didn’t matter how they got it as long as they got it. Because they began on the Left, they kept the ideological moniker, but their current political positions have almost nothing in common with what they’d once stood for as young idealists. In a way, their lives have been one of betrayal of ideals and dreams. But in another way, all the themes of the 1960s were actually in keeping with the spirit of unfettered power-lust that had defined the American Experience for a long time. It was a repackaging and a re-branding than a rejection of what was both the best and worst of Americanism.
Consider one of the big slogans of the 1960s. We were told it was all about Love. All You Need Is Love. Make Love, Not War. So, Love = Peace, and a Generation committed to Love would oppose the Generation made by War. Even if WWII was the Good War, it was the beginning of the Military Industrial Complex. Also, the pride of having won the Good War led to this idea that the American Way is the right way all around the world. Because War had been ‘good’ and necessary in WWII, there was the idea that War is the solution for all problems. Especially when it was reported that PATTON was the favorite movie of Richard Nixon, the Commander-in-Chief of the war in Vietnam, the idea crystallized that the conflict was between Love & Peace and War & Imperialism. So, the hope was that the Generation of Love would grow up to be different from the earlier generation whose mentality had been formed by Militarist Mentality of World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War. Films like DR. STRANGELOVE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, CATCH-22, and M*A*S*H mocked the War State Mentality of the Older Generation.
And yet, was Love really the answer? Isn’t love a passion? Isn’t passion violent by nature? Also, even if we were to define ‘love’ as selfless & generous as opposed to ‘lust’ that is defined as selfish & wanton, is there a clear line between love and lust, especially when it involves boys and girls? Take THE GRADUATE, the most popular of all Boomer movies. It is about lust and love. Lust makes Benjamin Braddock act irresponsibly, having sex with the wife of his father’s law partner. Surely, surrendering oneself to sexual passions is hardly a way for peace and harmony. Next, Braddock goes into Love mode, and he goes totally insane, so much so that he lies, trespasses, and pulls all sorts of tricks to finally go Tony Montana and crash a wedding and run off with the (married)bride. It was sold as entertainment, but if one thinks about it, Braddock’s Quest for Love was mad, pathological, and violent. Braddock didn’t shoot up the wedding like some kids are doing at schools these days, but the mentality wasn't all that different. After all, Elliot Rodgers and other ‘Incels’ seem to be killing out of Love(or lack of it, which goes to show that Love isn’t ‘fair’, ‘democratic’, or ‘inclusive’). Anyway, it was Elaine or Bust for Braddock. He had to have her or else. He was willing to go to any length. Thus, the theme of Love in THE GRADUATE is a lot darker than might have been assumed. Love can be blind or blinding. Its ‘purity’ of passion makes one believe anything is justified in its quest.
Then, is it surprising that the Boomers who believed in the Power of Love ended up as such warmongering lunatics? Their idea seems to be that anything is justified IF they do it out of LOVE. So, if they want to invade or destroy any nation, just invoke some love of justice, democracy, or some humanitarian values. Want to restart the ‘cold war’ with Russia? Invoke the Love of Homos. How dare Russia remain cold and frigid to the ‘rainbow’ Love colors of Homomania? Let’s consider some other Love-themes Boomer-favorites of the 60s. BONNIE & CLYDE came out in the same year as THE GRADUATE, and its message was that the gangster duo is justified in their mayhem across the ‘fruited plains’ because... they Love each other. Well, there you go. Love justifies everything? Want to justify ‘gay marriage’ and wage total war on morality and decency? Just say that homos want to get married out of Love. GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER was also made in the same year. In it, a ghastly Negro wants to wage racial-sexual war and colonize the womb of a white woman. He enters the scene yapping, "Where da white women at?", but this act of racial-sexual war is supposed to be Okay because... he be Loving a white ho. Another big favorite among the Boomers was Franco Zeffirelli’s version of ROMEO AND JULIET. It too was sold as a redemptive story of Love, but then Shakespeare, being a true artist, knew better. The story is ostensibly about the power of love between two young babes from families that hate one another. On one level, the lovers are inspiring, and their love redeeming of the bad blood between two families. On the other hand, love makes them totally blind and even mad. They are so mad with Love that they put its interest before all else, ensnaring so many people into complications that even lead to deaths of two men, followed by suicides of the two lovers. So maybe, Love isn’t a cure for all problems after all. Even though the two families were divided by blind hate, things hardly got better with blind love between the kids.
And indeed, US foreign policy got most messed up when America fell in blind love with certain peoples. Its blind love for Jews has led to supporting Wars for Israel and Oppression of Palestinians. Universal Love is impossible. The couple love Elsa the lioness in BORN FREE, but that means setting it free to kill warthogs and other creatures. If you love a deer, you want to kill coyotes that might hunt it. If you love a coyote, you will want it to hunt deer to survive. If you love your cat, other animals will have to die to feed it. When Lawrence falls in love with Arabs, it means he must learn to hate Turks. Sadly, it is when Joe Buck(in MIDNIGHT COWBOY) tries to save his beloved friend Ratso that he turns to violence that ends up killing a man, one of the few decent people he met in NY. Likewise, whenever the US has fallen in love with a certain people, the blind love also led to blind hate. America’s love for Jews has blinded it to its mad hate for Palestinians, an innocent people. Worse, whenever US wants to destroy a nation, it can invoke Love as the reason. So, why did the US mess up the Middle East? Oh yeah, out of Love, to bring ‘liberal democracy’ to all those ‘ragheads’ yearning to be free. Why should the US subvert the Iranian regime? Because Americans, being full of Love, want to liberate all those poor wonderful Iranians from an evil regime. Love also produces blindspots. America’s delusional love for Magic Negroes has blinded it to the truly wretched way of Real Negroes. It’s like the blind love in FAREWELL MY LOVELY. The love for the noir bitch blinds men to how wicked she is. Love not only blinds but spoils the object of love. Catherine in JULES AND JIM is showered with love by men, and she turns into a self-centered bitch. Jews are addicted to being Loved by dimwit goyim and seethe with rage at anyone who won’t show the Love. Antisemitism used to mean Hatred for Jews, but nowadays, it means Not Loving Jews, Not Trusting Jews, Not Obeying Jews. Excessive Love for Jews has spoiled them like the excessive mother’s love that spoiled the kid in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.
LOVE STORY(followed by OLIVER’S STORY) showed how Love could lead to emptiness and bitterness. Not only does Love create an unfortunate rift between father and son in LOVE STORY but Jenny eventually dies of leukemia, and Oliver is left feeling empty and bitter for the rest of his life. Applied to politics, such emotions mean wounded bitterness among those who don’t get things their way. We saw this in the loss of Hillary Clinton. Her supporters didn’t just react like their candidate lost an election but as if the object of their love was murdered. And the delirious fans of Obama were in Love with him. Imagine how they would have reacted if Obama had lost in 2008 or 2012. We wouldn’t be human without the capacity for Love, but Love is not some bright shining thing but a passion with as much darkness as radiance, as shown in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where the kid-robot’s undying love for ‘mommy’ turns into something brooding and grotesque... as is the sickly lesbian love in MULHOLLAND DR. And this is why the story of Jesus Christ is so troubled. How do you Love humanity that is divided among so many tribes? If you love the Jews, you must hate the enemies of Jews. If you love the Romans, you must hate the enemies of Romans. If you love the Persians, you must hate the enemies of Persians. If you love the Celts, you must hate the enemies of Celts. Also, if you love your family and kin, you must put their interests above those of others. Love binds one to a certain person, certain group, a certain tribe. Love necessarily makes you hate those who threaten the object of one’s love. Jesus wanted to transcend all that and love all of mankind, but how is this done? Christians believe He found the answer. Non-Christians believe He was seriously deluded, even mad.
Anyway, given the true dynamics of Love, it couldn’t be the formula for peace and harmony in the New Order. If anything, the Boomers who came of age in the Summer of Love developed impassioned blindspots of their own. Worse, once the romanticism of love faded over the years, there was only lust. Billy Boy Clinton embodied this side of Boomerism all too well: Lust for power, lust for women, lust for money, lust for privilege. In this sense, Philip Roth’s PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT, which was more about lust than love, became more prophetic than THE GRADUATE. We ended up in the Age of Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneiderman, and Donald Trump, the president who once paid a trashy porn performer to have sex with him. Love can be a positive force, but it can also be blinding, impulsive, stupid, neurotic, and enraged. Weinstein forced himself on those who wouldn’t give into him. He was one more Jew who wouldn’t take No for an answer. Not to give into his ‘love’ was like being an ‘Anti-Semite’ who won’t love Jews. It’s not enough Not-to-Hate Jews in our age. You must Love Jews like Winston Smith learned to Love Big Brother. And when Weinstein raped women, the fault was with them for resisting his Love. But this is Boomer US foreign policy in a nutshell. You see, the US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation that is full of Love, and if it wants to invade or interfere with any nation, it has every right to do so because it is all about Love. The fault is with the nation that says NO to US intervention. How dare it say NO to America as the Don Juan of the World?
Incidentally, if THE GRADUATE was about the mad romanticism of Love, the biggest franchise of the 1960s, the 007 James Bond movies, was about the Nihilism of Love. 007 is so smooth, cool, and handsome that he has the license to do just about anything. The Bond series may have had a special appeal to the more Conservative types(despite the sexual licentiousness), but again, Love, far from being an agent for peace and harmony, is a prize and trophy of power and mastery. You must kill and win to get the ladies.
And of course, the Vietnam War wasn’t just about US soldiers killing tons of ‘gooks’ but humping millions of ‘gookettes’. It was as much about making Love as well as War in Southeast Asia. In a way, the open Libido of the Boomer generation made it more uninhibited in its aggression. The Freudian-Frankfurt theory that American aggression was the result of pent-up sexual frustration never made much sense. While it’s true that Nixon was sexually conservative, Lyndon B. Johnson was a major Mr. Rhinestone Cowboy when it came to donging and whoring around. And Billy Boy Clinton’s many philandering didn’t stop him from moving NATO up to Russia’s borders or instigating the War on Serbia. And Donald Trump, who loves to talk belligerently and is now raising tensions with Iran, sure humped lots of women throughout his life. We should know from the examples of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan that ‘healthy libido’ is hardly a preventive cure from excessive war-making. If anything, through most of history, wars were usually about ‘get the womenfolk’ as well as ‘get the land and loot’. In SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, it shows how womenfolk have a dual effect on the fellers: they both barbarize and civilize menfolk. Upon seeing womenfolk, menfolk go ‘boing’ and want to act like Chechen bandits and run off with women-as-trophies. But then, it is the duty of womenfolk to teach menfolk some manners and not eat like pigs when served stew and biscuits. (Of course, today's women are often just as barbaric as the men.)
One of the themes of Americanism was the unfettered reach of going all the way, having it all, and living the dream. The sheer immensity of the wilderness to be tamed filled Americans with over-sized ambitions. The positive side of this was the spirit of adventure, enterprise, and experiment. The downside was the obnoxious and infantile sense that it is so very unjust if things don’t go one’s way. And this was made worse when radical Jewish psychology infected Americanism. Jewish radicalism made American reform-style socialism far nastier. And Ayn Rand’s philosophy radicalized American individualism to the point of near-psychosis where the hero of THE FOUNTAINHEAD in effect becomes a terrorist and blows up an entire Housing Project out of his purist insistence that it be his way or the highway. And Love-American-Style became something gross. It’s like what Tony Montana says in SCARFACE: "This town is like a big fat pussy just waiting to get fuc*ed." He sure read Americanism correctly, especially in the trashy city of Miami.
And in THE GRADUATE and THE HEARTBREAK KID, we see this infantile Americanism(mixed with Jewish neurosis) that must have it his way or it’s the highway. So, not only was Love NOT the answer but Love-American-Style, outsized and vulgar, wasn’t going to save the world as the Boomer generation took over the seats of power. Their idea of making love to the world was to rape it with their crude, ugly, and infantile agenda of New World Order that was far more sinister than one envisioned by the WWII generation.
Another big thing among the Boomers was, of course, Rock culture. Like Love, indeed along with Love, Rock Culture was supposed to promote youthful idealism, freedom, and liberation. And even justice and truth. After all, while the military was training young people to be killers with guns, Rock culture was encouraging young ones to be free and have fun with guitars and drums. Better to be at Monterey or Woodstock grooving to Rock music than to be in the jungles of Vietnam killing people you don’t even know. While the military was about repression, discipline, hardship, and death, Rock Culture was about liberation, openness, ease, and life. And while warmongers made the "Ballad of the Green Beret" a hit, the Antiwar crowd was more likely to dance and get all funky with Santana and Sly & the Family Stone. Besides, plenty of Rockers sang against the War. John Lennon sang "Give Peace a Chance". Creedence Clearwater Revival sang "Fortunate Son" and "Who’ll Stop the Rain?" The Animals sang, "Sky Pilot". HAIR the musical was blatantly antiwar. Antiwar politics divided the world between old men like LBJ and Nixon in business suits AND young people in colorful dress and into Rock music. The idea was that repressed traditional men in government took out their aggressions by waging war on other nations. In contrast, young counterculture people who let it all hang out were at peace with themselves and nature, therefore, they had no reason to blow up some other part of the world to feel good about themselves.
And yet, the Vietnam War(and American militarism) and Rock Culture had something in common. They were both predicated on powerlust. After all, what was the main appeal of Rock n Roll? It was about the animal aggression of conquest and domination. Elvis, channeling the Negroes, turned white girls into willing sex slaves of the King of Rock n Roll. At his concerts, young girls peed their pants to his music. Elvis was the middleman performer between the Negro dong and their white poons. As the White Negro, he made possible in musical fantasy what was forbidden in life. (Of course, there is no more need for white sexual middlemen between Mandingo and white girls because we now live in Age of Rap and pornification of culture, whereby white girls are celebrated for going with Negroes.) So, Rock n Roll exploded on the scene as a form of sexual-imperialism. It was the music of the burn-and-slash rape-and-pillage. Boys loved it because a part of them wanted to play the pirate. And girls loved it because, as so many Romance novels show, women fantasize about rape by pirates and bandits. So, Rock n Roll expressed animal drives and urges. It was a form of Jungle Imperialism, along with Negro takeover of sports. Even though Muhammad Ali came to be admired as an idol of resistance and social justice, the only reason he became famous was because he beat up other men and called himself the ‘greatest’. Sports is a form of war. It’s about domination, conquest, and humiliation. It is about beating up other men and humping lots of women. This could happen within the race or across races. In the US, as black men won in sports, it meant they defeated and humiliated white men into cuckdom and claimed and conquered white women. Because of the history of slavery and racial discrimination, the release of wild Negro energies(and their channeling by white performers) was justified and even romanticized as a form of moral advancement and historical redress. But apart from such contextualization, the influence of Negro sports and Negro music was to spread aggression, thuggery, domination, and war-lust. Even though Jimi Hendrix is considered as part of Counterculture, the fact is his music goes well together with footage of the Vietnam War. Some may argue that his music was a dark commentary on the crisis of the times, but the sheer violence of his music runs parallel to the violence meted out on Vietnam. Its effect is utterly different from sober folk songs of the early 1960s that protested War and militarism. Even if Hendrix and Santana were sympathetic to the Antiwar crowd, the fact is their music unleashed violent energies of mayhem and domination. Their music worked like demon possession like in THE EXORCIST. Consider Steppenwolf's music to the footage of the Vietnam War.
And even though CCR’s song "Fortunate Son" condemns the hypocrisy of the warmongers, its energies aren’t much different from the aggression of soldiers. It is militant and furious in its anti-war stance, so much so that it makes aggression sound fun and thrilling. In the end, the real appeal of the song is less its message than it sheer fury. If one didn’t know English, one might almost believe it’s a pro-war song about how "we should go there and kill all them gooks." Message is often buried or overwhelmed by the music in a song. Take "Born in the USA" that many people heard as a patriotic anthem of the Reagan Decade when, in terms of lyrics, it was a bitter commentary on how the System invokes patriotism to make young men go fight in wars that serve no purpose. Springsteen made this very point, but he too was deluded because when you play a song like that before 50,000 people with a big-ass Negro Clarence blowing into a saxophone, it essentially functions as a celebratory anthem. Again, if you didn’t know the lyrics, it would sound like an aggressive and violent gung-ho pro-war patriotic song. Just as Sam Peckinpah was deluded when he claimed the violence in THE WILD BUNCH was meant to be anti-violence, Springsteen was fooling himself when he thought irony could work with a song like "Born in the USA", especially when played in concert in a crowd of tens of thousands along with other songs like "Born to Run", "Sherry Darling", and "Bobby Jean".
It is then no wonder that the Rock Generation grew up to be powerlusting nihilists and killers. And it is no wonder that "Rock the Casbah" became the anthem of the US military as it blasted Baghdad to smithereens. And let’s also remember that Rock Culture wasn’t only part of the Antiwar movement. The US military allowed tons of Pop Culture to enter into Vietnam. US soldiers were encouraged to have fun when not fighting. Away from the jungle, they were into Rock music, sex, drugs, and all that stuff. It’s no wonder that "The End", "Satisfaction" and "Suzie Q" go so well together with the war images in APOCALYPSE NOW. Rock music is about domination and release of animal drives. In essence, it is closer to hunter-warrior outlook than saint-sage mindset. When one listens to Hendrix’s version of "All Along the Watchtower", one gets the impression of a psychedelic tiger lurking in the jungle to pounce on an ox. When one listens to "Gimme Shelter", it sounds like how cool it’d be to napalm entire villages. Sure, there are lyrics about ‘love’ and all that, but the music itself, especially with a Negress howling like a gorilla in heat, is totally wild and crazy. And despite Punk music’s supposed ‘political consciousness’ and Rap music’s ‘social commentary’, both were essentially war music of derelicts, bandits, and thugs. They were barbarian hunter music or savage warrior music. A song like "Fight the Power" pretends to be a call for justice, but the music is really about, "Gonna whup your ass, honkey" and "Where da white women at?!"
Then, it is no wonder that Rock music, which was billed as the sound of happy liberation and youthful idealism of peace, became so useful to the Boomer Warmongers who, with a military filled with kids steeped in Rock warrior-hunter culture, were more than willing to Hendrixize and Clash-ize entire nations with Shock and Awe. It is telling that the music video for "Rock the Casbah" shows an Arab and a Jew sharing a ride and raking in all the money and goodies. How prophetic in an idiot-savant way. Today, we have Israel allied with the Saudis messing up the entire region with the full backing of the US that has Elvis-as-President in Donald Trump who has, among his fans, Kanye West who’s been admonished by Jay-Z who supported Hillary Clinton, the badass bitch who done wasted Libya, sheeeeiiiiit.
I think the idea of 'gay marriage' is sick, demented, and ridiculous. On principle, I would oppose it forever. But tactically, it may be a plus for conservatives if liberals got their wish with the 'same-sex marriage' business. Though the sheer intensity of this issue given the impression of liberalism powerfully on the march, it may well be that the 'gay marriage' issue is really a sign of liberal political desperation and ideological exhaustion.
One main difference between conservatism and liberalism is the former has meaning even if it sits still whereas the latter has meaning only in restless movement. A conservative is like someone who stays put on his land and takes care of the garden. He doesn't have to venture to new territories to find meaning. He can find meaning by tending his own garden. In contrast, liberalism is premised on the notion of change and adventurousness. It has to search for new things, new meanings, new values, and etc. An artistic traditionalist or conservative can find meaning and beauty in classical art and older forms of representational art. An artistic liberal or experimentalist favors something like modernism and post-modernism. He or she needs new expressions.
There is an advantage to the liberal spirit as long as there are meaningfully new things to find and do. But once liberals run out of new adventures and new crusades, it sort of becomes useless. Look at the state of modernism and post-modernism in art today. It is at an utter deadend. Modernism, as a rebellion against traditionalism, had great meaning and potential in the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century. But in painting, sculpture, and music, modernism and then post-modernism pretty much burned themselves out. And modernism in cinema lasted to up about the early 1970s. Nowadays, 'radicalism' in art is something of a joke. No one really cares, and the art world is essentially a zone of insider trading among rich collectors who have nothing better to do with their money and cynical 'artists' who try to be the new Warhol in making pseudo-art or anti-art for big bucks and fabricated 'notoriety', which too has become something of a brand. (Indeed, Ai Wei Wei is blessed because he has to deal with censorship. It gives him the cachet of being a true dissenter. Western artists aren't so lucky.) In other words, too much of a good thing has led to its own demise. It's like yeast eventually kills itself in the wine. They feast on the grapes but the alcohol produced by the fermentation kills the yeast. Similarly, the indulgence of modernism and post-modernism killed those movements. What had once been 'different', 'subversive', 'radical', and 'revolutionary' became dime-a-dozen mannerisms in every art school. When even teenagers at community colleges make 'surreal' collages with various junk, who cares anymore? Similarly, sex and violence in films have lost their edge and meaning. Whatever controversy and meaningful discussion were stirred up by films like STRAW DOGS, DIRTY HARRY, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, no one is shocked by violence and sex in movies anymore. What had once been a great cultural crusade came to a deadend.
Now, let's consider politics and culture. There was the golden age of liberalism that took off with the rise of FDR. Like him or not, he connected with many Americans and laid the foundations of the modern America we are living in today. As America was becoming bigger, more complex, and more industrialized--and as most Americans could no longer live self-sufficiently off the land as in the past--, a whole new bureaucracy was created to manage and oversee the new order. And in time, Republicans came to adopt this model too. Though conservative purists like Buckley in the 50s opposed even the government role in building highways, more pragmatic conservatives like Eisenhower understood the new reality. Having fought in the biggest war in world history, Eisenhower appreciated the advantages of modern management and organization. And in a way, he understood American progress as a kind of peaceful constructive war. Thus, army engineers built dams and bridges. For a vast new America to be built, private enterprise couldn't do it alone. Governments had to play a bigger role in educating children, in building infrastructure, and etc.
This was a boom time for the American working classes, and the great majority of Americans embraced FDR's vision of new America, and despite all the conservative gripes, they too accepted the new system. Eisenhower built the great highways. Kennedy would start a program to send men to the moon. Public universities were expanded so that many more eager young men could attend college. These were great times, and liberalism had a muscular role to play in the creation of the new order. And then, there was the Civil Rights Movement. Today, we know that the black problem is much more serious since so much of it is rooted in biology than in history or social reality. But many people didn't know this in the 1950s, and liberalism stepped into to bring legal justice to blacks. If the US Constitution calls for equality for all men regardless of race, creed, or color, then it wasn't right for blacks to be discriminated because of the 'color of their skin'. Many whites were naive back then--as they still are today due to politically correct education--, but they sincerely believed that the racial problem could be solved by offering equality and a helping hand to blacks. In RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, even Pat Buchanan says that as a young man, he was deeply impressed by MLK's speech in the Mall in the early 60s; he called it the golden age of liberalism. That was great boon for liberalism, and Johnson was re-elected in 1964 in a sweeping landslide.
But then, things began to go wrong due to the Vietnam War, the true nature of blacks, and youthful hedonism. Vietnam War pitted patriotic anti-communist liberals against radicals, progressives, and peace liberals. The true nature of blacks showed them to be aggressive, wild, and dangerous. Crime begin to skyrocket once blacks(who turned out be physically tougher and more aggressive) got freedom and equality. Even white liberals began to run from integrating neighborhoods; Howard Stern says even his ultra-liberal Jewish mother soon wanted OUT of the blackening neighborhood. As for youthful hedonism, it turned to drugs and excess.
To be sure, there was silver linings in all three of these problems. Anti-War movement gave birth to a whole new kind of liberal idealism that defined a generation. And black rage and black politics gave meaning to black identity politics. And youthful hedonism produced some great popular music and styles & modes of life that seemed 'groovy' and 'far out' as long as the music, drugs, and youth lasted. But black rage could only go so far. Eventually, even sympathetic white liberals got annoyed(and scared) with blacks howling all the time. And the anti-war vibes evaporated the minute Nixon got rid of the Draft. And there were soon too many bad trips with excessive music, sex, and drugs among 60s youth. As Peter Fonda said in EASY RIDER, 'we blew it'.
As black rage, youth hedonism, and anti-war rhetoric began to fade, liberalism sought new meaning in feminism and environmentalism. Those causes also had some great themes to them. Though feminism soon became stupid, there was meaning to women wanting equal opportunities. And through feminism, many women began to question and critique what it meant to be a woman in her own right than merely in relation to men. And despite some of its excesses and mania, environmentalism did clean up many rivers and the air. It also had great themes and meaning. But as women gained equality and EPA became national policy, they all began to lose the element of thrill and excitement. In time, even conservatives were for stuff like "women's rights", "cleaner air", and all the other nice-sounding stuff that liberalism put on the table. What had once been urgently new issues became part of the same old same old landscape. If conservatives had one great issue during this period, it was anti-communism, and Reagan ran with it to victory and triumph.
Anyway, that was then, and this is now. Are there any great liberal themes or causes left? With a black guy as president and president-re-elect, with gays in the military, with open borders and Mexicanization of California, with the permanent demise of the GOP as a national party, and etc, etc. what is left for liberals?
There's 'affirmative action' and 'disparate impact' on the books. Wasp power is gone, and liberal Jews pretty much own the nation along with the gay cabal. Even big tobacco was defeated in the 90s. So, what is there left for liberals? Liberals, with their slogan 'Forward', need something to look forward to and get excited about. So, what is it? There is 'gay marriage', but suppose 'gay marriage' becomes law of the land in all 50 states. Then what?
Liberals are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. They had their great period, but they got nothing left that is meaningful anymore(though, I suppose there is "let's elect a woman president", "a Hispanic president", "gay president", "lesbian president", "cross-dressing president", "a mental retard"). Unlike conservatives, they lack core values with which they can feel at peace. Liberals always have to find new things to get all worked up about. With FDR, it was jobs for Americans. With Obama, it's more food stamps. With Eisenhower and Kennedy, it was equality for blacks. Now, it's the silly notion that Obama is 'black gay jesus' who sends thrills up some white news anchor's legs. Media tell us that gays are angels, and Americans now seem to love gays. And Fluke and other silly sluts got their free birth control pills. And feminists are proud to be 'sluts' and shout 'vagina' out in the streets. Golly gee, they finally defeated the evil 'war against women'. They even got socialized healthcare and amnesty with Obama. I mean it's getting pretty desperate for liberals to find new things to get excited about. Even creatively, liberals are at a deadend in literature, cinema, and music. The fight for 'gay marriage' is the last big thing they got going for them. So, suppose we let them have it. They'll be celebrating like crazy for one night.. and then realize they got nothing more to fight for. Sure, they cook up more crises, but you can cry wolf only so many times. It's like conservatives got to cry "MUSLIM TERRORISM" after the Cold War, but it soon got stale. Especially with the looming deficits, the whole house of cards may come tumbling down for liberals, and all their silly new conceits may come to naught. And in time, many liberal causes that once sounded meaningful will be exposed as decadent, trivial, and trashy. Liberalism is the victim of its own success. So was anti-communism. Once conservatives won the Cold War, they were at a loss as to what great crusade to find next. George H. W. Bush thought war with Iraq would get the patriotic juices flowing again, but it wasn't long-lasting. Conservatives had a silver platter handed to them with 9/11, but Bush II botched it real bad.
But liberalism is also at a deadend. I mean a movement is scraping the bottom of the barrel when the great moral crusade it can come up with is 'gay marriage'. It's so silly that like the housing bubble, it's supported not by substance but hype about gays as perfect angels and darlings whose blessing you must earn if you wanna go to Cool Heaven. It's MTV liberalism. But once liberals have it, what is the next big cause? Diversity? But it's here already. The re-election of Obama means the tipping point has been reached, and it's the end of 'evil racist white America'. Since the evil white GOP has been defeated, what is there to hold the Democrats together? The great war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan held the coalition of Nationalist China, Soviet Union, UK, and US together. With the defeat of the Axis, how could those nations stay in the same camp? Their alliance became the victim of its very success.
Conservatism may have lost, but it still has core meaning for conservatives because conservatives find meaning in their hearts. Liberals have to find meaning in new stuff. It's the difference between a person who's content with clothes in her closet and a woman who has to keep buying new stuff. After all the fashions have been purchased and tried on, what is there for the liberal ideological shopper to buy anymore? Liberalism too is at an end. The real End of History is not some happy final destination. Such is impossible with liberals since they need new kicks and thrills. But when there is nothing new that's meaningful to be found, liberals will settle for trivial issues and causes, and they will lead to decadence and ridiculousness, to self-parody and comedy. The party of FDR now swoons over Obama as 'gay black jesus' and think 'gay marriage' is the biggest moral issue of the day--and they're blind to how ridiculous they've become. If they get 'gay marriage', they'll have a "what's next?" moment, and the fact is there's nothing more left but gimmicks. Indeed, 'gay marriage' itself is a gimmick.
One thing that should be clear to all conservatives. The alliance with Jews is over. It should have been seen as hopeless from the start.
