I watched THE ELEPHANT MAN long ago and didn't think much of it. Watching it again, it is clearly far from David Lynch's best though still head-and-shoulders above most 'serious' movies. One wonders why Mel Brooks chose Lynch. Did he think Lynch, the creator of ERASERHEAD, would do a humorless version of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, because some of the film comes across that way. It being a Mel Brooks production, Anne Bancroft was slipped into the unconvincing role of a famous British actress, but there are bigger problems.
One stems from the projection of Lynch's own universe onto material that has only passing similarities with his obsessions. The story of Joseph or 'John' Merrick(played by John Hurt) is one of physical, indeed all too visible, horror. It is also a morality tale premised on humanism and Christian sentiments. While Lynch's universe is not without moral meaning or spiritual dimensions, Lynch doesn't to morality tale very well. It's too simple and square for his sensibilities. The 'square' quality in Lynch's works tend to be squared. Square and queer intersect in his best works, making it all very 'squeer'.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN by Mel Brooks
THE ERASERHEAD suffers from the same problem that befell Andrei Tarkovsky's SOLARIS and other works where friction between competing conceptions led to clutter than spark. It happens when the original material and the auteur's take are so much at odds. Stanislaw Lem's SOLARIS is a philosophical novel about the limits of intellect and imagination in face of something that confounds our sense of time and space. To this, Tarkovsky added the thing about the Russian Soul and familial sentiments. Much of the film is impressive but Lem's intellectualism and Tarkovsky's iconography fail to fuse. It's like a chemistry experiment gone wrong. But then, there's little to indicate Tarkovsky had much interest in Lem's foundation and instead just poured his own material over it. It's like someone given the recipe and ingredients for Polish cooking but making a Russian dish with them. In some ways, SOLARIS is more problematic(though also more impressive) than THE ELEPHANT MAN because, whereas Lynch stuck with the basic material and only added 'Lynchian' touches, Tarkovsky wholly transformed SOLARIS in its trajectory and meaning. Instead of dry, it is wet. If Lem's novel is about staring into the vast unknown and resigning to its mystery, Tarkovsky's film is essentially about homesickness and the pull of Mother Earth. In the end, the man seems hardly interested in the planet of Solaris, and furthermore, his melancholia is about his ambition as astronaut over his duty as son(as his father will die without him at the deathbed).
Andrei Tarkovsky's SOLARIS, more about earth than space.
THE SHINING is an interesting case. Stanley Kubrick apparently had little interest in Stephen King's novel, which was used merely as base material for his own ideas, and yet, it not only works but far surpasses the original material. It seems he understood the potential inherent in the basic scenario more than King did himself. But then, Kubrick-and-King wasn't exactly like Tarkovsky-and-Lem. The former is like giant and midget whereas the latter is like giant and giant. A giant could more easily step over a midget than a giant over a giant. Also, Kubrick's broadmindedness allowed for playfulness(and masterly creative footwork) whereas Tarkovsky could become mired in the muck with his heavy boots.
While Lynch's touches in THE ELEPHANT MAN are immediately recognizable(and surely of interest to Lynch fans), they are out-of-place because Lynch imposed his unique inner-space onto a world that plays by a different set of rules. STRAIGHT STORY works better because Lynch made it more about the old man's journey than his own vision, and if 'Lynchian' touches are to be found, they are around the curve than right in front. But, the man who made THE ELEPHANT MAN was younger, less experienced, and perhaps over-eager. As he'd made his name as a cult film-maker, he surely had ambitions to break into the industry and gain real success. On the one hand, he had to be 'conventional' to reach a mass audience, but he also wanted to retain what made him unique and different. He wanted to buy in but didn't want to sell out. THE ELEPHANT MAN is both success and failure in this regard. It does appear as a unique directorial work, and it resonated with critics and audiences. But, one can't help feeling the basic material was too straight for Lynch's imagination and Lynch was too weird for the simple morality tale. It's like a tale of two movies, both the best of movies and worst of movies.
While it's true Lynch's cinema has hardly been a stranger to the ugly, grotesque, and disgusting, the deformities tend to reside in or originate from psychological and bio-psychological(where matter energizes into the mind) space. Despite the rotting dead bodies and the violence, the real horror in TWIN PEAKS is about inner demons. It's about distortions and contortions within the mind and soul that make Lynch's films so strange and dream-like. In contrast, THE ELEPHANT MAN is about a man whose deformities could be spotted from a mile away. He's so ugly he wears a bag over his head wherever he goes. Also, as far as we can tell, he is all sweet soul inside. Also, the good characters are obviously so(as they look it), whereas the bad characters are just as easily identifiable. (Consider the convoluted multi-layered moral/spiritual dilemmas in TWIN PEAKS.) This hardly makes for a Lynchian tale, and THE ELEPHANT MAN has the touches but not the handiwork of the real Lynch. More problematically, the touches seem out of place.
If Mel Brooks thought Lynch made a natural fit for John Merrick's story on the strength of ERASERHEAD, he totally didn't get the film. As in a dream, the unreal becomes the real and 'normal' in ERASERHEAD. True strangeness derives from how the unreal or abnormal can seem real or normal, or vice versa. The hideous baby in ERASERHEAD is unsettling because it isn't human but assumed to be one, or the product of human pairing. Now, if the world of ERASERHEAD were totally fantastical, it wouldn't be strange because we could just suspend our disbelief and take it as fantasy. But the film is situated somewhere between grimy realism and warped surrealism. It has the logic and feel of dreams where the unreal is accepted as part of the mundane.
THE ELEPHANT MAN is wholly different. It's about a man with obvious deformities. As such, he's ugly and grotesque but never strange... unlike the baby and other oddball things in ERASERHEAD that are presented as normative within its closed space. Also, the notion of Merrick as ugly on the outside but beautiful on the inside is rather trite, though also timeless, I suppose. The two cliches of moral physiognomy has been (1) the good look good and bad look bad and (2) good look bad and bad look good. Though opposites, both are premised on formulas, as with CINDERELLA and THE UGLY DUCKLING. In contrast, consider how evil slithers through the beautiful and the ugly alike in the world of TWIN PEAKS. Or consider the physiognomic instability in MULHOLLAND DR. In contrast, THE ELEPHANT MAN is about a very ugly man who is beautiful inside and the rest of the characters look and act good OR look and act bad. David Lynch was too good for this. The result is someone skilled in calculus assigned to simple mathematics.
THE ELEPHANT MAN is two movies, and they don't mesh well. It begins as a clinical drama about a doctor and his patient. As it turns out, the dynamics goes from medical to moral. The doctor cannot do anything to treat, let alone cure, the Merrick's deformities. Thus, the doctor is as useless as any of us. However, he can lend moral support and, furthermore, realizes that Merrick is less diseased than many people who, though looking human, don't act human. On some level, Dr. Treves(played by Anthony Hopkins) feels that he is the patient vis-a-vis Merrick as the doctor, that of souls than bodies. Of course, there's another question. Did Merrick's ugliness have something to do with his goodness? Leered at, ridiculed, and abused, was Merrick compelled by personal agonies to be good? Is his goodness innate or the product of experience? Granted, ugly and victimized people can be wicked, and handsome affluent people can be good(like Dr. Treves), but Merrick's physical condition surely molded his soul. Perhaps, two kinds of people are most inclined to be good or 'good'(as its meaning has changed so much over the years): Those with proper upbringing and privilege to be educated and respectable, like Dr. Treves, and those who were denied freedom and tyrannized into submission, like Merrick. Treves has the means and even the 'luxury' to be good. In contrast, Merrick had no chance to be 'bad' as his entire life was about forced obedience and silent suffering. (The exaggerated sympathy for blacks-as-slaves confuses black suffering with black virtue. Blacks-as-slaves had no choice but to be 'good', which is not the same as being innately good.) Merrick was trained and kept like an animal. The two groups of 'good' people represent polarities, one where a person has the wherewithal to be decent and be rewarded for it and another where a person has no freedom but to obey and submit, i.e. 'be meek before the master'. In contrast, the 'bad' is more likely to be found among people who are free but only enough to get by. Most of their freedom is expended on making ends meet. Thus, their freedom has less means to grow nobler, and they're more likely to be self-centered and cynical, like the two louts in THE ELEPHANT MAN: the freak show operator and the security guard.
This dynamics plays out in current configuration of the virtue-signaling elites, the deplorables, and the wretched of the earth. As far as Western PC is concerned, the white elites are good(or at least better) people because they got higher education, rub shoulders with respectable members of society, and enjoy the luxury of being virtuous(or making a show of it); and the wretched of the earth, especially blacks and would-be-migrants from the Third World, are good people because, having been crushed and tyrannized by history, their struggle is one of elementary bread and justice(or so PC likes to believe). The noble-minded elites and the long-suffering victims. In between are said to be the worst kind of people, usually working-class and lower-middle-class white types who, though free, lack the intelligence & the means to attain fancy education, don't hang with the right kind of people, and haven't the luxury to be generous as they're so focused on making ends meet. So, even though Treves is a good man whereas the two worst men, the freak show operator and security guard, are indeed pretty bad, the moral dynamics of the film does betray a certain class snobbery; indeed, the film indicates that some of the puritanism of current PC has its roots in the Victorian Era. After all, despite all the misery among the working classes, it seems the elites in the film are more concerned about a one-in-a-ten-million rare freak to hang their cloak of virtue on. What an easy way for the snobs to feel superior to the rabble. And it's no wonder Mel Brooks the Jew was drawn to the story. Jews like him feel nothing for the white majority. They don't care that the Sackler Family peddled drugs that killed off countless whites. No, by emphasizing the freak(as a stand-in for the outsider-minority) as the paragon of victimized virtue, the film diminishes the hardships of millions of toiling workers in favor of a lone freak who becomes a virtue-trophy among the elites.
If the clinical drama between Treves and Merrick is pretty solid(much like in THE WILD CHILD by Francois Truffaut) and if Merrick as a social phenomenon — freak of nature worthy of mockery for lumpen gawkers but victim of fate worthy of sympathy for the well-heeled elites — is interesting(though could have been delved further), the crowd-pleasing narrative of Merrick being forcibly returned to the freak show and then rescued by a band of sympathetic freaks seems to be totally made up, especially as it's loaded with the familiar tropes. One more danger and one more escape to spice up Merrick's life. It's almost right out of PINOCCHIO. It works for what it is but undermines with high suspense and drama the steady and somber tone of the rest of the film, though it does culminate in an eloquent scene about Merrick being a man and not an animal. But was that outcry meant ironically? After all, an animal, dog or donkey, would have been less hostile to Merrick than many of his fellow human beings were. Indeed, the donkey is the most sympathetic character in AU HASARD BALTHASAR that might have influenced THE ELEPHANT MAN, which in turn, might have been an influence on A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
Perhaps, the writers thought the film needed some dramatic uplift, and what better way than to have Merrick kidnapped, abused, and then returned to a relative state of grace? But that very approach mimics the dual purpose that Merrick served in his lifetime: Sensationalism for the masses, edification for the elites. On the one hand, THE ELEPHANT MAN wants to be a serious art film, but it can't help throwing a bone to the masses with trite dramatic cliches.
Lynch’s treatment is sentimental and compassionate, not lurid and exploitative.
It would have been better as cold-and-compassionate. The sentimentality cheapens it a bit.
the grotesque subject matter and sentimental manner of treating it are also quite Lynchian.
Not quite. Even though Lynch understands sentiment which is to be found in his works, there's usually a sense of irony or layers of dissonance between the recognizably shopworn emotions and the troubled gaze. He doesn't mock it or deny its value but observes as a zoologist might another species. Lynch has been like a zoologist of humans through the prism of dreams and fantasies. In contrast, the sentimentality of THE ELEPHANT MAN is worn on its sleeve and therefore isn't really Lynchian. Lynch veiled too much of his artistic self to convey more-or-less a straight story laden unfortunately with some Hollywood cliches.
In a way, Lynch held back his authentic self but didn't adjust to professionalism with much conviction. Too much in the film is perfunctory and merely scratches the surface. It lacks the probing quality of Ingmar Bergman in, say, SAWDUST AND TINSEL. Despite moments of reflection, we are left to take too much of the characters and conflicts at their face value. It is Lynch's most theater-like work, but the classic use of actors and dialogue was never Lynch's forte. He's been one of the most uniquely cinematic directors whose best works have no counterparts in other art-forms. Despite some Lynchian touches(most of which are irrelevant to the material), the result could have been done just as well or even better by Sidney Lumet or Sydney Pollack.
----------------------------------------
Back then, freaks needed sympathy and protection from scorn and ridicule. And ‘good’ people did show compassion, though one never knows if it was more about sympathy for a wretched creature or narcissism of their own virtue. The good folks deserve our respect, but there were seeds that could turn cancerous into moral narcissism, and over time, it has.
Indeed, white people in current Europe who hold up signs “REFUGEES WELCOME” are the perverse outgrowths of conceit of higher virtue of the Victorian Era. It just went from sexual repression to thought-repression. While some people simply wanted to be decent toward Merrick, others(like the Queen and High Society) seemed to bask in their exaggerated virtue. OH THEY CARE! But why all the attention showered on Merrick when so much of England at the time was beset with poverty, crime, and misery? Even many normal-looking people were mired in monstrous reality. And yet, it was easier to virtue-signal about the plight of some oddball freak than to do something about social problems affecting countless people. Social Darwinism for the masses but special love for the freak. In a way, it was an easy way for the elites to feel morally superior to the masses. As the ignorant and uneducated were less likely to feel sympathy for Merrick, the richer and better educated folks could sneer at the ‘bigots’.
Today, we see a similar dynamics on a much larger scale. There are so many problems in the West, but the ruling class and the elites ignore or deride much of that and would rather prefer to play savior-of-the-world. Down-and-out white working class are ‘deplorables’ (who are ‘racist’ and ‘bigoted’) while tons of illegals who barge in are compared to Jews fleeing the Nazis. (Does that mean their own people are like Nazis? If Guatemalans want to flee from other Guatemalans, it must mean Guatemalans themselves are the Nazis. But if they are the Nazis, why should we let them in? But then, if we say NO, we are like the Nazis. None of this makes any sense, but then, so much of current reality is a matter of ‘because Jews say so’.)
In the crazy present, the freaks get to define the New Normal. And, for the well-educated to feel virtuous, it is no longer sufficient to feel sympathy for natural freaks. It is necessary to prostrate oneself before them who’ve been elevated to the status of arbiters of values, health, and beauty.
How times have changed. From sympathy for the freaks to idolization of them.
And who is to decide what is healthy in America, physical and mental?
This creature, Rachel Levine, another crazy arrogant Jewish man pretending to be a 'woman':
In THE ELEPHANT MAN, a disfigured freak seeks meaning in faith in God. In the Current Year, we are supposed to find edification, ‘moral’ and ‘spiritual’, in the adulation of the freaks. Sodomy and cross-dressing are holier than god and jesus.
Of course, all this really took off with the normalization of homos. Before the film came out, the David Bowie stage version of THE ELEPHANT MAN was a sensation and won lots of accolades. Me thinks the prominently 'gay' theater people were especially ecstatic because they saw the play as an allegory about homosexuality.
With androgynous Bowie playing the Elephant Man, how could anyone miss that? Looks more like a homo’s vision of Merrick as St. Sebastian. Back then, many people, even Liberals, considered homosexuality to be aberrant or even monstrous, and AIDS was just on the horizon to reinforce such view. So, even though homosexuals don’t look monstrous in the literal sense, they felt society saw them as monstrous, which is why they were so violently opposed to the film CRUISING by William Friedkin.
And superhero series like X-MEN fantasize about freakery = special powers.
In a way, Dr. Treves was right to ask whether he’s a good person. Because even though he is good in the conventional sense, one can never know one’s deepest motives. Was it really humane sympathy for the freak? Or was it self-satisfaction in knowing that he’s unlike the rough-and-tumble mob that leered and jeered at Merrick? And is his goodness innate? Or was it the product of proper upbringing and elite education? Would he have been just as good had he been born into a poor working class family?
One thing for sure, even virtue carries the seeds of monstrosity. The virtues of altruism and trust in the West have turned into the monstrous will to commit racial suicide as detailed by Douglas Murray. We must be careful not to be bad, but beware of the 'good' as well. Too often, what is deemed as good is what makes us FEEL GOOD about ourselves, and it just so happens that mass passions are molded by the mass media controlled by the Power. It’s no wonder so many people who feel good about doing good today are so blind to the fact that they are really doing bad.
----------------------------------------
Given the opening scene with the elephants somehow having affected Merrick's birth, could it be suggesting that Merrick was a deformed elephant than a deformed man? An elephant deformed into the semblance of a man.
Man + Wolf has fascinated people the most, rather odd since man is closest to the apes. ALTERED STATES did touch upon the inner ape. Perhaps wolves are fascinating as wilder and more robust dogs, a sufficiently different but accessible species, whereas apes(that resemble us) seem ugly because we can’t help judging them by our standards. Indeed, they are too close for comfort. Come to think of it, we are even more likely to be repulsed by the sight of early humanoids than of apes. Closer something is to us, more we appraise and judge it by our standards. So, even though early humanoids are closer to us than snakes or crabs, they would freak us out more. Wolves are sufficiently different for us to feel this way. Btw, WOLFEN is one hell of a movie.
Man + Elephant seems totally weird because the species are so far apart. But in India, there are gods that are half man and half elephant. Ganesh has the head of an elephant.
----------------------------------------
Is there’s an ‘interracial’ element to THE ELEPHANT MAN?
The woman fantasizes about elephants(maybe in a sexual manner) and gives birth to a creature is hyped as half-man and half-‘elephant’. The fear of biological mixing? And what is an elephant? An African beast.
The other David who is more fascinated with the problems of racial mixing is David Cronenberg, who is Jewish.
In RABID, the physical encounter between a blonde ‘Aryan’ woman and a semitic-looking Jewish scientist leads to an outbreak of a horrific epidemic.
VIDEODROME is about inter-fusion between man and machine.
The remake of THE FLY is a Jewgro movie. A Jewish scientist’s DNA gets mixed with that of Superfly and he turns into a powerful hyper-sexual Negro-like Jew. The jerk publisher who competes for the woman also conveys the tensions of racial mixing. He looks Aryan but makes poses(like with a cigar) associated with the Semitic Sigmund Freud. He looks like a cross between Carl Jung and Freud, and of course, Cronenberg later made THE DANGEROUS METHOD, about the intellectual and spiritual friction between the Aryan spirit and Jewish soul represented through Jung and Freud(and other Jews).
And in EASTERN PROMISES, the old man says Naomi Watts’ kid died because she carried an interracial brood.
Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ‘ought to be.’ ...if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people ‘could be,’ the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it.
There's some truth to this but not quite. There's always been a Rousseau-ean aspect to the Left. As an Mexican elder says in THE WILD BUNCH, "We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us..." But the Left also developed as a movement of reality check. The modern left originated with the intention of waking history out of its slumber. The masses were trapped in the dream of the Divine Right of Kings, God & Heaven, and virtue of meekness. But in fact, kings and noblemen were merely human like everyone else. They weren't special or innately superior despite all the pomp and posturing. And was there proof of God & Heaven? Should the clergy have power and influence when their institution is based on a myth? And why should the people be meek and humble when the vain elites live in opulence and feel contempt for the unwashed(contrary to Christ's teachings)? Much about the French Revolution was meant as a reality check on the state of things. It told the people that the regal monarch is just a man, like you or me. So, why should he be blindly revered and obeyed? And why should his heirs take power and hog privilege? By what right should they rule over the people? The Left also spilled the beans on religion and clergy. The rise of reason and science called for demonstrable proof, and there was no evidence to Biblical claims. Furthermore, even though the clergy preached the Christian message of meekness, many were corrupt status-seekers catering mostly to the rich and powerful. In ANY institution, it is usually the opportunistic, cunning, and shrewd than the honest, principled, and scrupulous who make it to the top.
So, the Left was trying to wake people up from the slumber of history dominated by kings, aristocracy, and the church. What did Napoleon mean when he said, "China is a sleeping giant. Let it sleep"? He meant it's better for China to remain 'rightist' and static than go 'leftist' and dynamic. It was conservative China that was asleep in its own Middle Kingdom conceits. So sure of itself and its civilizational values, it refused to wake up to the reality that the West had surpassed it in every measure of power and wealth. Before Western Imperialists ventured into China, there were obvious clues that China must fundamentally reorder society to remain a great power and deter foreign threats. But it kept on sleeping in its smug 'rightist' conservative dream of superiority and security. It was the introduction of Western Leftism that forced many young Chinese to wake up and smell the coffee(than the usual tea). It was this materialist perspective that urged them to break out of Confucian conceits(of the useless literati) & Taoist musings and accept the material dimensions of reality: Facts over Feng Shui. It's no wonder communism was appealing to so many young Chinese in the early 20th century. It spoke of history as hammers and nails than brush and ink.
Karl Marx argued the people should wake up to the truth of history. He called religion the opiate of the masses. He argued that the main engine of history is not Great Men, Spiritual Ideas, or Philosophy but the struggle for the control of material reality. Throughout history, the elites found clever ways to exploit the masses and hog most of the wealth EVEN THOUGH it was the masses who did the heavy-lifting. He regarded capitalism as both a liberating revolutionary force and an exploitative form of new oppression. Capitalism was liberating in that it was totally materialist, something it shared with socialism. It accepted matter as the true basis of power. Titles such as king or duke meant nothing to capitalism. Neither did God or spirituality. Capitalism was about property, investment, factories, and technology. It was about the buying and selling of materials and labor that turned raw material into manufactured goods. To facilitate investment and transfers of wealth, capitalism relied on ever more elaborate schemes of finance. Because capitalism focused on the material world and real results, it revolutionized technology and profoundly transformed the landscape, along with human relations based on production and distribution. However, because it was focused mainly on profit and finance(that managed and manipulated the profit), capitalism had two problems, one moral and the other economic. Capitalists didn't care how much the masses suffered as long as their own profits increased. Even though finance is supposed to serve the material economy, it could take on a life of its own and create a form of economics that defies material sense — today, Wall Street and globalist banks cook up ever more surreal ways to increase wealth. Jews as 'made men' with insider information grow ever richer and buy up everything.
So, in that sense, Marxism was to wake people up from the dream of kings & queens, myth & religion, and the 'virtues' promoted by the powerful to hoodwink the masses. It also warned that 'liberalism' and 'individualism' were smoke-and-mirrors used by the propertied class to justify their exploitation and wealth. Their real power owed to control of materials via capital, not abstract ideals about 'freedom'. Also, it was the freedom of power that mattered. Most people without power had useless freedom. For the exploited masses, 'freedom' was meaningless because they lacked the material means to ensure their own interests. So, true freedom for the masses could only come by gaining control of the material means of production. Why did so many Russians join the Revolution? The horrors of World War I and its social impact woke them up to the realization that Tsar Nicholas wasn't some wise grand patriarch, the father of his people, but a half-wit, fool, and weakling. Nicholas, the biggest rightist force in Europe, had been asleep about reality and history. He thought the people would remain loyal to him no matter what because he regarded himself as the loving father of his people; he loved them and they loved him, or so he thought. What a rude awakening for him.
So, there was a side to leftism that was about waking up to reality and seeing the light. The Left grew out of the Enlightenment. Let there be light and let us look upon reality with a clear eye. Let us be critical of power than just obeying it. Let us ask questions than accept the old answers as sacrosanct. But the Left had its own problems arising from arrogance, ignorance, ur-spirituality, and limitations of man. Some on the Left were so sure of their truth(supposedly based on science and reason) that they became intolerant of and even murderous to those who disagreed. Despite the conceit of true knowledge and reason, mankind can only know so much. An expert in one field knows nothing of other fields. And even experts often turn out to be wrong(or they cravenly cater to the Power). What was 'certain' in medicine a hundred yrs ago, or even fifty years ago, may be null and void today. And there is the 'spiritual' nature of man. Even those who claim to be totally rational and materialist(or secular) have a secret need to divide the world into the holy and the unholy. Consider the Holocaust, Globo-Homo, and the Magic Negro. Holocaust should be treated as a historical subject, but it's become a religion where one must not question the numerology of the sacred six million. 'Gay rights' became Gay Rites, a cult of sodomy as the wonder of the ages. Homos used to push their cause on secular grounds of individual rights. Now, they insist that religious institutions fly the 'gay' banner. And if anyone says homo fecal-penetration is gross, he or she must be purged, shamed, and blacklisted. It's the 'inqueersition'. Indeed, anyone critical of the homo lifestyle has no chance of making it in higher echelons of government or industry. Globo-Homo is the official faith of the Deep State and Big Capital. You better get on your knees, take it up the arse, and BELIEVE... or else be cast into the purgatory of demotion or unemployment. And consider the BLM nonsense. Most blacks are murdered by other blacks, and if anything, cops save a lot of black lives. But as blacks are now holy objects, ANY instance of a black thug killed by cops is an act of blasphemy or 'blaxphemy'. Michael Brown was a thug who got killed in Ferguson. He never said, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", but that has become part of the Sacred Narrative among blacks and white progs. Why all such nonsense among people who claim to be rational, secular, and modern? Because human nature is 'spiritual', and that means even those who reject God and Church will find new icons, idols, and causes to worship. Notice how all these white progs kneel at the feet of MLK, Mandela, and Obama(and Oprah too). These people claim to be moral or righteous, but theirs is a form of fanta-morality, or morality based on fantasy. True morality must be based on reality. In the Current Year, there is so much moral outrage based on so little truth.
Of course, the choice of Jews, blacks, and homos as the holy trinity is largely the result of Jewish Supremacist control of media, academia, finance, and most whore politicians. Jews naturally promote themselves. Jews value homos as useful allies in turning Leftism from Mayday to Gayday. In the past, many Jews were of working class background or starving intellectuals. They were sincerely on the Left. Today, 50% of Jews make over $100,000 a year. Jews are the richest people on Earth. Jews want to keep the brand of 'leftism' and 'radicalism' but in service of wealth and privilege. So, why would Jews favor traditional leftism when something like communism would be devastating to Jews? Indeed, even in the Soviet Union where many Jews had an auspicious start, they eventually lost out to non-Jews. Jews are arch-capitalists who cling to the 'leftist' brand because it acts as a shield — they grow ever richer through capitalism but are accused of being 'socialists' or 'communist' by the Idiot Right. When billionaires are lumped with 'communists', it works as moral cover for their wealth and privilege in the eyes of disgruntled 'progressives'. Look how Bernie Sanders runs as a 'socialist' and then urges all his herd to vote for Hillary or Biden(who serve super-rich Jews). Maybe Sanders was once a true socialist, but now, he's a Jewish Supremacist first and socialist second. There are commie-types among Antifa, but they are useful to Jewish Capitalists because Commie Thought says, "Greatest Evil is Nazism and Racism." So, as long as the Jewish Capitalist Media tells the 'commies' that there are 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazis' afoot, the dummy 'commies' are too busy attacking whites to ever get around to attacking capitalism and the oligarchy. (Traditional communism argued that capitalism, not fascism, is the biggest enemy because Fascism and National Socialism are merely fake-revolutionary movements used by capitalists to capture populist sentiments. In other words, fascism is merely iron boots capitalism. But most of today's commies are the product of pop culture. Their ideology is based more on TV shows, rap, and punk/grunge music than true understanding of the history of the Left. If German capitalists protected and funded the fascists to beat the communists, Jewish capitalists today use the 'commies' to beat down the 'nazis'.) Of course, US politics is pro-elitist on both sides of the aisle. The priority of both Democrats and Republicans is to prop up the elites in the 'center'. Democrats appeal to non-whites & white proggies for votes, and GOP appeals to whites & conservatives for votes. But once elected, politicians of both parties serve the oligarchs and grow fat themselves. Democrats are about suckering the 'leftist' masses to serve the rich and become rich, and Republicans are about suckering the 'rightist' masses to serve the rich and become rich. Donald Trump was hardly different but was loathed by both parties because his style and rhetoric accused the 'swamp' of hoodwinking and manipulating the masses.
If Leftist Ideology is based on 'what ought to be' than 'what is', could one argue that capitalism is leftist? Or that the West has been leftist even prior to the French Revolution, perhaps going back to the Renaissance? After all, capitalism has been about 'what ought to be'. It's been tireless in coming up with new and better ways of production, transportation, communication, and etc. Take the invention of flying machines. Most of humanity had given up on such dreams as impossible. Birds can fly, man cannot. But Western Man was not content with the reality that man is a terrestrial creature. He had to keep striving for 'what ought to be', and it was realized. So much that seemed impossible, ludicrous, or fantastical 100 yrs ago, let alone 200 yrs ago, have been realized. Back in the 1980s, only rich people had portable phones, which were cumbersome. Now, people have slick cell phones even in the slums of the Third World. When I was young, I didn't expect something like the internet to arrive suddenly and revolutionize the world. The West advanced so much faster than the Rest because it got into the habit of pushing for 'what ought to be' than 'what is'. People during World War I were amazed by new technologies, but they were obsolete in a mere two and half decades in World War II. And who would have thought something like nuclear power was even possible? And yet it came to fruition because the West pushed for 'what ought to be'. Steve Jobs came to greatness in the second chapter of Apple by imagining 'what ought to be'. A declining company became the biggest in the world. Granted, 'what ought to be' is more sensible in science/technology than in social 'progress' as objective than subjective standards apply, but ever-competitive capitalism is always fixated on 'what ought to be' than merely 'what is'. So many companies operate on the basis that 'what is' now will be obsolete in the future when there will be products that come closer to how it 'ought to be'.
Leonardo Da Vinci made illustrations of flying machines. He failed to create one, but his mind was certainly in the mode of 'what ought to be', and this attitude did much to stimulate the West beyond the barriers of the 'possible'. And in time, so much that seemed impossible became possible. Leftism seems to share this spirit but in the field of social science. And in many areas, there have been key reforms and successes because of leftist pressure and visions of a better society. But then, this drive for more, the better, or the further emerged in the West prior to the rise of the Radical Left. Columbus had this spirit when he went on his voyage. Otto von Bismarck was a rightist-conservative but committed to creating a modern prosperous Germany with social services. And 'right-wing' autocrats of Asian nations after WWII were all invested in creating new orders; they embarked on tasks that seemed forbidding and impossible at the time.
Granted, even as both the 'right' and 'left' in the modern world keep pushing for new possibilities and improvements, it's generally true that the Right has a better sense of limits than the Left does. So, while rightists will adopt certain socialist policies, they don't believe in panaceas. They are less puritanical even though puritanism is usually associated with the Right, not least because modernity rebelled against the moral teachings of the Church, not least on sexual matters. But when it comes to holier-than-thou fulmination, the left is far more puritanical. The Right is judgmental and repressive but not concerned with uprooting all evils. It accepts the sinfulness and imperfection of the world. It's like Franco's Spain tolerated the Left as long as it didn't make trouble. In contrast, the Leftist order seeks to weed out all crime-think and seed the mind with correct ones. It's why George Orwell became so alarmed about the Left. And Jonathan Haidt finds the leftist mind to be more arrogant and intolerant in its outlook. It's not enough for the Left to control society; it must take possession of souls. Protestantism began as a proto-leftist puritanical challenge to the Catholic Church that seemed overly compromised with the reality of power and wealth. The current 'left' is deeply problematic in that it's radically perfectionist in its imperfectionism. It especially denounces Nazism as an evil obsessed with 'Aryan supremacist perfectionism' and urges all people to be more 'inclusive', or tolerant of differences. But then, it also insists that sodomy is some holy act and that trannies must be celebrated and lionized. And the 'body positive' movement doesn't merely say we should tolerate fat or ugly people but hail them as 'beautiful'. It is the narcissism of the ugly. The Imperfect is the 'New Perfect'. Also, it fetishizes blackness as a supremacist heroism that all races must idolize. Forget about the 'Aryan superman' but believe in the Afro-Aryan-superman who is so awesome that white men should cuck at his feet and offer up their daughters to. Arno Breker is out but Afro-Breker is in. Indeed, Leni Riefenstahl went from fetishizing Aryan supremacism to Afro-supremacism, which was noted by Susan Sontag.
The left vs right dichotomy is especially confused in the West because of Christianity. As the official faith of the West, it became a symbol of establishment and conservative values. But Jesus was a rebel-heretic-maverick Jew who pissed off Jewish Conservatives. And His message is eternally radical(though not a radical call to arms). All of Jewish History was about the children of men and women who, in turn, became fathers of sons and daughters. So, despite all the spiritual content, it was grounded in the reality of biology and history. In contrast, the Christo-myth says Jesus is the miraculous Son of God. Though born of Mary, she was only a vessel. And, He didn't have sex or get married and have kids. He lived the life of the Perfect Man and died and defeated death. This fantastical story and message are more suited to leftist than rightist thinking. Also, whereas Rightism tends to be particularist — our tribe, our culture, our people — and hierarchical, the universal and egalitarian thrust of Christianity is closer in spirit to Leftism, which is universalist. But Christianity became the religion of the rich and powerful in the West. And the Enlightenment associated Christianity with kings, noblemen, corrupt clergy, superstition, reaction, and etc. But the meaning of Christianity never favored the rich and powerful. (One might say the development of the Roman Church was a betrayal of Christianity as it welded the pacifism of Christ with the militarism of the Romans. Furthermore, inspiration became an institution. Granted, all things need institutions to survive and propagate, but Catholicism turned worship of faith into worship of an institution. But, Christianity exists with or without the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. All one needs is the New Testament.) And there were many Christian progressives who believed the Faith must be on the side of the powerless than the powerful. Many Italians were both Marxist and Catholic. Still, one might say Christianity is conservative or rightist in its moral judgmentalism. It calls for social order in admonishing people to be sober, solemn, and pious. Leftism, in contrast, has a libertine streak. Many anarchists and early Marxists spoke of Free Love and other sexual experimentation. Some tried to fuse Marxism with Freudianism. And to that extent, Leftism was neo-paganist at odds with the moralism of Christianity. Ancient Greeks were certainly more libertine than the ancient Jews and Early Christians. But then, to the extent that the pagans were more cold-eyed about power and reality, they could be said to have been more 'rightist'. The Romans saw the world in realist terms of winners and losers. If your side won, they were winners; if they lost, they were losers. In contrast, Christianity said the material winners of this life could be spiritual losers in the afterlife. Paganism's no-nonsense view of power could be construed as 'rightist' in contrast to Christianity's abstract view of power as it 'ought to be': The meek and powerless in this world could be(as they ought to be) the powerful in the next life(while the rich and mighty in this world are doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity). Perversely, current 'leftists' have the puritanical mindset of hard-line Christianity and the puerile sensibility of paganism at its most degenerate. It's as if the characters in FELLINI SATYRICON got 'moralistic' in celebration of debauchery: "I'm holier than thou because I take my kids to Drag Queen story hour." It's as if we are living in a dream because strange things happen in dreams, and the Current Year is very strange indeed.
According to this perception, the dream is there to sustain the slumber against all odds.
But it's also because most people lack the power to dream, therefore they want to be part of the bigger dream. Perhaps, MLK's (I Have A)Dream. Dream in the literal sense is what we all do when we sleep. Dream-as-metaphor is what we inhabit in the real world. There is no such thing as absolute living-in-reality as our understanding of reality is subjectively shaped by our senses. When we walk down the street, we are often just barely aware of the surrounding so as not to trip over or get hit by a car. Otherwise, we hardly acknowledge or think about the reality before and around us. We don't think, "I'm walking on concrete sidewalk, this is a parking lot with those cars, that is a tree, that is a person with a grocery bag, that is a cat, etc." Instead, our minds process what holds most meaning for us. It could be about personal relationships, but it's often about things that interest, stimulate, and provoke us. And these are often narratives, stories, images, idols, and issues, not least because people with smart phones are always 'hooked' to their favorite 'channels'. These function as something far more than mere knowledge. When someone watches the umpteenth show about hapless innocent noble blacks terrorized by the KKK, one doesn't coolly think, "There was a time when certain white groups used violence against blacks in the South." Rather, those images linger in the mind as dreamlike ghosts. They haunt and lurk the soul. Thus, they function as dreams than mere knowledge. In this sense, we are all living in a dream, and mankind always has.
Among primitive folks, a shaman or storyteller who tells the tale or narrative infects the listeners with heroes, villains, images, and visions that take on a life of their own in the hearts and souls of the listeners. Thus, the listeners come to partly live in the dream of the storyteller. Why do Jews now want to clamp down on Free Speech? They want to control the Dream Machine. They want all of us to be characters in their Dream Play, just like every instrumentalist in an orchestra plays a socially subordinate role to the conductor who, in turn, is 'spiritually' subordinate to the composer. So, even though we all exist as individuals in the physical sense, our minds are often NPC-like in the Dream of another. Under Stalinism, so many Soviet citizens were NPC-like minions of Stalin's Dream of Power and Justice. Under Maoism, so many Chinese youths were NPC-like minions of Mao's grand dream. All those Germans under National Socialism fell under the spell of Adolf Hitler, a great orator who could pull people into his dream of Germany.
It may well be that conservative types are less dreamy than those on the left. This element could keep them closer to reality, but it could also mean that conservatives become more dependent on the dreams of others who have the power to dream. Why can't conservatives create their own Hollywood, their own dream-machine? Even as they complain about the Liberal/Leftist control of Hollywood and other dream-centers, they rely on the Other for visions and narratives. The fact that so many German conservatives and rightists threw caution to the winds and surrendered to Hitler's dream suggests that one's inability to dream doesn't necessarily lead to more reality or clarity but to reliance on the dream of others. This may explain why American Conservatism sucks so bad. Without the power of dreams, it has adopted the dreams of the other side: 'Diversity Is Our Strength', 'MLK was awesome', 'Gay Marriage is a conservative value', 'Muh Israel', 'Women in the Military', and etc.
The problem with reality is it's difficult and inconvenient. The mind finds dreams more appealing than reality. This is why truth upsets so many people, especially if the Dream has elevated certain ideas or groups to holy status. So, honest talk about Jewish Power or black crime or homo degeneracy upsets people who've come under the spell of the Schlomo-Afro-Homo dream of Tri-Supremacist Holiness. Granted, what is currently 'acceptable' depends on the nature of the Dominant Dream. At one time, even most Liberals believed that homosexuality was a mental sickness, even a disease. In either case, pro-homo or anti-homo, it wasn't merely cold knowledge about homos but a mythic vision of them as either darkly corrupting pathological villains(as they were portrayed in so many movies even up to the 1980s) or pure-as-snow angels of 'rainbow' wonderment.
We are living in the Jewish Dream. Even those who are cast as villains and deplorables in this Dream are part of the dream because they explain themselves in accordance to the dream logic. For instance, most 'conservatives' will say "I'm not racist" or "I'm not homophobic". They are morally defensive than morally autonomous. They accept the rule-book of the Dream that says 'racism is evil' and 'homophobia is wicked'. They don't ask why it's called 'racism' when Ism simply means belief. If Ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. Of course, race is real because evolution is real, and different groups evolved separately. But even if we accept 'racism' to mean 'racial supremacism', isn't it obvious that Jews are supremacist because they demand the West favor Jews uber alles and Israel over Palestinians(and Muslims & Arabs in general)? For the sake of moral consistency, it is wrong for Jews to say that privileging whiteness is evil BUT favoring Jews is wonderful. However, such illogic can be 'logical' in a dream, a Jewish Dream, one in which Jews blame whites of 'racism' but practice 'racism' to the hilt for their own power and privilege. And yet, white conservatives who are demeaned as 'racists' by Jews go out of their way to prove they are NOT 'racist' by sucking up to Jews and praising Israel that is so blatantly 'racist' to Palestinians. It's like Jews say Donald Trump is Hitler but Trump goes out of his way to prove he's not 'racist' by totally supporting Zionist 'racism' against Palestinians and imperialism against Iran/Syria. So, even white conservatism operates within the hegemony of the Jewish Dream. It has no moral autonomy. It is essentially an NPC that plays according to Jewish Dream Logic that is illogical by any rules of moral consistency. How is it that Jews can denounce whites as Nazi but then ally with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine? How is it that Jews can condemn supremacism but demand governments to shut down BDS, a movement that calls for equal justice for Palestinians? Or take 'homophobia'. Any conservative who says "I'm not a homophobe" is an NPC in a Jewish Dream because, by his denial, he accepts the reality of 'homophobia'. But Jews made up that bogus concept to imply that anyone who counters the globo-homo agenda or makes fun of homos is suffering from a psycho-pathology. In fact, 'homophobia' doesn't exist. While some people hate homosexuality or have strong antipathy to homo behavior, it is not a phobia which specifically means extreme fear and panicked response to something harmless. 'Homophobia' exists as an article of faith in the Jewish Dream. In truth/reality, homos do indeed exist as some people are born homo, and this reality must be accepted, and social policy should be based on this fact. But it's also true that homo-fecal-penetration has no biological or moral worth, and it makes no sense to celebrate sodomy with 'rainbow' colors. And now, we are told there's 'transphobia' because many people still insist Bruce Jenner is a man and not a 'woman' or because they object to penis-and-balls-cutting as medical practice. What kind of sane medicine mutilates and removes perfectly healthy organs because some nut demands it? Also, if truth is a matter of subjectivity — "I'm a woman because I feel that I'm a woman even though I got penis and balls" — , what happens when such 'logic' is applied to race and other attributes? Is a dumb person a 'genius' because he says so? But maybe we are there already because so many mental midgets are now promoted as public intellectuals, especially if they're black or tranny. All such craziness are allowed because we live in The Dream that is Jewish. As Jews control the media, academia, deep state, and the megaphone, they get to weave The Dream. What they show on TV, teach in classes, print in papers, and allow on platforms come to determine the narrative, the myth, idols & icons, and the Current Year map of Good vs Evil. No wonder then that, even though Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom & Gomorrah and dump on white Christians all the time, most Evangelicals are always shouting "Muh Israel".
The world is like The Dream because most people lack the power to dream. So, they rely on the dream of others. Much of the film MULHOLLAND DR. takes place in the dream of a woman, but her dream unfolds according to the dream logic of Hollywood fantasy. So, even her own dream is part of a bigger dream, the myth of stardom and cult of celebrity. In TWIN PEAKS THE RETURN, David Lynch's character meets Monica Belluci in a dream who says, "We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives inside the dream. But who's the dreamer?"
Who is the dreamer of The Dream we are all part of? In that dream, we are mere phantoms because our 'thoughts' and 'actions' all follow the 'logic' and sub-will of the dreamer. We are free only like NPC are 'free'. Jewish Power is the Dreamer. All of us dream little dreams when we sleep but our waking life is part of The Dream of Jewish Power. In that dream, we are programmed to feel and behave in accordance to the 'rule'. In whose game are we effectively NPC's without true autonomy of thought, freedom, and liberty? But then, is liberty an effective counter against The Dream? Libertarians tell us so, but what if most people are incapable of being free and independent? In that case, The Dream can be countered only by another Dream. It means history can never be about dream vs reality but dream vs dream. Reality is too harsh and dreary for most people. No wonder then that even fat ugly women go to hair-dressers and cling to the fantasy that they are attractive. Indeed, things have gotten worse. Well, if a man can be a 'woman', who says a fat ugly woman can't be a beauty? This anti-essentialist subjectivism all points to how dream-ism has infected so much of society. Such lunacy is intrinsic to The Dream pushed by Jewish Power. REQUIEM TO A DREAM. You may be nothing and have nothing, but YOU ARE SPECIAL because you're part of The Dream.
'Reality' and 'logic' in The Dream is as Jewish Power programs it. So, even though blacks are the main thugs and killers, we are led to chant BLM and cry for precious black lives being 'genocided' by white police. We prefer fanta-morality than real-morality. It's utterly absurd as a claim in the real world, but countless people who've been sucked into The Dream keep the faith. The Dream is so powerful and pervasive that all of us are, in one way or another, part of The Dream, if only because we must always remind ourselves and others that it isn't real. Thus, no one is really fully awake. Either you go along with The Dream or you're a lucid dreamer who knows you're in The Dream but can't really break out of it. As we are all social creatures, we can't help but be part of the prevailing order. So, if much of society is still in The Dream, we are also partly in it because we are part of society. It's like even anti-Hitlerians under National Socialism couldn't fully escape The Dream. It became too much of the life and culture.
The dream is sort of like a game, especially a con-game. Cons work because the con-man slips something with a distraction. Thus, the conned fail to see the reality of what is happening as he or she is fixated on what is shown. It's why the woman falls for the con in HOUSE OF GAMES. That the woman is 'too smart to be conned' is actually part of the con devised against her. Dreams work in a similar way. We believe in the unbelievable in the dream — dead people alive in front of us and etc. — because the dream turns off the mechanism of verification and detection. Furthermore, the dream keeps streaming new 'information' to the mind that is too distracted to process anything for verification. While what happens in a dream isn't logical, there is a logic behind the process of the dream that keeps the dreamer hoodwinked. And even when a person becomes a lucid dreamer, he is in the dream.
What is true of a single mind is true of an entire society, especially when everyone is connected electronically. Electronic media are like collective neurons of society as a hive-mind. But who's the dreamer or game-creater? Who is the 'user' and who are the 'programs'? People's minds are colonized by the electronic-neurons beamed by media, the Dream becomes their dream, and they become part of The Dream Empire or Dreampire as envisioned and programmed by Jews. So, even though Sigmund Freud failed as a scientist(as current psychology believes he was wrong about most things), his obsession with the power of dreams could have served as the blueprint of takeover of power. Marx was utopian but concentrated on the materialist reality. But all the talk of labor, production, and etc. got pretty dreary and boring to most people. Capitalism beat communism not only in the material sphere(of producing more) but in creating the Empire of Dreams, which Chris Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion. No wonder Jews were so eager to acquire Disney and then STAR WARS. Walt Disney and George Lucas had the power to create dreams. Dream as metaphor for power is explored in EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg where goyim move inside a maze created by a Jew. Even as they identify the Dream-Maker and kill him, they're not sure if they're in reality or still in the Dream. Even the Anti-Dream could be part of the Dream. And such is true in our world. Even those opposed to Jewish Supremacism are marked by the 'logic' of The Dream. If you oppose Jews, you must be 'nazis', 'white supremacists', 'anti-semites', or etc. Of course, there are neo-nazi types who can't oppose Jewish Power without resorting to 'Muh Fuhrer', but this is because they lack the autonomous power to dream. Therefore, they must borrow the dream of Hitler to combat the Jewish Dream instead of creating a new and better Dream from scratch.
How do a people replace one Dream with another? A New Dream in which most people become figures in another Dream. They become NPC's in another people's game. US politicians, 'conservative' and 'liberal', are little more than NPC's in the Jewish Dream. One way to replace one Dream with another is by invasion. US defeated Japan, erased the myth of the sacred Emperor, and installed the new Dream of Japan as a peace-loving democracy, which, however, must take orders from the New Empire that invades and destroys other nations. (Incidentally, blaming Japanese Militarism for Japan's woes is disingenuous. After all, Japan embarked on its imperialist ventures BEFORE the military takeover and with the support & even encouragement of Western Imperialist powers. Furthermore, the leading imperialist powers in the world were all 'democratic': UK, France, and US. Also, most militarist governments were generally less imperialist, and more often than not, a nation turned to militarism as last recourse against foreign domination or total chaos. Franco and Pinochet were military leaders, but they didn't invade anyone, and they came to power to defend the order from International Communism, a form of ideological imperialism. But as the US-dominant Narrative governs the world, Japanese are to believe that they were saved from bad old militarism with defeat and democracy. Such is the power of the Dream.)
The Dream can be replaced by outright invasion. Still, invaders without a strong Dream may fall under the Dream of the vanquished. Mongols invaded China but fell under the spell of the Middle Kingdom Dream. The Romans, for all their military glory, were weak in the power of Dreams. So, they fell under the Dream of the Greeks and worshiped a fusion of Roman and Greek gods. Their art imitated Greek imagination. And later, Romans and the Greeks fell under the Dream of Christianity even though Christians had no means to conquer them militarily. They became figures in the Dream of Jesus and Paul, Jews rejected by Jews. Later, the Germanic barbarians invaded Rome, much like Mongols would invade China later, but as the barbarians were weak in the power of Dream, they too fell under the sway of Christo-Roman Template.
The Power of Dreams come in two forms. One where the Dream takes on a power all its own independent of its originator and the Other where the Dream is used by a people to control others. For example, all of the West fell under the power of the Greek Dream. Especially the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and 19th century archaeology prized Greek culture as the shining ideal. Still, it was the Greek Dream without Greek power as the Greeks had long declined and fallen. And Greeks were okay with this: The Greek Way conquering the human imagination around the world WITHOUT Greeks having power over the world. In contrast, Jews felt differently. Via Christianity, there was the power of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power. Christians read the Sacred Texts of Jews, and Jewish spirituality and historiography had great impact on the West. But even as Europeans fell under the sway of the Jewish Dream(as Jesus, Disciples, and Paul were Jews steeped in Jewish tradition), they were independent of Jewish Power and even hostile to Jewish People. And Jews took umbrage at this. Perhaps, the relation between Jews and Christians would have been better IF Christianity didn't insist that Jews rejected the Messiah and murdered Him. But, there was bound to be hostility between Judaism and Christianity because Jews couldn't help but feel that Jesus and Paul laid the groundwork of smuggling the Jewish God to other peoples, the dirty gentiles. It was a violation of the Covenant, and therefore, Jews could only feel hatred for Jesus and the heretical Jews. As Jews were anti-Christian, Christianity could only develop as an anti-Jewish religion.
Anyway, if Greeks were resigned to the prestige of the Greek Dream being independent of Greek power(that was non-existent at any rate), Jews couldn't tolerate Jewishness as an abstraction for other peoples without the input of the Jews themselves. Jews felt that all who adopted the Jewish Way must come under Jewish Sway. As both Christianity and Islam have origins in Judaism, Jews must control the West and Near East. So, Muslim nations must be battered with Neocon militarism to teach them a lesson of who's the real Chosen of God. Because Islam is a proud militant religion, Jews know it's difficult to take over the Muslim Soul. But because Christianity is a religion of humility, guilt, and sin, Jews knew they could worm into the Christian Soul and re-code it for self-destruction. Alter the Christian Guilt Code toward feeling most ashamed of the Holocaust and Antisemitism(and 'racism' and 'homophobia') and then watch the dominos fall. As most Christians are craven, shallow, or stupid, their Sin Complex could be manipulated in algorithm. Do it like the guys in INCEPTION by Christopher Nolan. Enter the White Christian Dreamscape, locate and unlock the soul-safe Houdini-style, and alter the main object of worship from God and Jesus to Jew, Negro, and Homo. Replace Virgin Mary with Anne Frank. Replace God with bellowing Negro. Replace angels with homo fairies. Thus, Christianity became cucked and worthless, a mere NPC program in a Jewish Dream of Dominion.
Jewish Power seeks to Greek-ize the West. Just like the Greek Way became divorced from Greek Power(whereby even non-Greeks took Greek ideas and idols with no regard for actual Greeks), the Western Way is to be divorced from Western Folks. We are told that Western Civilization is an Idea. It's not a people and their land. It's an idea or ideal that can be adopted by anyone. So, the power of the West should be an abstraction. Even if whites lose their lands and become minorities in their own nations due to mass immigration-invasion, there is no need to worry as Western Civilization will remain powerful as a Dream for all of humanity. White people having power isn't what the West is about. All that matters is the propagation of the Western Idea. As long as the Idea lives on as the Dream for others, the West is still #1. And what is this Western Idea: A Universal commitment to liberty, individuality, rule of law, and property rights(and sucking up to Jews, blacks, and homos). So, even if white people were to vanish from the world, the West would be alive and well as long as people are into 'muh liberty' and property rights. Following this logic, Chinese need not worry if China vanishes as long as people enjoy Mooshoo Pork. Chinese culture still alive, you see.
But of course, Jews would never want this for themselves. If someone told Jews, "Hey, don't worry if Arabs or Muslims take over Israel and if you Jews vanish off the face of the Earth because the Jewish Idea will always be with us in the form of the Bible and the achievements of Jews such as Albert Einstein and Steven Spielberg." And even the Koran could be said to be partly Judaic since Muhammad was influenced by Jewish Texts. Now, would Jews be okay with a world of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power(and People)? Of course not. Jews want to use their Dream as their hegemonic power over others. The Dream must never be independent of Jewish Power. Jews weren't content with Gentiles adopting and worshiping the Jewish God. They wanted to gain control over those who adopted the universalized form of Yahweh. Indeed, Jews even wanted to take God back from those people. What is Globo-Homo Queertianity but a bait-and-switch Jews are pulling on the Christians? By making Christians worship the inanity of Sodomic Globo-Homo, Jews effectively turn Christianity into a junk-religion devoid of God. Of course, Jewish Rabbis pretend to go along with globo-homo, but it's just a ruse for the rubes. After all, the Talmud teaches the Jews to use all forms of deception to hoodwink and destroy the goyim. For Jews, a jealous people(like their God is jealous), Jewish Power must always command the Jewish Way. If Greeks are flattered that non-Greeks took the Greek Way and came to greatness(and even surpassed the Greeks), Jews are not happy about non-Jews having taken the Jewish Way and come to greatness. Deep down inside, Jews hate Christianity and Islam even as they take pride in the fact that all those hapless shallow goyim fell under the power of the Jewish Dream. For Jews, the respect for the Jewish Way must be accompanied by supremacy of Jewish Power. Jewish Way must not become independent of Jewish Power. Muslims must be hammered into submission by the Chosen People of Zion. Christians must be manipulated into changing their religion to suit the outlook and sensibilities of Jews. So, how dare the Russians not fly 'gay' flags in Orthodox Churches to appease the Jews... like the Catholics are finally on the verge of doing, what with the poop-pope Francis blessing 'gay marriages'.
White people have two paths: the Greek path or the Jewish path. Greek path says your civilization will live on as a great idea but minus the power(and even the survival) of the people who created it. Jewish path says your civilization must live on as an idea that is inseparable from the survival, security, and power of the people who created it. Jews believe that even though non-Jews can learn and take from Jewishness, the Jewish Way really belongs to the Jews who are its real owners. But Jews tell white people that the Western Way cannot in any way be claimed by white Europeans. It is to be a dream independent of the dreamer... so that it will succumb to The Dream Empire of the Jews.
