The Virtue of Choosing Something Lesser than Oneself than Greater than Yourself — Why Jews, with their Contradiction of Fanatical Tribalism, are Unfit to be Imperialists — Hubris of Richard Spencer and Matt Heimbach in the Fall of the Alt Right

John McCain the 'War Hero' who called on Americans to serve something greater-than-oneself. In his case, it was serving the Uber-Tribal-Ideology of Zionist-Jewish Imperialism.

We’ve all heard from politicians and teachers that we shouldn’t be so self-absorbed and individualistic. We should live and struggle for something ‘greater than ourselves’. John McCain said as much in the 2008 campaign. Of course, ‘greater than yourself’ doesn’t necessarily mean something grand, awesome, and powerful. It doesn’t mean you have to be part of History with Capital ‘H’. It doesn’t mean you must be associated with Important People, Macro Trends, and Geo-Politics. It could actually be humble, about doing good work for little people who need it most. After all, Christian missionary work where people from the West(and now East) go to poorer parts of the world to spread the Gospel and improve lives has been regarded as doing God’s work, and what work can be greater than that to a Christian? And Peace Corp. that started with the Kennedy Administration was about bringing American Know-How to the underdeveloped Third World.
And yet, words matter in shaping our thought processes, and the term ‘Greater than Oneself’ has had a corrupting influence on people. Indeed, we can start with John McCain himself. So, what did McCain mean by working for something ‘greater than himself’? It was all about shucking for Wall Street and shilling for all-powerful Jews. Even McCain’s faux-compassion for illegals from Mexico and Central America was under the directive of Wall Street, Globalist Elites, and Jewish Power. After all, if McCain was concerned about suffering non-whites, why was he blind to the disasters wrought upon the Muslim World by Jewish Power, esp. that of the Neocons? Why was he reliably silent about Zionist oppression of Palestinians? In practice, what McCain meant by ‘greater than oneself’ was serving the biggest power(that in his lifetime became Jewish and Zionist) and participating in Big History. Of course, McCain and others like him spouted the usual talking points about ‘human rights’, ‘spreading democracy’, and ‘fighting terrorism’ — to give the impression that their political lives were devoted for the Greater Good of all Mankind — , but his main attraction to politics was about being where the Power is at.

Words matter, and when most people hear invocations of ‘greater than oneself’, they don’t think of good works or good deeds but being part of Greater History. Because History, as the conflicts and tensions on a world scale, is generally moved by the Powerful(who tend to be amoral, heartless, opportunistic, cynical, ruthless, cunning, fanatical, and/or unscrupulous), those who take part in Big History will rarely be working for the good of mankind. Rather, they will be working for the aggrandizement of the super-elites. Things are especially worse when the Great Power happens to be both intensely tribal and maniacally imperialist. If a people choose to be tribal, they should stick to nationalism: Our people, our nation, our culture. If they choose to embark on the imperial project, they need to rise above narrow tribalism and try to meet other peoples at least halfway. The reason why the British and Christian Europeans made such successful imperialists was they gave as well as took. While they could be ruthless, cruel, and greedy(and committed innumerable horrors like all other empires), they could also show genuine respect for other peoples and cultures. And they were willing to share their God with other folks via conversion. One might say Christianization of the natives was a form of ‘cultural genocide’, and there’s some validity to that claim, but it also demonstrated that white Christians were willing to regard even their subjects as fellow children of God. In contrast, Jews, like German Nazis, make awful imperialists. Jews with their current mentality, like Germans of the National Socialist period, should really just stick to nationalism. They are too tribal to ‘rule the world’. German Nazi-Imperialism became especially brutal, murderous, and insane in areas where the inhabitants, such as Russian Slavs, were barely regarded as members of the human species. There was no possibility of meeting the natives halfway. The Nazi German attitude was one of total superiority over inferiority. It could easily become a blueprint for mass-genocide or mass-enslavement.

Imperialism has partially justified itself across the span of history as a liberating or uniting force. Napoleon was an imperialist leader but spread French concept of freedom and liberty to other Europeans. Indeed, had Napoleon prevailed over Russia, Russian people would have been freer as individuals even if their nation was under French domination. Same was true of Chinese in Hong Kong under British rule. It was clearly a case of imperialism but an enlightened one. So, even though the empire's days were numbered, there was appreciation as well as resentment.
Imperial subjects may find domination by foreigners tolerable and even welcome(to some degree) IF there’s a compensatory gain over the loss of national-tribal autonomy. (In a sense, the inner-logic of immigration is like imperialism. So many people choose to come to America, abandon their own land-people-cultures, switch loyalty to a new nation[even at the risk it may attack and destroy the homeland of immigrants], and follow new narratives & worship new icons IN EXCHANGE for better material lives and more personal liberty. Muslims come to the US and have better material lives but pay taxes to support Wars for Israel that kill Muslims by the bushel. And in turn, white Americans accept demographic replacement on account of its economic benefits. There is give-and-take in both imperialism and immigration... at least until the balance is lost as in the case of Palestine where Jewish arrivals totally took over and expelled the great majority of Palestinians.) This is especially so IF the national leadership has traditionally been corrupt or tyrannical. This was part of the reason why not all Frenchmen were dispirited by the German invasion and occupation of France. Incredible as it may seem to many today, there were plenty of Frenchmen who believed that France was under leftist-Jewish-socialist domination in the 1930s and that the German invasion, though regrettable, at the very least removed Jews and the Left from seats of power. Such sentiments were possible in France because the Germans respected the French and treated them rather nicely. But such feelings were impossible in much of Poland and especially Russia where Germans invaded as exterminators and/or slavers. Even Russians who detested Stalin and Communism soon realized that German Victory would be even worse. So, if the imperialist power isn’t willing to meet the conquered & subjugated halfway with concessions that sweeten the humiliation of defeat, it’d be better for everyone if the invading power just stayed home and stuck to nationalism. If Hitler had invaded Russia with a Napoleonic outlook(as an Enlightened and Tolerant Tyrant), he might have won over more Slavs to his side; they might have thought, "It’s better to have humane treatment under foreign domination than inhuman treatment under national rule." (To be sure, Stalin and many Bolshevik rulers weren’t Russian.) But Germans invaded to take everything while giving nothing. For Russians, the options were resist, win, and survive OR surrender, lose, and die. As Germans attacked only with the stick and no carrot, Russians had no choice.

Nazi German Invasion of Soviet Union. A Total War of Zero-Sum stakes.

When we look at Jewish Power in the current world, it is obvious that they, rather like the Nazi Germans and, to a lesser degree, the Japanese Imperialists, is unfit to be imperialist mode. Anglo-Americans, for all their faults and hypocrisies, made better imperialists because they had a modicum of honor and sense of shared humanity. Despite Anglo-America’s racial views of superiority and culturally arrogant attitude, its vision of humanity was tempered by Christianity that taught all peoples are God’s children. Also, the Anglo tendency to suppress its own tribal peculiarities to arrive at a more 'generic' vision of law and order served as a useful template for imperialism and immigration -- the downside, in the long-run, was a cultural anemia that, lacking in vital tribal blood cells, lost out to the virile semen-and-blood Jewish Power fueled by Portnoia and dong-and-booty-call of Negroes who are worshiped as the Sun people by white Brits who consider themselves the frigid Ice People who'd be lost without Afro-Warmth.
So, even though Anglo-Americans could be just as ruthless and bloody in war, they tended to seek common ground and offer compensation once hostilities were over. When the time came to bury the hatchet, it was buried, and sincere efforts were made to forge a new future based on better relations. Anglo-Americans did have a sense of something greater than their identity and tribe. As a world power, they understood they had certain obligations to the rest of humanity. Such bigness of vision(and even heart) is sorely lacking among Jews. This is why Jews are just fine among themselves and in taking care of their own problems, but they are miserable and miserly when dealing with other peoples, the filthy goyim. In that regard, Jews only think in terms of "Is it good for Jews?" and nothing else. Because of the cultural and historical habit of Jewishness, a supremacist mind-set that says God favored Jews over goyim whom some Jews regard as hardly better than cattle, Jews hardly think of the higher, greater, or common good when they deal with others. Even secular modern Jews retain this habit of mind, even if only subconsciously. Just ask the Palestinians. Just ask the Russians who were fleeced by Jews in the 90s. Just ask the global victims of Jewish finance.

Chechen Bad Boys

Now, there are plenty of cutthroat peoples and tribes around the world that are just as nasty, vile, and vicious as the Jews, but Jews are far more dangerous because they (1) are smarter (2) more aggressive (3) more seasoned in manipulating and cheating others (4) adept at cooking up moral or spiritual excuses for their perfidy (5) play the eternal victim to shield their evil deeds and (6) make universal claims despite serving narrow tribal interests. Jewish actions put shame to their claim. When Gandhi heard of ‘Western Civilization’, he sardonically remarked it’s a good idea. He meant Western Imperialists talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk of enlightenment. But European Imperialists, for the most part, were angels compared to Jewish Imperialists who really care for NOTHING but their own power and privilege. Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if Chechens are just as nasty and mendacious as the Jews, but they will never amount to anything more than gangsters, thugs, and ragtag terrorists. In contrast, Jews have made it as professors, lawyers, historians, judges, bankers, oligarchs, and deep state operators. Jews are sharks, Chechens are piranhas. Jews control the oceans while Chechens are stuck in their ponds. Both Jews and Chechens wouldn’t be problematic if they stuck to their territories and own kind. Because they are so intensely tribal, both are unfit for imperialism and foreign ventures. Chechens have spread out over parts of Russia to expand their empire of crime, and they are loathed and detested by non-Chechens of all stripes. Still, because Chechens are only good at criminality and mainly stuck in the Russian territories, they mean nothing to the world. In contrast, Jews have had the means the take over the elite institutions and industries of America, and that automatically catapulted them as the Imperial Rulers of the World. Jews prize and savor their role as the New Caesars, but they simply don’t have the perspective and attitude necessary to be good Imperial Rulers. Indeed, compare French and the Algerians, British and the Irish(or Scotch), and Jews and the Palestinians. If Algeria and Ireland had come under Jewish control, things would have been much worse for the natives. In the end, the Algerians were able to regain their land(and then some, as the French allowed Algerian immigration to France itself), and the Irish were able to reclaim their nation. But look at the plight of Palestinians. Jews are not satisfied with Israel that was established over much of historic Palestine. They must also take West Bank which is being swallowed up piece by piece, taken inch by inch. (Compare what whites were willing to sacrifice in South Africa with what Jews did to Palestinians.)
Worse, Jews not only disgraced themselves with their foul form of Judeo-globo Imperialism but corrupted Anglo-Americans as well. As top dogs, Anglo-Americans could be a force for both good and bad. They were willing to do much bad to gain hegemony and domination, but they were willing to offer much that was good to make amends. But now, as underdogs of Jews, Anglo-American elites are mindless and worthless cuck-dogs of Jewish Power that they pretend is noble for all time because of the Shoah, an event that had NOTHING to do with most of humanity. Deep in their hearts, Anglo-American cuck elites may well know that Jews are foul cretins, but they repress such dire truth because it would mean (1) they relinquished their power to a bunch of a**holes, (2) they were stupid enough to be fooled by Jews ideologically & morally, and (3) they’re a craven and cowardly bunch of running dogs to the Tribe. Fish rots from the head, and a dog is only as good as its master. With rotten Jewish BUGS(busy urban globalist Semites)at the helm, WASP cuck elites are merely their servile dogs.
Ireland, over centuries of British rule, underwent many hardships but wasn’t wiped off the map. Even Scotland, a territorial part of Britain, was allowed to remain Scottish. But now, both Ireland and Great Britain are under Jewish globo-homo imperialism and are being demographically and culturally replaced by Homomania, Diversity, and Afro-Worship. Why are the Irish and British masses so blind to what is happening? It’s because the Jewish Empire remains invisible. Wherever the British or the French went, they displayed their symbols in pageantry and declared their dominance over others. So, at the very least, imperial subjects knew they were being ruled by a foreign power, and this consciousness eventually led to resistance. But because Jewish Power operates through a Stealth Empire that isn’t detected by the Media Radar(that is also Jewish-controlled), many Brits and Irish still don’t know their nations are colonies of the Empire of Judea. Also, because Jews work stealthily to indoctrinate elite British and Irish minds through control of World Academia centered in the US — universities all around the world take cues from what comes out of Harvard, Yale, and other Ivies that also train many world scholars — , it creates the impression that British and Irish masses are being instructed by their own British and Irish scholars when, in fact, those scholars are mental puppets of Jewish scholar-agents of the Empire. So, even though Jews pushed Diversity, Afro-Worship, and Homomania to destroy Ireland and Britain, so many Irish and Brits think those are their own values and principles conceived by themselves. As for Irish and British elites who DO KNOW that Jews control the world, they can be bought off to collaborate and comply with generous bribes and sinecures. In the US, Joe Biden is no dummy and knows that Jews control everything, but notice how he goes out of his way to scrape the Jewish anus with this tongue to get his goodies.

Another factor that may redeem imperialism is if it acts in the common good of humanity. Whatever one may say of Christianity, Islam, and Communism, they did offer mankind a shared vision of equal justice under God or History. All those who converted to Christianity were part of the brotherhood and sisterhood. All those who became Muslim were the beloved of Allah. And communism was about comradeship among workers of the world. So, even though Christian, Muslim, and Communist Imperialists committed lots of atrocities, their ultimate message was about uniting all humanity under the banner of shared humanity and theory of justice. And this is why Napoleon was a much idealized and romanticized figure even among subject peoples of French Imperialism. His rule wasn’t simply about French aggression and domination but about a New Order in which the average person, regardless of identity, would have more rights, liberties, and protections. And in their own way, Anglo-Americans believed that the world could become a better place under Pax Americana that would ensure the flow of goods, liberty, and know-how to all the world. They were willing to take but also offer. It’s like what Merlin tells Uther in the opening of EXCALIBUR. "He(the Duke of Cornwall) has given, now you must." Cornwall is willing to yield to Uther’s authority but expects compromise. Uther, proud and rash, isn’t about to give an inch, but wise Merlin urges him to do so as a king must be magnanimous and make friends as well as enemies.

Jews take and take but cannot give. And even when they give, it is in the way of a hustler, merely preparing for the day when they can grab it all for themselves. Jews are about hustle than honor. Just ask the Palestinians who were assured that Jewish immigration would lead to economic opportunities and NOT lead to their demographic demise. Pure hustle. Given there are so many non-criminal Jews in law, academia, history, arts, criticism, government, and etc, you’d think they would be above con-man gangster mentality, but they aren't. Because of their essentially hostile & neurotic personality and tribal & merchant mentality, even Jews who are respectable professionals than crooks, cheats, con-men, or gangsters think more like the latter. They don’t think straight; instead, they twist logic and meaning to get their way. Everything is a pretzel logic with these people. This is surely the product of two opposing modes of Jewish behavior throughout the ages: (1) Maintaining tribal identity and superiority at all costs (2) Gaining universal domination by money, diplomacy, and ideology. One part of Jewishness is intensely tribal & hermetic and another part of Jewishness is obsessively universal & expansive. Usually, when a people try to become a world power, they need to reformulate their identity to be more encompassing of the Other, as with the Romans. But Jews are obsessed with their identity rooted in the Covenant. The Covenant says they are the blessed of God who, furthermore, willed them to rule all the world. (Christianity as formulated by Apostle Paul offered a compromise where both Jews and Gentiles could be brothers and sisters, but Jews said NO. And Jewish Diaspora after the Exile made them see the larger world and want to have it all while maintaining their zealous identity of superiority and particularity.) Because of the great contradiction between Jewish tribalism and expansionism, perhaps kind of psychological con-game trick plays out in the Jewish mind to resolve the problem. Of course, it cannot be resolved, so the Jewish Mind constantly comes up with warped rationales as to why Jews must remain Jewish and why Jews must dominate the world. The contradiction has gotten even worse in the aftermath of World War II because Jews now define themselves as both the most victimized & helpless people AND the most awesome & fearsome people. Arrogant Jews bask in their great power with nasty Netanyahu and Alan Dershowitz leading the way. But Jews also insist on being perceived forever as the poor hapless Holocaust People. When a people who insist on their close-knit tribalism demand to rule the world and furthermore play victim while ruling as the utmost victors, the world is really in a messed-up situation. Imagine a weasel with the power of a lion pretending to be a mouse. British Imperialists sought to make their subjects serve the glory of Britain, but there was the sense that even non-British were part of the empire, thus shared in the glory and, therefore, were also ‘British’ in a way. (This worked well as an imperialist strategy but is proving to be fatal as a nationalist policy as the Mother Country of Britain is now being invaded and colonized by the World.) But Jews do not seek to share any of their glory with others. It’s all about goyim praising, honoring, and worshiping Jewishness while Jews sneer and snicker at others. Consider the relation between Jews and White Evangelicals. The latter praise Jews and worship Israel, but Jews show nothing but contempt for the Bible-Thumpers. If anything, Jews pushed Homomania as the Main Theme of their globo-homo-shlomo imperialism. Unlike Christianity, Islam, Communism, and Liberal Democratic values that emphasized the greater good of the vast majority of mankind, Homomania(or Queertianity) preaches that the vast majority of people who are not homo must worship the Holy Homo minority along with the Sacred Jewish Identity. So, it’s all about Minority Supremacism, and for the great majority, the message is "Get on your knees and suck the Jewish cock and then bend over to take it up the ass by the Homo." How can Jews be trusted when they don’t admit that they are the rulers of the world? If anything, Jews use their great control and power to shut down voices to suppress the fact of their power and control. It’s like a rich man using his riches to shut down people who say he’s rich. It’s like a loud man shouting to silence people who remark that he’s loud and obnoxious. Jews are immensely powerful but deny they got the power. Jews treat Palestinians like dirt but expect others to believe that they will be treated any better by Jews. Jewish Chutzpah is incredible. Jews got so much while Palestinians got so little and continue to lose what little they got, BUT the US pours billions of aid into Israel while turning a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians. It’s about sympathy for the rich & tyrannical and antipathy to the poor & helpless. This is how Jews have corrupted the American Mind by purging US politics of ‘Arabists’, foreign policy advisers who urged a more balanced treatment in the Middle East. For Jews, everything has to revolve around them. No longer believing in the one and only God, they made themselves the one and only Power.
Also, Jews make OTHERS pay to make the Jews appear generous. If the British Empire expended its own treasury to maintain its empire, Jews squeeze goyim to pay for all the costs of empire. Jews invoke ‘white privilege’ to make all the world blame whites than Jews for all that goes wrong. Jews milk white teats to provide milk for people of the empire. The Wars for Israel will mainly have to be paid for by the white middle class. White soldiers certainly did most of the killing and dying. We know from 2008 Wall Street fiasco that Jews are ‘too big to fail’. And those who serve Jews, like John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Barack Obama, are rewarded handsomely. But the white middle class must be milked dry to pay for all the mess. Or Jews will just keep printing more money and then shift the blame on China to avoid blame. Jews, who decry ‘antisemitism’, never tire of using the media to scapegoat and smear other peoples such as Russians, Iranians, and Chinese. In the US, the usual scapegoat is usually whites, mostly straight white males, but ‘Beckys’(white females) get it in the neck too. Fussy Jews who always rag and nag whites about everything have the temerity to accuse white women of complaining about bad black behavior(as if blacks are above the law, at least in relation to white goyim, indeed as Jews are). Of course, when blacks act bad in Jewish neighborhoods, Jews use stop-and-frisk to have them patted down and/or arrested. Generally, Jews ignore and even suppress all news of black-on-white violence and only highly black criminality as a problem when Jews are attacked. For the longest time, Jews said the Knockout Game is fake news, that is until blacks began to knock down Jewish men, in which case it was big news in NY.

Jewish spread of Globo-Homo around the world as agent-collaborators of the Zio-Empire

Anyway, perhaps what is best for many on the Dissident Right, Alt Right, and Left-Right(my brand of National-Humanist Neo-Fascism) is to think of serving something ‘lesser than oneself’. Now, there are plenty of people all over America and the World who devote their lives(or some time of their lives) to aiding, serving, and guiding those are less fortunate, less talented, and less able. And of course, the teaching profession is about adults who know more passing knowledge to youth who know little, though to be sure, today’s educators are more like re-educators of PC Dogma. Under Jewish control, schools have become more like reeducation centers than educational institutions. Why? Because Jews are no longer climbing the rungs of power but at the very top. When Wasps used to rule, Jews valued free speech as a means to speak honestly and forthrightly about the failings of Anglo-American elites. In any system, honest and free criticism will hit the Power the hardest as people tend to notice and blame those who have the most power. But now that Jews have the most power and want to keep it, they fear critical thought, honesty, and courage as the hallmarks of education because honest, fearless, and critical voices will target the most powerful.

Matt Heimbach the Fat Fuhrer of the Malt Right

The fact that words matter can be seen in the decline of the Alt Right. While Jewish Power had much to do with it, the blame must fall on its ‘leaders’ and ‘spokesmen’ as well. People on the Alt Right claimed to be for something bigger and greater than themselves. They spoke about how it’s not enough to be an atomized consumer or deracinated individual. One must live for something bigger, greater, and grander. But such terminology corrupted the Alt Right just as much it did guys like John McCain. The Alt Right forsook the element of humility and got wrapped up with hubris. Just like John McCain pontificated about the nobility of serving the larger humanity than one’s own ego but actually spent his entire career serving the biggest oligarchs and warmongers, the movers and shakers of History, so many on the Alt Right spoke about caring for fellow white folks but spent an inordinate time waxing romantic(or idiotic) about how they are like the new invincible ubermensch who can shake thunder out of clouds to create the Fourth Reich. Consider the gross shithead Matt Heimbach. As leader of the Traditional Workers Party that claimed to care for working class Americans and their problems of unemployment and substance abuse, he could have done much good. In other words, he would have done best to work in the mode of living for those lesser-than-oneself. Less educated and less well-off in every way. After all, while it’s pointless to help those who are richer, more fortunate, and more intelligent, anyone can make himself useful by helping and guiding the less fortunate. A one-eyed man is of no use to a two-eyed man, but he can lead an army of no-eyed blind people. A one-armed man can do something for a no-armed man. A third-rate doctor is of no use in a rich part of town with many first-rate doctors, but he will be invaluable in a poor part of town with no doctors. Thus, by seeking out those who are lesser-than-oneself, one can find meaning in life. As the path to power is shut off to the Dissident Right for the time being, many in the Alt Right could have gained moral and spiritual credit by demonstrating their usefulness to people who are without meaning, hope, or direction. And you’d think that was what Matt Heimbach was about as the leader of a Working Class Party. But like Richard Spencer and others, he was so full of himself. Serving something greater-than-oneself meant playing the game of History(even though he was no in position to be playing any such game). So, he made himself out to be Fat Fuhrer and promoting Neo-Nazism because, apparently, being a 'humble' helper to the less fortunate wasn’t fun, exciting, and thrilling enough for his big fat ego. And he had to be a ‘rock star’ among his White Power community. Being faithful to his wife wasn’t good enough. He had to hump other women, including the wife of his father-in-law Matt Parrott in pure Jerry-Springer 'white trash' style.
Richard Spencer was seen as an elite leader of the Alt Right, corralling its intellectuals, while Heimbach was regarded as the leader of the lumpen-whites, but what they both had in common was egotism and narcissism over the needs of the people. Contrary to Spencer’s Faustian fantasies, most white people were, are, and always will be just average people with modest goals in life. Spencer’s haughty egotism made it impossible for him to touch base with most whites — as he’s too busy communing with gods in heaven such as Batman, 007, and Darth Vader — , just like horny alpha-male-ism made a total mess of his married life. Being closer to regular folks, one would think Heimbach would have avoided such pratfall, but nope. Deep down inside, he’s just another egotist. He was using the theme of White Working Class and their problems to play out his fantasy of being Fat Fuhrer of the Fourth Reich in the form of beerbelly ‘white trash’ America. He wanted to be king of Malt Right.

For so many people, from John McCain to Richard Spencer to Matt Heimbach, the meaning of serving something greater-than-oneself got perverted to mean something awesome, powerful, grandiose, megalomaniacal, and etc. They forgot that greater-than-oneself means serving a certain GOOD. In the end, it’s not about serving one’s own ego or serving(or seeking) the Power. It’s about making oneself useful to those who need the help. But, via such good work, one can gain genuine appreciation, admiration, and respect that can be traded for glory and power. Of course, ‘doing good work’ is exploited for that very reason by the vain elites. Consider all those brats of rich parents who take up ‘good works’ just to fill up their college applications with ‘holistic’ credentials so that they may be accepted to Ivy League schools whereupon their lives will hopefully be smooth sailing to the bastions of power and privilege. People like Spencer grew up too spoiled, privileged, conceited, and snotty to ever roll up their sleeves to touch base with regular people. When he talks about living for something greater-than-himself, he means touching base with pagan gods of heaven who shall hand him the world on a silver platter upon a Faustian Pact. Too many Alt Right guys have hipster than humanist disposition and, as such, lack the humility to really go among the people and offer them anything. And Heimbach has been a perfect example of this. He couldn’t put away the stupid neo-Nazi paraphernalia and get down to serious work. He preferred to play fatso Leonidas of the movie 300, looking for more tussles with Antifa to make himself out to be Butterbean of the Alt Right.
Like so many SJW or NPC types, too many Alt Right guys grew up on Pop Culture fantasies, which, when mixed with Euro-pagan mythicism(related in some cases with Nazi symbolics), becomes like a drug, not unlike meth or crack, that sends young people, especially the men, into paroxysms of egotism, delusions of grandeur, and megalomania. It wasn’t enough for Eli Mosely to fight for his people. He had to inflate his resume with bogus war record. It wasn’t enough for Kyle Bristow to diligently work to defend free speech rights for White Nationalists. He had to torch his ego to the point of self-immolation. If guys like Spencer possessed more maturity, experience, and character, they might have had a sobering and corrective influence on other members.

But fish rots from the head, and when the self-appointed and media-anointed leader of the movement thinks it will all be very fun to play combo of 007, Batman, and Hitler in his role as the leading light of the movement, the result was predictable: Drunkenness, Drug Abuse, Adultery, Disloyalty, Hubris, Recklessness, Delusions of Grandeur, and etc. It’s all the more ironic because Spencer has been saying the world is really all about power, power, and power. If he really believes that, why did he think the Jewish Globo-Homo Power would stick to principles and higher values in dealing with his ilk? Spencer got the Spencerowicz treatment by the Jewish Masters who rule America. And as if he learned nothing from the fiasco, the moron goes on Youtube and says he believes in White Domination of all the world, thus revealing himself to be, indeed, a white supremacist. He could have been a defender of nationalism or national liberation from Jewish supremacist hegemony, but his ultimate message is he wants to replace Jewish Neocon Imperialism with Anglo-White one. THIS in the 21st century when the world has been much transformed by so many factors.

Words matter and, in living for what is ‘lesser than oneself’, people(especially on the Dissident Right) might find some true meaning and do some real good in the world. Sadly, the notion of serving something ‘greater than oneself’ came to mean, in too many cases, serving one’s inflated ego or the movers-and-shakers of History. If John McCain had sincerely taken the role of speaking up for the unspoken and unrepresented, he might have been a good man, the true basis of greatness. After all, he experienced Vietnam War first hand. He was a pilot who dropped bombs and killed people; he was also a POW who suffered much deprivation and humiliation. So, he saw the war from both sides: As warrior and as captive of the enemy. He experienced the tragedy of war. So, he could have stood against further wars. In other words, No More Vietnams. Furthermore, he should have known that Vietnam set a dangerous precedent and template for future problems. Not only did the war lead to death and destruction on a grand scale but it led to a refugee crisis that compelled the US to take in tons of Viets and Laotians who’d been promised protection by the Americans. Since Vietnam, US involvements in new wars have led to more refugees, a problem for not only the US but its EU puppets. In the end, the other aspect of the Vietnam War — the ensuing refugee problem — should be the main argument against US involvement in the world. Called ‘Invade-Invite’ by Ilana Mercer and Steve Sailer, it’s been an oft-repeated pattern since the end of the Cold War when the US stomped its boots on Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and etc. And US meddling in Latin America led to (mostly disingenuous)justification for Brown Caravans on the premise that US intervention messed up those nations. Invade-Invite might more accurately be called Wreck-Rescue or Bomb-Come.
Anyway, how sad that John McCain, who was once regarded as a conscientious and thoughtful moderate, turned into a vicious and nasty warmonger. When he revisited Vietnam in a diplomatic mission, he was admired as a peacemaker with the message that even once-bitter enemies can bury the hatchet and get along in the world. That is the true meaning of ‘serving something greater than oneself’. But it wasn’t long before greater-than-oneself became just another egotistical involvement of oneself in History, and of course, war-making is most exciting to people in the game. But then, McCain, never a smart guy, might have been duped in part by Jews who were clever enough to fervently moralize whatever they do(even though their motives were always tribal, supremacist, gangster-like, and ethno-mercantile). "The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." With their power of media & over whore politicians and their collective personality as tribal-gangsters — notice that most Jewish law professors with prestigious degrees think and talk more like gangsters, goons, and thugs than principles scholars — , they wrap all their vile doings and dealing with pseudo-moral blanket. And naturally, a dummy like John McCain fell for so many Jewish Narratives and BS, not least because he felt so flattered to be doted by Jews, the self-promoted and self-aggrandized Holy Holocaust People.

Given the power of words to corrupt meaning and be misinterpreted, maybe it’s better to be more blunt and straightforward. We should say we should live for something that is lesser-than-ourselves. And in a way, this is how much of the world works. A doctor treats people who lack medical knowledge. An auto mechanic fixes cars of those who know nothing about cars. A chef prepares meals for those without culinary skills. So, professions are about providing services for those with lesser talent or knowledge in certain areas of expertise. But most people provide service and instruction to the ‘lessers’ for money and self-interest. It’s about economics, not virtue or good work.
But what if people in the Alt Right, Dissident Right, and Left-Right took it upon themselves to serve the ‘lessers’ out of racial, cultural, and moral consciousness? In this big wide world, there are always people who are lesser than you. Even for a man of 100 IQ, there are many with lower IQ. Even for people with limited skills, there are those with less skills and less ability. Even for people with problems, there are those with bigger problems. And now, so many white people are without guidance, leadership, and representation as most white elites(in government and business) are all about serving Jews, Diversity, Homos, and Blacks. Even "It’s Okay to be White" is investigated as a 'hate symbol' by media and state controlled by vicious, murderous, thuggish, supremacist, and hateful Jews. When so many white people are without representation, it is about time for people on the Right to touch base and reconnect. In the 60s, there was the hippie stuff about ‘touching Indians’, but that was silly and flaky. But there is a real need to touch base with the suffering white masses, the forgotten people. Mythic grandeur is a part of any people and culture, but so is humanism and humility. Those who are overfed on myth end up like Nazis and Japanese Imperialists. Or like Spencer and Crew who acted as though some divine pagan force was on their side as they played fire with Jewish Supremacist Power that crushed them like IDF death squads regularly crush Palestinians. Things might have been different if Spencer was humbler and humanist. He could have said Alt Right is like a white counterpart of the Palestinian struggle for National Liberation. Liberation from what? From Jewish Supremacism. Thus, Jewish Power would have been placed on the moral defensive. But he said Alt Right is like white Zionism, and the implication was that Spencer simply wants his kind to replace Jews as world hegemonists. Spencer could have shamed Anglo-cucks for sucking up to Jewish Supremacism and gained moral high ground. Instead, he presented himself as a white supremacist alternative to Jewish supremacism. Given that Jews are associated with victimization in the Holocaust while the slightest whiff of white supremacism is associated with the burden of the Holocaust, it was a dumb move on Spencer's part.

For the weak, morality is the best weapon. Blacks understood this in the 50s. Jews understood this when they lacked dominant power in the US. But so full of delusions of grandeur and inflated pride, the likes of Spencer could not admit that whites are now an occupied and defeated people who, like Third World resistant-fighters, must learn to push back against the empire. Spencer is simply miffed that the empire is controlled by Jews. He’s fully into supremacism and imperialism.
With his head up in the clouds of Grand History, he failed on all counts. He failed in his reach for the top because Jews above him just kicked him down the ladder. But more importantly, he had no defenders among the white masses because he never touched base with them and instead spent all his time partying with drunken buddies, whoring around, and strutting like god-king-chief of the Alt Right. But having been raised in a bourgeois-aristocratic world with all the privileges, Spencer feels a fundamental distaste and disregard for the hoi polloi.

Serving that which is lesser-than-oneself has benefits, both moral and strategic. Obviously, people who are ‘less’ need more care and attention than those who have ‘more’. Generally, people want to rise high as possible and rub shoulders with superiors while snubbing inferiors. This is due to the naturally hierarchical side of us. It’s like men prefer pretty girls over plain ones, and women prefer handsome men over ugly ones. People want to attend good colleges and live in nice neighborhoods. Such attitude has many positives. It fuels motivation, ambition, and competition. But the end result over time is that many people not only get left behind but are held in contempt as ‘losers’. In current US, the libertarian wing of American Conservatism regards white working class as ‘white trash’, a people to be disposed of by the Garbage Truck of History. And the new so-called ‘leftism’ is all about favoring rich, vain, and privileged homos while having near-zero concern for the lower classes(except as useful helots to be drugged to death with opioids or replaced by foreigners as New Americans). This is why capitalism has to be tempered, and it once was by the power of Christianity. Judaism has a tempering impact on capitalism but only among Jews. It informs rich Jews to care about other Jews, but it says NOTHING about how Jews owe something to goyim who are regarded as sheep, cattle, or dogs by the Tribe. And even the Alt Right, with its hubris and myth-mania, had little to say about regular white people and just went off on too many silly quasi-hipster tangents or playing fuhrer. Alt Right neglected the morally worthy mission of connecting with white people across America and speaking for them. It could have created connections among small towns that dot the landscape of America via the internet. It could have raised consciousness and argued for a healthy and moral living. But how could such be possible when the very leaders of Alt Right were into hedonism, drugs, alcohol abuse, childish antics, infantilism, dumb haircuts, and obsession with Pop Culture?
It’s all very well for a movement to have an elite vanguard, and Greg Johnson with Counter-Currents at least has maintained that. But Spencer failed even in that regard, filling up his altright.com site with mostly tripe. But in order for a movement to resonate with the masses, it has to convey a message and speak in a tone that is directly appealing to them. This was true of communism. Most communists never read DAS KAPITAL but they understood the Bolshevik appeal in its call for Land, Peace, and Bread... just like many illiterate Jews of the Exodus understood what was meant by Land of Milk and Honey.

By connecting with the people, touching base, and creating a white people network via the internet through all the towns in 50 states, something new is possible. On the moral level, it is simply good because doing good is its own reward. If the Power snubs and denies you, go among the powerless. That’s what Jesus and Mao did. Jesus preached to the regular folks. Mao went to the countryside and built his base among the peasants who made up 90% of the population. But aside moral considerations, it is also strategically wise because you will have wind behind your back. If Spencer had formed a mass following, he would have been defended from below as he was kicked from the top. But at the bottom, there was no one to hold out a blanket to soften his fall. He fell hard because even ‘lesser’ whites came to regard him as a conceited and snotty rich boy playing hipster-fuhrer.
And apart from his small cult following, Heimbach got nowhere because most whites were put off by his Fat Fuhrer antics. This is why Alt Right is mostly finished. The ONLY way forth is the Left-Right. By the ‘left’, I mean the real and true left that is concerned with the masses and regular folks(who are being left behind by New Globo-Turbo-Capitalism that favors only the elites). Rightism has to be tempered and balanced by leftism, and vice versa. This is the nationalist and humanist version of Neo-Fascism. Fascism can do so much good and so much evil. It’s like fire. It all depends on how you wish to use it. Fascism was the most honest theory and vision of power in the 20th century, but it destroyed itself with hubris and pathology. A Neo-Fascism must learn from past mistakes, but the Alt Right failed to learn any though it had an ample chance to do so.

Why does Jewish Power that slaughters Countless Muslims clamp down on Jewish Voices against Islam? The age-old Imperialist Paradox.

https://lauraloomer.us/2019/05/02/i-am-now-the-most-banned-woman-in-the-world/

Many of you surely noticed something strange happening. Jewish Power is clamping down on certain anti-Muslim Jewish voices. It seems odd because Jewish Power is hellbent on supporting Zionism(that continues to occupy Palestinian lands and oppress Palestinian people) and spreading Wars for Israel that, by some estimates, have killed anywhere from 500,000 to a million people since the Iraq Invasion. And the sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton years is said to have killed 100,000s of children. And sanctions against Iran goes on and on, crippling the lives of millions. Barack Obama went easier on Iran but destroyed Libya and Syria. Donald Trump is going a bit easier on Syria but is out to destroy Iran. What do Obama and Trump have in common? They are beholden to Jews. Iran, as you know, is a MUSLIM nation like many other nations targeted and destroyed by Jewish Power.

So, one would assume that the neo-genocidal Judeo-Nazis that control the US and globalist hegemony would be delighted by brash loud-talking Jews who openly denounce Islam and vilify(and even defame) Muslims. After all, Hitler couldn’t have been displeased by Germans who said ‘bad shit’ about Russians during Operation Barbarossa. As Germany was committed to wiping Russia off the map, why not encourage anti-Russian sentiments among Germans? Likewise, if Jewish Power is invested in destroying Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, and other mostly Muslim peoples, shouldn’t it be bestowing blessings on the most fervent Jews and Zionists who insult Islam and denigrate Muslims? One would think so, but Jewish Power does the opposite in terms of rhetoric. Why?

Take ADL and SPLC. ADL is an all-out Jewish outfit, and SPLC, like the ACLU, is mostly funded and managed by Jews. They are fully behind Zionism and hostility against Iran. They remain silent about Zionist-controlled US’s Wars in the Middle East and North Africa that have made life miserable for countless Muslims. The top Zionist leadership that cooks up Wars for Israel and other aggressions against Muslims are very close with ADL and SPLC. And of course, Jews control the mass media that they use to promote Hate News against peoples they don’t like: Russia, Iran, Palestine, Syria, and etc., generally nations that remain outside the orbit of Jewish globo-homo hegemony. And AIPAC, a Zionist-Imperialist outfit, goes among US politicians and "makes them an offer they can’t refuse" in pure GODFATHER style. And it has Nuremberg-like Rallies annually where goy politicians are dragged into attendance to bark their support for Israel, Israel, Israel and spew venom against any peoples hated by Jews — they mostly happen to live in Muslim nations. Given the nature of Jewish Power, why then are organizations like ADL and SPLC(along with Jewish-controlled Media) so insistent on suppressing, silencing, blacklisting, or at least ignoring people like David Horowitz, Milo Yiannapoulos, Laura Loomer, Pamela Geller, and on occasion, even the likes of Ben Shapiro? In many cases, openly anti-Muslim Jews have been either officially denounced or silently deplatformed.
Even Hollywood ‘liberal’ Jews who made many movies where Muslims are featured mainly as terrorists, Jihadis, subversives, white-slavers, or crazies go out of their way to condemn ‘Islamophobia’. And it’s interesting that Jews have been so shrill in denouncing Trump as a ‘hater’ of Muslims but then even shriller in decrying his moves to end Wars for Israel and bring the troops home. For some odd reason, ‘Liberal’ Jews who claim to detest Trump’s anti-Muslim bigotry are most alarmed when Trump wants to stop bombing or wrecking Muslim nations(or wants to make a peace deal with North Korea). And for all their respect for Muslims and Islam, they are strangely silent about Trump’s restoration of sanctions against Iran.

Okay, so what is this really about? Why is Jewish Power acting this way? Why does ‘liberal’ Jewish Hollywood, which has been feeding us non-stop Muslims-are-Terrorist propaganda, sounding the alarm about the dangers of ‘Islamophobia’? Wasn’t Jewish-run Hollywood most instrumental in creating ‘Islamophobic Tropes’ that inspired so many White Americans(and other gentile dupes) into joining the Military to go OVER THERE to ‘Muzzie-Land’ to kill bushels of them ‘raghead’ terrorists?

Either Jews are neurotic-verging-on-psychotic and pathologically lacking in self-awareness OR they are acting out of immense chutzpah that they can get away with just about anything since they hold most of aces in the media, academia, and Deep State. The latter scenario is far more likely because Jews are too smart to be unaware of their outrageous hypocrisy. A filthy lowlife Jew like Rob Reiner is no dummy. He’s been around. He’s been an actor, comedian, writer, and director. He knows powerful people, lots of them. He’s no meathead and has been part of the in-crowd among powerful Hollywood Jews. The character of Meathead of ALL IN THE FAMILY may have been stupid, but being a ‘dumb polack’ he was sincere and naive in his idealism. For Jews with their merchant-mentality(or merchantility), idealism is mainly a tool or instrument. While they may believe in it for awhile, they always have something greater, higher, or deeper to serve: Jewish Identity and Power. So, if goy idealists center their lives around a certain idealism(usually coded by fiendish Jews), Jews make sure that the idealism revolves around them. Notice how Jews push anti-nationalism among goyim to ultimately ensure that goyim, devoid of their own sense of identity and heritage, will end up supporting Jewish nationalism and identity as the ONLY blood-soil-and-tale worth supporting and preserving. Or take the Politics of Speech. At one time, Jews were the main pushers of Free Speech. Were Jews being idealistic and principled? No, they were just trying to protect Jewish radicals, expand Jewish subversion, and legalize pornography(that would be used by Jewish men to turn white women into sexual commodities to be bought-and-sold like cattle or candy). Notice how Jews today are the biggest enemies of Free Speech. How did this happen? Because Jewish Supremacists control America, and they fear Free Speech as a means to speak truth to Jewish Power. Jews use corporate monopoly in media, internet, and finance to shut down free speech. And Jews use whore-politicians in government, aka the cucks, to shut down free speech by criminalizing the BDS Movement that calls for justice for Palestinians. And the First Amendment doesn't matter in Florida, a state totally owned by Jews. In Current America, the New Bill of Rights is, from 1 to 10, "Is it good for the Jews?" All Power and No Limits make Jews an Evil People. People may complain it goes against the Rule of Law, but the US is really about Rule of Lawyers. Unless you can afford lawyers to challenge unconstitutional laws, violations of the Constitution remain in force. Of course, if you CAN afford lawyers, you can even turn the degenerate perversion of 'gay marriage' into 'law of the land', as Jewish Power has done. Also, even pro-Constitutional lawyers often decide against challenging unconstitutional laws out of fear of Jewish backlash and reprisals. Jews will target for destruction ANYONE who crosses them. And as most sheeple have mush for minds, Jewish control of media and academia ensures that most minds are nothing but clay in Jewish hands.

So, Jews use their control of media, internet, and state to create the illusion that alternative or dissident speech that challenges the Official Narrative and Iconography is ‘hate speech’. Jews are an incredibly a**hole-like people. They are shameless in their mendacity as Harvey Weinstein was with his dong(which he used to ejaculate into potted plants in front of ‘shikse’ women). Just consider how Jews, who’d been bitching endlessly about the Red Scare and Hollywood Blacklist, pulled off the greatest hoax-hysteria campaign in US history with Russia Collusion paranoia. The ONLY reason why US relations are worse with Russia than during the Cold War is due to Jewish Power. US foreign policy must revolve around Jewish hatreds and resentments(and Jews hate and resent any people who won’t bend over to them and take it up the arse). Jewish funded-and-trained Antifa made a total mess of Berkeley to prevent a speech by Milo. Jewish mayor and Antifa made a hellish mess of Charlottesville where violence erupted from collusion of police(under orders from Jews) and Antifa, but the Jew-run media would have us believe the event spiraled out of control because of ‘white supremacists’. But then, why should this surprise us? What have Jews done to Palestinians? If Jews treat Palestinians in such manner, why would they treat YOUR PEOPLE any better? It's like Jeffrey Dahmer. If he goes around killing people, why would he spare you? (The first step in the healing process must be for whites to admit they’ve committed a grave injustice against Palestinians by aiding and abetting Zionist immigration-‘genocide’ against those people. White people need to purge their souls like the character in PRINCE OF THE CITY. In a roundabout way, the Israel Project has proven to be fatally detrimental to whites because Jews were allowed to run wild-and-free and DO ANYTHING with no repercussions and, if anything, for more rewards. Jews were appeased and rewarded for bad behavior, indeed far more than Hitler in 1939. By indulging Jews in their destruction of gentile Palestinians, it established a new political model whereby Jews would be above-the-law and beyond criticism & ethical standards[at least by post-WWII Western principles]. Whites must have expected Jewish gratitude for their key role in aiding and abetting Zionist destruction of Palestine, but Jews, with their immense egotism and megalomania, must have EVERYTHING. The world must be made their oyster or goyster. So, what Jews were allowed to do to Palestinians merely came to serve as a prelude and plan for the fate of whites. Jews just regarded whites as More Palestinians. Israel-loving Trump-supporters should ask themselves, “How come white Americans can’t defend their borders, and how come Palestinians in West Bank can’t defend their borders either[against Jewish caravans]?” Jews can invade and take over more parts of West Bank, and Palestinians can't do anything about it. If whites are so pro-Jewish/Zionist and so eager to root for Israel, why is their sorry lot closer to that of Palestinians than that of Jews? Let’s be honest now. It is because both whites and Palestinians are under Jewish globalist occupation. White servitude to Jewish Power is the #1 reason for white decline. When you serve the very people who happen to be most hellbent on your people’s demise, your kind is finished. Whites should never have allowed Jews to get away with what they did in Palestine. It only emboldened Jews with the arrogance that they can manipulate white goyim in the US to do ANYTHING for Israel and Jewish Power. When Palestinians complained about their suffering, destitution, and humiliation, whites laughed at them, mocked them, belittled them, and called them names. Now, Jewish globalists figure on pushing Great Replacement on whites to gain total and permanent hegemony over the West. The White Nakba: Push Mass-Immigration-invasion and then use divide-and-rule among the much divided goyim in a nation without a ruling majority. So, who’s laughing now? Maybe, one can take comfort in Palestinians having something to laugh at as well: Whites who aided Jews in destroying Palestinians are now being destroyed in turn just like Palestinians were by the very Jews they appeased and sucked up to. If a zebra helps a lion kill a wildebeest, it shouldn’t expect gratitude from the lion. After feeding on the wildebeest, it will turn on the zebra. “But I helped you", bleats the zebra. No matter. The nature of the lion is to kill more and more. Jewish mentality in regards to goyim is the same. Jewish Power must grab more and more, and if your ilk was stupid and unethical enough to help vicious Jews destroy another people[especially an innocent one], it will be targeted next. And you have no right to complain since you gleefully aided Jews in the destruction of a people who never did you any harm.)

Jews used to worship God. They decided playing one is even better. You goyim, Obey the Jews. They are perfect and all-knowing. If you dare challenge Jewish power, you are a blasphemer, aka ANTI-SEMITE!
The way Jews are going, they are no longer Semites but Supremites(or Supremacist-Semites). What goes by the name of ‘anti-semitism’ is really ‘anti-supremitism’. It’s Okay to be an Anti-Supremite. Join the ASL or Anti-Supremacist League. Denounce supremacism of all kinds. Hateful hubris has no part in the world. We need White National Liberation from Jewish globo-homo Imperialism.

Anyway, how does the age-old Imperialist Paradox work in the Current Era? As follows: Jewish Power makes a big show of caring about Muslims to mask its hegemonic ambitions over Muslim territories of Middle East and North Africa. (When the conflict is only between Jews and Palestinians, Jews need no such moral justification. Instead, they only need invoke the Torah & the Covenant and replay the Narrative of Israelites of the Exodus vanquishing the Canaanites on order from God. Jews in Israel don’t justify their aggression against Palestinians on the basis of Love for Palestinians but on "Is it good for Jews?" Israeli Jews are allowed to be openly hostile toward Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims. But because current Jewish ambitions aren’t limited to Israeli borders but seek domination over the entire region[and beyond], Jews need to fool the goyim in the West that their agenda is premised on sympathy than hostility toward Arabs and Muslims.) Especially in modern times, empires have disingenuously tended to profess concern and sympathy for its foreign subjects and victims. After all, if Jewish Power ranted like Nazi Germany and blatantly spelled out its hostile and murderous intentions against the enemy, all Muslims would rise up, unite, and resist US globo-homo-shlomo lunacy. Why wouldn’t they when Jewish Power Worldwide would be screaming "We hate Muzzies!" and "Let’s Murder the Muzzies!"
An empire has to act smart, especially when it is led by a small minority whose power is precarious despite all its privileges. A clever empire feigns respect for ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, or some ‘noble’ theme as it employs aggression on the Other. It’s like how the US pretends to care about Venezuelans as it goes about destroying Venezuela to reduce it into yet another satrapy of the US empire. The trick is to feign friendship while gaining mastery. During World War II, Japanese also justified its imperialism by pontificating about the noble project of the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere whereby Japanese and fellow Asians would all live as allies and partners. Japanese didn’t say, “We are gonna invade you inferior Asian breeds to serve us, the great Yamato race” though its actions were premised on just that.

Furthermore, people within the imperial domain may not support the empire if its agenda is characterized in terms of naked aggression, plunder, and mass murder. It didn’t matter much in pre-modern times when brutal conquest and military glory were deemed as the highest goods, self-justifying upon victory. Roman folks didn’t care if their military destroyed millions of lives to expand Roman Might. If anything, they shared in the glory and triumph. But due to the influence of Christianity and modern concept of Human Rights, it has become increasingly hazardous for empires to justify their power and aggression on glory and might alone, either to the world or their own peoples. (Also, as most people in the West are now materially comfortable, they don’t feel the desperation for improving lives via imperial expansion. In contrast, plenty of whites and immigrants were uncaring of the plight of American Indians and other folks because their own lives were marked by hardship and poverty. If they could take land and resources from the Other to improve their own lot, they went with their hunger than their hearts. For the masses, it was imperialism of the stomach. Jews today being so rich and privileged, why do they feel a need to play this never-ending and ever-expanding game of empire? For Jews, it’s imperialism of the mind. They see the world as a chessboard and must win, win, win, just like Bobby Fischer. It’s part of their God Complex.) The empire has to pretend to spread enlightenment, freedom, and liberation to preempt populist, moral, and/or radical condemnation of its foreign policy. Otherwise, it might be met with stiff opposition from the conscientious elites and mass-activists at home(especially if it calls on the young to serve in Wars for Empire with mounting casualties). Consider all the good Christians who supported Western Imperialism because it spread the Faith. Today's deracinated and decadent people of the West worship Homomania as their neo-faith, and the Empire merely needs to paint the bomb 'gay' to win support even from 'progressives'. Thus, war and imperialism are 'moralized'.

Take the Soviet Russians during the Cold War. They were imperial overlords over the Eastern Bloc. So, were Russians allowed to publicly insult Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and East Germans as hapless subjects of the Great Russians? Were they allowed to badmouth other peoples, especially Soviet subjects, like Milo and Geller love to badmouth Muslims? No, the Soviet Union forbid Russian voices to be openly hostile toward non-Russian groups, especially those in the Warsaw Pact. Soviets had to maintain a facade of Brotherhood of Nations to justify Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe. In order for the Russian Core to ideologically justify its rule over its imperial subjects, the Soviet Union had to be portrayed as an agent of liberation and social justice for workers of the world, Russian and Non-Russian alike. To maintain this illusion, Russians were forbidden to express hostile views of the Other.

Jewish Power does the same thing. In order to carry on with Wars for Israel and Zionist-US aggression in the Middle East, it has to feign sympathy for Muslims. Just like the US claimed it was protecting Vietnam from communist tyranny to justify its hegemony over the southern half, Jews claim they are spreading ‘democracy’ or fighting ‘terrorism’ in the Middle East(even though Israel and the US have been using terrorists against Syria) to sustain their current hegemonic policy. And just like Soviet Union suppressed Russians who voiced hostility toward Poles and Czechs(or any subject people of the Soviet Empire), Jewish Power clamps down on fellow Jews who openly espouse anti-Muslim views. In private, Jewish Power is just as anti-Muslim and anti-Arab as figures like Pamella Geller and Laura Loomer are but understands the need for Pro-Muslim public image if the Jew-run West is to continue intervening in the Muslim World(at the cost of huge loss of lives among Arabs and Muslims). Also, notice how Jews try to morally whitewash the crimes of Wars for Israel by pretending to care about 'Muslim refugees'. Jews never denounce the Wars for Israel that violated national borders of nations like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Jews never take responsibility for aiding and abetting terrorists who tore nations apart and set off the huge refugee crisis. They just direct the focus on the 'refugees' and pretend to boo-hoo care so much. Imagine Nazi Germany wrecking Poland and then morally condemning OTHER nations for not taking Polish refugees. Judeo-Nazis are as vile as German Nazis.

Only by pretending to be pro-Muslim can the Zionist-controlled US justify its wars to the American people. Americans may be decrepit in their current state of degeneracy, but I’m guessing most Americans still have enough decency to oppose naked American Imperialism around the world, even if it’s in the service of Holy Jews. But then, most Americans get their ideas, values, and views from the Jew-run media and academia. They are mentally colonized. They so easily fall for the Jewish pretense.
Also, only via such pretense can Jews forge alliances with some Muslims(such as Saudis) against others like Syrians and Iranians(and Palestinians). It’d be far more difficult for Saudis and other turncoat Muslims to collaborate with the Zionist-controlled West if there were so many Jews openly calling for hatred against and destruction of the Muslim World. So, when some Jews talk out of line and spill the beans about how Jews REALLY FEEL about Muslims, they are gagged and denounced by Jewish Power. It’s like plenty of Jews privately agree with Donald Sterling's(the former owner of L.A. Clippers) views of blacks, but they went out of their way to publicly denounce him since Jews profit so handsomely from black entertainment and sports. Also, Jews rely on Jewish-Black alliance to sustain ‘white guilt’ in order to paralyze white pride and make whites serve Jewish supremacist interests. Likewise, Jews pretend to push feminism and women’s 'rights' to obfuscate the fact that they are the main purveyors of pornography, main practitioners of sexual harassment(at least in upper echelons), and main pushers of brainwashing young white girls into slutty mental slavery to Pop Culture that is totally owned by Jews.

But because Jewish Power is sometimes harsh toward people like Loomer, Geller, and David Horowitz, it gives the false impression that the Western Jews & Elites are pro-Muslim and anti-Jewish. "Look how they praise Muslims and Islam while deplatforming someone like Laura Loomer!" But it’s actually Powerful Jews trying to prevent Vulgar Jews from letting the cat out of the bag. Powerful Jews know they must smile at Muslims in the public relations department to smack them around in the foreign policy department. But noisy Jews like Geller and Loomer either don’t get it or believe that the current Jewish Strategy is a bad one(and vent their spleen about how something must be done about Muslims).
In a way, it’s emblematic of the split between Upper Jewish Imperialism and Lower Jewish Survivalism. To Upper Jews who see the world as a global game with huge stakes, accommodating Muslims is a useful and essential gambit. The Muslim Gambit. Let there be Muslim immigration to the West and let Muslims carry out some terrorist attacks, even against Jews. As problematic as that may be, the illusion of Western-Muslim friendship allows Zionists to use the US as sole superpower to intervene all over the Middle East and North Africa. In the 90s, even as Jews were killing 100,000 of Muslims in Iraq via sanctions, they professed sympathy for Muslims by siding with Bosnian Muslims against Serbians and Croatians. But to Lower Jews who think mainly of survival, the Muslim Problem is something they see in the streets and town squares. Upper Jews have a bird-eye view, Lower Jews have a groundhog view. But then, the British Empire operated in a similar manner. While Lower Anglos were shooting the indigenous folks of Australia like animals in a Race War to grab the land, the Upper Anglos publicly denounced such excesses as they'd give the Imperial Project a bad name. Matters of prestige and public dignity matter far more to the elites than to the masses.

Jewishness is the Product of Supremacist Eugenics. Non-white Immigration is premised on White Supremacism as Non-whites prefer White-everything over their own kind.

https://www.unz.com/isteve/levine-the-racist-origins-of-computer-technology/

A century ago, America loved eugenics and was obsessed with protecting its “superior” Anglo-American stock from the threat of immigration. Out of this nativist vortex, the first computer was born.

Why do Jews always project their obsessions onto others? Yasha Levine bitches about 'eugenics' , but the very concept of Jewishness is based on eugenics. It's based on the Covenant, a conviction that God blessed Jewish blood uber alles. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which are matters of creed, Judaism is about God and Blood. It says Jews are special because of their blood and ancestry.

Furthermore, there's a theory that posits that higher Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is the result of breeding. Richest Jews married their daughters to the sons of the most renowned rabbis. Thus, business smarts were matched with scholarly smarts. Even Steven Pinker the Jew thinks there's something to the theory:

https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

As for immigration(hailed by Jews as the ultimate good) to the US(and other Anglo- and/or white-made nations), it's always been about White Supremacism, especially of the Anglo kind. First of all, waves of White Immigration to the US, Canada, and Australia spelled doom, often genocidal in impact(if not always of intent), of the native populations. (And of course, the Spanish & Portuguese wiped out 95% of natives in South America. Granted, that was more due to the spread of diseases than anything else.) At any rate, whites(Anglo and Latino) wanted the lands & resources and expelled native 'savages' whom they encountered on their path of relentless conquest. So, Mass Immigration was almost synonymous with 'genocide' in the New World.
And, what did Mass Immigration(of Zionist Jews) do to Palestine? By UN definition of genocide, the Zionist Project has to be recognized as genocide against Palestinians who were mass-expelled(aka ethnically cleansed) and culturally & historically erased from their historical homeland.
In the New World, Jewish merchants fully participated in the Immigration-Genocide of the Native Folks, aka the 'Red Man'(in North America) and Indigenous Browns(in South America). Key mega-bankers who funded Anglo-imperialism were Jewish. Rothchild Dynasty played a significant role in Anglo expansion into America and South Africa. And, the Jewish Sassoon family were the main pushers of opium on the Chinese, thus destroying millions of lives(just like the Jewish Sackler Clan silently quasi-'genocided' 100,000s of white working class folks[defamed by Jewish media as 'white trash' slated for Replacement] via opoiod addiction. Talk about mass eugenics!)

In the Western Frontier, Jewish merchants sold supplies, guns, and ammo to white settlers who were in the ruthless & relentless process of wiping out native Indians. Jews felt ZERO sympathy for American Indians, just like current Zionists regard Palestinians(and Arabs in general) as subhuman. Jews made no effort to stop waves of Immigration-'Genocide' to protect and preserve the remaining Indian community. Jews only cared about their own kind and fully supported the white supremacist immigration-'genocide' that led to Indians losing all their lands to whites, Jews, and immigrant-invaders. Emma Lazarus said "Gimme your huddled masses, wretched poor, etc." but the real people who were reduced to huddled wretched masses rotting in reservations were the American Indians. (The so-called 'huddled masses yearning to be free' had their own nations or places in the Old World of the 19th century. By arriving in America, they came to deny the 'right' to homeland for the indigenous folks.)
And look at all those huddled wretched masses in Gaza and West Bank. They sure do yearn to be free, but Jews say NO. Zionist Imperialism, the reigning ideology of US foreign policy, says all support and sympathy must go to Jewish invaders and NONE for Palestinians who were robbed of their homeland. In Gaza, IDF death squads mow down women and children. In West Bank, Palestinians face apartheid and face the looming threat of expulsion into Jordan or Syria. If indeed Donald Trump is 'Literally Hitler'(as so many Jews claim), he is most Hitlerian in support of Zionism and Jewish supremacist hatred and/or mass-murder against Iran, Syria, and Palestinians.
At any rate, just like Jews provided financial services for slavery in the American South -- most Jews fully supported the slave system and economy -- , they also served as merchants-of-death to further the conquest of American Indian lands. They supported white supremacist immigration-'genocide' of the Indians. Jewish merchants profited from blood money. Besides, Jews wanted the 'savage' Indians gone to make way for more of their own kind from the Old World. It's like Jews want Palestinians gone to make more room for Jews. And lets not forget Jewish-controlled Hollywood made all those 'white supremacist' and 'genocidal' Westerns about how glorious it was to wipe out Red Savages. In America or Israel(which was once Palestine), Jews act the same way: Sacrifice any number of goyim for Jewish aggrandizement.

But now, immigration is 'white supremacist' in another way in the 21st century. Look all around, and notice that Immigration Patterns are mostly about non-whites favoring white nations, esp. Anglo-made ones, as immigration destination. It is premised on the sense that white people are the best and do everything better. Since superior whites made the best nations, non-whites try to move to white nations for the good life. Why don't they stay in their own nations to make them nice as white nations? They feel they are hopeless for or incapable of such undertaking on their own. They must be with whites to have good stuff made and managed by whites. They look to whites as the Savior Race.
These non-whites admire, envy, and yearn for white made nations to such degree that countless numbers of them are resolves to permanently reject and leave behind their own peoples and cultures to go to white-made nations and become 'American', 'Canadian', or 'Australian', templates essentially of Anglo-founding-and-conception.
Imagine that. Tons of Chinese would rather come to the US, marry white people, learn English(and forget their own language), and live as minorities than be with their own kind in their mother nation. Same goes for Asian-Indians who, for all their talk of pride in their culture and history, despise their countrymen and prefer to emigrate and resettle in white-made nations. And browns in Latin America would rather come to America and live under the Anglo-made system of rule and economics than deal with their own problems. Browns prefer 'gringos' as elites over Latin whites who are considerably more corrupt. And Latin whites would rather come to America and live with 'gringos' than be stuck with browns whom they regard as incompetent and hopeless. The top immigration-destination nations among non-whites are all Anglo-made: US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Or the UK itself. Even as they resent Anglos and bitch about 'white supremacism', their actions speak louder than words: White people and white nations are superior to their own, and they want to be with Winner whites than with their own Loser kind.

And let's look at Jewish immigration past and present. Vile and nasty Jews love to nag and berate Anglos about 'white supremacism', but Jews always wanted to follow where Anglos go and be where the Anglos are. Jews were always most attracted to whites and to Anglos especially. If indeed Jews were truly appalled by white supremacism, Anglo-arrogance, and all that, why did they chase after Anglos? Why did they tirelessly pursue Anglos as the Goose that lays the Golden Egg? Why did Jewish bankers invest heavily Anglo imperialism and colonization?
Of course, the greatest Jewish success was made possible back of Anglos. If Anglos hadn't created American Civilization, Jewish power around the world would be much less. Anglos had talent, vision, and better governance to forge and form a great nation with a sound political, legal, and economic system, especially for their own kind. And Jews knew it and wanted access to Anglo goodies because, deep down inside, Jews knew that Anglos(and Germanic folks) were the most talented goyim in the world. Therefore, whenever Jews sought to emigrate, they always hoped to make it to Anglo-made nations. If Jews really love non-whites and hate Anglos(as they claim to in their endless diatribes), they should move out of white nations and relocate to Africa or Asia. But talk in cheap. If we judge Jews by walk than talk, they all favor white nations, esp Anglo-made ones. Latin American nations were made by Spanish and Latinos, but Jews don't much care for them either because of corruption, incompetence, and chaos(resulting from messy Diversity that breeds distrust, resentment, and hostility). We are told Diversity is so great, but then, why are the countless hordes fleeing diverse Latin America and India for white-majority nations, especially ones made by Anglos?
If not for Anglo achievement(on which Jews piggybacked), Jews would not be ruling the world. Anglos were the only people nice(and naive) enough to pass the reins of power to Jews who, as it should be clear by now, show no gratitude and only vicious animus. Jews are an envious people and hate the fact that Anglos than their own kind built the finest civilization. Also, as rulers over whites, they must spread 'white guilt' to paralyze whites into obeisance and submission to Jewish Supremacism. And even though Diversity will lead to tons of social problems in the US and EU, Jews push it just so they can play divide-and-rule among the Gentiles.

If we judge Jews and non-whites by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, they are white-supremacists in the sense that they believe whites do everything the best. Their immigration patterns amply illustrate they prefer whites and white-nations over their own(and over other non-whites and their nations; we don't see too many Asians or Latin Americans scrambling to move to Africa or India, and if some non-whites move to Mexico, it's only as a way-station to the US; and notice how black African migrant-invaders pass through North Africa and even southern European nations to make it to Anglo-Germanic nations). After all, why else would non-whites reject their own nations and peoples in the hope of becoming 'American' or 'Canadian' if they didn't believe whites are superior and make & manage superior civilizations? Some will say it's entirely economic, but why have Anglos been far better at creating and managing nations where governance is cleaner and more efficient? The reasons are surely cultural and historical, genetics is also part of the equation. Just like genetic factors give Jews an edge in brains and give blacks an edge in brawn(and sports), white genetics were better suited for certain tasks, such as creating functional civilization with possibility for advancement in various fields. Of course, hurt pride among non-whites prevent them from being candid about why they immigrate to white-made nations. To assuage their own butt-hurt feelings, they claim a right to leech off whites since Western Imperialism stole everything from them. This is totally hilarious to anyone who knows about the state of Africa, Asia, Middle East, and etc. prior to Western domination over them. They were either savage, backward, or mired in stasis/stagnation. But because Jews like Yasha Levin control the Western Narrative, too many whites have bought into the Lie of 'white guilt' that says whites are uniquely to blame for all that is wrong in the world. Of course, some whites take a perverse kind of pride from 'white guilt'. By posturing as 'good whites' committed to redemption and compassion, they think they are angels for giving away their legacy to leeches.

Non-whites admire Anglo-nations as the best. They also regard whites as the most beautiful and want to have sex with them. Jewish men prefer white women, the 'shikses'. So many Jewish men have married white 'shikses'(Jewish term for filthy whore) because, in comparison, they find Jewish women to be ugly(and nasty in personality). So many black men prefer white women over black men. Asian women prefer white men over dorky Asian men.
Race-mixing or Interracism is also a kind of eugenics to make one's race look more white. Jews prefer 'Aryanized' Jews over Semitic-looking ones with hook-noses. In Israel, 'Aryan'-looking Jews are favored over Semitic or darker ones. Asians have plastic surgery and dye their hair blonde to look white. Asians want to mate with whites and create Eurasian kids whom they regard as more beautiful. Even in Latin American nations where whites are a minority, most celebs and stars are white or mostly white. Even Hugo Chavez, the champion of brown people, dumped his former wife and married a blonde. One might think Tiger Woods, being of mixed race, would seek out mixed-raced women. No, he only goes after Nordic Aryan types. Also, interracism is pushed by globalism as 'progressive' eugenics of creating a superior people. Jew-run media tell us that mixed-race people are more intelligent, more beautiful, and better in everything. (That must be why race-mixed Peru is the peak of world civilization. It must also be why Mexico is filled with the superior race of Mestizos. But if those race-mixed Mestizos are so superior, why do they want to run from others like them and start a new life in gringo-made US?)

The fact is most non-white immigrants or wanna-be immigrants are 'white supreamcist' in their preferences and aspirations. When so many of them desperately seek to leave their own people, culture, and land to come to Anglo-made nations, they are voting and saying with their feet, "Anglos are better, they do things better, and we would rather live in Anglo-made nations than in our own that suck so bad."

It's likely that the reason why Jews like Yasha Levine try to shame and browbeat white pride & white consciousness is to force whites into submissive mode at the altar of Jewish supremacism, the power that now rules America. Jews want to permanently seal their domination over goyim. All these Wars for Israel, endless giveaway to Israel, condemnation of noticing Jewish perfidy as 'antisemitic', unrelenting Hate News against Russia, Syria, Palestinians, Christians, and Iran(simply because Jews hate them), and etc. Jews know that Jewish Supremacist Power can be sustained only atop the White Horse. Therefore, the white horse must be reined and saddled. It must fear the Jewish whip and spur. Even as Jews beat on whites, whites must pledge total allegiance to Jews. Jews are the massuh who cannot tolerate uppity-ness among whites. If whites refuse to kowtow before Jews and instead speak truth to Jewish Power, Jewish supremacist massuhs demean those uppity whites as 'white supremacist', 'anti-Semites', and 'nazis'. If Jewish Power cannot be criticized on account that Jews are a perfect people, then it's sign of Jewish Supremacist Ideology. After all, humans are not gods, but if we must worship Jews as the god-like race, it means Jews think of themselves as beyond criticism or reproach... like they are indeed God himself. The chutzpah of these nasty people is unbelievable. In Jewish Supremacist mode, they rabidly & virulently defame and dehumanize whites(along with Russians, Iranians, and Arabs), but if whites dare to talk back and point to Jewish corruption and rottenness(or if whites merely mutter "It's Okay to be White" in meek David Copperfield mode), Jews blow their top and fume about how the Nazis are back in town again. What foulness!

In truth and by all evidence, Jews and non-whites do feel that white people are the most attractive and that white nations are most promising(because they were created by and are managed by white people). Now, if white people were conscious of their worth & value, they would naturally try to keep their achievements for themselves and keep out leeches and parasites. And then, Jews and non-whites can't get their hands on all the white goodies. By making non-whites join in the plunder of White Wealth, Jews seek to create the impression that they aren't the only usurpers and takers, but in fact, the people who have gained by far the most from the parasitism have been the Jews. Jews get the white bread and butter, others get the crumbs and margarine.

Jews and non-whites want access to white nations because, deep in their hearts, they know whites have done everything better(and will continue to do so until White Wealth has been bled out of existence). Therefore, in order to lower white defenses against Jewish & non-whites invasion and parasitism, Jews and non-whites cynically and/or fanatically push this notion that 'whiteness' is evil while 'diversity' is great. But if diversity is so great, why are people fleeing diverse North Africa for Europe? Or fleeing ultra-diverse India and Latin America for whiter nations? Hmm. Why did Jewish immigrants favor whiter US over brown Latin America for immigration destination? Facts speak for themselves: Jewish immigrants were white-supremacist or white-preferist in their migratory preferences.

If Jews really hate Anglos, they should just leave Anglo-made nations. Sooner the better. If Jews really love non-whites and people of color oh-so-very-much, they should pack up things and move to India, Africa, or nations like Bolivia. But we know they won't. Jews have always chosen white-nations, esp Anglo ones, as their main destinations. And when Anglo-Americans were wiping out Indians, Jews didn't protest such exercise of white supremacism. If anything, Jews fully took part in it. Jews were like jackals trailing lions to feed on the kill. Jews trailed whites to feed on white bounty.

Jews need to look in the mirror. Jewish identity has long been about supremacy. The notion of the Chosen People. And higher Jewish IQ owes to selective breeding of merchants and scholars. And Jews didn't care one iota about Chinese who died of opium addiction. Jews profited from the Opium Trade, just like Jewish Globalists raped and plundered Russia in the 1990s, creating socio-economic conditions that led to the deaths of millions.

Jews need to get off the high horse. They need to stop projecting THEIR own hatred and supremacism onto others. Or if they fed on white supremacism, they must share in the blame. Jewish merchants who sold guns to white cowboys are just as guilty.

Some Notes on the Reconsideration of THE AVIATOR(by John Logan & Martin Scorsese) by 'Trevor Lynch'

https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/05/martin-scorseses-the-aviator/

Trevor Lynch sure has strange taste in movies. He likes WILD AT HEART and DUNE, two films by David Lynch most people(including myself) can't stand. It must be a matter of taste and sensibility. Live and let live, to each his own, I guess. Still, despite the commitment and production values, I must say GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR fall way short of their overarching ambitions. They were Too Big To Succeed, the general consensus on the two films. While I don't hate those works(like I hate CAPE FEAR and THE DEPARTED), I never liked them either even though both have their moments. Stanley Kauffmann faulted THE AVIATOR for trying to be the Great American Movie. An element of strain, artifice, and self-consciousness enters into an artist trying to do too much. Self-importance can be fatal in art, something Guido both embraces and repulses in 8 1/2 by Federico Fellini. Artists are at their best in just being themselves, on a voyage of discovery(or recovery) as with Odysseus. Artists often fail at trying to be Atlas with the weight of the world upon his shoulders. Or taking flight like bold but foolish Icarus to attempt something more than difficult or improbable: The Impossible. There is something to be said for the Grand Folly(as noble failure), but A-for-effort is like a set of steak knives next to the Cadillac Eldorado in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS. (Who really cares about 1900 by Bernardo Bertolucci or ONE FROM THE HEART by Francis Ford Coppola. There a are defenders of LOLA MONTEZ by Marcel Ophuls and HEAVEN'S GATE by Michael Cimino, but it's hard to get excited about them.) It is no wonder Bob Dylan withdrew from the 60s pop scene when people expected him to be something more than an artist, poet, and song-and-dance man. They wanted him to be the 'spokesman of his generation'. Dylan was willing to speak for himself but not for the conscience of the world. Lennon did take on that role alongside Yoko Ono but mostly to make a fool of himself. He became his own Sexy Sadie.

THE GREAT AMERICAN MOVIE is like the folly of attempting THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL. There have been many great novels written about the American Experience, but the scope of THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL is too big for any artist or any single work. (It's like no one really takes Herman Wouk's THE WINDS OF WAR as serious literature or THE GREAT WORLD WAR II NOVEL.) One can argue that Leo Tolstoy wrote the GREAT RUSSIAN NOVEL with WAR AND PEACE, but then, it's unlikely he was thinking in those terms. There are novels that may be construed as THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL. THE GREAT GATSBY comes to mind. But again, it's unlikely F. Scott Fitzgerald thought in those terms. And even though his novel is about money, power, privilege, and publicity -- Big American Themes -- what really resonates is the fragile and almost pitiable poetry of Gatsby who dreams of Daisy, a vapid creature tenderly romanticized by his yearning. In some ways, he seems less interested in winning her love than impressing her with his vaunted worth. Norman Mailer attempted the GREAT WORLD WAR II NOVEL with THE NAKED AND THE DEAD. I'm not sure if the novel is still a topic of discussion. Mailer mentioned John Dos Passos' U.S.A. TRILOGY as coming closest to THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL, but it's been some time since it's been the center of cultural discourse(perhaps because Dos Passos turned rightist later on?). Possibly, Tom Wolfe tried hardest to write the GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL, but he is appreciated more as a social observer than a literary giant. At any rate, novels work best when intensely focused upon the matter-at-hand than contemplating what grander message or implication it may have for the world. That should be decided or 'deciphered' by critics and readers, not sweated out by the artist. While the artist needs a sense of vision and scope, it is how he deals with the nitty-gritty, with all its contradictions and complications, that really decide worth. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE works so well because it's a story about this eccentric lonely kid Holden Caulfield than a statement about youth. It was left up to readers to decide if the book speaks to them.

Among movies, it's conceivable that CITIZEN KANE is indeed The Great American Movie. But then, Orson Welles was one of a kind, the boy wonder, who had the Midas touch with just about anything: Theater, Radio, Movies. He has the rarest genius to achieve the near-impossible. Other works that may qualify as The Great American Movie are IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE(one of the true miracles in cinema) and THE GODFATHER. One is mostly about Wasps in a small town whereas the other is about immigrant-Italians in New York. THE GODFATHER I and II may serve as an allegory of ethnics(with Italians standing for Jews) eclipsing the Wasps represented by the likes of Senator Geary. And yet, under the direction of Frank Capra the Italian-American, there is an element of Immigrant-Guilt-Complex in Wasp-dominated IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. George Bailey feels guilt about leaving his small town behind for the Bigger-Wider-World, the America-America of Big Dreams than mere modest Americana. There's a scene in THE GODFATHER PART 2 where young Vito and Sal watch a stage musical-drama about a man who receives letter about his mother's death in the Old Country and breaks into a tearful tune. Though George Bailey is All-American, he is like someone who isn't able to immigrate to greener pastures. He is stuck in the place of his birth where his father is buried. He's like a slave who can't escape the plantation. And yet, like the trapped man in WOMAN IN THE DUNES, he finds special meaning and significance within that small world.

Perhaps, due to their populist character, movies have resonated more as collective American Imagination, not least because the average movie is aimed at a larger audience than the average novel. THE GRAPES OF WRATH was, for a time, considered The Great American Novel, but I'm not sure how the story of Okies as the noble salt of the earth would go over with today's decadent globo-homo-shlomo elites whose agenda for the white working class is for white men to die of opioids and white women to have mulatto babies, eventually to be replaced by brown masses from South of the Border. (In contrast, THE GREAT GATSBY continues to be relevant in an America that never lacks for oligarchs, scandals, and vast riches. Maybe economic collapse will make GRAPES relevant again.) William Faulkner was a great novelist, but his focus was maybe too provincial -- the decaying Old South -- to qualify as All-American. There were a number of great Jewish writers after World War II, but their subjects were often ethnic and perhaps overly neurotic(and perverse). Philip Roth and Saul Bellow were very Jewish writers. Some may argue that, putting snobbery aside, The Great American Novel can really be found in popular fiction, say GONE WITH THE WIND, which also spawned the biggest box office hit of all time(adjusting for inflation), which was furthermore a tremendous cultural propaganda for the Old South. But due to its subject matter, people generally don't want to consider it as the quintessential novel or movie(as with THE BIRTH OF A NATION, the father of all cinema, buried and hidden away like Cronus and Titans by the Olympians). If not Margaret Mitchell, then maybe the works of Edna Ferber or Ayn Rand who wrote big-themed novels with grand narratives might fit the bill. One was even called GIANT. Where does E.L. Doctorow belong in all this? Somewhere between serious and popular fiction? RAGTIME was his attempt at The Great American Novel, and the movie adaptation by Milos Forman wanted to be The Great American Movie, with mixed results(but far superior to THE AVIATOR). Though Anglos built Essential America, their tendency for moderation & propriety restrained the prophetic outlook that flowed more freely from Jewish authors like Ferber and Rand(and Emma Lazarus) for whom AMERICA was even a grander project than the America of the Anglo Imagination. City on a Hill wasn't enough. It had to be an empire on a mountain. Some may argue MOBY DICK and HUCKLEBERRY FINN qualify as The Great American Novel, but neither was conceived as such and, if anything, their greatness owes to naturalness and richness of details than fixation with grandiosity(also true of SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION by Ken Kesey).

It's understandable why artists wanted to write THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL or make the THE GREAT AMERICAN MOVIE. There was nothing like America in human history with so much land, resources, freedom, opportunity, and achievement. America was both an inheritor of all the culture & knowledge of European Civilization AND a blank slate from which one could start anew. It had both the pedigree of an ancient civilization and the birth certificate of a new nation. So, naturally an artist or storyteller wanted to capture and convey the essence of this wondrous multi-faceted dynamism called Americanism. And yet, precisely because Americanism is about rapid & relentless change, it's difficult to pin down what is quintessentially or comprehensively 'American' in the grand narrative/thematic sense. And this has been made more problematic by vast demographic changes, the very subject of THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, which is about Two Civil Wars. Off-Screen, there is the Civil War between the North and the South. But in NY itself, we see mini-civil-wars between 'Native' Americans(the Anglo-Protestants) and New Americans(Irish Catholics, though given the nature of Americanism as a state of flux, alliances also form between Anglos and Irish). But then, at least until 1965, most immigrants were white, and they could more-or-less meld together as Anglo-European-Americans. It's now a whole new ballgame with masses of non-whites becoming 'Americans' and being stoked by Jewish Supremacists to hate whites.
The more schoolmarmish types have pushed TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD as The Great American Novel. It lionizes white liberal conscience(and guilt) as the highest redemptive virtue of America, but is that novel relevant today when blackness is mainly expressed through rap music that has blacks indulging themselves like savages in ways more decrepit than what 'racists' once warned of Negroes in the past? Though DEATH OF A SALESMAN is a play, it too has been interpreted as a commentary about Americanism as dream and tragedy.

Perhaps, because of the tireless dynamism of America, it requires some distance to take in Americanism as a panorama. And perhaps, no one was more successful in this than Sergio Leone who, with ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, imagined the American Saga as a grand myth than merely a narrative. Though the former is about the violent cowboy West of the 19th century and the latter is about violent gangster East of the 20th century, there is no sense of hurry. Despite all the changes afoot, they unfold like cosmic operas. Matter is temporal, Myth is timeless. Because Leone elevated Americanism into myth, it didn't matter if the material world was always changing. Myth, like a dream, circumvents time.
In a way, it's understandable why Americanism has been so defined by the outsider, the wanna-be immigrant. After all, while an American lives in the America of reality, the wanna-be immigrant dreams of America as a myth he wants to be a part of. The castle is more special to those on the outside looking in than those on the inside for whom everything has grown routine and mundane, even dull and boring. Just like adults relive the excitement of Christmas through eyes of children for whom everything is new and magical, Americans who've grown weary of America get to re-experience the 'myth' of America via stories of Immigrants who come with a sense of dream, hope, and wonderment... that is until immigrant children also grow weary and depend on more New Comers to keep alive the myth of America. For me, The Great American Movie might as well be THE BIG COUNTRY. Watch that at the impressionable age of 6 or 7, and there can be nothing more magnificent than America, the land of giants where myths come alive.




One problem with THE GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR is due to excess of ambition and ego. It was as if Martin Scorsese, flush with flattery(as the 'greatest living director in the world') and lavish funds, embarked to make The Great American Movie. He had already made great films(some of the best ever), but that wasn't enough. He had to make THE Great Movie as a statement(or even testament) laden with truths bigger than the subject matter at hand, one that might finally sweep the Oscars for him. In other words, if GOODFELLAS is specifically about Italian-American hoodlums in their particular milieu, THE GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR wouldn't simply be about 19th century hoodlums or a 20th century aeronautics wizard. They would convey something Big and Important about the American Experience, the Human Condition, the Individual Spirit, the Tide of History, and etc. While impressive works can be made this way, it is usually not the best approach. Manny Farber discussed the problem in his essay about White Elephant Art and Termite Art. White Elephant Art begins with a Big Idea and Big Ambition, and everything is made to serve that bigness. But in fixating on grandiosity, it often overlooks the quirky details that make a work special and unique. (I don't necessarily agree with Farber on what constitutes 'white elephant art' and 'termite art', let alone on which directors deserve praise or scorn. He used the terms too broadly, as in accusing Francois Truffaut of 'white elephant art' for SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER, a ridiculous charge.) The angel, along with the devil, is in the details. It's like the movie K-19: THE WIDOWMAKER(dir. Kathryn Bigelow) where the Soviet Military builds these super submarines but neglects the details that could have prevented the nuclear meltdown.

White Elephant approach and Termite approach can be seen in the contrast between RAN and SEVEN SAMURAI. One was conceived from heaven above, the other from the ground-up. Akira Kurosawa envisioned of RAN as a grand project, and it is a great work in certain respects. On the macro-scale, it is very impressive and awesome at times. But the mid-section of the movie is like a collapsed bridge. There wasn't enough dramatic cement to keep it together. RAN works wonderfully with big scenes but often falls short with smaller moments that are crucial to the structure of tragedy and catharsis. In contrast, SEVEN SAMURAI is packed with wonderfully detailed little scenes that, in summation, make for an unparalleled masterpiece. It feels like wet clay. And SEVEN SAMURAI doesn't have to spell out what it's about. We see and feel it in our bones in everything that happens. In contrast, RAN inevitably builds up to grand statement about the human condition that is bit too ripe with 'significance'. To serve up another comparison, 13TH WARRIOR is 'termitic', whereas THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is 'elephantic'.
Scorsese was at his best in termite art mode, all the more so because he looks and thinks like a rodent. Scorsese's nature is to tirelessly burrow through everything, physically and psychologically. Consider his use of space in GOODFELLAS as when Henry(Ray Liotta) takes his girlfriend through the back entrance to a night club. Or how Scorsese follows Travis Bickle or Rupert Pupkin around New York, all the while worming into their psyche for clues. Or the nooks and crannies of the gambling business in CASINO. This obsessive quality about Scorsese isn't suited for grand sweeping narratives or glowing moments of inspiration. That is best left to directors like Steven Spielberg or Robert Zemeckis(or Ron Howard). In terms of sheer talent, Spielberg is Scorsese's equal but with the difference that Spielberg is a master conventional director of crowd-pleasing spectacles whereas Scorsese has the natural sensibility of an artist. The artistic sensibility isn't smooth or glowing. It's like what Hepburn(Cate Blachett) says to Howard Hughes. "Howard, we're not like everyone else. Too many sharp angles. Too many eccentricities. We have to be very careful not to let people in or they'll make us into freaks." An artist just can't help himself. He is too curious, too honest, too obsessed with truth(factual) or The Truth(spiritual), too anxious, and filled with self-doubt to just settle for a smooth/conventional narrative. While Spielberg also made serious movies for adults, his sensibility is that of an entertainer. Serious Steven is like Americanized David Lean or Richard Attenborough. While there are complexities in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and GANDHI, they are mainly meant to entertain and serve comforting myths(though LAWRENCE has moments of darkness that approach art). But a true artist cannot settle for something like GANDHI. Too many compromises and convenient lapses, too much padding and tenderizer. Oliver Stone has worked in both entertainer and artist modes, and NIXON shows how an artist really works. It is a tormented tale of power and corruption made with great empathy and insight. And GOODFELLAS and CASINO are works of art in their honesty, courage, and intelligence, served with tremendous mastery and ingenuity. Sidney Lumet made perhaps the best film about policemen, PRINCE OF THE CITY, a work that pulls no punches on the soul-wrenching agony of sacrificing friends/partners in doing the right thing in a world that may be undeserving of such virtue.

Because works of art break free of the comfort zone, they tend to be less popular. PRINCE OF THE CITY was a box office flop. GOODFELLAS made some money but mainly due to violence and laugh factor(as Joe Pesci is hilarious). CASINO and NIXON lost money. In contrast, SCHINLDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and BRIDGE OF SPIES made considerably more money(though not as much as Spielberg's blockbusters). While Spielberg's serious movies show plenty of violence and horror, especially in SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, they are dramatically smooth sailing with comforting message about how Good triumphs over Evil. We see visions of hell but always through the windows from within the Spielberg Theme Park Ride. There are shocks and explosions, but not many surprises. In contrast, Scorsese's art films are about constant derailments and stops along the way to inspect matters up close. They are many 'sharp angles' or sharp turns. Scorsese is about angles, Spielberg is about angels. This was never a problem in works like MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, THE KING OF COMEDY, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, GOODFELLAS, CASINO, AGE OF INNOCENCE, and KUNDUN. But it was a problem with NEW YORK, NEW YORK because a grand musical-drama of that caliber needs narrative flow and dramatic unity, like George Cukor's THE STAR IS BORN. The puffy genre elements and tough artistic sensibility locked horns in NEW YORK, NEW YORK to no avail. They cancel each other out, and the result is a mess. Similar problem mars THE GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR. They are hybrids of art and entertainment, and the two modes trip over one another. Scorsese proved he could make entertainment movies with THE COLOR OF MONEY, CAPE FEAR, and THE DEPARTED, though his restless artistic or at least 'auteurist' tendencies overloaded those works with stylistic ingredients too rich for meager substance. No need to play chef making a hamburger or hotdog. But THE GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR(and later the confused HUGO) try to have it both ways. They are meant to be big-budget crowd-pleasing spectacles but also personal expressions of an artist, the 'greatest living director in the world'. THE GANGS OF NEW YORK begins like Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR. Technically, it's well-done, but it's a bundle of worn-out visual cliches, sound effects, and Hollywood Acting. Instead of realistic characters, everyone is larger-than-life, an archetype or walking symbol. People don't so much trade in dialogue as statements bursting with rhetorical flourish or 'meaning'. The first scene with build-up and the fight struck me as 'dumb'. Well-done but dumb, the sort of thing any film-school graduate or journey-man director could do. Why was Scorsese resorting to such tripe, the man whose reputation rested on the brilliance of TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, and GOODFELLAS, works that expanded cinematic language in new directions? In THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, Scorsese went through the motions as just another director of spectacle with a bagful of old tricks. Now, if THE GANGS OF NEW YORK just wanted to be Gone-with-the-Wind with hoodlums, it might have worked. But there was the artist Scorsese getting in the way ever so often and trying to squeeze meaning and depth out of the material. Thus, narrative flow is all but impossible, and the films spirals into a morass of confusion and chaos. It certainly has its moments, but it lacks unity and wholeness. And the U2 song at the end and the montage that shows the transformation of Old NY into New NY is total schlock, like the ending scene with stones on the gravestone in SCHINDLER'S LIST. While THE GANGS OF NEW YORK is not a terrible film, it is certainly a failure.

But then, as if he learned nothing from his earlier film, Scorsese made the same mistake with THE AVIATOR. In a way, THE AVIATOR looks and feels like an old-fashioned movie. In contrast, even though RAGING BULL has the look of 1950s b/w cinema, it is very much an uncompromising work of New Hollywood. In contrast, with THE AVIATOR, it seems Scorsese was aiming for something like an Old Hollywood movie made with 21st century technology(and bit of licentiousness). It's rather reminiscent of Francis Ford Coppola's TUCKER, not so much an intense portrait of an American inventor but a nostalgia-saturated biopic of an American Legend. This is exactly what Philip Kaufman avoided with THE RIGHT STUFF, an inspiring but unsentimental look behind the myths at the reality of the Space Program. It found both mendacity and humanity, the real stuff of life. The heroes are humanized. It blasted through the sound barrier of nostalgia that marred so many period movies with haloed remembrances of the past. Its patriotism was hard-and-honestly-won(relative to most Hollywood fare) because it made us care about the people involved as humans, warts and all, than larger-than-life legends.
With THE AVIATOR, it's as if Scorsese was trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it is awash with the glow of nostalgia, the stuff of Hollywood legends and myths of American Heroism. And it's as if Scorsese was channeling the Old Masters to make a neo-Hollywood-spectacle worthy of their name and tradition. There is a bit of King Vidor, Cecil B. DeMille, John Huston, and lots of Howard Hawks, the man who directed SCARFACE for Howard Hughes. Hawks also directed the terrific aerial adventure ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS. And of course, there looms the shadow of Orson Welles who soon found himself unwelcome in Hollywood because, being an artist, he just couldn't make a conventional Hollywood movie and insisted on doing things his own way. (In that sense, THE AVIATOR is like an esoteric biopic about Welles as well.) Now, while Scorsese's cinema from the beginning was inspired by the greats he so admired -- everyone from John Ford to William Wyler to Federico Fellini to Robert Bresson -- , he was artist enough to develop his own perspective and personal style. He didn't merely imitate the greats but digested and absorbed them. He became a giant himself. But with THE AVIATOR, it's as if Scorsese was always looking over his shoulders at the greats who inspired him. And having climbed upon THEIR shoulders, he tread gently with excessive humility. As a result, it doesn't really feel like his movie. It feels as though he was trying the channel the skills of his gods & heroes in the Pantheon to make a work as tribute to them. It's like he was seeking approval and benediction. In works like TAXI DRIVER and RAGING BULL, the diminutive Scorsese was like a little giant. With THE AVIATOR, he's like a big dwarf. It's the work of someone who comes across as overly reverential(to the point of servility) to the masters. He was walking in their footsteps than forging his own steps(rather odd since he'd done that already with his several masterpieces). The Orson Welles factor makes it even more problematic. There is a reason why Welles ended up trying to scrape together funds to make more movies in Europe. He was persona non grata in Hollywood that found him 'too much'. He wouldn't play by the rules like Howard Hawks, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, and etc. Hollywood had plenty of great film directors but not many personal artists. Welles was one of them and just couldn't fit in. So, when THE AVIATOR cops styles & motifs from both Classic Hollywood and maverick Welles, the result is more than a little strange, like an airplane ride riddled with turbulence. It'd be like making a movie inspired by classic Fordisms and maverick Peckinpahisms. While both have value, Ford worked within rules, whereas Peckinpah was a tireless rule-breaker in search for unfettered personal expression, for better or worse. Given the contradictions, THE AVIATOR feels at once too safe-and-comfy(and old-fashioned) AND bold-and-brazen. It's like a co-directorial effort by Ron Howard and Oliver Stone(who, though rarely great, has tried to be a film artist than mere entertainer). Also, no amount of fireworks can redeem or fix a film that is thin, hollow, or confused at the center. Francis Ford Coppola's COTTON CLUB has lots of visual wonders and pizzazz, but it's mostly filled with cookie-cutter characters, gross caricatures, and lame signaling about racial injustice. (Do we really want NAACP messaging in a movie about thugs, black and white?)

Enchantress Ava Gardner

Katharine Hepburn, fresh as an apple.

Cate Blanchett... Ewwwww

Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn in THE AVIATOR?

There is also the problem of casting. Leonard DiCaprio can be a fine actor but comes across as too slight and 'weeny' to take on the role of a legend. His partners and employees barely register as screen presence. But the most disastrous are the two female leads by Cate Blachett and Kate Beckinsale. Beckinsale is a pretty woman but can't hold a candle to Ava Gardner, one of the most beguiling movie stars to grace the silver screen. Gardner wasn't merely pretty. There was mystery and exoticism in her beauty, a quality utterly lacking in Beckinsale. Well, at least Beckinsale is pleasant to look at. But Blanchett? Yes, she has talent, but she is one of the most repugnant-looking woman in cinema. She's so ugly, even a warthog will refuse to mate with her. She's so ugly, she could turn spring back into winter. Now, Katharine Hepburn was no great beauty, but in her youth she was vivacious and strikingly attractive. As Pauline Kael wrote of her cheeks in BRINGING UP BABY: " “no paleontologist ever got hold of a more beautiful set of bones.” http://emanuellevy.com/review/bringing-up-baby-1938-revisiting-katharine-hepburn-and-cary-grant-zany-screwball-comedy/
It's all the more painful to watch Blanchett because she got Hepburn's voice down pat. Imagine Don Knots speaking like Sean Connery. Blanchett's uncanny vocal impersonation makes us feel Hepburn's presence, but what we get is someone who looks like Harpo Marx. Bob Dylan was no great looker, but Blanchett was too ugly for him in the dreadful I'M NOT THERE. It's a crime to have her play the lovely young Hepburn.
Scorsese sometimes missed big with casting. What made him cast the toothy and deranged-looking Willem Defoe as Jesus in LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST? And even though Michelle Pfeiffer was a good-looking woman, she was all-wrong for THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, otherwise a perfect work. But because her character is so central to what unfolds in the story, it's a near-fatal error. But that was nothing compared to spending the first hour of THE AVIATOR looking at Harpo with Hepburn's voice. That was painful, a kind of torture, as icky to the audience as germs are to Howard Hughes.

For a person of deep movie knowledge, it's interesting that Scorsese's two movies about movie-making involve rather unimportant figures in cinema. Melies of HUGO is significant only for historical reasons. He was among the first to tinker with cinema as device but hardly contributed anything of artistic value. But HUGO inflates his reputation. And Howard Hughes' idea of movie-making was all production and engineering. HELL'S ANGELS(apt description for Catholic Scorsese's place in satanic Hollywood) is pretty decent as an action-war spectacle but hardly a seminal masterpiece. Hughes was far more significant as businessman and aeronautics guy than as a movie-maker. And the only reason THE OUTLAW is remembered is for breasts. It's telling that Hughes even approaches the matter of cleavage from an engineering perspective, a matter of measurements and data, as if(as with 'John Nash' in A BEAUTIFUL MIND), there is a mathematical formula behind everything: mammary and armory. I'm not sure if it really happened that way or was meant as homage to VERTIGO where we learn that the formula behind the Golden Gate Bridge is identical to that of a certain ladies bra. Because Hughes wasn't a significant figure in cinema, THE AVIATOR seems rather strained in making him out to be more important than he really was. Also, allusions to CITIZEN KANE are rather irritating. Such homage is unnecessary as we know Welles was a giant. Furthermore, Scorsese has proven himself to be another giant. Scorsese's reverence for his elders is admirable, but as a fellow giant, he should act like one than a little boy asking a baseball player for an autograph. Now, if Scorsese was signaling that his was an attempt to make another CITIZEN KANE, it was again unnecessary but also presumptuous because one genius cannot(and should not) copy the genius of another. Every artist has his own signature, and each should stick to his own. No sense trying to imitate another's autograph like the Talented Mr. Ripley. One of the problems of HUGO was its attempt to be a Spielbergian movie. Spielberg was wiser in making A.I., which originated as a Stanley Kubrick project, into something entirely his own in terms of style and feel. For THE AVIATOR, Scorsese should have emptied his mind of all the reverence and sentimentality for old masters and just do his own thing. Indeed, the ONLY lesson to take from Welles is to follow one's own muse than guess as to the muses of others. Scorsese did exactly that with films like MEAN STREETS and GOODFELLAS, but THE AVIATOR is all too self-consciously indebted to Classic Hollywoodisms. For that sort of thing, the Coens do it better, especially in the brilliant HAIL CAESAR! But then, Coens are writers and satirists(riddled with irony) as well as directors whereas Scorsese is essentially a visual auteur and sincere moralist. Coens are more adept at toying with Hollywoodisms. Scorsese is more of a straight-man director.

THE AVIATOR's nod to THE GODFATHER works better than to CITIZEN KANE. For one thing, there was something inimitable about Welles' idiosyncratic genius. You can admire it but can't quite replicate it. And it wasn't just about Deep Focus, light tricks, low-angles, montage, and use of reflections, which anyone can do. It was about the alchemy of all those effects, the secret recipe of which is known only to the Sorcerer, rather like the Charm of Making of Merlin the Magician. Those who attempt Wellesism by imitating the mere outer manifestations of his films end up with the kind of garbage produced by Terry Gilliam. The only way to approach the genius of Welles is to find the Source within oneself and run with it. Carol Reed came close with THE THIRD MAN. John Frankenheimer with the brilliant THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, his only movie touched by genius. And Johnny To and David Fincher are masters of image, though rarely with the fortune to work on worthy material. FIGHT CLUB is great film-making with tawdry material, for example. ALIEN3 is the most amazingly directed in the series but rather silly as an concept. Doing Welles is futile like doing Picasso. Unless touched by a kindred spirit, one mistakes the shell for the flesh.

However, the magisterial style of THE GODFATHER can serve as the basis of other films as it itself was developed from earlier styles of Otto Preminger(esp ADVISE AND CONSENT), Luchino Visconti(esp THE LEOPARD), and Akira Kurosawa(especially BAD SLEEP WELL). It is classic than idiosyncratic expression, like English landscape painting, the imitation of which is no crime as it's about shared standards and further perfection by technique(by any new takers). Anyone who tries to do Van Gogh or Picasso is asking for trouble: Either plagiarizing another's brilliance or suppressing one's own personality in slavish imitation. But there is no shame in building upon the classical style that stands for shared tastes and reverence of symmetry and beauty. THE GODFATHER is about gangsters and crime, but it is a beautiful work, painterly and unfolding like a procession.

So, while Scorese's razzle-dazzle Wellesian antics go off like bad fireworks, his Coppolaean handling of the duel of will and wits between Juan Trippe/Owen Brewster and Howard Hughes comes off pretty well(though a pale shadow of THE GODFATHER movies). Still, it's too bad that Scorsese felt a need to do his own Coppola-isms. With MEAN STREETS, GOODFELLAS, and CASINO, he made his own kind of movies about gangsters. Unlike Brian DePalma whose works were often like remakes of movies by other directors(especially Hitchcock), Scorsese was always careful to forge his own distinct style. (SCARFACE and UNTOUCHABLES are entertaining crime thrillers, but they are like Old Hollywood movies on cocaine or steroids. DePalma drew from the old well and spiked it with strong drugs. The notable exception was CARLITO'S WAY, his greatest movie, that truly managed to be a new kind of gangster romance.) But what Scorsese does with Hughes vs Trippe/Brewster is rather tame. It's pretty good Coppola-ism but why isn't it Scorsesism? After all, Scorsese is more than Ron Howard, a pretty good director who learned the tricks of the trade but never did anything bold or remarkable. Coppola and Scorsese at their best did change the face of cinema, and there was no reason for Scorsese to walk in Coppola's footsteps in THE AVIATOR. As entertaining as the scenes with Owen Brewster and Juan Trippe are, we can't help thinking that Scorsese is trying to do His Godfather Moment. Leone with ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA made HIS gangster movie instead of doing a variation of THE GODFATHER or whatever. Perhaps, the problem with Scorsese is he's much better at dealing with trees than the forest. His roving eyes notices so much within a tight social milieu, but his talents fall short of the grand vision essential to a mythic work like THE AVIATOR. Like Roman Polanski, he's best with rat's eye than bird's eye.

Also, contrary to a conceit of Auteur Theory -- "the worst films of a superior director are better than the best films of an inferior director"(like Dave Kehr usually favoring the worst of Clint Eastwood over the best of Woody Allen and Federico Fellini, two directors he mostly detests) -- , personal expertise, brilliance, and mastery are not everything. Steven Spielberg can run circles around Clint Eastwood, and the action scenes in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN blow away FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, but Eastwood's films are more memorable because of the characters and ruminations on the ethics of war. And Scorsese is many times the director that Danny DeVito will ever be, but HOFFA is, overall, a better movie than THE AVIATOR because of its powerhouse performances and tragic sense of friendship that really sears. What happens to the two men in HOFFA is incredibly heart-wrenching, whereas I doubt if anyone much cared about Hughes of THE AVIATOR as they walked out of the theater. (I cared more for the Hughes of MELVIN AND HOWARD though just a minor character.)

If there was something laudable about Howard Hughes, he always did his own thing his way. Granted, his romantic individualism of the swashbuckling kind nearly ended his life several times, a 'mistake' generally avoided by Jews who preferred to remain safe while making 'dumb goyim' take all the risks with life and limb. Perhaps, Hughes the reckless risk-taker and the Hepburn Family(in the best scene in the movie) suggest as to why Wasps eventually lost out to Jews. One kind of Wasp was too addicted to risk and adventure -- Ernest Hemingway ended much worse than Philip Roth and Saul Bellow who took better care of themselves -- while the other kind of wasps was too insular and priggish to see beyond the bridge of their noses. Like Burt Lancaster's character in THE SWIMMER, the adventurous wasp failed to sit still and take stock of himself and the world around him. In contrast, the priggish wasp was so busy with being self-righteous about one thing or another that he or she never bothered to ask WHO decides what to be outraged about. What mattered most is being a prig, therefore anything would suffice as long as it was offered on the dish of prigdom. Notice how prigs took so quickly to Homomania once it was served to them on the prig-prog dish. Such 'priggressives'.

*I suppose Elon Musk is like the Howard Hughes of the 21st Century. Is he for real though?

Though Scorsese didn't write THE AVIATOR, he came of age in a time when the director, as 'auteur', was suppose to stamp the material with his personality and vision. And there is some of that in the movie. But there is also a lack of self-awareness amidst the self-consciousness. I wonder to what extent Scorsese realized that his approach to THE AVIATOR(or GANGS OF NY) was saddled with the same problems faced by Hughes in his ridiculous project of building Hercules, the biggest plane in the world. Just like Hercules that barely manages to walk on water (like Jesus?), THE AVIATOR barely manages to get off the ground with its excess cargo of ambition and conflicting objectives. It lifts off ground but fails to soar. (I wonder if it inspired Hayao Miyazaki's THE WIND HAS RISEN, which may have worked as live-action movie but utterly fails as biopic of a real historical figure.) Whether Hercules could fly or not wasn't the issue. It was a bad idea borne of megalomania from the start. Simply unrealistic from any sane perspective, it was the product of quasi-autistic personality that figured that the best plane had to be the biggest and most impossible, just like Hughes' idea of a great movie(or greatest movie) was one made with biggest budget, longest shooting schedule, and perfectionism bordering on pathology. And yet, in the dream of making the seemingly impossible possible, there is an element of 'spiritual' longing in Hughes' personality. It's as if he believes in miracles, indeed as if his holy mother as personal Madonna smiles down upon him from clouds above. And this is where Scorsese slips in his Catholic-Christian theologisms into the movie.

In a way, several of Scorsese's movies are tales of fallen or misled christs or false saints. Their 'trials' have outer resemblance to the Passion of Jesus Christ. And yet, they are agents of satanism whose martyrdom is really a sick parody, a perverse mimicry, of the King of Kings. Travis Bickle is a would-be christ-figure who is willing to lay down his life to 'save' a girl in corrupt New York. But he's incapable of grappling with his own sickness and projects his psychosis onto the world. Jake LaMotta must deny himself food and sex in his total devotion to boxing. Boxers undergo tremendous suffering in the ring, and in the end, LaMotta gets 'crucified' by the fists of Sugar Ray Robinson. And yet, boxing is a blood sport. It is about men taking money to batter other men for beastly entertainment for the masses. Rupert Pupkin is willing to risk going to jail. He is utterly devoted to the world of entertainment. He is willing to make any sacrifice to enter the gates of TV heaven. But he has no sense of worth other than celebrity. He's fanatical like a saint but for trash culture. Ace Rothstein speaks of washing away sins in Las Vegas. It's the place where underworld figures like himself can go legitimate and do things under legal sanction and become 'respectable'. And yet, casino world is filled with criminals and degenerates. It exploits the worst aspects of human nature: Addiction to mindless thrills.
Howard Hughes is presented as yet another false christ. The movie opens with an image reminiscent of Madonna and Child. Hughes' mother is bathed in golden light and warns her son of the world infested with germs and filth. He is like the perfect child, radiant and pure. (There is a nod to Buddhism as well perhaps, not least because Scorsese made KUNDUN, a stunning work about the young Dalai Lama. Buddhism too has the story of purity in an impure world. Siddhartha is born into what appears to be a perfect world, only to discover it is mired in disease, decay, and death, and he devotes his life to seek Nirvana, the escape from the pathology of illusion that is the world. But then, KUNDUN shows how even those seeking Nirvana cannot escape court politics and world events.)
It's been said Jesus was the only Perfect Man, born without sin. And yet, both Hughes and Jesus had to make their way in a world of filth and foulness. The way of Jesus was to love sinful mankind. To embrace the wretched and the diseased and offer them hope. He wasn't meant to guard His purity for Himself but to share it with impure mankind so that sinners may be offered a path toward redemption and salvation, ultimately to the gates of Heaven. In contrast, Hughes' way is to recoil from the filth and grime. He is shown to have so many phobias about food and hygiene. And yet, he is more than willing to indulge in the corruption of the world to get his way.

There is a moment when Jesus, during His 40 days of soul-searching, is visited by Satan who presents Him with several temptations. Jesus rejects them all: Turning stones into bread, Jumping off the Pinnacle to test God, and Surveying the world from atop the mountain. Hughes is like the christ-figure who accepts the temptations. In a way, his diet is about turning stones into bread because he must have everything his way. And through flying machines, he toys with death in the conviction that angels will always save him somehow. And he wants control and dominion over everything. He complains about Pan Am's monopoly, but he wants to be head honcho of whatever he lays his hands on. He has over-arching ambitions like Charles Foster Kane. No matter how much Hughes suffers -- and he does so greatly at times -- , he is a satanic christ because he chose the material world than the spiritual one. Indeed, the room in which he is secluded for long stretches(like with Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys following SMILE sessions) is lit in hellish red. And in the final scene, as Hughes recalls his childhood while gazing into the mirror, he hears his younger self saying, through the glass darkly, "When I grow up, I want to fly the fastest planes, make the biggest movies ever, and be the richest man in the world." And the movie closes with Hughes muttering, "The Way of the Future" over and over. Jesus was about Eternity, a timeless concept where ALL OF TIME is oneness with God. Eternity is bigger than the past, present, or future. In contrast, the notion of the 'future' is temporal, always dissatisfied with the present, always dismissive of the past. 'Future' implies that the world is not good enough. We need more money, more glory, more gadgets, more devices, more fun, and etc. No matter what you accomplish, it's not enough because someone will come up with something better, in which case you have to make something better before he does. But life is finite, and in the end, everything you do will be surpassed by new achievements in the future. That was the basis of Western Greatness -- individualism and competitive spirit -- , but it was also a betrayal of Jesus' teachings of spirituality and eternity. The airplane is shaped like a crucifix, and in one scene, we see Hughes become 'crucified' in it. It is his moment of Passion. And in his seclusion in his dark private room, with hair growing long and beard on his chin, he looks like a demented jesus. And the way he sits on the chair is like the image of the naked Jesus on the Cross in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Scorsese alludes to his own film, and one wonders if Hughes' megalomania rubbed off on Scorsese at times: https://youtu.be/6P1_qp8nYO8?t=34

And the ultimate triumph with Hercules is like his moment of resurrection(or at least that of Lazarus). But the film reminds us that material success and achievements are but fleeting moments. They come and go until the new hot thing comes along. After all, Hughes admits at the end that Jet engines are the future. So, everything he and his kind have produced thus far will also pass into the dustbin of history. No matter how much we seek elevation and transcendence via worldly things, it can only be a parody of true salvation. You can fly high and fast, but you can't enter Heaven with an airplane, no matter than a camel through the eye of a needle... or so Catholicism tells us.

The movie also intimates that Hughes' interest in cinema may not have been merely economic or egotistical. Maybe it was a way of playing God or at least Christ. After all, there is something Biblical about how rays from the projector lights up the silver screen. It's like a "Let there be Light" moment. The world is imperfect and impure, but the film-maker can use the light to create the world as it 'should be'. He can play God. And in the 'purity' of the screen image, there are no smells and no germs. But alas, movies are make-believe, no matter how excellent or entertaining they may be. And the light that illuminates the screen is a fake light generated by electricity and illusion of 24 frames per second. It is not the real light of sun and soul, the glimpse of which is seen in the ending of SILENCE with the glowing makeshift crucifix in the hands of the dead priest.

Silence by Martin Scorsese