Commentary on "BLACKFACE HISTORY IS JEWISH HISTORY"(esp as pertaining to D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION)

https://noirg.org/articles/blackface-history-is-jewish-history/

At the same moment the ADL began, a number of Jewish businessmen from the Boston area were plotting to finance the most degrading and hateful blackface movie ever made—The Birth of a Nation. The silent movie epic released in 1915 was the first movie blockbuster, smashing all box office records.

I can understand why black people would be offended by D.W Griffith's movie, but it's one of the most prophetic movies ever in American History. It is less a historical summary than a future warning. And its warnings have been validated by history. Indeed, the reason why that movie is now so denigrated and suppressed(despite Griffith's reputation as the first great movie-maker) is not because its contentions are false but because they ring truer than ever. But PC neo-victorianism vilifies and represses all-too-obvious truths, leading its minions to be triggered into hysterical fits of panic by any utterance that deviates from the Iron Bubble Narrative.

So, what does the movie tell us?

1. Naive white do-gooder elites have no idea what's really in store for them. Complacent with inherited power(that was originally hard-fought and won by years of war and conflict) or shoe-horned into privilege(by having the right connections and/or fashionable opinions) and imbued with Christian notion that all souls are goody-goody alike around the world, they believe that black is white and white is black, and all will get along if whites only try harder. In truth, blacks have different temperaments & souls and regard white good-will as a weakness to flatter and manipulate. The woman's father in the movie is a do-gooder white guy who trusts the mulatto... who later tries to rape his daughter.

2. Rise of mulatto as conduit between whites and blacks. As even well-meaning whites find total blackness a bit intimidating, they rely on the semi-white-ish mulatto as bridge. Back in the days, most mulattoes were products of white men and black women: symbols of white sexual advantage. Today, most are products of black men and white women with jungle fever: symbols of black sexual advantage. These mulattoes are Loki-like characters who have black aggression but white calculation. They use their white intellect to serve the black soul. We saw this with Barack Obama and now see other mulattoes taking over the Democratic Party(though, to be sure, mainly as shills of Zionist Supremacists). Notice that even proggy Democrats prefer mulattoes to outright blacks: Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Mulatto serves as the butter to soften the white bread before it is devoured by the Negro. Whites are more likely to fall for mulattoes because there is something white-like about the latter, making them appear 'less threatening', as with Colin Powell and Barack Obama. Blacks rely on mulattoes as cross-over figures... though mulattoes also fool and cheat blacks as well whites. And mulattoes manipulate both sides, white and black, to accrue more advantage for themselves. In some ways, mulattoes feel as the superior race because they got white intellect(superior to black intellect) and black soul(stronger than white soul).

3. Black political corruption. While corruption is endemic all around the world, black corruption really takes the cake(and the cornbread, grits, chitlins, black-eyed peas, fried chicken, an entire bucketful). Just look what Negro politicians have done to Detroit, Baltimore, black parts of St. Louis-Milwaukee-Chicago-Oakland. Because blacks tend to be more impulsive, more egocentric, more uninhibited, and more psychopathic, they are more shameless and unrestrained in their corruption. Furthermore, because they can get off the hook so easily by screaming 'it be racist!', they know they can get away with so much. Even though the depiction of corrupt black politicians in BOAN is cartoonish and over-the-top, the state of black politics in the US(and other black run places like South Africa) isn't much different from the movie.




4. Blacks are naturally wild and savage, and if unrestrained, will revert to their jungle nature. Anti-'racists' have been attacking such 'negative' racial stereotype forever, but then, even they have been at odds with their own narrative. On the one hand, goody-good 'anti-racist' Libs say it's wrong to say stereotype blacks and say they are wilder and more prone to ugabuga. But then, they praise blacks for having natural rhythm, dancing better, singing louder, coming up with new forms of hyper-sexual music & dance, and spreading trends like bumping-and-grinding and 'twerking'. Libs get triggered when someone says blacks are more into 'let the good times roll', but they say blacks be so fuzzy-wuzzy-funky and hot-cool-badass sassy and indeed thawed and liberated lame white people from ice-cold puritanical repression.
BOAN says blacks are naturally wilder, and it has been condemned for racial stereotyping. But how do the Jewish-Liberal-controlled media depict blackness? As thug athletes, thug rappers, sex-crazed studs whose only idea is 'muh dic*', black 'biatches' who be 'twerking' and yapping about her booty(and even be named Bootisha or Assnique). Also, ever since blacks obtained total freedom to express their true nature, their culture has turned more savage and crazy. If anything, depiction of black savagery in BOAN is mild compared to what rappers and other black thugs do in culture.

5. Black men despise white males as wussy and want to hump white women. This was one of the core message of BOAN. If left unchecked, black male lust will stalk white females. We've been told that this is just racial fear and paranoia with no basis in reality. But in SOUL ON ICE, Eldridge Cleaver wrote his own Portnegro's Complaint. Just like Philip Roth the Jew said he had endless 'boings' thinking of Aryan-blonde Shikses(and Norman Mailer wrote a very porny-horny book on Marilyn Monroe as his sex goddess... who married Jewish Arthur Miller btw), Cleaver said he not only fantasized raping white women but really did it(though he didn't serve many yrs in prison even in those days). Look at FBI rape statistics, and most interracial rape in the US is almost entirely black-on-white and black-on-non-black. And much of Rap culture is about black guys and white girls with jungle fever dumping on dorky white guys. Also, Jews control pornography and promote interracial black-man-and-white-woman as the thing. From pop culture to porn culture(though two have merged considerably under Jewish cultural hegemony), the message is black guys are the real men and want white women, and white women should go with superior Negroes. So, BOAN was proved right on that account.
Where it was wrong(hopefully naive) perhaps was that white women in the movie are shown to rebuff the advances by black men at every turn. But Griffith should have known better because Jack Johnson became champion before the movie came out. Because blacks are racially-athletically superior to whites, he easily destroyed and humiliated so many white men, but what did a lot of white women do? Stick with their fallen men out of racial solidarity? No, just like French women who ran into arms of victorious Germans in WWII and Japanese women who ran into arms of US GI's after Japan's defeat, white women ran into the arms of Jack Johnson. Since then, the sports culture has been one of black guys dominating the field, white cuck athletes serving as bench-warmers, and countless white women getting knocked up by Negro athletes and thugs. The biggest name in the movies of the 90s and 2000s, Quentin Tarantino, was raised by such a mudshark. And in the 90s, madonna or mudonna's second act was that she was passed around as an inflatable sex doll by blacks in the NBA.
So, if anything, BOAN was mostly right about the sexual dynamics of black and white but didn't go far enough. If white men lose power, not only will black guys come after white women but white women will go with Negroes. It's like Poland is turning into Simon Moland. One African goes to Poland and gets to hump over 300 jungle-feverish women.

--------------------

Today, Jews denounce BOAN and speak about those 'bad old days', but have things really changed? No. Though depictions of blacks today are 'positive', the underlying assumptions about race are much the same as in BOAN. Hollywood doesn't show that all races are equal. After all, why does it promote black male and white female pairing more than white male and black female pairing? It is on the assumption of racial differences, i.e. black men are more masculine and white women are more feminine, thus implying that white women should go with superior black men. Likewise, most white/Asian pairing is white male and yellow female, suggesting that white men are manlier than yellow men, therefore yellow women should go with white men. So, interracism is just another form of 'racism'. It is not about racial equality but racial superiority. And given that most depictions of blackness in the media & entertainment are hyper-sexual, people 100 yrs after BOAN still believe that blacks have that surplus ugabuga sexual mojo. In BOAN, it as presented negatively whereas now it is presented positively, but the underlying assumptions are identical: Blacks be wild and crazy as the People of Sex. And look at sports culture. Who watches sports such as NBA, NFL, and Track & Field and comes off thinking, "Gee, race is just a social construct." No, any honest person notices BAMMAMA, or Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Now, if that is true, what is its social implications? It means tougher blacks will intimidate, threaten, beat up, and humiliate whites in schools, streets, public places, and even home invasions. It means white men will lose pride of manhood and lose their women to black men. So, if we connect the dots, the fact that blacks dominate sports should wake white people up to the black threat. But because white people are such idolatrous dolts(or idolts), they worship black athletes as 'heroes' and 'demigods'. They worship the athletic victory of the very power(black muscle advantage) that is beating up white guys and castrating them of manhood.

Furthermore, let's not forget that racial stereotypes have always been with us. Hollywood won't make stuff like BOAN anymore because blacks are now 'sacred cows' in the West. But Jewish Hollywood made so many movies about evil 'terrorist' Muslims in the 90s and 2000s(with hardly any protest from progs and Jews who, btw, funded most of them). If anything, these movie stereotypes about Muslims were far more over-the-top than anything in BOAN. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT goes so far as to suggest that no Muslim, man-woman-or-child, is trustworthy, and when push comes to shove, they must all be mowed down to the last man-woman-and-child. No wonder then that most Americans didn't care about Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright starving 100,000s of Iraqi children to death in the 1990s. (Israel has been condemned by the world community for its imperialism and tyranny, but can anyone imagine US politicians calling for sanctions on Israel to kill 100,000s of Jewish kids? Democrats and Republicans agree that Jewish lives are more precious than Muslim lives.) Jewish Hollywood remade RED DAWN as a yellow peril fantasy of North Korea(a nation with 1/40th the economy of South Korea) invading the US. And even though Jews are among the biggest sex-slavers in the world, it made movies like TAKEN where Muslims are the main sex traffickers. Yes, Muslims have been involved in sex-grooming, but who enslaved all those Slavic women in Israel to be used a sex slaves? Jews. Hollywood won't be making a movie or TV show about that anytime soon. And consider all the delirious anti-Russia movies being cranked out by Hollywood.

Also, even though BOAN was wrong about certain facts of history, globo-homo depiction of current reality is even more surreal. According to the recent Gillette ad, it is white guys who are sexually harassing 'women of color', and it is the noble black guy who comes to the rescue of the damsels. Anyone who knows real reality that black guys are the kings of 'toxic masculinity'. Rap is black. Black men are top rapists and attackers of women. Also, given that women are into 'muh pussy' and slut pride culture, it's amusing they are ones to bitch about 'toxic' anything. We live in a world where the Jew-run media would have us believe in the Russia Collusion fantasy. That's what passes for Real News. These people who can't even get current reality right dare to condemn BOAN for not getting history correct. As the recent Covington Highschool Kids incident and Jussie Smollett 'hate hoax' anti-white defamation stunt have well-illustrated, the Jew-run media have no interest in the truth. Only in their procrustean Narrative to sustain 'white guilt' and white cuckery so that whites will go on bowing down before Jews and doing their bidding.

Interestingly enough, even though Jewish Hollywood has been peddling anti-Muslim 'terrorist' tropes forever, if you go searching for "hollywood anti-muslim propaganda", the result is usually videos about 'Trump is anti-Muslim'. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hollywood+anti-muslim+propaganda In fact, it's difficult to find any video on Youtube that details the history of Jewish Hollywood's negative depictions of Arabs and Muslims. Jews spread anti-Muslim hatred and steered US foreign policy to destroy Muslim nations, but they are now pretending to be champion-defenders of Muslims against 'American racism and Islamophobia'. These are the very same Jews who use whore-politicians to push through anti-BDS laws that rob us of our freedom of speech and conscience. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hollywood-values-updates-how-hollywood-s-muslim-portrayals-1483650479-htmlstory.html

A Response to David Yorkshire’s Review of ZARDOZ by John Boorman

ZARDOZ: Natural Order against the Left by David Yorkshire: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/zardoz-natural-order-against-the-left/

"John Boorman's films are implicitly white, as they address themes that pertain to people of White European descent, whether historical, philosophical or mythical."

Not necessarily. Boorman made HELL IN THE PACIFIC that is about cooperation between Japanese soldier and American soldier. He also made EMERALD FOREST that romanticizes the jungle natives of the Amazon as living in unity with nature. If anything, that movie is most damning of incursions of white civilization into the natural order. Boorman made a movie about Burma in BEYOND RANGOON. He also made a movie where a white woman romances a black man. So, he's not this explicitly pro-white director you make him out to be... even though his themes and treatment would be politically incorrect for many today.

"for the film is a biting satire directed at creamy bourgeois Leftists."

The Order in ZARDOZ is highly conservative, exclusive, and hierarchical. It has a clear division between civilization and barbarism. It was established on a shining ideal of eternity and wisdom, but all that power and privilege has created a society of dogmatism, consensus, asexuality, and/or jaded apathy. The people of the Order have had it so good that they can't value what they have.
Also, they fail to understand the true danger posed by the barbarians because their Order has been impenetrable and impermeable as far as they can remember. They have no reason to regard barbarians as any kind of threat.
And yet, precisely because the Order is so crystalline and immaculate in its conception and design, there is a fear of the slightest alteration or revision. It can only exist as a utopia, a perfectionist order that cannot tolerate deviance from the rule. Perfection is unnatural, therefore fragile, and must be guarded with iron resolve, like the inner mechanics of a Swiss watch. Everything must adhere to the programming.
Originally, the Order was created to expand freedom and potentiality by prolonging life into virtual eternity. But thus elevated into near-god-hood, the main priority of the Eternals came to be self-preservation, and that meant the suppression or termination of anything that threatened the basis of their exalted existence.

So, to say that the Order is just 'leftist' or 'bourgeois' misses the point. Now, it may have elements of what we might call 'leftist' by today's standards. But the Order is really about hierarchy and total exclusion. In its cult of reason and science, it be construed as 'leftist'. In the equality of men and women in the Order, it could be seen as 'leftist' too.
But then,there is no need for manliness because the Order is so secure. Also, as people are immortal, there is no need for sex and love. People are supposed to devote their energies to contemplation and leisure. But all such things have become boring without the cycles of life and without challenges to the Order.
So, it's glib to say ZARDOZ is an anti-leftist tract. It is essentially a call for reconnection with nature, the stuff of life. The World of ZARDOZ fails for the same reason the world of CAMELOT does in EXCALIBUR does. Too much success and power have led to complacency and lazy gossip and battle of egos and vanity. It is only when Arthur drinks from the Grail that he realizes he must be one with the land, with nature and the people.

Boorman isn't anti-civilization or anti-Christian(with its linear view of history), but he fears that civilization and abstract ideas can fatally sever man from nature and its cycles of birth and rebirth. Only with death and rebirth is life revitalized. Prolonging life may overcome death but could lead to boredom, enervation, and dissipation. Even decadence and degeneration. To counter decline and resignation, one may insist on the strict regimen of devotion and discipline, but this could lead to the rigid dogmatism of the Middle Ages or traditional Jewish culture that revolved around almost incestuous obsession with Ancient texts.

But more often than not, too much prosperity and security leads to a deadly combination of complacency and compassion. A carefree naivete that has forgotten the warning of 'Do not feed the animals'. Having been secure and prosperous for so long, they've come to take their well-being for granted and assume it will be painless and joyous to welcome the world with open arms. They see themselves as white jesuses taking care of lambs from around the world. They are innocent spoiled brats getting high on their own delusional virtue. They are blind to the delusion because they've had it so good for so long. They lack the experience of survival & hardship and have forgotten the lessons of their ancestors who had to struggle against great odds to secure the land and build a civilization.
And this is what has happened to Sweden. Too much ease and good life led to ZARDOZ-like conditions where overly well-fed and bored white folks welcome invasion simply because it is 'virtuous' and vibrant, the stuff of life lacking in well-ordered Sweden.

"Ostensibly, the Eternals are all at peace, free from violence and death, and forever young. Their society is democratic and imposes equality on all. (Men's) impotence has led to women becoming leaders along feminist lines in spite of the ostensible commitment to equality."

The world of Vortex is NOT democratic. It is elitist. It is equal only in the sense that Spartan Warriors were equal with one another or aristocrats are equal among themselves. But, in fact, Spartan elites lorded over the helots. And aristocrats lorded over the serfs. So, the Eternals are NOT democratic. They are equal only among themselves, an elite breed of sci-fi aristocrats.
Also, women do not rule the Vortex. Since the realm is asexual, men and women are almost the same. The women in ZARDOZ are not interested in the sisterhood or women's issues. They only identify as Vortexians.

Feminism is about women forming a sisterhood against the men. There is no such politics in ZARDOZ. Rather, female aristos in ZARDOZ work with male aristos to maintain the exclusive hierarchical order. They are more like princesses working with princes against the serfs. They are not about the Sisterhood.

"'Penic erection is one of the many unsolved evolutionary mysteries surrounding sexuality.'... The speech is a look at sexuality straight out of 1970s feminist pamphlets, with the only difference being a smugness in victory, dressed up as concern for the wellbeing of both women and men."

Actually, Boorman's point goes deeper than a critique of feminism. Boorman senses in higher spirituality, Christianity especially, the denial and repression of natural sexual drives. This goes back to the Old Testament. In Eden, Adam and Eve were nearly equal. But there was the Original Sin, and man and woman had to struggle in the world of Nature that was seen as FALLEN. And the divide between man and woman grew wide after the Fall.
In Eden, it had been peace and harmony for Adam and Eve. God provided everything. Adam didn't have to be a hunter-warrior. Eve didn't have to do women's chores. But after the Fall, Adam had to be tough and manly to hunt and procure food. And with all creatures at war with each other, Adam had to defend himself and Eve from other animals. And Eve had to be womanly and do women's things.

Christianity offered a Way out of such Fallen State. Men and women would deny the pleasures and fears of the flesh and redeem their souls to enter Heaven to be with God for all eternity. Thus, Christianity is anti-nature. It sees nature as fallen and sinful. It views human nature as a baggage of vices: lust, gluttony, greed, vanity, etc.
In EXCALIBUR, Merlin mourns that One God comes to drive out the many. Paganism is fading and nature grows silent.

Another danger is an Order becomes obsessed with more order. And this was true of Victorian England where sex was taboo as a subject. Also, the rise of effeminate style among men long predated feminism. It began within the aristocracy itself. Initially, aristocrats were warriors, tough and hardy. But as they accrued so much wealth and privilege, they got fanciful and had homos devise feathers, dress, jewelry, and etc. for them. Look at Tim Roth's character in ROB ROY. French aristocrats wore fancy wigs, used perfume, and powdered their faces.

As for feminism, it's a confused self-defeating ideology. There has been a strain of feminism that was anti-sex. But there was also another strain that emphasized little more than sex. Today's feminists are confused. They go on and on about "Don't grab my pussy" but they publicize their pussies for all too see. PUSSY-ism is new feminism. They are into slut pride and damsel-in-distress both. Also, feminists demand total happiness for women. But happiness for women comes from sexually surrendering to big tough alpha males. So, even as feminists castrate men, they also demand men with mega-dongs to hump them. As a result, we have the funny spectacle of white women castrating white men but burning with jungle fever for black mandingos who act like shameless savages. This is why feminism is self-defeating. The women in ZARDOZ are not like this. They are neo-victorian in their total denial of sexuality.

"Yet this has created anything but an idyll, with particularly the men wishing for death, as Arthur Freyn, acting as the chorus to a theatrical play, states he longs for at the beginning of the film. This introduction, however, is one of the unsatisfactory elements of the film, as it rather gives the game away, Freyn himself exposing that the film is a morality play, who he is and what the film is about. It is unnecessary and an insult to the viewer's intelligence."

No, most men don't wish for death in the Vortex. They are perfectly happy. Frayn and Friend are rare exceptions who secretly conspire against the system. But then, May the female also ends up helping Zed because a part of her also feels that the system is fatally flawed in some ways. She kept Zed alive because a part of her sympathized with him, longed for him. (Later, it becomes apparent that all the Eternals have a hidden death wish as they come to welcome the deliverance of death. But not having experienced violence for eons, they panic and run when the horror ensues. They thought it would be fun, liberating,and innocuous. It is actually brutal and ugly.)

Frayn's intro doesn't make ZARDOZ a morality play but a philosophical theorem. Frayn is not preachy or judgmental. He's a magician, a trickster, an artist. He wants to have fun toying with people. He wants to play god as puppeteer. He is the Merlin-like figure... though with only the semblance of wisdom. He'd been given the job of using the Stone godhead to fool the barbarian dummies. He had a great run messing with the yokels, and he later decides to pull a stunt on Eternals themselves.

He is not primarily motivated by morality but by creativity and artistry. The whole experiment is like a philosophical parlor game for him, and he cooks up a scheme with Friend(who is more serious). He has no idea how things will really turn out. Indeed, he dies brutally like the rest. His experiment finally engulfs him in the horror as well. The master puppeteer, the man-who-would-be-god, is reduced to a pig-for-the-slaughter for the butchers. Frayn is rendered as helpless as Ned Beatty in DELIVERANCE.
If the Eternals, in their eons of seclusion, lost all sense of horror, the Exterminators have practiced nothing but horror. It's like hungry wolves set free in a pasture of sheep.
It's like today's helpless Swedes and Germans as deer-in-the-headlights prey to the brutalized arrivals from Africa and the Muslim world.

Even though Frayn takes after Merlin, the difference is Merlin understood the nature of tragedy. He knew what it is like for an Order to fall. So, against all odds, he tried to help Uther and Arthur maintain the order from chaos. When Uther proves to be hopeless, Merlin bio-engineers a super-baby in the figure of Arthur. Frayn similarly engineers a superior figure in Zed, who has the warrior vitality of Exterminators and the intellect of the Eternals.

Even so, Frayn is like a child compared to the wise Merlin. Frayn has no idea of what it would be like for the Vortex to fall to barbarism. It's all just a game that he accelerates... until it finally happens, and then, panic-stricken & speechless, he is slashed with a sword while shitting bricks.

In a sick and dark way, one can argue that the Current Left is like the Friend-Frayn Nexus in their Afro-mania.
Even though the 'Left' pretends to believe that 'race is a social construct', they really feel that white race is deficient, inferior, and missing something. Consider the rise of Rock n Roll(and the fascination with blues), especially in once rigidly ordered and finely mannered England. It was as if whites with frozen souls were thawed, warmed, and heated by the burning souls of blacks. And overly rigid and hierarchical British Society was made looser and freer by black influence in music, style, and attitude. And this is why whites became so Afromaniacal. White boys turned cuckish in their worship of Negro athletes and badass warrior-thugs. And white women got jungle fever from watching all those big-donged black athletes beating up weaker and slower whites. But we know from Africa and Detroit that blackness = savagery and disorder.

In contrast, a people like the Japanese can create and maintain order. But white people are not excited by Japanese who come across as physically shrunken, weak-voiced, servile, lackluster, conformist, and timid. White people are excited by blacks with booming voices, bulging muscles, and dongs-and-butts. GET OUT is about whites wanting to be in black skin.

Japanese can build and maintain a modern society whereas blacks can't.
But blacks can make music and do athletics that excite whites... something that Japanese can't do. Japanese have higher IQ but blacks have more Iconic value or ICQ or iconic quotient.

So, the resolution at the end of ZARDOZ is now the template for leftist engineering via race-mixing. The bloodbath at the end of the movie makes us reject both the Vortex and the barbarism. Vortex was an elitist order divorced from nature, but the barbarism of raw nature is stupefyingly ugly.

So, what is the new hope? Zed and Consuela mate and create new humanity. Zed is a blend of natural barbarism and knowledge. And Consuela is a woman of knowledge who has regained her natural self.
In today's UK, this unity is seen as mixing of the black male as the ideal icon of manhood and the white female as the ideal icon of female beauty. The blending of tough black manhood and beautiful white womanhood is supposed to create a new superior race that finds the balance of nature and civilization.
And that was the appeal of Obama, the blend of black intuition and white intellect. He represented the ideal interracist template favored by the so-called Left. This 'Left' is race-ist in its own way but loathe to admit it. It doesn't see all races as equal or valuable. Rather, its ideal vision is the blending of blackness and whiteness. Blackness represents virility, rhythm, musicality, athleticism, and prowess. Whiteness represents reason, intellect, control, and organization. In ZARDOZ, Frayn created Zed as a kind of 'interracist' hybrid of Exterminators and Eternals. Zed has the body and toughness of the Exterminators but the mind and knowledge of the Eternals. In a similar vein, the current Left prizes the mulatto higher than both blacks and whites as he or she is supposed to represent the unity of black prowess and white proficiency.

It's pretty crazy, but today's LEFT is actually closer to Frayn-Friend's plot to bring down the Order and to create a new order formed by fusion of Afro-vitality and Euro-ability. They feel that this will result from the Negro penis and white vagina. In a way, Frayn is like a George-Soros-like figure who pushes Open Borders to bring down the ossified elite order. He is like the Loki character in German mythology who plays both sides -- gods and giants -- and finally helps breach the barrier that stands between the god realm and the world of giants.

Now, this isn't to say John Boorman had such in mind, or that he wanted Europe to be invaded by masses of Africans. But the satire of ZARDOZ goes far deeper than easy jabs at Leftism. It is about the problem of civilization itself. It is a timeless dilemma. We all want to create and be part of a Shining Order. But every Order, in order to perpetuate itself indefinitely, prolongs itself to the point of violating the cyclical way of nature and man. Thus, the order survives but loses in vitality.
And yet, the condition of man is always between Scylla and Charybdis. An order that lasts too long grows either apathetic or dogmatic. But then, the cyclical way is no circus. The stage of fall, even if necessary, is horrible and traumatic. We can't escape the tragedy of existence even if we wanted to.

Is It True that Social Change Has Come to a Standstill?

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/06/did-hippies-have-german-roots.html

http://takimag.com/article/the_original_nature_boys_steve_sailer/print#axzz1z0TydD7X

"One of the biggest changes of my lifetime has been the decline in the speed of social change... Instead, mass society fragmented and thereby stabilized." - Steve Sailer.

Maybe this is true when it comes to hair styles of white people. But hair-styles among blacks have changed quite a lot, especially among men. We don't see Afros anymore. What is most popular among black men is the Slave-Rebellion look of the shaved head. It makes them look meaner and leaner than they already are.

As for Alvin Toffler's FUTURE SHOCK, the only reason we don't feel the 'shock' is because we are Future-Shell-Shocked. It's like people in wars eventually become accustomed to the explosions, deaths, gore, and horrors. We've been bombarded with so much change so fast that much of it don't register as change or 'change' has become the new stability.

Also, what is exactly meant by 'social change'? One might argue that the internet amounts to technological change and not social change, but technology impacts society and culture. The rise of the internet has had profound impact on how people communicate, buy things, get information, make and share entertainment, become famous, become controversial, etc. It certainly gave a new voice to the American Right once silenced by liberal media and Neocon takeover of the GOP.

Also, aren't demographic changes afoot in the US and EU part of social change?
We've never seen so much change happen so fast, and mostly for the worse. Even just by comparing the 80s with the 90s and then 90s with the 2000s, the change is overwhelming. The rise of Rap as mainstream music is one. The mainstreamization of porn, and then the utter interrace-ization of porn is another. (I know because I worked in video rental during the late 80s and 90s when the change first took off in a big way.) The complete Neocon takeover of GOP had a huge impact. One could argue that's political change, not social change. But politics translates into social power and social change. The rise of Jews and gays in politics and media has meant all of America is turning more pro-gay just like it turned more pro-Zionist. Even after WWII, Jews used to fear and respect Southern white and German-American power, which is why Hollywood, for the most part, didn't make movies that dehumanized German soldiers and Southern whites. But today, almost all Americans(even conservative German-Americans and Southern Christian whites) do little else but sing hosannas to Jews and Israel. This had a profound impact not only on political policy but cultural outlook among White Conservatives who even wanna nuke Iran and wipe out Palestinians to please Jews.

And consider the Boomer takeover of power in the 90s and then the rise of Obama. No candidate in the 80s supporting half the things Obama stands for could have been elected. Even in the 90s, it would have been impossible, which is why Clinton settled for DADT. Now, Obama openly comes out for 'gay marriage' and still leads in the polls. Timid conservatives meekly voice support Traditional Marriage(as if that's something dirty) but don't dare oppose 'gay marriage' with any spine or guts. A beauty contestant got dragged through the mud by the entire Jewish-and-Gay-controlled media apparatus by answering Perez Hilton that she doesn't support 'gay marriage'. The media even dragged out details of her private life to smear her. In the new social environment, Perez is normal and decent while a beauty contestant who isn't for 'gay marriage' is treated like a dirty tramp to be hated.

There is utter social, cultural, and political fear of gay power, especially as it's protected by Jewish power. Soon, attacking the gay agenda will be like attacking Israeli policy.

Also significant is the utter beta-male-ization of the white man and the rise of the Tough Sexy Negro. TV commercials openly promote the wussification of the white male and promote interracism of white girl and Afro-Aryan black guy.
Jack-Johnson-ism the law of the land. And dweebized white guys don't resist and don't even know how to resist. They've become irrelevant unless they're 'creative gays'. Obama isn't just some political phenomenon but a social and cultural one as well. America's acceptance of him as leader means profound social changes has taken place. How long before the next president is a dark-skinned black guy married to a blonde woman? Americans in 2008 found nothing wrong with a friend of Bill Ayers becoming Commander-in-Chief. If anything, the best-educated Americans were swooning all over Obama and even fainting.

As for the Jews, they've turned into an utterly corrupt New Elite. When Wasps ruled the roost, Jews used to be for free speech, dissent, speaking truth to power, and etc. Today, while Jews continue to use those tropes, they are really working to push Political Correctness to end free speech(that's critical of Jews and their allies), to bail out Jews on Wall Street, to silence any criticism of Jewish power and Israeli policy, to promote interracism mainly to weaken the white race and white power, and totally change the terminology of the nation with nonsense notions such as 'same-sex marriage' and 'undocumented immigrants'. Obama tramples on the Constitution and illegally offers amnesty to illegal aliens who are now called 'undocumented immigrants'. And he still leads in the polls and will win in 2012 while the timid, awkward, and pathetic white boy Mitt Romney seems endlessly flustered as he tries to win conservative votes while, at the same time, pandering to the Jewish-and-Gay Lobby.

The Sordid 'Untold' History of Race-Mixing.

If you got most of your news, ideas, and information from modern Western media and schools, you likely associate 'racial purity' with hate, war, genocide, slavery, imperialism, conquest, and oppression. And you likely associate 'race mixing' with love, tolerance, equality, 'diversity', and liberation. The prevailing narrative owes mainly to four factors: Anglo-imperialism, American slavery, National Socialism(or Nazism), and Jewish control of the media and elite academia.
Perhaps no people in history conquered and controlled as much as the Anglos with only limited race-mixing. Also, American slavery was very race-conscious, and most whites didn't mix with blacks. And then, there was the racial ideology of the Nazis that obsessed about 'Aryan' racial purity. Finally, Jews, having been among the main victims of Nazism and ever so paranoid and fearful of Anglo-American whites as their main rivals, developed and disseminated an ideology that came to see 'racism' as the source of all great evil. To counter and eliminate such 'evil', Jews have put forth the ideology of 'diversity' and race-mixing. Indeed, the main reason for Jewish support for Obama is he serves as the poster-boy of mulatto-ism. He's the product of a white woman sexually surrendering herself to a Negro. The fact that so many white women swoon over the punk and so many white guys get thrills from being politically cuckolded by his ilk shows how low the white race has fallen in the modern world.

But, let us look at the real history of race-mixing. Only recently has race-mixing been a matter of individual choice and personal freedom. For most of human history, race-mixing was generally the product of violence, invasion, oppression, slavery, imperialism, genocide, and what have you. If race-mixing has such a wonderful history and pedigree, I suppose we should laud the Mongol hordes who came stampeding into Eastern(and even parts of Central)Europe to rape white women. You see, the bad guys were not the interracist Mongols but the white warriors who resisted them. How dare all those 'evil racist' white males not welcome the Mongols who were only trying to spread their race-mixing love!  Following the logic of Political Correctness, any Russian or Polish guy who was enraged by Mongol abduction and/or rape of white women were 'evil racists' or proto-Nazis, just like the proud white men of THE BIRTH OF A NATION or Ethan character(played by John Wayne) in THE SEARCHERS. According to Political Correctness, it is wrong for white men to feel protective of their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters even against vicious raids by Indian tribes. Using this logic, I suppose Russians should forever have yielded to 'progressive' interracist Mongols who were only trying to mix the races.  But seriously, Mongols were among the most brutal conquerors in history, and they were TOTALLY into race-mixing. Mongols have often been compared with the Nazis, but if 'racial purity' is the source of all evil, how could a people as interracist as the Mongols commit such horrors? Wouldn't it have been better for Europeans--and other victims of the Golden Horde--if the Mongols had been into racial purity--like the Japanese for most of their history--and remained in their own little Mongol world? I mean the epic Mongol experiment in race-mixing wasn't exactly fun for most people--unless they happened to be Mongols thugs raping Chinese, Persian, Russian, and other women.

Ottoman Turks were also interracists, but were they peaceful? No, they used extensive violence to control vast territories. They ruled over Greece for nearly 400 yrs. During that time, many Greek women were abducted and raped by Turks. And many Christian Greek boys were conscripted and raised as Janissaries--fanatical Muslim warriors against Christendom. Just think about it. Wonderfully interracist Ottomans kidnapped and brainwashed Greek boys to wage war their own kind--Christian Europeans. Greece under Ottoman rule was not a happy place as any Greek who knows his or her history can tell you.
But then, Greeks too have their long history of interracist violence. Though Ancient Greeks were proud to be Greek and some city-states insisted on Greek purity, the fact is Greeks invaded and enslaved a lot of non-Greeks, and through rape of these conquered peoples, Greek blood got mixed with non-Greek blood. And when Greeks joined Alexander the Macedon's invasion of North Africa and the Orient, a whole bunch of them went into interracist mode, Alexander leading by example. While some Greek leaders resented Alexander's 'race-mixing', it became more and more necessary as Macedonian and Greek men became further separated from their homelands. They conquered foreign lands and took foreign women. So, all this supposedly wonderful interracism came with imperialism, conquest, slavery, and mass bloodshed.

Arabs, Moors, Muslims, Persians, Moghuls, and other great empire builders were also interracists. Arabs enslaved and raped all sorts of people. They enslaved black Africans, captured and sold white slaves. Many of them, especially among the whites, were women. Lots of interracist Arab men raped white women. Arab pirates didn't just plunder white wealth but sexually ravaged white women. Moors conquered large swaths of Southern Europe and raped a lot of white women. So much for the wonders of interracism. And of course, Jews in Europe often aided and abetted in the Muslim conquest of Europe. Jews were also involved in slave trade and sold white women to Arabs and Muslims. Do you suppose all those white women who were enslaved and raped had a good time because the 'love-making' happened to be interracist?  Today, the Jewish shmafia lures many Slavic women with false promises and turns them into sex slaves in brothels that cater to men of all races from around the world. White women are used as interracist sex slaves. Is that progress? It may be a great boon to greedy Jews who control pornography and white slavery, but what do white men and women gain from it? And who are these craven Jews to tell you or me how we should think about race and racial politics? Of course, Israel has very stringent laws and policies against non-Jews, and recently, Israel used harsh measures to round up and expel a whole lot of black African migrants and refugees. And Jews constantly talk about maintaining their genetic integrity, and even when they mix with other races, they are very selective, careful to mix with gentiles who are either very good looking or very intelligent; in other words, Jews steal beauty and IQ from other races. Jews act like this, but we don't hear any outrage from MSM because Jews control most of the media.

Though Anglo-imperialism is most often associated with the evils of white oppression, historical truth says otherwise: the most brutal form of European imperialism was perpetuated by interracist Portuguese and Spanish. Portuguese created Brazil, and the main reason for its huge number of mulattoes owes to the fact that Portuguese, far more than Anglos, created an empire of interracist rape as well as of slavery. So-called 'racist' America imported only 300,000 to 400,000 black slaves. Brazil alone is said to have imported anywhere from 3 to 5 million black African slaves, which is more than all the rest of the New World combined. So, just think about it. The most interracist colony/nation in the New World was more committed to slavery than all the others.

The rest of Latin America came under Spanish rule, and how did the 'mestizo race' come about? Free love, 'tolerance', and 'multi-culturalist' ideology?  No, it came about through imperialism, conquest, slavery, mass rape, and the like.  More often than not--at least among white Latinos--, all this politically correct 'diversity' mongering-and-promotion is essentially a justification for their sordid history than anything else. It's a very convenient way for white Latinos to convert their 'historical crimes' into 'historical virtues'. Though Hispanic and Portuguese whites created the mestizo and mulatto races in the New World by conquest, slavery, rape, plunder, and imperialism, they can make believe that it was all ultimately for the good since it led to the creation of the wonderful new race of mestizos and mulattos. That way, white Latinos can justify their own history and place all the blame on Yanquis and gringos who'd been less into race-mixing. Latin whites essentially say, "We conquered, enslaved, and exploited the non-whites, but we racially mixed with the victims and acquired some 'victim blood' ourselves--even if it's only a tiny drop--, and so that expunges whatever guilt we might have had." If 'one drop rule' in America made even very light-skinned mulattos count as 'black', the one drop rule in Latin America makes even the whitest Latin elite a member of the 'people of color'. It is no wonder that so many white Latinos in America insist on being part of the 'people of color' and bitch endlessly about being 'oppressed' and 'marginalized' by Yanqui blancos, which is rather ironic since it is the Yankee states in the North that embrace the new hysteria of 'diversity' as the solution to all problems.
Anyway, all said and done, the racial history of Latin America is many times more violent and sordid than what happened in United States and Canada--or Australia for that matter.

While it is true that the theory of racial purity and the practice of imperialism don't mix well in the long run--especially if the racial ideology is as radical as that of the Nazis--, the fact is many nations that upheld the ideal of racial purity tended to be peaceful and non-aggressive. After all, it was the racially less pure Southern Europeans who'd pioneered imperialism and world conquest. It was the Greeks, Romans, and then Spanish and Portuguese who were ahead of the curve in conquering, exploiting, and plundering the world.  The British and the Dutch were relative late-comers, and among the Northern Europeans, only the Anglos became prominent players in world conquest. Germans came to imperialism rather late. Bismarck the famous builder and modernizer of Germany hated the idea. He was for Germans focusing their energies on Germany. He fought wars but mostly against other Germans in order to create larger German state. He had no wish to grab non-German land and deal with non-German peoples. If anything, it was the relatively more interracist Russians who'd invaded and plundered whole swaths of non-Russian territories in Asia and Muslim lands.
Indeed, both among reactionaries and progressives, interracism was often used as a disingenuous justification for conquest and imperialism. French were interracists in North Africa and Southeast Asia and portrayed themselves as spreading the blood of higher civilization in both the figurative and literal sense. This accounts for the rise of the Eurasian elite under French rule in Indo-China. And why did so many Vietnamese become 'Amerasians' in the 60s and 70s? Leftists call the Vietnam War an act of American Imperialism, and if that was indeed the case, then it was American Imperialism that practiced interracism during the Vietnam War. One might even call it a form of sexual imperialism or sexual conquest since almost all Amerasian children were born of American(white or black)men and Asian women. Throughout the history of interracism, generally the males of the powerful side took the women of the oppressed, occupied, or conquered side. So, interracism was very often an act of sexual imperialism by the males of one race against the females of another race. It not only meant the sexual conquest of the women but the sexual humiliation of the defeated men who could do nothing about it. What could Trojan men do when the interracist Greeks enslaved surviving Trojan women to be used as servants and sex slaves? When Germans invaded France, French women went with German men while French men could only watch as 'limp-dick' losers. When Soviets steamrolled into Germany, they practiced 'interracism' on a large scale, raping millions of German women while all German men could do is watch. When Americans occupied Japan, whole bunch of Japanese women became interracist prostitute-stooges of American G.I.'s while Japanese men were reduced to a bunch of dorks.  In other words, so much of the history of interracism is 'unfair', unequal, violent, oppressive, and cruel. If you have a time machine, take a trip to Nanking when Japanese soldiers were rampaging through the city and raping scores of Chinese women. I'll bet those women wished Japanese hadn't been into interracism. Japanese also practiced 'interracism' with Filipino and Korean women who were lured to China with promise of jobs--just like Slavic women are lured to Israel under false pretense--but were then turned into sexual slaves who had to put out to Japanese soldiers all night and day. The history of interracism sure was bright and wonderful.

Now, I don't wish to come to the fallacious conclusion that because the history of interracism has been violent and sordid, every case of interracism is of that nature. Many individuals sincerely fell in love with members of other races/nations/religions/ethnic groups and found true love and bliss. I'm not one to tell who should marry whom--though interracism on a large scale will always compromise the racial-and-cultural integrity of a people. And even though a new social order may have been created via violent and oppressive use of interracism, the new population eventually come to some kind of accommodation. Whatever one may say about the history of Mexico--and it's very bloody one--, most Mexicans of mixed racial heritage today just go on with their lives.

But then, we must be careful not to apply the same kind of fallacy to racial purism. Just because Nazism was an especially evil case of racial purism doesn't mean that all forms of racial purism or racial consciousness are evil or 'hateful'. Just like there's free interracism(of individual freedom) as opposed to violent/forced interracism, there's racial purism or intraracism--racial sexualism within the race--that doesn't deny OTHER peoples the right to the preservation of their own cultures and nations. Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations on Earth, but it has also been one of the least aggressive. Except for Hideoyoshi's attempts in the late 16th century and modern Japan's invasion of Asia--enabled and encouraged by European powers, one might add--, the racially pure Japanese have been content to mind their own business. It was not Japan that invaded India, the New World--north or south--, Greece, Africa, and etc.  The interracist Spanish, Portuguese, Arabs, Moors, French, Turks, and Mongols did far more conquering than the Japanese ever did.

Also, intra-racism was the impetus behind many national liberation struggles. Why did the Third World rise up against Western Imperialism? Because most non-white nations wanted self-rule. Indians wanted to rule over Indians, and  Indians wanted to be ruled by Indians. They wanted the British to go back home. Vietnamese wanted to rule over Vietnamese, and Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by Vietnamese. They didn't want to be ruled by the interracist French. Algerians wanted to rule over Algerians, and Algerians wanted to be ruled by Algerians. They too didn't care for the interracist French who insisted that France and Algeria were one nation and one people. Algerians did not wanted to be ruled by foreigners even if the foreigners were willing to 'make love' to them.

Many 'progressives' criticize the Vietnamese for their discrimination against 'Amerasians', but to many Vietnamese, such children are the racial-sexual products of interracism of Western imperialism. Indeed, racial purism or intra-racism has generally been defensive than offensive. If Bolivian Indians at the time of the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors had expressed a wish for racial purity and self-rule, would they have been 'evil' and 'Nazi-like'?  Only according to the logic of Political Correctness--but then PC generally only attacks the white race for harboring intra-racist feelings. This is really a Judeo-centric view for it's the Jews who have most to lose if white Europeans and white Americans were to realize the worth of preserving their own races and cultures and stood up to venality of Jewish Supremacism.

Nazi racial policies became dangerous only when they were exported outside Germany. Within German lands, Nazi ideology did much good as it encouraged a sense of national unity, national health, national purpose, and national pride. Why shouldn't Germans be into German blood and soil, German 'race', German culture? The real problem of Nazism was less the emphasis on racial purity than the ambition for grabbing more land(populated by huge numbers of civilized peoples; it's one thing to grab mostly barren lands but quite another to invade heavily populated civilizations; the Anglo conquests of Australia and North America were doable since the territories were vast and sparsely populated; Russians were able to secure control over vast Siberia because despite its great size, the entire population was less than ten million. But it was another thing when Germans tried to conquer Russia or when Japanese tried to conquer China.) German purity in Germany was not a problem. But German purity in non-German lands was a violation of the idea of nationalism. But would it have been much better if Nazi Germans had been interracists like Japanese and Spanish? The reason why Nazi soldiers generally didn't commit mass rape--like Japanese did in Nanking--was because the ideal of racial purity demanded that German soldiers not mix with non-'Aryans'. If Hitler had been more like Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, he might have ordered his men to rape a whole bunch of Russian women and Polish women in the name of 'interracism'. I don't see how that would have been any more civilized. Indeed, whatever one can say about Anglo-American slavery, it led to less rape of black and brown women than in Latin America. Anglos and Anglo-Americans may have been racially more arrogant, but it also meant mostly leaving non-whites alone sexually.

There was nothing wrong with Japan's belief in their racial uniqueness as long as the Japanese minded their own business and didn't invade other nations. If intra-racism leads to 'evil conquest and oppression', how come Japanese didn't go to Africa and bring millions of black slaves to Japan? It was the interracist Portuguese who brought millions of blacks to Brazil. Should Japanese have been happily interracist and welcomed the Spanish and Portugal to do to Japan what  had been done in the New World? Rape millions of Japanese women and create a mestizo race of European and Asian blood? I guess the Japanese were too 'evil and racist' to accept such a wonderful bargain. I mean interracist Peru and Bolivia are wonderful nations whereas intra-racist Japan today is a basketcase nation of no hope & progress.

And let us condemn all those Tibetan intra-racists who want to be rid of Han Chinese interracists who want to mix the races and make every inch of Tibet into part of the Han empire. You see, the wonderfully 'progressive' Chinese wanna be one with the Tibetans, but Tibetans insist on their own blood, their own soil, their own language and culture, their own religion, and their own power. What a bunch of Nazis! We must stop Tibetan intra-racism because if we allow it to grow, it will invade Poland any time soon, and then Russia. It might even go about killing six million Jews!