Anyway, without such corrective counter-measures, society could dangerously lean one way(like the Tower in Pisa)... to the point where it just collapses from its own weight of bias. Consider what radical ideological purity did to Russia under Stalinism, Germany under Hitlerism, and China under Maoism. And the mindless Shlomo-Worship that has become the new religion of the West has led to woeful imbalances in life, values, perceptions, and policies. (Granted, Shlomo-Worship has more to do with ethno-idolatry than ideology. After all, we are to revere and serve Jews REGARDLESS of their ideology, i.e. we must favor Liberal Jews over Rightist Goyim, but we must also favor Conservative Jews over Leftist Goyim, such as those progressives who support BDS, a movement for Palestinian justice.) We need a National Humanist form of Neo-Fascism because fascism understood the need to balance the right and the left. Instead of reaction vs revolution or capitalism vs communism, fascists understood the need to draw ideas and inspirations from various spheres of political philosophy, tradition & modernity, spirituality/mythology & materialism, and human nature. While fascism was ultimately more rightist than leftist, it understood the need for leftist counterbalance against the right. It’s like most people are right-handed but still find the left hand/arm invaluable in their daily activities. Likewise, both spheres of the brains are necessary to make us fully human. This is why all the political debates about ‘right’ vs ‘left’ are so tiresome. Even radical communist Josef Stalin realized it simply wouldn’t do to wipe out all vestiges of conservatism if Soviet Union were to stabilize into a relatively sane society. And the good side of Adolf Hitler was he understood the need to fuse nationalism with socialism because a world totally dominated by capitalists would only care about profits and power of the globalist elite class(largely Jewish).
And yet, that isn't the full nature of the cat. Cats are also natural hunters and intelligent mammals with curiosity. This is no less true of dogs. So, cats also love to venture outdoors and often demand to be let out to stalk mice, birds, and other small animals. Or, they just love to be stimulated by sights, sounds, and scents. They feel most intensely alive in such adventures. Therefore, it would be simplistic to say that Cat Nature is purely home-centric or purely wander-centric. Cat Nature is both, and indeed both tendencies rely on each other, no less than the military is about both defense and offense. An effective military needs both a solid base of operations, defense, & security — a castle, fortress, or encampment — AND a means to mobilize, maneuver, & attack swiftly. It’s like what is said of the Takeda Clan in Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA: "Swift as the wind, quiet as a forest, fierce as fire, immovable as a mountain." In order to hunt, a wild cat has to move around, but it also has a sense of territoriality. If it wanders too far off, it could be in the territory of another cat, and it could be dangerous. Therefore, the cat outside its territory must return to its own or fight to claim the turf. Also, if the cat is a female with cubs, it hunts not only to satiate its own hunger but to take the kill back to the den(home) to feed the young ones. Its ‘meaning’ of existence comes from procuring food for its offspring.
Humans are much like dogs and cats in certain regards. Like them, humans want and need a base, shelter, sanctuary, or home-sweet-home. Even people who live outside their own nations as expatriates, businessmen, or workers need a place to which they can return after work or play, a place of rest and security accessible only to oneself through lock and key. It’s like even birds, though masters of the sky, must come down to ground and rest in the nest, also a place where the new batch is hatched and raised to perpetuate the species. Thus, no matter where we are, there is the Wander Principle and Return Principle. Both a person with a nation but without a home and a person with a home but without a nation are not complete in their Return Principle. An Estonian in Estonian has a nation to call his own but would be a sad creature without his own place of residence. His endless wanderings about as a hobo would be draining, physically and psychologically. Without a place of his own, it'd be difficult to rest and clean oneself. Furthermore, his mind would never be at ease without a place where he could feel fully relaxed and homey. No matter where he goes, even in his own nation, he would be a stranger. In contrast, a person with a home or residence outside his own nation would have a place to call his own at the private and legal level, but as a foreigner, he would always know that he’s not really part of the nation. Still, if his own nation exists in some part of the world, he knows he could go back and join his tribe. However, if a person has a home but no place in the world to call his nation, he would be in a state of permanent diaspora, like the Jews before they attained(or regained) Palestine/Israel as their own homeland. The fact that Jews worked so hard to gain a nation of their own shows how important it is for a people to have a place where they, as united community, can truly feel at home.
The story of America is one of both wander-ment and settlement, the creation of a new homeland. In virtually all Western stories, there is the thrill of adventure & discovery but also the dream & promise of a new home. Unlike the two great stories of the Return, Exodus and Odyssey — where Hebrews and Odysseus respectively seek their way home — , the American Narrative was about Reborn than Return. In the New World, Europeans ‘fleeing from tyrannies’ would find new homes and start new lives as ‘Americans’. There was the promise of both adventure and sanctuary. People would scramble for the vast spaces in America but ultimately to mark territory and build a home to call their own. Thus, even when one is far away from one’s original homeland(even permanently), there is a psychological need to have a home and new homeland. A person can be taken out of his homeland, but the home instinct cannot be taken out of the person. Even away from home, he goes about setting up a new home, the one he can return to every night to relax and feel secure. It’s like a bunch of gerbils taken out of their original homeland of Mongolia will go about burrowing and creating a new home of underground tunnels wherever they are released. Even if a people cannot(or will not) return to their original homeland, they go about in accordance to the Return Principle and create an approximation of Home, one to which they can return every evening to relax, clean, sleep, and even raise a family. America developed as an extension of European Civilization, after all.
Be that as it may, it’s understandable why Liberals have gained the upper hand in modernity. While both the liberal fascination with novelty and conservative love of familiarity are essential, the former is far more likely to strike gold(even if it turns out to be fool’s gold in the long run) because it goes beyond the tried-and-true that, without improvement or replacement, can become rusty or stale. As modernity thrives on change, those who are more open to it will gain an upper-hand over those who resist it. In both Frank Capra’s IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE and Darren Aronofsky’s MOTHER!, despite the crucial roles played by the ‘conservative’ wife-mother figures in maintenance of home & stability, the agents of dynamic action are the husband-father figures who are more drawn to novelty than to familiarity. And yet, the Man in MOTHER! must keep recreating a Home, and George Bailey realizes in the end that there's no place like home. And in BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER, the orphaned daughter who cuts all human ties and embraces nihilism nevertheless feels a need to find herself back to her New Home, one she set up with the Devil.
What goes for individual humans also applies to culture as a whole. Burt Lancaster as Ned Merrill in THE SWIMMER is instructive of what happens to individuals who lose their sense of home. In some ways, Merrill is exciting, even inspiring, as an all-American romantic, but in having led a life of thrill to thrill to thrill on an impulse, he never established a clear sense of home for his family. Indeed, he’s so deluded in his search for adventure that he has mentally blocked the sad fate that has befallen him and his family. At once, he is seeking thrills and a way to return home. Except his record of neglect and irresponsibility led to the loss of family and home that sits desolate and boarded up. At the films end, weary of mind/body as the cold storm approaches, he bangs on the door of his old home, except there is no one to greet him. A life that is all thrills and adventure, whether based on impulse or idealism, is a road to madness. There is a need to wander but also a need to have a clear sense of home and the ritual of return. After all, one of the joys of parenting is to come home from work every day and greet the spouse and children; and for young children, nothing is more reassuring and happy than their father returning every evening. Consider the love between George Bailey(James Stewart) and his kids at the end of IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Though it is sad, even tragic, that George Bailey’s ambition was thwarted by the needs of his hometown, he realizes nothing is more important that having a home and family. Also, even though he didn’t see the whole wide world, he got to know everyone in town and did so much for them; as such, his life was a kind of adventure, a soulful one at that. One can find a universe through a microscope as well as through a telescope. And in understanding the importance of home, he did what he could to procure homes for others in the town, which is so different from the operative mode of people like Paul Singer who makes Mr. Potter seem like Mr. Rogers by comparison.
The problem is not the move away from home but the failure to ritualize one’s return to it. Even in exile(which can be tragically permanent), one must recreate a sense of the home, both personal and tribal, to maintain one’s mental and emotional health that relies on both the Wander Principle and Return Principle. For example, even in what seemed like permanent exile, Jews created in goy nations their own ghettos that served as centers of Jewish life and religion, and of course, in traditional Jewish life, the family was central to one’s existence. The profession of a peddler, money-changer, or tax-collector wasn’t the most pleasant as the Jew had to haggle, negotiate, and/or contend often in a hostile and distrustful manner with the goyim. Then, one can understand how much of a relief it was for the Jew to finally return home where he could be himself with his family, culture, and tradition than the much-loathed merchant behind the mask. (Still, having a home in an alien land is always risky, like what happens to David Sumner[played by Dustin Hoffman] in Sam Peckinpah’s STRAW DOGS. He is pushed to the limit and fights to defend his 'house', but it’s really the house of his estranged wife’s late father, and Sumner is an American in a small town in England.) The sad thing about Arthur Miller’s DEATH OF A SALESMAN is that the Art of the Deal(and the American Dream of Capitalism) has come to define Willy Loman so much that even when he’s back home, he can’t think of anything but money, status, and pride. Though Loman isn’t explicitly presented as Jewish, he is a deracinated Jewish figure who has allowed Money and Success to define everything in his life. Among traditional Jews, there would have been meaning, mainly ethno-spiritual in nature, as counterbalance to materialist competition. In decades following WWII, many Jews found meaning in Zionism and/or the Shoah, but throughout most of the first half of the 20th Century, the main theme of Jewishness was, "What shall replace the old and fading Jewish themes and ties? Universalist Ideology of Communism, Individualist Idolatry of Capitalism, or the Nihilist Indulgence in Gangsterism?" Willy Loman is all for capitalism, and when his dream fails to materialize, he grows mad. Even though Loman has a home to return to, he’s always on the road, even when he’s at home with his devoted wife because his measure of a man is all about licking the world and showing off emblems of one’s success and wealth. In that sense, he’s found his own kind of madness just like Ned Merrill in THE SWIMMER. It’s natural for us to feel restless at times, but if we become rootless in the bargain, we wash away like a mudslide along a deforested hillside.
Anyway, what happens to a culture when it loses the sense of roots, base, core, and foundation? It’s natural for individuals and even society-at-large to be deviant at times, but there must be a return to form and restoration of normality. It’s like all of us have our crazy moments, but we come to our senses and return to sanity, the normal state of mind. Indeed, the ‘crazy’ and ‘normal’ feed off each other, just like the Wander Principle and Return Principle. If we were normal at all times, we would never venture to ponder the different, the strange, and odd. Sometimes, new ideas and thoughts arise from going beyond what is accepted as Normal or Common Sense. And yet, most of craziness is just crazy or meaningless. Thus, people mustn’t dwell in the ‘crazy’ state of mind for too long. Just like a mountain climber must come back do ground and a deep sea diver must return to the surface/land, we must return to normality from abnormal or ‘crazy’ states of mind. It's like when things get really crazy out there, the female astronaut longs to return to Mother Earth in GRAVITY. Thus, normality restrains the excesses of ‘craziness’ while moments of ‘craziness’ shake off stuffy doldrums of same old same old. It’s good to have a bit of ‘punk’ spirit in everyone. But as enlivening and enticing as ‘crazy’ may be, one must return to base, just like a battery has to be plugged to be recharged.
This was the function of the church in Western Civilization and History, especially as white peoples became dispersed around the world, often permanently separated from their places of origin. I would wager most Greek-Americans born in the US never went back to Greece. Most Anglo-Americans probably never went to the UK. Most German-Americans never visited Germany. And of course, traveling across great distances was far more daunting and expensive in the 19th century world of horses, trains, sails, and steamships. And yet, wherever white folks went, they built churches in their communities, and church attendance used to be quite high. By attending every Sunday, they were touching base with the House of God. This had both spiritual and historical significance. The Church was like a bathhouse where, once a week, one scrubbed away one’s sins and trespasses throughout the week. Just like bodies and clothing need regular washing, it was deemed souls need regular cleansing too. But there was also a sense that, by attending church, one was touching base with all of Christendom that had stood across the many centuries. Thus, one could be in some far-flung territory in America, Canada, or Australia, but when one entered the church house, it was as if one was united spiritually-historically-culturally with all of one’s forbears and kinsmen in other parts of the world.
Now, humans being humans, it would be foolish to idealize or romanticize country folks. Rural life can make people petty and bitter. Many go crazy with boredom. Some country boys even get it on with farm animals. Rural folks have been known to be rednecks and ignoramuses whose culture consists of singing "Old McDonald Had a Farm" and jumping over dungheaps. The films JEAN DE FLORETTE and MANON OF THE SPRING show the dark underbelly of small-town provincialism and a folksy kind of crookedness that is hardly less detestable than that found among city-slickers. Wherever one goes, scoundrels will act like scoundrels, and those naturally predisposed to hyper-neuroticism or psychopathy will go mad. And the prostitute/porn characters in TAXI DRIVER and BIG LEBOWSKI make it amply clear why they ran from their humble origins for the excitement of urban life.
Still, in the generic sense, there is something about rural/agricultural life that is missing in urban life. (The problem with certain towns that are too developed to be rural but too limited to be truly urban is that its inhabitants miss out on both soil and the buzz.) Urban life can be crude and dangerous, but it lacks the elemental nature of rural life where one’s work and existence are so closely linked to one’s surroundings. With lots of money, one can afford a fancy place in the city, but it never feels like home in the cultural or historical sense. Everything is a price than a place. Properties are bought and sold at breakneck speed. Of course, given the takeover of much of US agriculture by corporate conglomerates and the fact that only 2% of Americans are directly involved in agriculture, when we speak of ‘rural America’ we generally mean small towns and even small-sized cities than rustic countryside. One thing for sure, the connective link to the country has eroded close to zilch in the decades following the 60s. How many Americans in urban areas still return to rural villages or small towns from which their ancestors sprung, especially since so many Americans have been on the move across the vast plains, with families ever more dispersed with every generation? How many relatives are still on the farm? Truth is, just like the great majority of Puerto Ricans just moved to America, most Americans have moved out of farmlands, and their children have no idea where their grandparents, great grandparents, and great-great grandparents may have lived. It is no wonder that so much of American Conservatism is defined more by guns and 'Muh Constitution' than by sense of place or origin.
Of late, Western Culture seems like it has lost its direction home. This is true on both the micro-and macro-level. In the Age of Empire, the British colonialists, though dispersed around the globe, still looked to King/Queen and Country. They oversaw colonial affairs in other parts of the world but never forgot where they came from. And when the empire finally came to an end, the colonists had a homeland to return to. It’s like the British soldiers in Christopher Nolan’s DUNKIRK are relieved to make their way back to Mother Britain. During the Age of Empire, the Anglos had both a powerful sense of Wander and powerful sense of Return/Home. They had both, which is why the empire was so powerful. In contrast, Germanic barbarians that overran much of Europe upon the fall of Rome had a weak sense of home-base, and it’s hardly surprising that their order soon came to nothing until the reconstituted Christendom radiated its authority all across Europe. Despite journeying far from home in great voyages of discovery, trade, and conquest, the Anglos never forgot where they came from. And the one bunch of Anglos who made a decisive and clean break with the Mother Country, the Anglo-Americans of course, still had the closest relation with Britain up to the 1960s when the US, under the rising Jewish elites, leaned more to Israel as the #1 political ally and spiritual mentor.
The politics of this phenomenon cannot be divorced from the psychology. While it’s true that the mind reacts to matter or the material world, it’s also true that mind shapes matter. After all, the reason why Jews ‘regained’ Palestine/Israel as their homeland was because they were psychologically determined and prepared to do just about anything to turn the Holy Land into a nation for Jews. Without that vision and will, there wouldn’t have been Zionism and Israel. If a people-with-will-but-without-land can use the will to gain the land, a people-with-land-but-without-will can lose the land without a fight. And this is why Jews find the media and academia so useful. Via control of the Dogma and Narrative, Jewish Power robbed white psychology of the Will to Homeland/Return. It is then hardly surprising what has been detailed by Douglas Murray in his book, THE STRANGE DEATH OF EUROPE. Actually, it’s not so strange when we consider the Jewish role in taking over the academia and media in the US as the new metropole for all the West. Indeed, Jews not only robbed white psychology of the Will to Homeland but infected it with the Will to Diversity. In other words, the Suicide of the West isn’t merely the product of apathy but passion for abnegation. From white elites in ivory towers to Antifa riffraff in the streets, what they all have in common is the Jewish-written mental program that calls for Righteous Renunciation of Whiteness by Whites.
One reason why Jews have such power over whites in relative peacetime could be that a stable society favors brain power and legalism. This is especially true in urbanized nations where the vast majority of people live in or around big cities, small cities, or big towns. In a world of war and adventure, the men of physical prowess, courage, and daring have much respect and power. In the Age of Empire when so many whites were involved in sea voyages and endless battles with rival empires and/or natives, the men of action were among the main decision-makers. Manpower also counted for much in a world where most people were farmers or factory workers. But as the West turned increasingly into a white-collar and managerial society, those who were most adept at money-making and manipulation of the law gained the most prestige and power. Once the physical stage of development passed into history, it was mostly about the mental state of competition. This was true also of gangsterism. While Jews played a big role in organized crime in the past, they also had to contend with Irishmen and Italians who were just as or even more willing to take physical risks to get their way. In such a brutal topsy-turvy world of competition, the gangster with the gun had much respect. But as things settled down over the years, gangsters with briefcases had a decisive advantage over those with guns. Furthermore, if you control the law, you get to decide what is legal or illegal. Under Jewish power, entire drugs have been legalized, and gambling, once regarded as a vice, is now seen as the Christmas-Place-To-Be all across America. And Jews have even pushed to virtually decriminalize illegal aliens, especially in places like New York and California but throughout the nation as well. Besides, even rural elites were educated in PC-pushing colleges and get their news/entertainment from Jewish-dominated globo-homo corporations.
As Nicholas Roeg’s film EUREKA shows, the Anglos have felt most alive in the mode of discovery and adventure, whereas Jews have been most adept at conspiring behind closed doors, like Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2.
The boomers were part of the first nearly universally affluent society. As such, they didn’t have to worry about hunger or want. But many boomers knew of their parents, grandparents, and even great-grandparents whose lives were about struggle, suffering, and even sacrifice. Even though the boomers rebelled against the older generation for its hypocrisies and limitations, they gained much from the older generation's upkeep of some semblance of social decorum, cultural maturity, normality, and seriousness. Academia were about higher-learning, and spirituality was about true religions and reverent worship, not pop and pap. Perhaps, the boomers developed the delusion of taking for granted that the older generation will always be there, not least because they regarded themselves as the forever-young generation. Thus, even though the older generation was growing older and dying(never to return ever again, not even as zombies) and the boomer generation was growing older and becoming the new elders of society, the boomers were cemented in an attitude that they were always up in arms against the Older Order. This mentality lingered even as the older generation retired and began to die out. People with such attitude can never fully mature. There is no such thing as forever-young. Youth is a phase, not an identity one can cling to forever. But the boomers were stuck in youth rebellion mode and never matured and took full responsibility for their own dominant role in society. The result for the next generations was most dire.
If boomers in the 60s had an opportunity to improve things with the new while also drawing inspiration from the best of the old, the next generations, especially the millennials, were cut off from the stabilizing factor of the old. Boomers could go a bit crazy(not necessarily in a bad way) with social, ideological, or cultural experimentation, but when things got out-of-hand, they still had a traditional family, normality, spirituality, and patriotism(the true kind) to turn to. Consider Rosanne Arquette's character in BABY IT'S YOU who goes kinda nuts in college but still has solid middle class Jewish parents to return to.
They had both Mick Jagger and John Wayne(who made movies into the 1970s). But when the millennials came of age, much of the older generation prior to the boomers were senile or dead. To them, the boomers were the old generation, but the boomers no longer represented anything resembling normality, responsibility, familiarity, and tradition. Boomers looked old but didn’t act it. The fact that so many caved to nonsense like ‘gay marriage’ shows a total lack of confidence in their role as elders and guides for the young; rather, their main obsession is to be ‘cool with the youth’, and so, if the Jewish Power brainwashed young morons to worship Holy Homo, then of course, the boomers just had to follow suit to be ‘hip’ and ‘with it’.
The 60s libertine-ism led to an explosion of new expressions, but for every artful treatment, there were hundred others that were pure exploitation. For every THE WILD BUNCH, there were soon to be a hundred mindless gore-fests. For every LAST TANGO IN PARIS, there were hundreds of porn flicks such as those featuring Ron Jeremy sucking his own dick. When the cultural transformation was happening, the boomers had the best of both worlds in that they could watch something like BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH but still feel a connection to the moral affirmations of works by John Ford and Howard Hawks that were routinely featured on TV. There was the movement toward the new but also the possibility of return to the old, which was still part of the mainstream culture. There’s a telling scene at the end of BABY IT’S YOU where a college dance rocking to the latest hits eases into a electric hipster rendering of Frank Sinatra’s "Strangers in the Night". The students initially feel put off by the song, but a part of them understands its sentiments that they know from their parents. For a moment, there is a realization that youth is just a phase and life goes on. Or consider the cultural role provided by the father in the French-Canadian film C.R.A.Z.Y.
For all their limitations, the prior generations believed in the essentials of adulthood, maturity, family, and normality. Sadly, the oldest son in C.R.A.Z.Y comes to a bad end with drug addiction and overdose. Still, how fortunate it was for him to have grown up with a father who still understood and played the role of patriarch. The son went for a crazy libertine life but still had a true family life to lean on. Now, imagine having as a parent someone like the oldest son in the film. It’d be crazy upon crazy than crazy upon normal. The boomers had the best of both worlds in that they were living in a crazy-upon-normal world. They could go to Woodstock and fry their brains on bad drugs, but if need be, they could return home and be in a world of the normal, the stable, and traditional. After all, even Archie Bunker, for all his faults, is a man of God and country in ALL IN THE FAMILY. But millennials came of age in the world of crazy-upon-crazy(or crazy-upon-crazy-upon-crazy) as the boomers never really grew up. Consider the fate of Billy Boy Clinton. Or the sheer ridiculousness of George Dubya Bush. People have praised Obama of being a respectable Negro, but this is someone who worships globo-homo as the new cult.
Jay McInerney’s BRIGHT LIGHTS BIG CITY, though no great work of art(as book or film), understood this factor of existence. The main character, Jamie Conway, is very much a city-slicker who lives the high life, has a nasty cocaine habit, and clings to his estranged wife Amanda, a shallow & narcissistic fashion model who dumped him. The night life with its dance clubs and easy sex & drugs has its allure and excitement but offers no meaning. If there’s any meaning left in Conway’s life, it’s from emotions swelling within when he remembers his late mother who was stricken with cancer. There is something to be said about the glitzy appeal of the ‘crazy’ life, but like fireworks, it cannot be the basis of a meaningful life. In reminiscing about his mother, the bright as well as the dark, Conway recaptures, if only for moments on end, a sense of a life deeper than ‘get paid, get laid’. Indeed, it seems his marriage fell apart not least because both he and Amanda care more about the self than the other. It is through unity of man and wife that one attains a continuity with past and future. Still, at the very least, Conway knows that something is not right in his life, and he longs for restoration of balance. The story takes place in the 80s, and that means the parents of the main character were still of a generation that believed in the norms of family, obligations, propriety, and respectability. Jay McInerney was born in 1955, and Conway is several years younger, born around 1960. That means his parents grew up in the 40s and 50s before things got really crazy in America. Therefore, Conway, though living in a world where ‘craziness’ as choice is easily available anywhere, grew up supported by a world that was more sane, stable, and reliable. Sadly, too many Conways of the 1980s failed to grow up into emotional adults. (The Reagan 80s ultimately failed to resuscitate any kind of meaningful conservatism as libertarianism came to define yuppie-dom; as for the Moral Majority of Christian Fundamentalism, it was too anti-intellectual and lacking in talent to gain control of institutions and culture.) And the Amandas of the world got worse because women, like homos and trannies, are naturally more vain and narcissistic than men and more likely to betray anyone and anything for a leg up in society. Conway himself was born when many women still saw wifehood and homemaking a proper and essential role for themselves. Since then, so many men lost jobs to women, and so many women chose the life of harlotry, idolatry, and ideology that have degraded the cultural and spiritual fabric of Western Society.
It is part of life to make mistakes. It is part of life to make a fool of oneself and do crazy things. But at some point, one must pick up the pieces, put away childish things, soberly assess one’s place in time and place, and carry on the torch. But for so many people, the torch has been lost. All they have are flickers of fake light emanating from their various electronic devices tossed around hither thither. Apart from age difference, it’s difficult to tell adults from the kids. Gavin McInnes made this very point in his columns, but then he went off to kiss Milo Yionnopoulos on the lips and stick a dildo up his ass to prove he’s hip with the homos and the Jews. When even the messenger act like a retardo teenager, is there any hope left?
In a way, the cultural transformations were the result of mass urbanization, material abundance & eradication of hunger(and most diseases), extensive safety nets, explosion of individual freedom/choice, fixation on fantasy ideals(disseminated by idolatrous pop culture), endless electronic distractions to fend off loneliness & boredom, the cult of the ‘cool’, identification with idols than with close ones, Jewish agenda to weaken goy identity & roots, homo vanity & decadence, and Afro-primitivism. Mass urbanization physically removed people from soil & roots. They became like Antaeus lifted from the ground. Material plenty and disappearance of hunger made people less tribal and territorial. Human Nature changes according to Hunger Nature. This is also true of animals. In the wild where hunger is the general state of being, animals are especially aggressive, anxious, and territorial. Hungry dogs will growl and fight each other. But well-fed dogs tend to favor play than fight with other dogs. Thus, once Hunger Nature is satiated, Animal Nature becomes friendlier. Likewise, well-fed humans tend to be less hostile, distrustful, aggressive, fearful, and territorial than hungry ones. That said, it's also true that hunger can be manipulated to make people less tribal. While hunger generally makes people more committed to defend and fight for what they have, if they are offered with plenty of food in exchange for their identity/territory, they are likely to comply. The reason why so much of the world has become willing accomplices of the American Empire is that the US has lots of food and stuff that it can offer to elites and masses around the world in the form of aid, goods, bribery, and immigration to America. As hunger prioritizes basic needs, it will fight for what little a people have, but the same people may well trade what they have in terms of identity/territory for lots of free stuff offered by an outsider force. In the past, Americans were hungrier and more territorial about what they had. Also, as the majority were farmers, they identified with the land that they knew their folks had conquered, settled, and were buried in. But once urbanized and uprooted Americans, especially the boomer generation, became fatter and forgot what it meant to be hungry, they lost much of their territorial instinct. They became like a satiated dog that doesn’t much care what other dogs eats from its bowl. Its own stomach is full, and it would rather rest or have fun than guard the bowl.
And then, more individual freedom, though a good thing in many ways, led too many people to choose the wrong things in life, those with short-term rewards but long-term consequences. Gambling is an obvious one. Whatever fun one might have at a casino, it is a stupid way to waste time and money(and degrade one's soul). So many young people became immersed in individual freedoms that had no long-term meaning; of course, they realized this only when they ruined themselves. Also, as pop culture became the main culture and bombarded people with endless images of glamour, glitz, sensationalism, cult of the ‘cool’, and etc., people lost their sense of human dimensionality. As most people aren’t special, people became estranged from their parents, relatives, workers, and even friends who didn’t measure up to the Pop Cultural Ideal of the superstar or idol. Electronics created the illusion of life where there is no life. Prior to electronic gadgets, people could easily grow bored or lonely without human company, without a community. And so, they sought out friends and mates; they stayed connected to family members. But with electronic gadgets filling people’s lives with the illusion of always being connected or stimulated by ‘cool’ stuff, people became increasingly divorced from real people. The cult of the ‘cool’, as the song "Hey Jude" warned, made the world a little colder. It made people afraid of human emotions as ‘uncool’. Vain homos in culture emphasized fashion, and black culture emphasized animalism devoid of history and restraint. And Jews, while guarding their own identity and territoriality, sought to deracinate the goyim, rendering them easier to control.
This is where SERIOUS MAN by the Coen brothers is most instructive. Like PEOPLE NEXT DOOR, it takes place in the 60s with social upheavals happening all around, even in a quiet suburb somewhere in Minnesota. These changes affect the main character’s personal life as well as his wife intends to leave him and other problems. Like so many parents of the 60s, he has to contend with his kids who are immersed in conspicuous consumption and/or pop culture. In one hilarious scene, he gets an 'emergency' call from his son because of TV antennae problems. To the son, THAT is of the gravest importance. The father himself is obviously far more modern than his forebears. He’s pretty tolerant of his children’s behavior and even tries a joint(marijuana) for the first time with a rather loose next-door neighbor. But there’s another side of him that appreciates the old ways. Though surely into pop culture like rest of America, there are quiet moments when he listens to traditional Jewish music. He seeks advice from rabbis. And most importantly, he feels it is his duty to ritualistically initiate his son into the Tribe via Bar Mitzvah. And this proves crucial. Unlike the East Asian father in the film whose main concern for his son is about grades, school, money, & status and the white American father whose mode of acculturation for his son is about guns & hunting(anachronistic in post-Wild-West America), the Jewish father imbues his son with a sense of ethno-identity inseparable from history & spirituality. The son and his best friend are no less into 60s Rock/Pop culture than any other bunch of kids throughout America, but the ONE thing that distinguishes them from most American kids is this contact with the legacy of the Covenant. Even though the son irreverently smokes marijuana before the ritual, the ceremony has a truly transformative effect on him; ironically, the pot ends up intensifying the moment, thus making him feel even more profoundly Jewish in the occasion: It’s like a combination of Bar Mitzvah and what Aldous Huxley conceived in THE ISLAND where the children of an utopian world are initiated into adulthood through a rite-of-passage involving hallucinogenic substances.
Now, what is the difference between the family in PEOPLE NEXT DOOR and the one in SERIOUS MAN? The parents are much the same. Father has a job, the mother takes care of the home. And both sets of kids are into Pop Culture, hedonism, and More Freedom/Choice. The key difference is that even though the Jewish kid in SERIOUS MAN is lured(and despoiled) by the same temptations, he is also a receiver of a tradition & legacy that reminds him that there is more to life than the Trendiness of Now. The entirety of his being doesn’t just bow to fashion because he is imbued with a sense of roots that anchors his soul to something deeper than ever-changing fashions. There is some of this in the movie THE JAZZ SINGER. Even though the cultural distance between father and son is much wider than the one in SERIOUS MAN and even though the son who’s into black music(and black-face) disappoints his traditional rabbi father, something of the father leaves an imprint on the black-faced son because the old man is something more than one’s pa but a reverent, proud, and even profound inheritor and bequeather of something bigger than any individual Jew. So, even though the son’s face and sense of rhythm is ‘black’, his soul remains Jewish. This deeper sense was shared by Jewish gangsters also. Even though they did loutish and brutal things, they nevertheless felt they must work for the Tribe. By Christian morality, one’s worldly and ego-driven sins must be redeemed by serving all of humanity. One must reject the ego and one's tribe. In contrast, according to Jewish morality, one’s sins and trespasses can be redeemed by serving one’s Tribe. This is where Jews were different from Italians. Even though gangster movies about Sicilians/Italians show mobsters to be tribal, they really aren’t. After all, there is no spiritual covenant associated with Sicilian-ness or Italian-ness. For Sicilians/Italians of organized crime, the highest loyalty was the family or the clan, not the Tribe. So, if, at the end of the day, Jewish mobsters donated so much of their ill-gotten loot to Jewish causes and Israel to wash away some of their sins, the Italians/Sicilians were not averse to butchering one another endlessly for the sake of the family or the clan. In GOODFELLAS, we are told that one had to be 100% Sicilian/Italian to be ‘made’, but despite the fact that all ‘made’ men are Italian, they never seem to have a higher unified purpose pertaining to their ethnic identity. In contrast, however filthy, lowdown, and contemptible Jeffrey Epstein certainly was, he did it for a higher cause: To collect materials to blackmail powerful people in service to Zion. Epstein’s case shows how Jews will even weaponize vice and perversion to serve what they deem to be a higher cause and deeper identity. As long as Jews place Jewishness at the center of their lives, even their non-Jewish activities gain meaning in ultimate service to Jewish survival, Jewish power, and Jewish supremacy.
But when ultra-liberal Jews emphasize something other than Jewishness as their core, it leads to the kind of neurosis exhibited by Rachel Sontag whose father was no less pushy, controlling, and insistent than past Jewish fathers but in the service of egomania, intellectual conceits, and cultural attitudes. Fixing the radio so that it won’t play anything other than NPR isn’t sufficient to form a meaningful identity. Also, especially because Jews tend to have strong personalities, they tend to become egomaniacal without something higher to serve and deeper to honor and perpetuate.
Barry Levinson’s DINER is a film that follows the lives of young men who were among the last to have a direct connection to the world of tradition. In a way, it is about the proto-60s generation that came of age in the era of consumerism, youth culture, and predominance of TV. And yet, they came to maturity before Beatlemania, rise of sex-and-drugs, and Counterculture. It was still a time when plenty of young men preferred Frank Sinatra or Johnny Mathis to Elvis Presley, then still considered somewhat risque and vulgar. All the hallmarks of 60s youth attitudes are present in the characters in THE DINER, but they’re still reined in by social norms and expectations. There is an understanding that men must put away childish things and grow up. There is still a commitment to the rites-of-passage, a sure farewell to youth. Also, as the parents and grandparents, whether conservative or liberal, of these youngsters still practiced the traditional life-substance of family life with father and mother in proper roles, their adventure into novelty was balanced by something stabler and rooted.
In this sense, Levinson’s other movie, AVALON(though overly sentimental and decidedly inferior to DINER), is a companion piece for it shows a Jewish-American world where one’s identity and culture were defined mainly in relation to family, ancestors, and community. Even as Jews in the movie become Good Americans and celebrate Thanksgiving — and Jewish kids do what other American kids do — , what makes them distinct and special is the sense of who they are and where they came from, and much of this has to do with direct familial connections among grandparents, parents, and children. The family in the movies goes into the TV business and does pretty well, but the final scene has a child staring into the TV set while the grandfather grows old and senile in a nursing home. The TV generation developed a kind of phanta-identity in front of a TV set than on the laps of grandparents.
Perhaps, what is most sorely in need among goyim is to formulate a means to rear their children in a way as to instill an identity and meaning beyond the dictates of pop culture, fashion, and shallow ideology(that is now concocted by a consortium of Big Capital, advertising companies, Monopoly Media, and decadent academia). This is more necessary than ever because the current pop culture and ideologies are more debased than ever. After all, if one consumed ONLY pop culture in the 1940s, it would have meant listening to Frank Sinatra & Big Band music and watching John Ford & Howard Hawks movies. How corrupting could they have been? In terms of ideology, even New Deal Democrats believed in family, patriotism, and all that.
But look around now, and Pop Culture consists of ‘twerking’, pornography easily accessible to young ones, degenerate TV shows about trannies, homos, sluts, & jungle fever; mindless nihilistic superhero fantasies of wanton destruction, and the crudest kind of standup comedy. As for the ideology(and neo-spirituality), it’s about gushing about trannies reading books to children and displaying ‘rainbow’ globo-homo sodomy flags in churches. There was a time when, even if one’s life was devoid of roots, high culture, family values, and etc., one wasn’t so corrupted or debased by popular culture or ideologies. But now, all the scum-scam are out of the woodworks and crawling all over the place. It’s so easy for people, especially young ones, to become infected with all kinds of ludicrousness. The Power gets them when they’re young because children’s and childish minds are so easy to mold and manipulate. Even if many people may eventually break out of the programming later in life, the damage will have been done as they would have spent so much of their young productive lives chasing after fairytales or worshiping at the altar of Mammon.
In the 1965 song "Like a Rolling Stone", Bob Dylan mocked a young woman who lived for the moment and ends up lost in a world of strangers. At some point in life, Dylan feared such would be his fate, and so, he veered off the fast lane to regain his sense of self. He needed a period of retrenchment from the excesses and egotism. As for those who demanded that he be the Leader of Counterculture, he understood(despite his monumental self-confidence and biting arrogance) well enough the value of humility. He was no Moses but an inheritor of a tradition created by the great Jewish prophets. It’s like Muhammad Ali knew he was the greatest in boxing but a humble student of Muhammad and servant of Allah.
