Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Power of Mockology. If You Don't Want to Bother with Argument, Mock the Other Side.
Mockery has been around forever, but now it's a fine-tuned science that might be called Mockology. One way to argue, debate, and discuss matters is through earnest sincerity and facts & figures and in good faith. Traditional Wasp liberals tended to be of this sort. Agree or disagree, men like Senator Adlai Stevenson--the egghead--and John Kenneth Galbraith meant what they said and spoke with a degree of sincerity. In a way, one might trace such an approach to New England Puritan tradition. Though this tradition could be traced back to Great Britain, British society was ruled by its aristocratic and then bourgeois elites who weren't very puritanical in anything--even during the Victorian Era. Brits were into Propriety, which is not the same thing as Purity. Dignity of manners and demeanor mattered a great deal, but as long as one's air of 'dignity' was maintained, one could rely on irony, wit, mockery, sarcasm, and snobbery to better or put down others; and masters of such wit were much admired for their delicious 'dignified' cruelty. Since wit is rare--relatively few are born with it and those naturally without it need extensive training to learn the art--, the British style of debate and discussion favored the aristocratic, the rich, the privileged, the haughty. Though there were plenty of sincere and earnest British thinkers and intellectuals, the dominant voices of British Order really made their mark through wit, haughtiness, and mockery. Even the 'leftist' Christopher Hitchens was very much in this aristocratic tradition. Though a 'bad boy' personality, Hitchens' effectiveness depended on his snobbish air of superiority, i.e. not just 'I know more or better than you', but 'I speak better than you and know more fancy words and turns of phrases.'
Though Puritans didn't found the American Republic, their attitudes and manners influenced the formation of the American Character. And since the American Republic was supposed to be anti-aristocratic and reach out to the masses--The People--, it wasn't good form for American elites to put on haughty airs and go overly into ironic and witty mode. Thus, the culture of mockery in America often had a populist than elitist flavor. American Puritanism's culture of sincerity and good faith found its greatest obstacle in Populism. While populism panders to the masses, it isn't really about people power. Rather, it's about the manipulation of the masses by the cynical elites, deluded demagogues, or firebrand reformers. As we all should know by now, The People are incapable of leading themselves. Huey Long the Populist was a pretty clever guy, just like Lenin and Hitler. In Frank Capra's MEET JOHN DOE, we see how easily the masses can be manipulated via populism by the craven rich and their allies. What the fat rich guy does in that movie is no different from what Jewish elites do today. And the nature of Populism was also examined in movies like A FACE IN THE CROWD(directed by Elia Kazan and starring Andy Griffith).
Even so, American intellectual tradition had a strong Puritanical tinge. Men like John Dewey were very earnest in their causes. And American intellectuals tended to lose public debates to British intellectuals because the latter were trained in wit and irony whereas Americans dryly and earnestly stuck to facts, figures, and data.
Indeed, it was this aspect that gave a big boost to Bill Buckley in the 50s. While most Americans never read the NATIONAL REVIEW, Buckley became a very attractive figure to the mass audience because of his public persona as a debonair man of wit. He employed a kind of British wit and snobbery that mocked the liberals, and egghead liberals were made to look foolish(even if they were correct on certain issues). Buckley-ism was an odd phenomenon for Buckley the man with the snobby elitist style allied with vulgar populist Joseph McCarthy and claimed to represent REAL Americans from the liberal elites. Buckley was a neo-aristocrat appealing to the populist masses--it's no wonder he would later form a strong bond with Rush Limbaugh--against the technocratic liberal elite.
With Buckley, style mattered over substance, but in the mass media age, style IS the substance. While someone like Buckley figure might have been resented in class-bound England of the post-war period, many American conservatives ate it up--and even liberals were impressed. Though Americans were committed to 'equality', they'd always felt a certain inferiority complex when it came to flair and grace compared to the Europeans. Thus, even populist conservatives were drawn to the aristocratic style of Buckley since it lent conservatism a measure of class and 'dignity'. Buckley was their 007, and it's no wonder that Buckley created a series of novels with an ersatz James Bond figure.
Buckley and Bozell won many debates against liberals in the 50s by employing wit and irony than facts and figures. Even when liberals were factually correct, Buckley pricked their 'lame' bubble of sincerity with his sharp tongue.
Another group that rose of great influence and prominence via wit were the Jews, and in a way, their wit was fiercer and more lethal. If British and Buckleyite wit tended to be dry and 'dignified'(as a form of aristocratic wit), the Jewish wit tended to be down and dirty(as a form of grubby middleman wit). British wit was like taking a velvet glove and slapping the opponent. Jewish wit was like pulling down the pants of the other guy and exposing his genitalia. Also, Jews with their higher IQ, had the sharper wit. If Brits and Buckley fought with a saber, Jews had a saber plus a knife behind their backs. Buckley was no match for Alan Dershowitz in their debates. Buckley daintily slapped Dershowitz while Dershowitz ferociously grabbed Buckley by the balls and wouldn't let go.
Consider the scene in SHADOWLANDS where some British professors makes a dry mocking remark to a Jewish-American lady, but the woman counters with a remark that pulls down his pants and leaves him standing like a fool. Check 3:25 of the video below:
Or watch how Buckley is totally outclassed in wit by Woody Allen. It's like German scientists could design rockets, but Jewish scientists could make the Bomb:
Perhaps, the rise of Buckley, the Jews, and gays had something to do with the fact that they were all masters of style and wit. Gore Vidal the homosexual 'leftist'--an eccentric one to be sure--became more famous and prominent than most fuddy duddy earnest liberals. It didn't matter if Vidal was right or wrong. He had the gay debonair style as could be seen in the video below:
Buckley was no friend of homos, but if he were liberal, he might be considered as 'pansy' by many red-meat Populist conservatives and too 'fancy' by heart-and-soul puritanical conservatives. Buckley probably found a lot of conservatives overly boring and square, and that may have been one of the reasons why he welcomed the neocons. Though Jewish wit was different from his own, Buckley appreciated the quick mind and sharp tongue. Besides, with his power of wit fading due to aging, mental block, and/or pot-smoking, he hoped smart neocon Jew could best carry out the conservative cause--even if it meant sacrificing one of the greatest wits on the Right: Joseph Sobran.
All said and done, wit has not been a strong suit among conservatives, and Buckley was like a diamond among stones. Oddly enough, liberals politicians, ever so stuck in earnest WASP mode, tended to lose in the wit department in national elections. Reagan and even Nixon had more 'charisma' than Humphrey, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis the Anglo-Americanized Greek. Things began to change with Clinton, though dullness returned to politics with George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain. Obama's one advantage was in the Style department. Romney, handsome and smart as he may be, had a certain stiffness about him.
With the the loss of Buckley, American conservatism returned to the mode of earnestness. If wit was to anywhere be found, it was populist wit of the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter. Both were pretty skilled at 'winning' by mocking the other side and making it look ridiculous than arguing with sound facts and figures. And of course, on YOUTUBE, there is Ramzpaul:
With Talk Radio and Sensationalist Fox News ascendant in the New Media against the dry and 'boring' MSM of network news and CNN, it seemed as though(for a time at least) conservatives were finally turning the tide in the getting their views out. (Liberals were so worried that many invoked the Fairness Act to force Talk Radio to give equal time to liberals.) It wasn't so much that conservatives were making the better argument. Rather, they were more brazen in their politics and mockery of the other side. Though MSM was always liberal-leaning, their commitment to 'objectivity' prevented them from being overtly partisan, and this made them look 'wimpy' and dry. And since a lot of leftists were academic intellectuals, they came across as 'elitist' and couldn't connect with the people. And intellectuals were supposed to rely on reason and facts, not on mockery. Though leftist intellectuals often fudged their data and told lies, they still had to maintain the facade of 'reason' and 'objective' scholarship; and that made them easy targets of ridicule of right-wing mocksters. But then, with the rise of Political Correctness, it became more and more fashionable for intellectuals and 'social scientists' to be openly mocking of views and groups they opposed, even calling for their silence via 'hate speech' laws.
And with the rise of Michael Moore came the leftist-populist schlockumentary that appealed to millions of people. If documentaries by filmmakers like Barbara Koppel won the critical accolades but went unseen by most people, countless people loved the Moore's clown act and connected with his 'every-man bowling alley and baseball cap' image.
And if liberal Talk Radio failed to match conservative Talk Radio, there was Liberal Talk TV--Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and etc.--that won a huge audience, among both the unwashed and the educated. And as TV talkshows like Letterman and others became more politicized, their Jewish comic writers delivered endless lines mocking conservatives and Republicans--and more Americans get their political attitudes from such shows than from political news sources.
Also, liberal news shows followed the Fox format and became brazenly and sensationally partisan, mocking, and aggressive. Liberals were no longer 'wimps' pushed around by 'macho' conservatives but pushing back and fighting with sharper knives(as most Jewish wit was on liberal side). Also, the rise of PC meant that liberals could fight a lot dirtier than conservatives could. For example, liberals could demean the Conservative as 'old, white, male, and etc', but the conservative side had to mindful not to push too hard on power of Jews, gay privilege, feminist hysteria, black violence, and Mexican tribalism. (Indeed, the issue of Jewish Power is an utter taboo for both sides, as both Joe Sobran and Rick Sanchez found out.) Mexicans, Jews, gays, and blacks can be 'racist' against conservative whites, but white conservatives must be ever so careful not to wage 'war' on women, minorities, and etc. Liberal Jews can bash wasp conservatives all they want, but wasp conservatives must embrace Jews as the most wonderful people. Liberal Jews can trash white conservatives for being conservative, but the most white conservatives are allowed is toexpress sadness that too many Jews are liberal. Limbaugh and Coulter may rage against Mexicans, Chinese, and Muslims, but they never dare say anything about Jewish Power that did most to undermine white conservative America. Both liberal Jews and neocon Jews--as fifth columnists--did more to destroy to American conservatism than any other force, but they are untouchable in political criticism and discourse.
Though we are told that the 'model minority' is a pernicious idea, white conservatives are told that they must play by the 'model majority' ideal. While non-whites, Jews, and gays get to play down-and-dirty, whites must always be 'high-minded', generous, and 'fair'. Though liberal Hollywood has made tons of anti-Muslim movies, GOP is accused of 'Islamophobia'. Most of the war porn movies sensationalizing American Power smashing the Middle East with big bombs were made by liberals. Though liberal Hollywood has spread 'yellow peril' fears with movies like RISING SUN and the remake of RED DAWN, liberals accuse conservatives of being anti-Asian. (Of course, GOP does play the 'yellow peril' card but no more than liberal media. NY TIMES endorses the idea that Asians are 'unfairly' being admitted in huge numbers to elite schools.)
In a way, the demise of the GOP and the awakening realization among white conservatives that JEWS WERE BEHIND IT ALL may finally change the political dynamic of this nation. It's like in THE GODFATHER. The Corleones find out it was Barzini all along. And in GODFATHER II, the grand manipulator turns out to have been Hyman Roth the Jew. Though both Barzini and Roth posed as friends of the Corleones, they were masterminding the destruction of the Corleones. Once the Corleones discover the truth, they get tough and ruthless and do everything to fight and destroy the enemy. At this point in American history, we need to learn that it was the Jewish Barzinis/Roths all along who've masterminded the destruction of White America. We need to go into Corleone mode. The old war of party politics may be over, but the new war of Race Politics begins now. And in this new war, whites will have to discuss white power, white interests, white identity, white pride, and JEWISH MENDACITY and JEWISH POWER.
Anyway, liberal mockery isn't merely mockery but a kind of science of making the other side look ridiculous. Jews, like Greeks of Old, are into intellectualizing and understanding everything. Seinfeld said that he didn't merely learn comedy but intensely studied it. He inspected what makes funny 'funny'. What are the main components, what are the mechanisms of humor and the patterns of absurdity? And in a way, SEINFELD and Larry David's CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM aren't only comedy shows but the 'science of comedy' shows that toys with the rules and mechanisms of comedy. SEINFELD was SCIENCEFELD.
Having mastered the science of comedy and mockery, Jews have fashioned it into Mockology, and they use it in the media to make conservatives look very stupid, dumb, and bigoted, though to be sure, conservatives don't need much help, what with personalities like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, the hacks on Fox News and clowns on Talk Radio, morons who fixate on Obama's mythical birth in Kenya, and etc. There are many smart conservatives, but since mockery is the main mode of politics, both liberalism and conservatism have been defined by the mocksters.
So, both sides are full of obnoxious and contemptible people. So why do the conservatives look dumber? Because there is more liberal control of media, more liberal mocksters, and better understanding of the science of mockology among liberal Jews. Also, keep in mind that many Americans pick up their political views not from politicians or pundits but from entertainment. Though ostensibly not political, 'everything is political', as leftists once used to say. So, if a TV show presents gays as angels while anti-'gay marriage' conservatives as fat, ugly, and gross 'homophobes', that's how many Americans will come to see the debate: wonderful gays vs evil dumb conservatives. Since liberal Jews control the media, that's just how it goes.