Notes on VERTIGO(written by Alec Coppel & Samuel Taylor and directed by Alfred Hitchcock) as Discussed by Luke Ford and Kevin Michael Grace

Luke Ford and Kevin Michael Grace discuss VERTIGO, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. VERTIGO dethroned Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE in the 2012 Sight & Sight poll the Best Movies of All Time. Unlike Welles' masterpiece that is brimming with life and has large cast of characters, VERTIGO is remarkably one of the loneliest movies ever made. Indeed, its appeal to cinephiles is that intense feeling of loneliness. The audience shares in the experience of CITIZEN KANE together. If anything, the most subjective eye in the film, that of the reporter on the trail of 'rosebud', is rendered almost invisible. What we see is a vast array of characters, big and small, reminiscing on the most public of endeavors: Business, Media, Arts, Politics. CITIZEN KANE is more about the seen than the seeing.
In contrast, the viewer is the main protagonist in VERTIGO(as in REAR WINDOW), and his gaze fixates on one thing: Madeleine as woman, ghost, resurrection, and myth. If 'rosebud' remains vague throughout CITIZEN KANE until the very end, we know what Scotty's(James Stewart) 'rosebud' or "Carlotta's Bouquet" is. Even though VERTIGO is an ensemble piece as romance-mystery, it is emotionally a one-man-show. It is about Scotty's fascination with Madeleine that turns into obsession and yearning. The somber tones, melancholic score, and portrait of privacy(so intense and oblivious to everything but its innermost desire) all conspire to make VERTIGO into a one-man-tragedy. Scotty becomes blind and deaf to everything but the siren and her song. One might see a parallel with Liv Ullmann's character in PERSONA who is also incapacitated and admitted to a clinic, but if her ailment remains enigmatic and opaque, there is clarity to Scotty's condition. He wants Madeleine. He has a powerful and all-encompassing longing for someone who can no longer exist in the world of the real.
In a way, Scotty's eagerness to cure Madeleine of her malady is psychological compensation for his inability to overcome his own. No amount of reason can undo his acrophobia, but maybe, reason can cure Madeleine of her irrational affliction with the supernatural. Yet, a part of him doesn't want to see Madeleine cured. Its her forlorn state that makes her even more beautiful and draws him closer to her. She's a damsel in distress, but in another sense, she's the queen of dreams. Its her 'possession' that adds tragic poetry to her physical beauty and charms.
For many years, VERTIGO was unavailable to moviegoers, but upon re-release, it has rapidly gained the status of Hitchcock's greatest work(among so many to choose from). It has also inspired or influenced many notable films: LA JETEE, THE LAST EMBRACE, L'APPARTEMENT, MULHOLLAND DR., A.I: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, INCEPTION, SHUTTER ISLAND to name a few.
Scotty represents the two sides of our psychology: Logical & Factual and Creative & Dreamy. Scotty's career as a hard-nosed detective tracking down criminal cases involved his logical and factual side. He lived in a world without ghosts, one where everything had a logical explanation, one where even love was a game between rational strategists. But the faculty of reason, however essential and useful, cannot 'create' or dream. In the end, it is the mist around the object than the object itself that makes us dream, inspiring us to create myths and fairy-tales. And it is upon his encounter with Madeleine that Scotty falls into a dream from which he can't wake(nor wants to). It is telling that, even after the facts are finally known about Madeleine/Judy in the last scene, he so easily falls into her embrace again as if to cling to the myth. Even if it can never be the same, he wants it to go on in another form. Dreams lead to madness but there lies the vision. It's like what William Hurt's character tells David in the final part of A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. If Scotty gradually goes from analyst & tracker to creator & maker(of dreams, albeit a forgery of Elster's sinister masterpiece), David(with the help of Gigolo Joe) uses his analytic skills to track down a dream, one that proves to be impossible as years pass.
As different as CITIZEN KANE and VERTIGO are, there is the theme of obsession at the core of both movies. Even though Kane, unlike Scotty, was a rich public figure(richer than all the Gavin Elsters of the world), he too ended up alone and lonely. And as his ultimate dreams -- becoming governor(then maybe president), being a champion of the People, and being loved -- failed to materialize, he withdrew into a dream of his own creation called Xanudu. With god-complex, he strove to create his own Edenic Ark separate from the fallen world that rejected him. And yet, even in that world, he lost all his friends and finally his wife. If any film incorporated the powerful themes of both CITIZEN KANE and VERTIGO, it'd be Sergio Leone's ONCE UPON A TIME IN A AMERICA where James Woods plays the Kane figure whereas Robert DeNiro the Scotty figure.

1. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=11m23s Kevin Michael Grace says Hitchcock blamed disappointing Box Office on James’ Stewart age but argues it made the character’s desperation all the more palpable. Akin to the elderly professor in BLUE ANGEL? Perhaps, the element of realization than desperation is more crucial as to why Stewart’s age made the story richer. Because the character of Scotty is ‘older’, he feels he’s seen it all, felt it all, been through it all; therefore, nothing can get to him or get under his skin. The passion in the movie takes on greater force precisely because it engulfs a man who seems immune to such emotions. Thus, there’s an element of surprise, as when the middle-aged professor comes upon the nymphet in LOLITA and becomes aroused with sensations novel to him despite his learning and worldliness. Kevin Michael Grace also says the movie is operatic, and it certainly has such moments, especially at the end. But most of the movie proceeds like a fugue, accented by moments that feel like tone poems.

2. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=12m40s Kevin Michael Grace says that a recurring theme in Hitchcock’s movies is the falsely accused or suspected ‘wrong man’ trying to prove his innocence. Hitchcock made a movie of that title, and oddly enough, it’s rather uncharacteristic of his works. Even though many of Hitchcock’s movies do involve the ‘wrong man’, there’s the sense that the real villain is acting out the subconscious desires of the hero, the ‘wrong man’ or ‘wronged man’. It's like what Lancelot says of himself and Guinevere in EXCALIBUR: "we are innocent...but not in our hearts." Consider STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where the hero didn’t murder his wife but almost wanted to strangle her himself. In the movie WRONG MAN, the wronged man is portrayed unambiguously as a good man wrongfully accused(almost scapegoated) by the system and the community. Perhaps, that particular movie was uncharacteristically moralistic(even a bit didactic) because it was based on a true story. But in many of Hitchcock’s movies, the villain acts out the subconscious desire of the hero. The hero has a superego firm enough to restrain his darker impulses. So, the villain, as his Id, steps in to do the job. And then, the hero and villain duke it out, with the good winning over the evil. But the perverse dynamics has the hero really battling himself as the villain's transgression eloquently represents the secret murmurs of the hero's heart. In a way, even as the villain harasses and torments the hero, he has made it doubly good for the latter. In killing the person that the hero really wants dead, the villain served as hero's emissary. And then, in being defeated by the hero, the latter can comfort himself that he’s always been on the side of the good when, in fact, his hidden soul is closer to the villain's than he would like to believe. Thanks to the villain in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, the hero no longer has to deal with his wicked wife and move onto a new lover. The reason why ROPE doesn’t work is Hitchcock chickened out and failed to present James Stewart’s character as a true nihilist. If the movie had been more courageous, the character should have felt the full force of realization that the boys were actually ‘more’ than him because whereas he could only expound on nihilism in theory, they actually carried it out. Instead, we have Stewart's character telling the boys that, gee whiz, he hadn't mean it; he was just joshing, that’s all. (Furthermore, the story would have been more effective if the killers had been presented as truly intelligent sickos than as morons who think they're smart but really aren't. Because they are presented as essentially shallow and stupid, the murder seems more the product of 'dangerous ideas' than dark souls despite Stewart's sermon at the end about how it was in the dark nature of the boys to have done what they did.) PSYCHO is creepier because there is a sense that the Good can easily slide into Bad. When the woman is on the dark road with the stolen money, her conscience is troubled by voices inside her head accusing her of being a wicked creature, but then, we see her eyes turn radiant like headlights and her lips flicker into a smile as she begins to enjoy the realization that, yes, she is a bad woman and is capable of anything. Her psyche begins to split, and for a moment, her stare anticipates the Norman Bates’ stare at the end of the movie. Of course, Bates is a far more seriously split personality. In a way, he is the villain but also the victim, a ‘wronged man’ to the extent that he sincerely believes he is victimized by the madness of his mother whom he feels obliged to protect as a good son. Not sure if Charles Laughton was channeling Hitchcock, but the ending scene with the watch in THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER suggests that evil keeps on ticking on and on, even in the hearts of children despite receiving the love and warmth of good people, such as the grandmotherly figure.


3. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=15m22s Kevin Michael Grace says the ‘logic’ of VERTIGO is that of a dream, more precisely a ‘dream of eternal recurrence’, one where the afflicted seems incapable of escaping as every waking moment turns out to be the continuance of the dream. There is something about Scotty’s spellbound dilemma that is obsessively dreamlike. There is a scene in MULHOLLAND DR. where a man tells his friend about a dream at a diner, but it turns out he is in the dream he is talking about, and furthermore, we learn that he and his friend aren’t real but figments of dreams of another person who also happens to be a figment of another person’s dream. I don’t think Scotty’s dilemma is really of that nature, however. The guy who mentions his dream in the diner in MULHOLLAND DR. really doesn’t want to be part of that dream. If anything, he grows morbidly anxious when he begins to realize he’s in that dream again. In contrast to that normal-seeming person who just wants to get on with his life, the real problem with Diane Selwyn is not so much the recurring dream but the recurring reality. She can’t stand the reality and escapes into the dream over and over and over. It’s a dream-fantasy that she, consciously and subconsciously, steers in her preferred direction, but the reality keeps pulling her back to the dire facts of her life. Scotty has one thing in common with her in that what he fears most is not the dream, haunted as he is by it, but by the recurrence of reality. No matter how many times he wants to return to the dream, the fact is Madeleine is dead, and he wasn’t able to save her, no more than he was able to save the cop in the beginning of the story. Of course, it’s worse with Madeleine because he fell in woozy love with her. So, Scotty isn’t someone who’s trying to escape the dream and return to reality but someone who wants to take flight from reality and be with the dream. After Madeleine dies, he is committed to a mental clinic. From the outside, he seems miserable, and of course, he is mourning Madeleine’s death. But there is also a sense that he’s lost in a dream that he doesn’t want to let go. He doesn’t want to be healed because the cure would mean the rational realization that Madeleine is dead and gone forever, and there’s nothing he can do about it. His conscious mind knows this, but a part of his soul just can’t let go and remains with her in the world of dreams, just like Arthur regains contact with Merlin in the dream world in EXCALIBUR. What is the most traumatic moment in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES?

It’s when Laura Linney’s character reminds John Klein(Richard Gere) of the most basic, undeniable, and irreversible fact: His wife died two yrs ago. All these years, Klein knew this fact consciously, but his soul was never able to let it go. So, harrowing and frightening as the Mothman sightings are in the town of Point Pleasant, they offer the hope of contacting the Other World to Klein who is like Orpheus trying to retrieve Eurydice from the Underworld. Dreams can be scary, but they also allow fantasy, escape, and hope. In contrast, reality is final. As melancholic as Scotty’s dreams of Madeleine are, her ghostly presence inhabits that realm. But in the daylight world of reality, there is only the fact that she is gone forever. A story that is closer to the horror of the recurring dream is Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING, but even there, the character comes to eventually love the dream and fears returning to reality more than anything.

4. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=19m4s Kevin Michael Grace says the reason why Scotty didn’t shack up with Midge is she was never his kind of woman. He was for ‘icy blondes’, like Hitchcock himself. Also, Kevin Michael Grace says Scotty is a deeply romantic person whose hidden romanticism finally emerges in his fantasy of being a ‘powerful man’ who transforms Judy into ‘Madeleine’. But we learn from the conversation between Scotty and Midge that the reason why the two didn’t get married was Midge called it off. If she’d been willing, they might very well have married and settled down. Of course, he was never in great love with her, and the fact that she’d rejected marriage suggests she wasn’t all that crazy about him either(despite her very real feelings for him). They liked each other as friends, and also, they relished their independence more than anything. Both like to regard themselves as modern ‘ironic’ people who are above duty and romance. If they had gotten married, it would have been as friends, as a ‘modern’ couple. The fact that they still see each other and enjoy the other’s company suggest that they are ‘married’ in a way: A marriage of friendship. They are well-educated, smart, and worldly. There isn’t a topic or issue about which they can’t joke or have a good laugh. In a way, the lack of actual marriage between them keeps them ‘married’ as good friends. Real marriage would mean duty and obligations. But their casual ‘friend marriage’ means they can see each other whenever they like but also be alone when they wish to. Each maintains his or her freedom/independence despite their affectionate bond. So, it’d be wrong to say Scotty didn’t marry her because she wasn’t his type. In a way, she was too much his type, and vice versa, as both shared a similar kind of sensibility: Modern, sardonic, irreverent, libertine, and unbound. One gets the sense that they didn’t get married because they valued their friendship more than any sentimental notion of love. She speaks of sexuality as a kind of engineering, with her bra design utilizing the same laws of physics as a bridge. The irony is that the Madeleine’s husband, Gavin Elster, thinks much the same way, albeit for sinister purposes. (One wonders if the evil husband is really romantic or a cold cynical manipulator of romanticism as a sucker’s dream for others. As P. T. Barnum said, "there’s a sucker born every minute".) Anyway, Midge didn’t want to be legally & morally attached to any one person, so she rejected Scotty’s proposal of marriage long ago, and Scotty didn’t take it hard at all since he wasn’t obsessed with her. He probably thought it would have been nice to have a wife like Midge. Midge is the kind of woman with whom things are best kept dry. It is with Madeleine that Scotty takes the plunge and gets wet. In a way, VERTIGO is about 19th century Gothicism intruding into Modernism that thinks itself too smart for old themes and passions. It’s like the modern scientist-doctor who is upended by the magician in Ingmar Bergman’s THE FACE. In a way, both Scotty and Midge get a kind of comeuppance for their modernist conceit that they are above old-fashioned emotions. Scotty does fall for romance, and his mysterious wanderings does make Midge jealous. And when Scotty falls to despair and despondency as his soul spirals into the dream underworld of the dead, Midge also feels the pull. She thought she was above irrational emotions, but she is moved by Scotty’s passion for Madeleine; she is sad that no man could ever feel such feelings for her. Indeed, it is her sensing of Scotty's deepening emotions(for someone else) that brings out the deeper emotions(for Scotty) within herself. Scotty's apparent infatuation with someone else violated the unspoken contract between him and Midge: Their lasting friendship would be premised on either's refusal to commit to any one person or thing. They'd be like two birds free in the air but never settling down to nest. Midge dreads flying alone upon sensing Scotty's choice of a particular tree as his 'home'.

Also, I’m not sure Scotty was always a romantic person. Romanticism emerges from his growing passion for Madeleine, but I think Scotty’s romantic side was latent than hidden. It was there somewhere, but he didn’t know of it and never thought that side of him could ever take shape as it did. That is why he’s so helpless under its hypnotic spell. He was taken by surprise. And it’s very possible that the romantic side of him would never have emerged if not for the artful con pulled off by the sinister husband Gavin Elster. In getting to know Madeleine, it’s not as if Scotty finally found what he’d been looking for. He found what he didn’t know that he’d been looking for, and yet, having found her, she is ‘it’, she is The One, the person who matters more than anything in the world. Also, I’m not so sure that Scotty is into Icy Blondes per se(as Hitchcock was). Rather, it was how he got to know Madeleine, and she happened to be a blonde. Having fallen for her, he associates blondeness with Madeleine, and that’s why he insists that Judy be a blonde. I don’t think any other ‘icy blonde’ would have worked for Scotty. Indeed, Scotty picks Judy out when she is a brunette. Why? She has Madeleine’s face. So, it’s not just the hair color. It’s the face, it is what Madeline wore in dress and shoes, how her face was made up, and it’s how her hair was done. Every detail has to be right. Indeed, when Judy enters the room with blonde hair, Scotty still doesn't feel the magic. He finally feels it only when she does her hair in a particular way. Scotty wants Judy to be like Madeleine in every possible detail, and yet, it is when Judy goes the extra inch to be like Madeleine with the jewelry that the mist finally lifts and Scotty comes to see her(and ‘Madeleine’) with cold eyes.
By the way, I think the significance of Madeleine’s blonde hair owed to Carlotta’s dark hair. Carlotta’s dark ghostly presence has supposedly taken possession of Madeleine’s soul, and Scotty’s role is to bring her out into the light. Thus, blonde hair is less a sexual fetish than a key motif with symbolic value in the mythic puzzle. The myth of Madeleine isn’t possible without the darkness, and in that sense, in having fallen in love with blonde Madeleine, Scotty has also fallen in 'negative' love with brunette Carlotta. Indeed, one might argue that Scotty might have been less taken with Judy Barton if she’d been blonde when they crossed path. It was her brunette hair that reminded him of Carlotta's ghost, from which he was trying to save Madeleine. Thus, in turning brunette Judy to blonde Judy or New Madeleine, Scotty gets to relive the struggle once again, the one he lost.

5. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=22m38s Luke Ford argues that the problem with Scotty is that he rejected a perfectly good woman in Midge in favor of some unattainable fantasy in Madeleine. Luke Ford says he has had the same problems as Scotty in chasing after impossible women than settling down with a Nice Girl. Luke Ford says Midge is approachable whereas Madeleine is not. So, Scotty made a big boo boo. But again, it was Midge who broke off the engagement with Scotty, not vice versa. Also, both Midge and Madeleine are approachable and unapproachable in different ways. Midge is approachable as a friend, a conversationist, a wit. But she isn’t very approachable emotionally. She keeps a certain distance with irony and aloofness. Her independence and career are too important to her. As much as she likes Scotty, she wasn’t going to give up her ‘freedom’ for a life of marriage in which she might have had kids and been a homemaker. She wants to design sexy things for modern women. So, while Scotty can call her up any day and have a good talk with her, she keeps a certain wall around her.
Now, there’s a wall around Madeleine as well. First, she is of a rich family, a socialite. People of high status tend to move around in closed circles, the sort that excludes most people, such as Scotty. Also, Madeleine is high class. (Of course, the Madeleine that Scotty meets is a fake, a fool’s gold. But like the Shadow Warrior of Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA, she was drilled to seem as real as possible, and Scotty sure fell for it. But then, he probably never met a socialite of such high standing before, so it’s all new to him. And so very flattering that such a high-class woman would allow a man like him into her life.) Precisely because of Madeleine’s superior status, Scotty is impressed with the opportunity of entering her exclusive world in both the social and personal sense. No matter how gorgeous a whore may be, she is a whore, someone who can be had for a price. In contrast, Madeleine is like a princess, and Scotty feels fortunate to be gradually sliding into her world(like Kubrick's characters relish entry into 'forbidden' domains). And despite her high class and reserved manners, there is something very vulnerable about her. As Kevin Michael Grace argues, vulnerability is appealing to men. Playing the white knight lends status to a man over a woman, however lowly his status and highborn hers. At the end of Akira Kurosawa’s HIDDEN FORTRESS, the two lowly commoners realize that they’d played a role in saving a high-born princess, and they feel a certain pride that can’t be measured in gold. Because Madeleine plays the damsel-in-distress, she becomes approachable to Scotty. She offers an emotional opening to him that was never there with Midge, a ‘strong’ and ‘independent’ woman.

6. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=28m1s Kevin Michael Grace says, "In terms of James Stewart’s guilt, the overwhelming presence of Catholic imagery in this film is not an accident. James Stewart has committed adultery or fornication but it’s involved in an adulterous affair with a married woman... that is one aspect of his guilt." I’m not sure what Kevin Michael Grace means by this. It’s my understanding that the affair between Scotty and Madeleine was NOT consummated in Act One. Now, one could argue there was an adultery-of-the-heart because Scotty fell in love with the woman he was hired to keep an eye on. And they did share kisses. He wasn’t supposed to do that, but then, Judy-as-Madeleine was hired to make him do just that. While Scotty fell madly in love with the fake Madeline, the evil husband felt no love for the real Madeleine, his wife who was slated for murder. Anyway, as the love was not consummated between Scotty and Madeleine, there was no great reason for Scotty to feel any guilt(in regard to Madeleine's husband). Also, even as Scotty fell in mad love for Madeleine, he was trying to the very end to break her out of the spell, thus loyally carrying out the husband’s request. He was still trying to play the 'detective'. If Scotty feels any guilt, it was his failure to stop Madeleine from her death. Despite his growing passion for Madeleine and their kisses, Scotty restrained himself from going further. He held his libido in check. But when Madeleine races up the tower, Scotty is unable to overcome his fear to run after her. His fear proved stronger than his love, and there lies his guilt. (It's like Winston Smith caved to fear over love in 1984 when he freaked out over the rats. And Peter denied Jesus three times out of fear. Fear is that powerful. It's like white men will do nothing to help a white woman being robbed or attacked by black thugs in a metro train or bus because their Fear of the Stronger Negro paralyzes them.) Scotty's love for Madeleine was the kind whereby a man would be willing to give up his own life to save the woman, but when push came to shove, his body was overcome with fear, indeed irrational fear of something harmless. (Thus, it was something stranger than mere cowardice, which is at least rational. Peter was not irrational in fearing the mob that wanted to tear followers of Jesus from limb to limb. And Winston Smith was not irrational to fear the hungry rats eager to gnaw at his face. In contrast, Scotty couldn't save the Great Love of His Life because of his irrational fear of the harmless.) He felt paralyzed, indeed far worse than Peter O’Toole in LORD JIM. Also, there is something especially embarrassing about phobias. They can incapacitate the biggest man before something that doesn’t even frighten a child. Take a phobia over mice. Most children have no problem looking at mice, but even a big strong man with such phobia will shriek and panic like a little girl. A harmless garter snake may do nothing to an old lady, but a man with phobia for snakes, no matter how big and strong he is, will scream or faint like the Cowardly Lion of THE WIZARD OF OZ. Thus, what Scotty feels is not merely guilt. It’s shame. Not only did he fail to prevent Madeleine from her apparent suicide but the reason was he was afraid of heights. The damsel in distress could run up those flight of stairs in a breeze, but a big tall San Francisco detective like him was frozen in abject fear as he barely inched up the stairs step by step. Imagine Dirty Harry who is tough enough to blow away a bunch of armed Negro robbers and international terrorists but shrieks like a girl and freaks out upon seeing a spider due to arachnophobia. Phobias are like passions. They follow their own associative logic that can’t be resolved rationally. A person suffering from phobia rationally knows he is afraid of something harmless or innocuous, but he still can’t overcome his irrational panic. But then, obsessive love has a similar kind of logic. Even as Scotty is a modern rational person who knows about human psychology and the basic bio-chemistry of attraction, his feelings for Madeleine go way beyond the rational and gain total power over him. Scotty is bigger and stronger than Midge, and he would have a physical advantage over her under most circumstances, but he turns into a little child in her arms when he is stricken with a bit of height.
Kevin Michael Grace says Scotty sets a goal for himself to cure his acrophobia little by little and eventually does(and at a ‘terrible cost’). I don’t see it this way. Initially, he appears to entertain the notion of how he could be cured incrementally. He tries this at Midge’s place with the step-ladder, but he fails miserably, and throughout the rest of the movie, we don’t see him bothering to cure himself of the condition. The extent of the height he can tolerate is the ups and downs of the streets of San Francisco. One suspects he would rather not cross the San Francisco bridge. If anything, we only see him below it as he saves Madeleine. However, the diving into the water is a kind of conquering of height but unawares to Scotty. For most of the movie, Scotty is too hung up on Madeleine to think about his acrophobia. He develops a kind of reality-phobia as the real world reminds him that Madeleine is gone forever. He wants to remain in his ghostly dream world. Even though he’s finally released from the clinic/ward, his condition hasn’t really changed. Also, the return to the tower at the end had little to do with curing acrophobia. It was about exposing the truth and forcing Judy-Madeleine into confession. If Scotty is cured, it is almost by accident. Indeed, he is surprised himself that his acrophobia is gone.

7. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=30m23s Luke Ford asks why Judy-Madeleine fell to her death at the end. Kevin Michael Grace says she mistook the nun for the Evil Husband, Gavin Elster. I don’t know about this. Her fright suggests she saw a ghost. Perhaps, in that charged moment, she thought she saw the ghost of Madeleine. VERTIGO is and isn’t a ghost story. There is a rational explanation for everything that happens in the story, but to the extent that human psyches often operate mythically based on obsessions, hopes, and fears, we do lead lives haunted by subjective forces of the mind. So, objectively speaking, it was a nun, but in the fever-dream mind of Judy who’d been through so much, the figure could have appeared a ghost. And in that sense, VERTIGO is a ghost story. Science of psychology promised a more clear and objective understanding of reality, but theories of the subconscious opened up a Pandora’s Box of phantoms and spirits. So, even though Scotty exposed the truth, the myth lived on. The myth of Madeleine being beckoned by Carlotta’s ghost was followed up by the myth of Judy being beckoned by Madeleine’s ghost. And in a way, Judy was herself a ghost. The person she role-played as Madeleine was killed. It began as a hire-for-money, but she really merged with the identity of Madeleine when it worked its magic on Scotty and he fell in love with her. No man had ever fallen in love like that with her-as-Judy. But a handsome man fell deeply in love with her-as-Madeleine. So, in a way, the mask became the face. And when real Madeleine was killed, a part of Judy died with her too. She became a walking dead, and this is why, a part of her wants to be 'resurrected' by Scotty back into Madeleine while another part of her resists this because she wants to be loved as what she really is, Judy Nobody from some small town. Ironically, the resurrection is also a kind of 'murder' because Judy must be buried alive under the ghostly reawakening of Madeleine.

8. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=31m12s Kevin Michael Grace says REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO, and MARNIE have in common the situation of a man trying to transform a woman to his ideal or vision, but this seems a stretch. In REAR WINDOW, Grace Kelly’s character may be nudged in that direction(mostly by her own volition though), but there is nothing obsessive about Stewart’s feelings for her. Indeed, unlike the characters of VERTIGO and MARNIE, Stewart in REAR WINDOW isn’t obsessed with anyone. His only obsession seems to be voyeurism and adventure. He’s a thrill-seeker than a romantic. As much as he feels affection for Grace Kelly’s character, he tries to push her away because domestication means he will have less chance to travel and be free. It’s like George Bailey wanted to see the world and build things before Mary snagged him to stay and be husband-father in Bedford Falls. In a way, the neighbor across the yard is like a dark version of what Stewart's character fears turning into. The man is trapped in a loveless marriage. His wife is an invalid, and he must take care of her, and that means hardly any freedom for himself. So, in a way, the murderer and Stewart’s character have one thing in common: The want of freedom and fear of woman as chain-and-ball around the man's ankle. If the husband has no freedom because he’s stuck in a loveless marriage, Stewart’s character has no freedom ironically because of his injury from excessive freedom & risk-taking. Both want to break free as soon as possible.
If Stewart’s characters in REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO have one thing in common, it is the element of shame in being so incapacitated. In REAR WINDOW, girly Grace Kelly can freely move about while Stewart is always stuck in his apartment because of his injury. (Likewise, Oliver Stone's 9/11 is mostly about heroes who aren't able to do anything and must be saved by others. They are more like Ron Kovic than Rambo.) In VERTIGO, Madeleine and Midge are 'manlier' than Scotty when it comes to handling height. The moment when Stewart feels the most shame in REAR WINDOW is when he feels utterly helpless to save Grace Kelly when she’s attacked by the murderer-husband. But it’s not just the broken leg. He doesn’t even shout across the yard to stop the attack even though Grace Kelly is screaming 'Jeff' over and over. He just squirms with fear and hopes the cops would arrive sooner. It’s as if he was so afraid of giving himself away to the murderer-husband that he reacts like a turtle withdrawing into its own shell.

Indeed, there’s something a bit phony about the guy because, for all his love of adventure, he is a viewer than a participant. After all, he is a photographer. He may wander into danger zones, but he is first and foremost the eye than hands and feet who gets involved in the action. Indeed, his injury resulted from the far more danger-filled actions of OTHERS at the center of the maelstrom. It’s like a photographer at a boxing match getting hurt from a fighter being knocked out of the ring. His danger is nothing like the danger faced by boxers inside the ring who get punched a hundred times.
As for MARNIE, I don’t think the main problem was Tippi Hedren. Besides, Kim Novak wasn’t much of an actress in most of her roles either, and VERTIGO was an exception in her career, as BLADE RUNNER was for Sean Young. And Grace Kelly was extremely narrow in range, really just a pretty face. Problem with MARNIE is it’s both too crazy and too neat. The premise is outlandish, and the resolution is overly sentimental and moralistic. Even after the facts are revealed by means of reason in VERTIGO and PSYCHO, an element of dark mystery remains. We feel that no amount of explanation can really explain the what and why, just like no single piece of the puzzle could explain Charles Foster Kane. But MARNIE ends on a note of Problem Solved, and that’s that. And it’s the silliest kind of Freudian hokum about repressed childhood memory. The clinical psychology of MARNIE, as with SPELLBOUND, is too simple-minded. It turns out Marnie’s sexual neurosis and criminality were rooted in an incident in childhood. Once that was cleared up, she can walk into the sunlight and lead a normal life. Another problem is Sean Connery’s character is presented too straight-and-narrow when he is as perverse and crazy as Marine in his own way. He is a contradiction of being both drawn to a wild woman and wanting to cure & domesticate her. He is too alpha, whereas what makes Stewart's characters more interesting(in Anthony Mann Westerns too) is the combination of alpha daring and beta vulnerability. I suppose Sean Connery's attitude is very English(though the movie is set in America. Funny that Hitchcock was an Englishman who settled in America whereas Kubrick was an American who settled in England). The white hunter who is drawn to adventure and the wild but collects specimens and trophies for zoos and museums. That said, there is a fascinating chemistry between Hedren and Connery in MARNIE, and there are many charged moments that make for greatness. And maybe the trailer for MARNIE is the funniest thing Hitchcock ever did.


9. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=39m28s Kevin Michael Grace offers several explanations of the scene at the McKittrick Hotel where Scotty observes who appears to be Madeleine in one of the windows. Kevin Michael Grace suggests this might be just a ‘plot hole’. Or maybe the Hotel Proprietor is in on the plot. Whatever the case, it could be Hitchcock was channeling a trick used by Henri-Louis Clouzot in LES DIABOLIQUES. The conspirators are playing mind-tricks on Scotty to further subvert his sense of reality. Hitchcock greatly admired LES DIABOLIQUES, and incidentally, VERTIGO was based on a French mystery novel, and some of the Gallic sensibility does come across.


10. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=45m Luke Ford reads from Roger Ebert’s essay that touches on the ‘moral paradox’ of VERTIGO. Of course, the biggest moral paradox is the Evil Husband Gavin Elster plays god, the creator. He taketh away, but he also gaveth. Without his artful con, Scotty never would have experienced the great love of his life. He never would have realized that there was a mytho-romantic side to him, a man of poetry than mere prosaic details of detective work. (It's like something about Julie Christie's character brings out the poet in the hard-nosed businessman in MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER. A man who never did anything except for money all his life puts his life on the line to prove his manhood to fulfill a romantic fantasy.)

And if Judy had never met Gavin, she would have been just some cheap floozy all her life. It was the con that transformed her into a tragic goddess. So, even though the Evil Husband Gavin Elster took everything from James Stewart, including his sanity, Scotty never felt more alive than when swirling in a dream world with Madeleine. And even though Madeleine’s death shattered his heart and mind, he’d never known or imagined such tragic beauty could exist or what it felt like. Gavin Elster, cynical murderer-bastard that he is, was the matchmaker in hell who made Scotty and Judy share a beautiful love as a glimpse of heaven. He was like a sinister version of Clarence in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE who messes with Bailey’s mind big time.

11. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=46m41s Kevin Michael Grace recounts the scene in which Midge’s parody-painting of Carlotta Valdez deeply upsets Scotty. He explains the moment as indicative of the madness of obsessive love, one of the most tell-tale signs being the loss of humor. According to Kevin Michael Grace, Midge was just being a good sport and funny girl, but Scotty, going a bit mad over Madeleine, simply couldn’t appreciate the joke. Kevin Michael Grace also says Scotty’s glum reaction is not unlike the mentality of PC Leftists who have lost all sense of humor in their crazed commitment to certain agendas and idols.
But I’m not so sure. Even though Midge presents the painting as a joke, what were her real motives? Wasn’t she trying to hide her jealousy with humor? Indeed, it’s odd that for such an independent and modern woman, she was stalking Scotty like Scotty was stalking Madeleine. So, despite her conceit of being a liberated woman, she did feel a bond with Scotty, and she felt jealous when she suspected he might be seriously besotted with someone else. Midge is afraid to face up to this old-fashioned ‘classic’ side of womanhood, and she resorts to cheap irony to share laughter with Scotty. But it’s not so much a joke for him as a joke on him. Also, she is mocking him and trying to return him to the fold as a fellow ironist and cynic, as if Scotty isn’t capable of any emotions beyond friendship and companionship. Because her relation with Scotty was premised on shared Modern Sensibility, she tries to draw him back to the game that keeps them as bosom-buddies. But Scotty has gone past that. For the first time in his life, he’s found real passion, and it means everything to him. It’s like the realization of the Sam Robards character in FANDANGO. He pretends he’s having fun and the time of his life partying and riding around with his friends when, in truth, what mattered most to him was marrying the girl he dearly loves. And Kevin Costner’s character is like Scotty and Midge rolled into one. The fact is he madly loved her too, but they fell apart. But he still loves her and is upset that his friend is about to marry her. So, when he discovers the marriage has been called off, he tries to convince himself and his friend that it’s all for the best, and that they should all go on some wild trip. But in fact, the friend realizes he made a huge mistake, and Kevin Costner understands too, which is why he hustles a small town community into putting on the wedding for his friend and the woman he still loves.

Likewise, there is another side of Midge that she hides from Scotty and even to herself. Despite her enjoyment of freedom and career, there is a side of her that is lonely and jealous. Even if Scotty and she didn’t get married, the understanding between them was that both were too hip for old-fashioned relationships. So, they’d be best-friends-forever. But then, Scotty really does fall in deep love with another. As much as Scotty and Midge savored each other’s company, they only wet their feet at most. With Madeleine, Scotty took the plunge. And his love for Madeleine is like Catholic Iconography. The non-believers just can’t understand. Someone like Jim Goad can’t understand why the Church and its rituals hold sacred meaning to Kevin Michael Grace. For Goad, the Church is something to be mocked and joked about. From his utterly rationalist point of view, this makes good sense as religion just seems like hocus pocus superstition. But for those who felt the grace of God and are enchanted by beauty of religious iconography and rituals, it’s no joking matter. In a way, PC people are both humorless and humor-excessive. They are utterly humorless about what is sacred to them, like Holy Homo and MLK as Negro god. But they feel nothing but laughing mockery for whatever or whomever they deem to be false, wicked, or evil. So, they are the ones who are likely to laugh and cheer upon watching certain monuments torn down or smashed. It’s like Spanish anarchists were full of laughter when they went about smashing Churches and burning spiritual material.

In a way, Midge was sharing a joke, but it was also an act of desecration. Of course, she didn’t know the full implication of what she was doing, especially as she had this fixed image of Scotty as a fellow ironist and cynic. She was trying to keep him framed in the role suitable for companionship with her. In a sense, she was trying to take possession of Scotty just like Gavin Elster was. She wagered on Scotty the ironist, whereas Gavin wagered on Scotty the latent romantic. And it turns out Gavin was closer to the truth. In some ways, he understood Scotty(or perhaps any man) better than Scotty understood himself. For most of his life, Scotty would have scoffed at the notion of him being a romantic and sincerely too. After all, his chosen profession was detective work, a field that makes people cynical about humanity’s endless depravities and deceptions. When Scotty meets Gavin, he seems utterly jaded, and upon hearing the ghostly tale of Carlotta, he’s about to burst into laughter. It’s like a man who believes he can’t be hypnotized who is hypnotized and doesn’t know he’s under hypnosis. All faith is like a kind of hypnosis, which is why non-religious people can't really understand religious people or any group under some kind of deep devotion to something. But the devotion could be to anything, like idols of pop culture, as with Beatlemania or Grateful Dead Phenom. For the uninitiated, it all seems like a delusion or mania. And yet, those who note this delusion in others may themselves be under their own delusions. It's like a religious person sees the ludicrousness of other religions but not of his own that seems holy and sacred. So, Midge doesn't quite understand the extent of her desecration of what has become iconographic to Scotty. But on a sly level, she was willfully mocking something dear to him out of jealousy she was too proud to admit to.

Finally, Midge’s reaction to Scotty’s disapproval and retreat from her apartment betrays her true feelings about Scotty and the whole situation. She seems very upset that Scotty took umbrage at her antic. If she’s really a light-hearted joker, she would have been unscathed from the situation, but she is visibly upset. She is ashamed that Scotty saw through her. Despite the cover of humor, she knows, Scotty knows, and we know that she was acting out of jealousy and was striking out at the object of Scotty’s devotion. Her joke was a pretense of not caring when, in fact, she cares very much. She is jealous of the fact that Scotty has feelings for another that goes deeper than anything that existed between them. At the end of CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, Prince Hal gains authority, responsibility, and meaning that rises above the funny business he used to enjoy with Falstaff. It’s about putting away childish things. Same with Becket who rises above serving as plaything for his friend the king. Friendship jealously guards against rival attachments to other people or institutions.

The tragedy in Scotty’s case, of course, is that his discovery of great love turned out to be the child-play of an evil son-of-a-bitch.
Kevin Michael Grace says that Scotty is the sort of man who was looking for The One, the one special kind of woman. But I don’t think so. Scotty wasn’t looking for anyone for most of his life. He seems to be the kind of guy who relished being free and independent. His life seems to have revolved around work and meeting up with friends and companions. He wasn’t bound to anything. Such a life could be lonely, but it was without duties and obligations. He could live the life of a true individualist. Scotty wasn’t searching for The One. It was thrust upon him, and he was mesmerized by a kind of beauty he’d never encountered before and was overwhelmed by emotions within him that he’d never imagined could arise.

12. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=56m30s Luke Ford says Scotty is the kind of man who chases after fantasies because he can’t deal with reality. He surmises that if Scotty hadn’t come upon Madeleine, he would have found someone/something else to be obsessed about. But this is wrong. There’s no indication that Scotty has been a habitual fantasist or an obsessive personality all his life. In a way, Gavin Elster chose him because he’s a ‘virgin’ when it comes to romantic obsessions. Ironically, Scotty’s sense of irony and cynicism is what makes him so ‘innocently’ vulnerable and partial to the trick. It’s like Jack Nicholson’s cocksure cynicism that blinds him to the utter depravity of power in L.A. in CHINATOWN. He’s so sure he knows everything that he fails to see there's even more to 'everything'.
It's as if Gavin Elster sensed that Scotty, being so sure of his skepticism honed on the job as detective, would be like a deer-in-the-headlight when Real Romanticism came rushing right at him. Someone who’d been through previous obsessions might be more self-aware when he falls into another obsession. In contrast, Scotty has no past references to draw from when he falls for Madeleine. He’d never known such emotions before. He’s an amateur, a green, in this field. Luke Ford is wrong to project himself onto Scotty. Ford seems quite self-aware precisely because he’s been through certain bouts of obsession with women and other things. So, even if he were to fall into another one, he’d have a good sense of what is happening to him yet again. He'd be partially immune to the obsessive bug. In contrast, Scotty finds himself in unfamiliar territory.
Scotty is not a serial fantasist. He’s been a factualist all his life, a man of law and law-enforcement, a man who has surely pored over countless stories of crimes, betrayals, deceptions, and etc. He is a veteran in the domain of facts. What he knows nothing about is the realm of myth and fantasy. And because he’s a novice in that field, Elster is able to draw him in slowly and surely. It sort of reminds me of why Stephen Glass was able to fool so many people at The New Republic. The magazine staff was pretty good with checking factual stories. What Glass did was sell outlandish fairy-tales, something for which the editorial staff was unfamiliar in dealing with.

Luke Ford also takes a self-help approach to Scotty’s dilemma, as if the character is a real-life person who could have avoided trouble had he been more self-aware, possibly with the aid of religion and advice columns. But really, purpose of VERTIGO is to explore and poeticize the mythology of love than to offer good advice. If Scotty had been more sensible, there would be no movie.

13. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=1h1m19s Kevin Michael Grace compares Luke Ford to the psychiatrist at the end of PSYCHO who sums up in neat clinical terms what’s really driving the madness behind Norman Bates. Kevin Michael Grace says Hitchcock was winking at the audience when trotting out such explanations because the mystery of evil could never be explained with a pat theory or two. That is true, but it’s also true that Hitchcock was often overly partial to certain psychological theories. There isn’t much winking in SPELLBOUND and MARNIE. Hitchcock really seems to endorse rather crackpot Freudian theories about repressed childhood memories. The resolutions are meant to be neat and final. In SPELLBOUND, it was the repressed memory of Gregory Peck’s character having accidentally killed his younger brother in childhood. In MARNIE, the anti-heroine’s troubles were rooted in the repressed childhood memory of having killed a man who attacked her mother who, it turns out, was a hooker. So, there was the richer and darker Hitchcock who suggested at the mystery of evil, and there was the amateur-psychologist Hitchcock who resolved conflicts with some fashionable theory about the subconscious. Hitchcock was both a nihilist and a moralist. There was an air of the English bourgeoisie about him all his life. He liked form and order, minutely detailing the production from A to Z before the shooting began. Also, there’s a positivist sense in many of his movies that invaluable methods can be drawn from science and medicine to aid in the solving of crime and madness. His films are on the side of civilization, fearful of the natural forces as in THE BIRDS. And yet, another side of Hitchcock felt civilization was a veneer, a veiled masquerade over true human nature that was animal. Myth and Art were spheres where civilization and animal nature could 'safely' create friction to produce the fever-dream. Civilization is like a cage, and we are all like caged birds. We need the cage, but it holds us back from so much truth about us. And yet, without the cage, we revert to animal drives and become beastly like crazy-ass Negroes. So, how do we maintain Order but also draw inspiration from the more vital and virile side of our nature? Through the power of Myths and Art.

The strange thing about VERTIGO is Scotty is both a guardian and trespasser. He takes on the job of guarding Madeleine from madness, chaos, and suicide. His role is to uncover the truth and restore Madeleine to the light. And yet, in his immersion in the passion, his own psyche is thrown into turmoil. Even as he tries desperately to make Madeleine come to the light, he moves into the darkness. This aspect of VERTIGO surely influenced the French romance THE APARTMENT, remade into WICKER PARK. In M. Night Shyamalan's SPLIT, the doctor(Betty Buckley) is also of a dual nature. On the one hand, she wants to cure the patient and draw him into the light, but on the other hand, she is so fascinated with her patient's condition that she comes to see him and others of his kind as near demigods deserving of special admiration. Unknowingly, she is drawn into the darkness.


Anyway, Hitchcock was winking and not winking in many of his movies. A part of him was rolling his eyes at pat theories of events, but there was another side of Hitchcock that was very much like a schoolmarm and instructor. In a way, Hitchcock’s movies draw their power from the tension among the moralism, modernism, and madness. Madness upon madness isn’t very interesting. It’s like black paint on black canvas. It’s the nihilist thread that weaves through the bourgeois moralist or rationalist fabric that gives Hitchcock’s movies the sense of the Serpent slithering in the Garden of Eden. This is why DePalma's movies, for all their debt to Hitchcock, don't really feel Hitchcockian. Hitchcock, like Luis Bunuel, needed the bourgeois world as contra-canvas for his dark fantasies. Indeed, the fantasies were dark precisely because because they were set against tradition, community, and/or rationality(science & medicine). Likewise, Bunuel's bad boy antics were effective only as long as there was the bourgeoisie to mock. The difference was, all said and done, Hitchcock sided with the bourgeoisie whereas Bunuel sided with the anarchy. Despite stylistic similarities, DePalma’s world is too sordid and fallen(indeed shamelessly so) to create the kind of tension between Order and Chaos that is so integral to the Dark Bourgeois gamesmanship of Hitchcock. Also, it’s difficult to sustain romanticism in a pornographic world.

14. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=1h5m6s Kevin Michael Grace says the movie ends with Scotty’s triumph albeit at a tremendous cost. By ‘triumph’, Kevin Michael Grace means Scotty’s solving of the mystery and his cure from acrophobia. But perhaps, ‘triumph’ is too strong a word. Indeed, one gets the sense that maybe Scotty should have ignored the necklace and pretended to carry on as usual. After all, his greatest triumph was the resurrection of Madeleine. By revisiting the tower and making Judy-Madeleine spill the beans, he lost what he’d created. But of course, once he found out about the necklace, he just couldn’t let it go. He had to find out, just like Noodles in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA had to come face to face with the truth even at the loss of the myth that had lent tragic meaning to his life all these years. Granted, there is both an emotional push and pull — like the camera-work employed to approximate the sensation of vertigo — as Scotty gets closer to the truth. On the one hand, he wants to hear the truth from Judy’s lips. He wants her to vomit out every last bit. Yet, at the same time, he dreads hearing every word because it’s so horrible. He wants to hear, he doesn’t want to hear. He compels her to confess but is triggered into fury by every utterance. It’s like having a bullet or arrow removed from one’s wound. One wants it out but agonizes over the unbearable pain. But finally, all the truth is 'birthed' like a decayed stillborn baby, and Scotty processes all of it. He is finally cleared of the inner illusions that fueled his acrophobia. Still, the power of the myth is such that, even after the poison has been sucked out of him and Judy, he(and she) still can’t let it go. Even though the necklace was the key to solving the puzzle, he is touched by the fact that she was so sentimental about it. And they embrace once again, and maybe that might have been a kind of happy ending. Even after the myth has been shattered, they realize they found real love in each other, and so the myth can evolve into something new. But then Judy falls to her death, and Scotty has some serious explaining to do. He just barely got away with his Chappaquidick Moment the first time Madeleine died. The board none-too-surely accepted his version of events and declared him not responsible for the death. But how will he explain the second death, especially as the woman, Judy, has been made to look just like Madeleine? He has regained sense and sanity, but if he tells the truth of what happened and why he turned Judy into Madeleine II, the world will think him mad.

Alex Jones(combo of Archie Bunker and Meathead), the American Folk Hero, and His Roots in Leftist Counter-Politics — How the Culture of Conspiracy Theories went from the Left to the Right — How Oliver Stone went from Hero to Villain in Hollywood

Alex Jones would never call himself a leftist. He wouldn’t necessarily call himself a rightist, but his politics clearly leans to the Right. He likes to see himself as a Libertarian Patriot who believes the greatest threat to mankind comes from Globalists who have forged a monstrous fusion of Big Business and Big Government now widely known as the Deep State. Jones is much hated by the Anti-Trumpian Left but has had fans among certain Leftists and Liberals for his anti-government stance. Not for nothing has his operation been centered in Austin, the most ‘progressive’ and bohemian city in Texas. When Bush II decided on the Iraq War, Jones was among the ones opposing the war. (To the extent that the once hawkish Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson are now more likely to question the War State and warmongering, Jones and others like him have had a very real influence on American political culture.) Just like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan found some common ground in the 1990s in their opposition to globalism, ‘free trade’, and financialization of the economy, Alex Jones has, over the years, made common cause with some on the Left. But then, we must ask, which left? So much of what goes by the Leftist Brand bear little or no resemblance to the Classic Left of a bygone time when it was a Movement for Workers’ Rights led by disciplined cadres of intellectuals and commissars. Much of today’s ‘leftism’ is really the decadent and/or degenerate product of consumer-capitalism that, since the 1960s, raised successive generations on Pop Culture, hedonism, cult of youth, narcissism, vanity, and egotism. The logic of today’s ‘leftism’ goes like this: "Celebrities are cool because they are rich and flashy. They have all the goodies and all the love, so EVERYONE deserves that kind of love." So, many ‘leftists’ just want free stuff. And, even the fat and ugly among these 'leftists' model themselves on famous celebrities and idols. Their view of humanity and 'justice' is like that Chris Crocker.

Lena Dunham(who looks like Burt Young with a wig) was turned into poster-girl of this mentality. She was fat, ugly, and unremarkable in every way but apparently had some 'right' to be famous and 'sexy'. Despite lack of talent, She was entitled to feel like a ‘star’ and was made into one by a degenerate media. Of course, her stardom didn’t last long as people soon tired of her fat ugly stupid self.

Lena Dunham looks like Burt Young in drag

But the fact remains that so many millennials have only Pop Culture as source of values, meaning, and inspiration, and they see the world through the prism of idols and celebrities. Even if they can’t be stars, they feel entitled to being starlike and even pressuring the 'world' to play along.

Such sensibility is at the center of Homomania and the Tranny-Pronoun lunacy. On average, a homo is far more vain than any man, even any woman. Not only are homos high-strung with narcissism and vanity but their mindset feeds into fetid delusions. Excitable like Pee Wee Herman, they are bubbly with joy. But joy over what? The fact that their ‘sexuality’ revolves around fecal penetration and buggering each other? Given what homos do, it’s understandable why most people have looked down on them as filthy and tainted, even sick in the head. This led to a great contradiction in the homo mind. On the one hand, they were naturally disposed to acting bubbly, whoopity, pee-wee-like, and euphoric. They love to feel ‘gay’, excited, and top-of-the-world. They want to be loved and flattered. But, the fact is homos indulge in unsavory behavior of sticking penises into fecal holes of other men. Penises get smeared with fecal matter, and bungs get loose, even cancerous. Also, most homos are not attractive, and many are downright repulsive, like Barney Frank. Elton John once had musical talent, but he was always one of the ugliest people in show business. Now, most ugly people just accept their ugliness. Burt Young never pretended to be Rudolph Valentino. But this was never easy for homos because of their excitable Pee-Wee-ish nature.

Whatever homos want, they gotta have it. Michael Jackson pretended not to be homo, but even if he wasn’t, he had a ‘gay’ mentality that favored fantasy over reality. If he wanted to see himself as a white woman, he did everything to look like a cross between Mickey Mouse and the young Elizabeth Taylor. Homos are both insistent and fragile. Determined to transform into their fantasies but so sensitive to those who laugh at them. Of course, it’s natural to laugh at homos and trannies since they act so silly. Many homos are limp-wristed floozy-boys who talk with lisps. And most trannies make us laugh like the guys on MONTY PYTHON in women’s dresses.

Because homos wanted their joyous giggle of fancy narcissism materialized into reality but were met with derision, ridicule, and mocking laughter, they developed the irony of camp. Homos and trannies wanted to be admired and celebrated by the world, but they simply didn’t get the love. Worse, there was a time when homosexuality was criminal and/or seen as a mental disease. So, what do you do when you want people to share in your laughter of celebration but instead just laugh at you? You take refuge in the sensibility of camp. That way, you do pursue the fantasy of vanity and narcissism in the hope that people will adore you like a movie star, BUT you also pretend to laugh at yourself along with the others who find your ‘gay’ shtick ridiculous. Play the phony champ with the plasticity of camp. Thus, the culture of camp provided homos with a playing ground to romp around in and indulge their fantasies of being ‘hot stuff’. But it was padded with irony so that your ego wouldn’t be wounded so badly if your self-image took a fall. In a world where attitude toward homos ranged from extreme hostility to tolerant ridicule, homos found camp most useful. But despite the air of self-mockery and jest, the real dream of homos was to be like neo-aristocrats, fairies and angels, and demigods of fashion and style. Deep down inside, they didn’t want to laugh at themselves or be laughed at. They wanted to be adored and adulated.... like Michael Jackson in his Neverland.
A similar kind of mentality developed among blacks. In the white-dominated America, blacks weren’t taken very seriously. They were seen as, at best, sidekicks. Black music was caricatured by Minstrel Shows. Whites treated black culture this way because it was so different, so wild and crazy. But blacks couldn’t help being what they were and were making all these kind of rambunctious music and dance. As blackness wasn’t taken seriously, much of black culture had to develop a culture of self-irony and self-mockery. Since blackness was often met with derision or rejection, blacks couldn’t be thin-skinned about it. They had to act like they were laughing along with the white man(and Jews), agreeing with the white man(and Jews) that, "Yep, Negroes shoooooo be craaaaazy". But fun-crazy. But of course, deep down inside, blacks wanted respect. But this wasn’t always easy because the nature of so much of black music has been wild, savage, and anti-civilizational. It is ugity-bugity. And yet, its high energy and rhythm had appeal to white folks as well. So, for a while, the compromise between blacks and whites was a ‘campy’ kind of Negro-hood.

Thus, blackness would be enjoyed but as a kind of jive-ass act that couldn't be taken too seriously. And since those were the terms of cultural commerce between blacks and whites, even blacks played along as it allowed a leg-in the system. Perhaps, the most famous practitioner of this was Louis Armstrong. Undoubtedly talented as a Jazz performer, he also knew he had to do some ugity-bugity stuff to keep both sides laughing if for different reasons.

Just as whites found black culture problematic but enjoyed its high energy, straight folks found homos ridiculous but found something of value in 'gay' sensibility. Since homos are naturally so vain & narcissistic and since most of them lack the beauty & grace that they crave, they've gone to excessive lengths to create the fantasy-of-perfection by decor. They design dresses, jewelry, hairstyle, and shoes. Since homo men would look silly in them — people still have a hard time keeping a straight face when looking at most trannies — , they make all these beautiful stuff for the idealized women of fashion. As homos gained more access to the rich & privileged and gained influence in key industries, they began to shed their Camp sensibility. Camp was necessary when homos were at a moral and cultural disadvantage, when they were laughed at and mocked. Back then, when ‘gay culture’ was derided by everyone(even Liberals), homos needed a sense of humor, the ability to laugh at themselves, to cope and carry on. But deep down inside, they didn’t want to be laughed at. The emotional core of homo sensibility is queenie-meanie, bitchy, fancy-pants, and aristo... like the Tim Roth character in ROB ROY, a movie the homos picketed because it exposed too much about their true nature.

In their heart of hearts, homos wanted the world to adore them, love them, and shower them with praise as a superior breed. So, it isn’t surprising that once homos kept gaining more and more power, they decried any joke about homos as ‘homophobic’, which really means 'neo-aristophobic'. As members of the New Elites, the homos, without the slightest tinge of irony, associated what they do(which is fecal penetration) with the rainbow colors. Homos even demanded that marriage be radically redefined to make-believe that what homos and trannies do — fecal penetration or penis-and-balls-cutting-to-get-fake-vagina — has equal value with normal people committing to one another to have real sex to produce real life. So, just like Jews used Free Speech as a tool to ultimately destroy Free Speech, homos used the laughter(of camp) as a tool to finally create a culture where laughter at homos would be forbidden. When traditionalists held much power in culture and morality, Jews with radical will needed Free Speech protections to subvert so much of America. But once Jews gained the power, they’ve been doing whatever they could to shut down free speech of people they fear or don’t like. Likewise, homos initially lowered the moral defenses of Americans(who found homosexuality to be gross or ridiculous) with the campy culture of self-mockery and laughter. It was as if homos were saying, "Look, we know we are ridiculous. We are just having some fun, and all we ask for is a bit of tolerance." But deep down inside, homos wanted to rule over everyone like princes over serfs. We were to be their serfs bowing at their feet. In PRODUCERS(at 40 sec of video below) by Mel Brooks, we laugh at the homos, but they take themselves so seriously.

So, even though homos lowered straight society's cultural guard by pretending to be just a bunch of deviant-sexual comedians(rather like the Marx Brothers of fashion), they were dead serious in gaining influence and power so that they could eventually dictate what we can and can’t laugh at. So, Jews now control what can or can’t be said. Jews who gained power via Free Speech are now forcing ‘hate speech’ laws on us. And homos who gained so much freedom through the cult of laughter now wage war on laughter that still laughs at homo ridiculousness. Today, any funny or cutting remark about homos is ‘homophobic’. Even the factual observation that homo fecal penetration is gross and filthy will lead to firing and blacklisting. Worse, the alliance between megalomaniacal Jews and ultra-narcissistic Jews is the most crucial in America. This is why so much Jewish-controlled globalism is about Globo-Homo Worship. In terms of Jewish Will to Power, at the root of ‘Marx Brothers’-ism was ‘Karl Marx’-ism(as personality if not ideology).

Anyway, Alex Jones’ star didn’t rise in the way Rush Limbaugh’s did. Limbaugh played the populist and appealed to many American Conservatives with his plain talk. He courted controversy once in awhile with comments about blacks-in-sports(hardly surprising in sports-obsessed USA) and feminists. But overall, Limbaugh stuck to the Establishment Narrative. His style could sometimes be outlandish, but he didn’t rock the boat of GOP Inc. He was for ‘free trade’, globalism, Wars for Israel, trust in American Institutions, and mockery for the radicals with roots in the 1960s. His positions were aligned with Wall Street and War State. With Las Vegas and Big Corporations. He was all for Walmart and heaped praise on anything associated with capitalism and big money. Whatever the military wanted was good. US generals could do no wrong. Limbaugh was born in 1951, so he was Core Boomer. In radical 1968, he would have been 17 yrs old, his formative years.
Back then, it was the Left that most distrusted US institutions, questioned the US military, opposed the Vietnam War, saw FBI-CIA as monsters, hated the police, distrusted authority, and cooked up all sorts of theories about power. And this wasn’t like the old Democratic vs Republican divide. 60s radicalism came to a head under and against Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. As the Vietnam War had escalated under LJB, the New Left went after him and establishment Democrats. The riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago were about angry Leftists vs Establishment Liberals. Things got especially heady because John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in 1963. There was a lingering sense among many on the Left that maybe Kennedy had been killed to push Johnson into power. (Of course, many historians have argued that Kennedy was also committed to defending South Vietnam from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese patriots.) Also, the widespread use of drugs made the kids especially paranoid and warped in their thinking. And yet, the fact is there were tons of lies surrounding the Vietnam War. Also, the government and media had been colluding to tell lies about America’s role in the world. But as the war just got worse and worse, even the Media began to turn against the war. (This change of heart would be paralleled in the media’s initially euphoric endorsement of the Iraq Invasion that soon gave to disillusion and bitter antipathy toward the Bush regime... though not as hostile as during the Vietnam War. After all, if most Jews saw the Vietnam War as arrogance of the Wasp military elite, the Middle East involvement was really a Zionist baby.) The Leftist opposition in the 60s turned deranged and stupid, but it did some good in raising some serious question about the nature of power in America. Also, even though the American Right tried to be patriotic in its support for troops and anti-communism, in retrospect there’s no denying that the Left was on firmer moral ground than the Right on the Vietnam War. It would have been much better for everyone if the US had never gotten involved in the first place(going all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower’s fatal role in dividing Vietnam into north and south). On the other hand, the Left was overly zealous and naive about the nature of the conflict. Though North Vietnamese were indeed courageous patriots, their communist agenda for the entire nation would prove to be economically disastrous. As for the kind of ultra-Maoist leftism that took hold of Cambodia, that has to rank among the most horrific crimes of the 20th century. While the Left was good to be skeptical of War State and other institutions of America, they were willfully naive and even stupid about Marxism-Leninism, even Maoism. As a skepticism of ideology than reason, the Left easily became useful idiots of the Other. This was also a time when so many whites were besotted with blacks as icons of sacredness; this would later turn into Magic Negro Myth. And this was also the time when American Indians came to be idealized by the Counterculture as organic children living in harmony with nature and smoking some stuff and getting high and being wise. It was a time when Marx merged with Lennon. Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan were seen by many youths as poets and gurus, the spokesmen of the generation. So, even pleasant tripe like "All You Need Is Love" could become a global event.
Rush Limbaugh loved Top 40 Rock music and teh materialism of the go-go years but pretty much hated everything else about the 1960s. He opposed the Counterculture and the radicals. Even though the American Right has a long pedigree of being anti-Big-Government, it also generally stood firm in total trust and devotion in certain segments of the government, especially the military and the intelligence services: Anything that has to do with rooting out domestic insurgency and foreign threats. So, the American Right in the 1960s saw the US military and intelligence services as performing patriotic duties as defenders of the American interests, guarantors of American security, and agents of American security. Vietnam War wasn’t about the US as the neo-imperialist Big Bad Wolf destroying a poor Asian nation thousands of miles away. It was about the US at war with World Communism. Vietnam was just a proxy of evil Red China and the Soviet Union. Besides, it was noble to defend the good decent pro-American folks of South Vietnam. It was unpatriotic to ask too many questions. It was wrong to see US soldiers as anything but the noblest warriors with the finest hearts. Americans never lost a war, as George C. Scott in PATTON said. (PATTON was a huge hit and Richard Nixon’s favorite movie. While the anti-war crowd was flocking to see M*A*S*H, the conservatives preferred PATTON. Though one was about the Korean War and the other about WWII, both were relevant to what was happening in Vietnam. Franklin Schaffner who directed PATTON would next direct NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDER, a story about a leader who is embroiled in scandals and brought down by the tragedy of war. Though Tsar Nicholas and Nixon couldn’t have been more different, the movie anticipated Nixon’s problems with war, radicalism, and scandals.) Though totally forgotten today, GREEN BERETS was a huge hit, and the song, "The Ballad of the Green Berets" was the second biggest hit of the year. That was what the American Right still clung to in the 1960s. To the Left, it seemed so old-fashioned, simpleminded, and trite. Unlike the Right that was seen by the Left as either crusty & stale or naive & trusting, the Left embraced all sorts of social experimentation and free expression. They were edgy, hip, and cool. But then, this very conceit blinded them to their own naivete that, in some ways, would prove to be even dumber and idiotic than the Red, White, and Blue mentality on the Right. It’s like the hippie-types in Robert Altman's NASHVILLE are, in their own way, just as silly and deluded as the Country Music patriarch who runs a Ross-Perot-like campaign. Back in 1969, Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper were regarded as so cool in the EASY RIDER. But the film dated quickly, and Fonda and Hopper over-indulged in drugs. Hopper became insane and impossible to work with. Later, he finally got half-sober and took on roles as villains and crazies. Near the end of his life, he was something of a pro-Bush Republican, especially after 9/11(though some noted a rightward turn already with COLORS, attacked by some on the Left as a pro-cop movie). It’s too bad that just when Hopper chose American Patriotism, the president was the idiot George W. Bush who embroiled the US in the Iraq War on the advice of lowdown Zionist Neocons.

To most Liberals, Rush Limbaugh was just an Archie Bunker on the radio. With barroom wit and humor, he made ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘greed’ fun and cool, American as Apple Pie. While there were racial undertones to Limbaugh’s shtick — but then, what isn’t affected by race in American politics and culture? — , he never dealt with the issue head-on like Sam Francis would later do(and get fired like Jimmy the Greek). If anything, Limbaugh was careful to point to his sidekick being Bo Snerdly, a black guy. HIGBF, or "Hey, I got black friends." And even though Limbaugh attacked feminists as extreme ‘feminazis’, he bought into the whole ‘equal opportunity’ ideal between men and women. Limbaugh’s boorish antics could be only implicitly racy and ‘dangerous’ because he had too much to lose. As part of Talk Radio, he was working for a major conglomerate, and his huge earnings owed to advertising. Limbaugh had to remain within the ‘mainstream’ as defined by the Dominant Narrative. Because he couldn’t honestly touch upon racial and sexual issues, the ‘raw meat’ he threw at his audience had to do with safe targets like ‘Chicoms’, Muslims(especially Iran), supporting Israel(as America’s closest ally), and symbolic issues like kids reciting the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’. He used to make fun of homosexuals, but once Homomania gained footing as the neo-religion of America, he probably muted himself on that. (I haven’t heard his show much since the 90s.) Limbaugh’s thorny obsession with football illustrates the problem with his kind of Conservatism. Limbaugh would like to believe that there is nothing really racial about the NFL. If there are lots of blacks, it’s all on the basis of may-the-best-man-win. So, it’s meritocracy and has nothing to do with race. Also, football is American-as-apple-pie, the favorite sports of Conservatives. But since the 1960s, the game has been getting blacker every year as Jimmy the Greek once said. (Though Jimmy the Greek was wrong about the Mandingo-theory as to why blacks have an edge — it owes to 100,000 yrs of evolution than 200 yrs of slavery — , he was right about racial differences and got canned for what he said.) As much as white American Conservatives love football, the fact is most players are black, and they feel loathing and contempt for ‘white boys’. Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic, see Republicans as diehard ‘racists’, despise white men as slow and weak ‘white boys’, and are amused that all those cucky and ‘faggoty’ white boys are cheering black athletes for whupping white ass and humping tons of white pussy. Black attitude toward whites is a combination of victim-cult and racial supremacism. Blacks cling to the Slavery Narrative that conveniently blames whitey for everything that is wrong with the black community. Also, it makes them feel noble as the Sacred Race held down by White ‘Racism’. This aspect of black attitude paints blacks as noble strugglers against White Power. But the other side of black attitude is one of sheer supremacism. Like Muhammad Ali said, he be the ‘greatest’. Whatever blacks may think in terms of ideology, they FEEL contempt for whites as the inferior race. As blacks judge the worth of everything on the basis of fist, dong, booty, rhythm, and funk, they are convinced that they are the most superior race since they can whup ass, got bigger dongs, bouncier booties, louder voices, and jungle boogie. Because blacks feel superior in being able to kick whitey’s ass, they think they should be dominant in everything. (It's like in the USSR, Stalin was so revered that many young ones assumed he must be BEST at everything, even science and math.) Of course, it’s fallacious to think, "Because I can kick his ass, I must also be smarter than him", but blacks really think thus. Because they be so ‘badass’, they think they deserve to win in everything and get all surly when they don't; soul train turns into sour train. Also, when blacks say they are more ‘creative’, it really means they are more expressive when it comes to ugity-bugity stuff. To a Negro, a rapper who yaps and makes apelike motions is more ‘creative’ than Beethoven or Wagner because "you can’t dance to that faggoty classical shit." So, a kind of racial schizophrenia exists in the US. On the one hand, whites feel blacks as the sorry race that were enslaved, got lynched(on occasion even though Jew-run MSM would like for us to think it was happening relentlessly all over the place), and was called ‘nigger’. But they also worship the Negro as the superior race with more muscle, bigger dongs, bouncier booties, and louder voices. As for Negroes, they see white folks as representing this evil White Power structure that is so powerful and shit. But when they see whites as individuals, they see ‘faggoty-ass white boys’ whose asses could easily be whupped. And if white boys can be whupped, it means white girls must come over to the Negro men as the superior jocks and studs, thus practicing ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.

Sadly, complexity about the race issue is acknowledged by neither the American Left nor the establishment American Right. The only allowed Narratives/Contexts have been (1) Blacks were so horribly oppressed and traumatized by Evil White ‘Racism’ that still lingers to this day in so many subtle forms that a colorblind society is not possible, at least for many decades or even centuries. It will take a long long time to undo the damage whites have done to blacks. So, we must forgive blacks for hating on whitey, and whites must not judge blacks like everyone else. Blacks deserve special recognition, love, affection, and support. This view is favored by the American Left. (2) While it’s true that blacks did get the short end of the stick in the past and all good Americans must share in the apology, things have improved so much in America. ‘Racism’ is a thing of the past, and most Americans of all colors are good people, and it is time for blacks to drop their resentments and excuses and feel goodwill towards whites who are filled with goodwill toward blacks. This is favored by the American Right.
As far as Limbaugh sees it, he loves football even though it’s filled with black guys who hump tons of white women. So, unlike ‘racist’ whites who discriminated against black athletes in the past, Limbaugh is all for blacks dominating football since it is meritocracy in action. Since sports have demonstrated that there is no ceiling for blacks in success and fame, blacks should compete fairly in all endeavors and let the chips fall where they may on the basis of meritocracy.
But blacks are not buying this. No matter how much Limbaugh and fellow white Republicans say, "We love the NFL even though it’s black-dominated, and you Negroes can even marry my daughter and hump my wife" and no matter how many times they invite rich black celebrities to their homes and festivities, blacks will continue to see White American Conservatives as ‘closet-racist’ wussy ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys with too much money and power they don’t deserve. White Conservatives don’t mind blacks beating whites in sports, but blacks do mind whites beating blacks in many fields. As far as megalomaniacal blacks are concerned, there’s no way a race as awesome as themselves could miss out on blings in ANY FIELD unless it’s rigged in a ‘racist’ fashion against blacks. How could a race that is so cool, creative, and badass not have the Midas Touch when it comes to everything? Such megalomania feeds into black paranoia. Whenever blacks see a prize(bling) in any field, they feel THEY deserve it. 'Gots to have me!' It could even be an endeavor most blacks show no interest in, like nuclear physics. But when blacks hear of such a field, they be wondering, "Why ain’t a black guy the top scientist with all the bling prizes, daaaaaaang?" It must be ‘racist’. It’s made worse because the Magic Negro Myth and the Cult of ‘Anti-Racism’ have made so many whites want to believe in the same thing. If blacks are divine Magic Negroes, they should be best at everything. Because Negroes be so holy, the reason must be intractable ‘white racism’ and more effort is needed to root out the evil so that there will be as many topnotch black computer coders as among whites, Jews, and Asians.

At any rate, people like Limbaugh have been indulging in a delusion. They’ve been trying to be colorblind with issues and matters that cannot be divorced from color. After all, even if it is true that black domination in the NFL and NBA is due to meritocracy, it is about Color than Color-blindness. And if meritocracy favors blacks over all other races in sports, it must mean races are indeed different. And that means that black athletes will never regard their white fans on an equal footing. Blacks will feel alpha and see the cuckish white fans as beta. This leads to feeling that range from amused condescension to outright contempt. Since blacks see themselves as the alpha males in sports and school hierarchy(where they gamely kick white kids in the butt), they see no reason to regard whites on an equal footing, especially when so many white girls are deserting white boys and going with black boys. Human nature says those who feel alpha deserving of everything and expect to be served by betas. Because blacks feel alpha in the areas that Americans are most obsessed with — sports, pop music, and sex culture — , they feel they are the rightful rulers of America and that whites and other non-blacks exist to serve, honor, and celebrate blacks. So, the fact that blacks aren't #1 in finance, science, technology, and all else deeply angers blacks. Blacks want to believe in HIDDEN FIGURES myth that blacks are brimming with intellectual genius from head to toe but have been held back by white ‘racism’. Blacks want to believe in the Wakanda Myth that they are the smartest people on Earth and the ONLY reason why Africa is a mess is due to white ‘racism’, sheeeeeeeiiiiit.

When the only permissible Narratives is (1) blacks are holy because of special suffering, and we must do everything to help and honor the Negro and (2) "why can’t we get along?" on the basis of color-blind idealism, then it’s no wonder that so much of the racial discourse is so retarded. Even on the so-called Race-Realist Right, the discussion is mostly about I.Q. when, in fact, lower IQ among blacks should be the last of the worries facing the white race. It is black fist and black dongs that are doing the most harm as they whup and emasculate the white man into 'white boy' and then into wussy-ass cucky-wuck.

For those familiar with 70s American TV show ALL IN THE FAMILY, the main attraction was the comic sparks set off by the friction between Archie Bunker and Michael Stivic, aka ‘Meathead’. Archie Bunker was the bigot-patriot who trusted authority and the American way, whereas Meathead was deeply cynical of the power-structure and wasn’t so enamored with the Red, White, and Blue. And yet, despite Archie’s faith in American Power, he was distrustful of the kind of people who actually ran the institutions. He was loyal to the symbolism of American Power while disdaining many in government, media, and other elite institutions. In contrast, Meathead, while skeptical, even cynical, about much of the American Narrative and the folk culture of Patriotism, was deeply invested in the Liberal-dominated institutions of actual day-to-day control of power. An English major and ‘intellectual’, Meathead believed in an improved society dominated by more educated and more ‘progressive’ people. Bunker loved the idea of American Power but disliked the people who actually ran the system. In contrast, Meathead opposed American Power but was far more trusting of the people in the institutions. Still, outwardly at least, Bunker was the patriot(albeit a bigoted one) who had faith in the American Way, whereas Meathead thought America had been deeply flawed from its founding, what with the eradication of Indians, Slavery, and imperialist wars, like the one raging in Vietnam. Bunker’s outward message was ‘God bless America’, whereas Meathead’s was ‘America must atone’.
The funny thing about Alex Jones is he’s like a combination of Archie Bunker and Michael Stivic the Meathead. This is partly due to his roots in Texas, a state known for both arch-conservatism and maverick cowboy individualism. Texas has had many rightists with strong libertarian streak, and many leftists with something of cow-punching spirit. In the 1960s and 1970s, the aspects of the left and right merged through shared experience of Rock and Drugs. In DAZED AND CONFUSED, set in a high school in Austin suburb in 1976, we see how everyone from a left-wing Jew to a right-wing good ole boy(and everyone in between) share in the culture of partying, drugs, and the cult of youth.

Despite the ideological polarization, there may have been less social polarization because Texas was less ethnically diverse than say, New York, where one group, such as Jews, would be at one end of political spectrum, whereas other groups could be at the other end. In Texas, whether you were a Republican or Democrat, there was a greater chance than in places like NY that you shared ethnicity and even kinfolks with your ideological rivals. So, you were likely to hang out with them even if you disagreed with them. In contrast, leftist Jews in NY might mostly hang with other leftist Jews while Italians, Irish, and others would stick with their own kind. Texas always had a large Mexican and black population, but Mexicans are not an intellectual people. Their power emerges only with heavy demographics. And with blacks, the politics has always been rather simple: Tribal than Ideological.
Because of the nature of Texas, the Liberal director Richard Linklater has certain libertarian, and even conservative, tendencies. The notable thing about DAZED AND CONFUSED is the shared sense of camaraderie for everyone, even the loathsome a**hole played by Ben Affleck. Some are more likable and admirable than others, but they are all part of the culture and community. It is a sensibility so different from that of, say, Woody Allen where the divisions among Jews, Italians, Wasps, intellectual class, working class, and etc. are so stark. Even as Allen loves the freedom of NY, there’s always an acute sense of borders and ceilings among groups separated by race, culture, intelligence, or class. In contrast, despite the wide array of characters in DAZED AND CONFUSED, there is a sense of ease and rapport among them. Its central character is ‘Pink’ the school quarterback who is also something of an intellectual and nice guy. Clearly Linklater’s alter-ego, he easily moves in and out of any social group or niche. PC was slower to affect Texas not only because of its general conservatism but because the Texan style has been about taking things ‘easy’ like a cowboy. The spirit of freedom and/or pride of power trumped commitment to ideology. It is then not surprising that Richard Linklater has been friends with Alex Jones despite their ideological divergence. Linklater is generally easy-going whereas Jones is hyperbolic and intense, but both share in the attitude that one’s feelings count for more than any single idea. So, if Linklater feels okay with certain people, he can overlook ideological differences. Similarly, despite his passion and rage, Jones has never been an ideologue. If anything, his anti-globalism is intensely anti-ideological. Jones’ world-view is that most people are good decent folks who would thrive best with freedom, individuality, patriotism, and spirit of independence. There is no ideology that can explain all the world and there is no power that should rule all the world, so Alex Jones thinks. But globalism, as controlled by mega-corporations, elite academia, Deep State, Wall Street, and Media conglomerates, seek to impose a one-world government and mindset on all of us(as sheeple) to further the interests of the oligarchs, plutocrats, and ideologues who either want all the power or think they know what is good for all of us. Though Alex Jones has entertained certain conspiracy theories, they were never in the service of some ideology. Jones has never been intellectual in quite that way. His main impulse has been to rebel against anyone or anything that seeks to gain power and domination over others by taking away people’s freedoms, undermining national sovereignty(to subordinate American power to some globalist entity controlled by plutocrats and their well-funded think-tanks), and addicting the people to all sorts of degeneracy and indulgences(which is rather funny because for someone who rants so much about the harmfulness of junk food, Jones is pretty overweight).

Jones has charged into the media landscape with a right-left combination of Bunkerism and Meatheadism. Like Archie Bunker, he loves the symbols of Red, White, and Blue. His is a no-holds-barred kind of patriotism that loves to bang the drums and pour gunpowder into the barrel. His patriotic shtick can be over-the-top and make even Rush Limbaugh blush.
But, there is another side to Alex Jones that has roots in 1960s leftism and radicalism. It is a deep-seated and even knee-jerk kind of skepticism and distrust of the Official Narrative. If the kind of people who raised the biggest doubts about the Kennedy assassination were once on the Left, such mentality has become prominent on the Right, and Alex Jones played a part in the cultural shift. Granted, there were elements of the ‘paranoid right’ in the 1950s and 1960s, but Mainstream Media and Respectable Conservatism(most famously represented by William F. Buckley) more or less worked together to push that kind of the Right to the fringes. But just when the ‘extreme right’ was pushed off the margins, the rise of the ‘paranoid left’ wasn’t only tolerated but even encouraged and welcomed increasingly by the mainstream. During the Cold War, it wasn’t unusual to come upon glowing or at least sympathetic accounts of Castro’s Cuba or Mao’s China. Also, the university increasingly came under the power of Jews who identified with the Left. And the media, heavily controlled by Jews, were also often sympathetic to the ‘paranoid left’. So, even though the Mainstream Media generally stuck with the Official Narrative on matters like the Kennedy assassination, the ‘conspiracy theories’ from the Left were at least intermittently given a hearing and even favorable coverage(whereas any ‘conspiracy theory’ from the Right was suppressed). According to the Jewish-dominated Media, Joe McCarthy had been ‘rabid and virulent’ and ‘paranoid’ about communists-under-every-bed. He’d been part of the Red Scare, a hysteria. Thus, the real danger posed by communists(many of them Jewish) in the 1940s and 1950s was swept under the rug of the Official Narrative. Jewish media didn’t want the people to realize how many Jews had been involved in the espionage for the Soviet Union and how many had been committed to subverting America through media, academia, and government. While certain anti-communists in the 1950s were clearly over-the-top in their suspicions and claims(though nothing like the ongoing lunacy of ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’), there really was a communist/Soviet menace, with infiltrators even in the uppermost ranks of the US government. And over time, many were exposed and removed from power, proving that the anti-communists were not pushing some wild ‘conspiracy theory’. Their fears were well-grounded in facts. But with Joe McCarthy’s downfall(mainly because he targeted the US military), a New Narrative arose about how the American Right had been hallucinating about the Red Menace. Especially because McCarthy looked rather repugnant and unpleasant, it wasn’t difficult for the Left and the Media to associate his unseemly washed-out and alcoholic image with the Red Scare. In other words, Anti-Communism was nothing but the drunken paranoid fantasy in the minds of Joe McCarthy and all the good people he’d suckered. But this was really a counter-conspiracy theory. If McCarthy’s ‘conspiracy theory’ said, "There were many more communists in hiding," the counter-conspiracy theory said, "McCarthy and his enablers got together and just made up everything out of the thin air to scare the nation into supporting the ‘paranoid’ Right." Because Joe McCarthy was a one-trick pony, it was as easy to bring him down as it’d been to build him up. He had one trick up his sleeve, and when he lost it, he too was lost.
This is where Alex Jones has been different. While there are certain parallels between the demagoguery of McCarthy and the wild-man antics of Jones, the latter has had many tricks up his sleeve because he hasn’t been so ideologically easy to pigeonhole. Unlike most Talk Show Conservatives, Jones hasn't been reliably on the side of the GOP against the Democrats. Though generally harder on Democrats than Republicans, Jones has been ranting tirades at both parties as the enemies of the people. Jones really got passionate with electoral politics because Donald Trump tore up the GOP script and ran a nationalist campaign as a maverick champion of the people against globalism. Prior to the arrival of Trump on the scene, the only politicians Jones felt any real love for were Ron Paul the perennial loser and perhaps Rand Paul, who doesn’t always go by the Republican script. The difference between Ron Paul and Alex Jones is the former at least tries to be consistent and principled(and as factual as possible) whereas Jones always lets his emotions run afield and sometimes falls into contradictory statements and positions because his gut instinct is to embrace anyone or anything that is expediently anti-establishment at the moment. So, it hasn’t been unusual for Jones to welcome as temporary allies even those on the Left or opposing sides if he could find common ground in their opposition to globalism and the elites. Indeed, in the Bush Era, Jones even made common cause with the Left in opposing the Iraq War and globalism that, back then, was associated in the minds of many ‘progressives’ with Wall Street and War State that were seen as staunchly ‘conservative’. Also, many ‘progressives’ were still the impression that the FBI and CIA were all right-wing organizations.

So, why did so many ‘progressives’ change their tune when it came to corporations and US foreign policy? One was Homomania. Jews promoted Homomania among ‘progressives’ as the next great moral crusade, one that would break the back of the Christo-Fascist Right. For many proggies, ‘gay marriage’ became their version of the Second Coming of Jesus. It became their holy of holies. Many proggies probably thought that the 'gay' cause would face opposition from greedy Big Business as well as from the Christian Right. But, as it turned out, the Big Corporations were the biggest sponsors and promoters of Homomania(and eventually the US Deep State and War State also got on the 'gay' bandwagon). So, all of a sudden, it dawned on proggies that Big Capital was on their side in the so-called Culture War. Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, and Big Retail were all into Homomania. With ‘gay’ issues being so central to the proggies, the fact that Big Business were pro-homo went a long ways to change the Proggy’s view of capitalism. Even as they still muttered socialist cliches, they became far more supportive of Big Money because it was so lavishly celebratory of Homomania. And since New Capitalism = Globalism, the proggies no longer became so hostile to globalism, or Globo-Homo-ism. If capitalism is pro-homo, it can’t be that bad. And if capitalism is okay, then globalism is also okay since it is fueled by capitalism. And ever since the US military became the globalist strong-arm of spreading Homomania, it became 'cool' too.
In 1999, there were massive leftist riots in Seattle over globalist-capitalism. But such protests subsided as globalism came to be associated with capitalism that came to be associated with Homomania. Also, top capitalist oligarchs began to adopt and push the Cult of Diversity to make capitalism more appetizing to the proggies whose heads were drummed into chanting ‘Diversity is our strength’ over and over because it’s all they heard in schools and on TV. Oligarchs and top executives had no reason to oppose diversifying the work-force in favor of non-whites? After all, the uppermost tier would be far less affected by Diversity, which would be for the birds on the lower pecking order. It’s like Jews on Wall Street may hire more Diversity and hurt the chances of whites at mid-level and lower-level, but the uppermost levels will always be held by the Tribe.

Jewish Goldman Sachs is for Homomania,the Proxy Weapon of Jews against National Cultures and Christianity.

Anyway, as corporations did so much to push for Homomania and Diversity, they were no longer seen as the enemy. Also, if proggies had once seen US capitalism as the carrier of White Imperialism, the association of capitalism with Homomania convinced many proggies that US capitalism is the greatest force for good. After all, it was the main purveyor and preacher of Homomania and Diversity(of consumer units) to all the world.

So, when Russia said NO to Homomania, most American proggies sided with the US neo-imperialism and capitalism as forces that may one day break down the wall of Russian ‘homophobic’ evil and convert all those ‘heathens’ to the ‘more evolved’ faith of Homo-Worship. Another reason why progs became pro-deep-state, pro-military, pro-capitalist, and pro-globalist had to do with Obama. Though he won the presidency as a kind-of-socialist, his first move was to bail out the banks and give Jews everything they wanted. Even though this upset many socialist-leaning proggies, they stuck by Obama because symbolism trumps all else in the realm of PC. As Obama was a ‘historic black president’ and Mr. ‘Hope-and-Change’, most proggies felt it was their duty to support him as an icon if not necessarily as an individual. So, whatever Obama did, no matter how foul or against even bedrock leftist principles, it had to be forgiven, overlooked, or even endorsed. Obama had promised that his administration would be the most transparent. It was actually the most secretive, especially as the Deep State, academia, and the media were all on the same page. Also, the powers-that-be knew that the American Right was too afraid of being called ‘racist’ to really challenge Obama’s presidency and that the American ‘Left’ was too reverential toward the ‘historic black president’ to really do anything that might jeopardize his 'legacy'. After all, the core mentality of so many Americans, especially on the ‘left’, has been to appease and applaud the wonderful Jews, sacred blacks, and holy homos. So, whereas someone like Edward Snowden would have been regarded as a great hero had he spilled the beans during the Bush yrs, he became an object of intense hatred by the proggy community because he made Obama look bad. He also exposed the hypocrisy of the proggies who, when push came to shove, favored power over principles. Worse, to make Obama look good at every turn, the proggy community supported the horrible Libya War, cheered the ‘new cold war’ with Russia(especially over Ukraine), and sat silently while Obama & Hillary(at the behest of Jews) sponsored terrorism to mess up Iraq and Syria to undermine the so-called Shia Crescent.

Finally, as they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As proggies began to realize that their kind control most of media, academia, and other elite institutions(and even big industries), they were flush with power & megalomania and wanted more and more regardless of their abuses and repercussions. To understand the nature of this corruption, just consider the Mueller probe into the so-called Russia Collusion. There is absolutely nothing there. We know it, Mueller knows it, FBI knows it, CIA knows it, NSA knows it, and Big Media know it. But they push the nonsense because they can and because it prevents Trump from doing anything to ease relations between the US and Russia for the good of both nations. The Deep State do not want compromise with Russia but total domination, not least because Jews control so much of it and because they hate what Russia stands for.

In a way, the political dynamics of ALL IN THE FAMILY anticipated the Things-To-Come in the later decades. Even though Meathead constantly yaps about the abuse of Power and the People, he feels little rapport with Archie Bunker, a white prole. If anything, he feels contempt for the white working class as the electoral and cultural bedrock of the American Right(embodied by Richard Nixon) that stands in the way of justice and progress for everyone, especially the ‘colored’ and the minorities. And yet, there is little chance that Meathead will spend much time with the ‘coloreds’(which back then were mostly blacks and browns) because his ambition is to earn a college degree and secure a profession in academia or some white-collar job. Meathead seeks to move up the social ladder(way above Archie Bunker and the white working class) but also to care for the downtrodden. He uses his mind to move up, yet his heart goes weepy-poo over the ‘oppressed’. And even though his kind will gain power over the white working class, it won't see itself as the new oppressive class(with elite positions in society) because it professes to care about the non-whites being oppressed by the white working class(that has less than the white upper class but feels more tribal and ‘stingy’[or clingy] about what it has). The white elite class became blind to its power over and abuses toward the white working class because of its moral narcissism of caring for the ‘colored’ folks being wronged by the white ‘deplorables’.

Now, in the actual TV show, Meathead doesn’t rise very high. He becomes a well-to-do teacher at some college. It’s nothing spectacular, but his position in life exemplifies the mindset of many boomers who strove to rise higher in station, status, and ‘consciousness’ over their parents who came to be regarded as overly materialistic, reactionary, and/or small-minded. Of course, as the stagflation 1970s ground on, the Boomer optimism of the 1960s soon evaporated(also in Europe), and the dreams of Counterculture began to seem sillier. No, ‘Love’ and ‘Peace’ couldn’t change the world. John Lennon was not the second coming of Jesus. Justice didn’t prevail all around the world because US withdrew from Vietnam. And with hedonism and drugs amok, new batch of young people were into Rock culture just for the fun than meaning. We see this shift in DAZED AND CONFUSED. Woodstock the event may have been rather stupid in retrospect, but there was an earnest collective desire to believe in returning to the Garden. But the youths in Richard Linklater’s film are just looking to have a good time. Stones, Beatles, and Dylan came under pressure in the 1960s to represent the generation and its aspirations. Even the Monkees got into the act of ‘significance’. But no one was making such demands on Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, and KISS in the 1970s. By mid 70s, Lennon and Dylan had lost much of their iconic status, and Paul McCartney was content to crank out silly love songs. And all those college-educated boomers didn’t want to be part of the working class. Even if they came from working class backgrounds, that culture-and-community was something they wanted to leave behind than identify with. It's like the kid in BREAKING AWAY who hangs with working class kids eventually goes to college and will likely become one of the yuppies.
For all their egalitarian sentiments, Liberal Boomers wanted something ‘clean’, ‘cool’, or ‘classy’. They wanted to work in office buildings — corporate or government — than in factories or on farms. Indeed, these white-collar boomers began to see white working class as just a bunch of losers who were stuck in their stations because they were either too dumb or lazy to make the climb. And since lower-tier jobs lost their luster, the boomers were more than willing to bring in tons of non-whites(especially from south of the border) to take all those ‘loser’ jobs.

One of the big themes of the 1960s was unrestrained pursuit of bliss. Don’t let anyone or anything stand in your way. If you want sex and drugs, go all out. The culture of Rock and strange drugs emboldened this attitude further. Thus, 60s idealism was incredibly exuberant in its naivete. Much of the attitude was based on ‘feels’ than on thought or ideology. Counterculture boomers had vague ideas but strong feelings about everything. What could be done about the race issue? No one was sure, but they were so damn sure it was something about ‘racism’ and more marches were needed. But as the 70s dragged on, the naivete faded with rising crime(as blacks really got out of control, especially as they came to regard slower and weaker whitey like predators regard prey), stagflation and high unemployment, and the sense that so much of the 60s was just a passing fad. Anyone who dressed like a hippie and spouted flower-power sentiments would have been laughed at by the late 1970s. Also, it dawned on everyone that the real game-changers weren’t the hippies, idealists, and counterculture people but the nerds, hustlers, and the commissars. Nerds became good at technology and computer-related fields. Some of these geeks would go onto found some of the biggest corporations ever. And the American ‘auteurs’ of the early 1970s film-making increasingly lost favor among the audience(and even the critics), and the real visionaries of the New turned out to be George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, the two most tech-savvy members of the Film Generation. While many successful boomers strongly identified with the Counterculture, they weren’t really a part of it. Steve Jobs loved Bob Dylan and the Beatles, but he was essentially a status-and-money-obsessed hustler. He merely appropriated the creativity of others to concoct his own brand(and cult). And Wall Street was filled with people who were half-nerd and half-hustler. They were good with numbers but also adept at talking people into anything. Finally, there was the commissars who either entered government, academia, or media. Unlike the true mavericks of the Counterculture, these commissars weren’t willing to stake their own turf and go their own way. They didn’t have a prophetic bone in their body. They were averse to taking chances. They were the priestly class who preferred the power of organization, conformity, and consensus. They are the sort of people Camille Paglia detests most. Lacking in real ego, individuality, and courage, they stick together like a herd and are animated by group-identity and group-action. No matter how loudly they bark, most of them have no agency of their own; they only bark on command or in unison. Granted, even their master can be mauled in the long run by the sheer frenzy he set off among the dogs. Now, one cannot be a master without some independence of mind. Indeed, others look to a certain person for leadership because he sees and speaks ‘truth’ beyond what most people can sense. But when the master, out of sheer megalomania or cynical manipulation, inflames his minions with extreme ideas, the passion may run so wild that the dogs may turn on the master when he is perceive to be insufficiently enthusiastic about his own agenda. It is then hardly surprising that older feminists were later hounded by younger feminists who came to regard the elders as insufficiently committed to the Sisterhood(and Tranny-hood). And the Red Guards unleashed by Mao got so out of control that they wouldn’t stop smashing things even when Mao pleaded with them to stop. So finally, Mao called on the military to shoot down a whole bunch of them and then sent millions of young ones to the country-side to help out the peasants. Just like today’s NY elites are eager to get rid of unruly Negroes, Chinese authorities sought to minimize the madness of the Cultural Revolution by making the students practice their idealism in the countryside, far away from the cities.

To better understand Boomer Neurosis, consider the career of Oliver Stone, a rather strange figure because he’s seen American History and its place in the world from both the Right and the Left. He grew up believing in the American Way. Thus, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY is like a dual biography, that of Ron Kovic(played by Tom Cruise) and Oliver Stone. Kovic, like Stone’s alter ego(played by Charlie Sheen) in PLATOON, grew up believing in the Red, White, and Blue. He wanted to be like John Wayne in Vietnam. He trusted the government and the military. He believed in Americana and protecting the American Way and the Free World from the Godless forces of communism. Granted, Oliver Stone was never that naive as he was smarter and grew up with better education than working class Kovic. Still, Stone wanted to be like a Hemingway-like manly hero in Vietnam. But the combination of the War and the Counterculture made Oliver Stone lose faith in the System and the Power. He grew so skeptical of everything that he began to see conspiracies behind everything. A lot of people have a hard time processing reality when the core assumptions that they’d taken for granted are turned upside down. Kovic went from a hard-line Cold Warrior to a fanatical anti-war activist. (Stone was artist enough to show in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY that Kovic’s transformation had as much to do with personal and medical issues as with idealism and politics.) And Stone went from someone willing to die for the American Way to someone who distrusted anything from the official channels of power. It’s like Paul Nehlen really lost it when he learned about Jewish Power from reading Kevin Macdonald’s CULTURE OF CRITIQUE. But Nehlen is a real dimwit whereas Stone is a pretty smart guy. The transformation of Oliver Stone from a rightist to a leftist is understandable given the times and the experiences he went through. After his tours in Vietnam, he would have noticed that those on the American Right were sticking with the same old narrative of ‘we are fighting communism’ whereas those associated with the American Left were more willing to question authority and ask big questions, like what really happened with the Kennedy assassination. Besides, many Republican(and Democratic) big-shots in business and government pulled strings to keep their own kids out of Vietnam: Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, son of Lloyd Bentson, just like Neocons make son of goyim fight and die in Wars for Israel.
Also, this was a time when Hollywood was in total paranoid mode. Loathing Richard Nixon, Hollywood Liberals made a series of movies that made THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE’s paranoia seem mild by comparison. (Besides, there really turns out to be a communist conspiracy in John Frankenheimer’s movie.) Movies like THE CONVERSATION & THE GODFATHER PART 2(Francis Ford Coppola), ALL THE KING’S MEN and PARALLAX VIEW(Alan J. Pakula), SERPICO(Sidney Lumet), DAY OF THE DOLPHIN(Mike Nichols), THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR(Sydney Pollack), THE KILLER ELITE(Sam Peckinpah), NIGHT MOVES(Arthur Penn), CHINATOWN(Roman Polanski), CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, and many others all pointed to dark forces in the government or corporations pulling the strings among the unsuspecting populace. https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/nov/19/the-parallax-view-kennedy-assassination Even Ingmar Bergman, though working in Europe, got into the act with THE SERPENT’S EGG. (Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader's TAXI DRIVER was something of an exception because it located the source of 'paranoia' in urban decay and mental breakdown than in the machinations of some dark nefarious power.) And when people were obsessing over Watergate scandal as the cancer of Nixon’s presidency, the biggest movie in America was THE EXORCIST, a horror story about a young girl in the Washington D.C. area possessed by the Devil. Even movies that were deemed ‘right-wing’ had a powerful anti-establishment message. DIRTY HARRY and DEATH WISH said you could not trust the authorities to do the right thing in cleaning up crime. Only rogue cops or well-armed vigilantes could do the job.

For many boomers(especially Jewish or Liberal), one of the defining issues of the 60s was the Vietnam War. While much of the American Right stuck with John-Wayne-Patton-ish sentiments about how US never lost a war and must not in Vietnam, the Anti-war movement ranged from Cold Warriors who saw the Vietnam as a hopeless quagmire to far left ideologues who idealized the Viet Cong as saint-warriors. As it happened, Saigon fell one year after Nixon left the White House, and it seemed the American Left was vindicated, not least because Jimmy Carter won in 1976, the Bicentennial of the American Republic. But there was no socialist paradise in Vietnam. If anything, the main news about Vietnam became the Boat People fiasco, a story of countless people trying to flee from communist tyranny. It was an eye-opener because the Left had been saying that most Vietnamese wanted Americans gone and that Vietnam would prosper without the presence of destructive Americans. But what Americans saw on TV were images of so many Vietnamese(many of them of Chinese origin, as it turned out) willing to risk their lives on the high seas to escape from communism. And then, the story that came out of Cambodia was even more grim. Next, the US public was told that China and Vietnam were at war and also that the Chinese were considering moving away from communism to pro-market policies. So much for the brotherhood and triumph of Marxism.
And whatever problems faced the US, it appeared the USSR was faced with even greater difficulties in the 1980s. With Reagan’s victory and resurgent patriotism, Hollywood even allowed movies like RED DAWN, RAMBO, and UNCOMMON VALOR. To an extent, many boomers(even Liberal ones) had to concede that communism turned out to be a terrible idea and that maybe just maybe, the hawks had a point in trying to roll back communism in proxy wars such as in Vietnam. (One thing for sure, the media were overwhelming supportive of US aid to Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Occupation.)
Still, Vietnam had been a huge topic of contention in the 60s, and its symbolic value was too great for the American Left to concede the narrative-banner to fools like the cartoonish Sylvester Stallone and POW-MIA crowd. There was the landmark PBS documentary VIETNAM: A TELEVISION HISTORY that was generally sympathetic to North Vietnam. And then, there was Oliver Stone who exploded on the scene with PLATOON. Though Stone had gained a reputation as a screenwriter — MIDNIGHT EXPRESS and SCARFACE — and garnered praise with SALVADOR, it was PLATOON that really put him on the map. Many boomers eagerly welcomed PLATOON as a corrective to the amnesiac fantasies of Reagan-and-Rambo that waxed over the Vietnam War with either sentimentality or sensationalism. Unlike Stallone, Oliver Stone had really been there, and PLATOON was lauded as a most necessary film that reminded people what it was really like in the jungle. Though Stone’s film was hardly the first critical or harrowing look at the war, it was the first major Vietnam film made by someone who’d fought in the war. Though the film was overwrought and emotionally crude in many ways, it was one of the most frightening war movies made up to that time. Oliver Stone became something of a hero to the American Left. It was as if PLATOON gave a black eye to Reagan-and-Rambo revisionist myth-making of the 80s.

And yet, Stone was in a precarious position in the fast-changing political landscape. He came to prominence just when the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. And China had turned to market economics. Also, Asian nations that were under US ‘imperialism’ had not only done much better than communist nations but even moved toward democratic reforms. In contrast, communism had led to Maoist madness in China, mass gulags in Vietnam, and an all-out democide in Cambodia.
Because the Vietnam War and the 60s were such formative influences on Stone, he tried to explain events in the 80s and 90s via the dynamics of 60s politics. But even as people like Stone seemed to be winning the Culture War, the International Left had lost the historical war big time. With SALVADOR, Stone tried to suggest a New Vietnam was brewing in Central America. But it simply didn’t happen. And even though Stone made THE DOORS(1991) in MTV style to appeal to the ‘Generation X’, it was a confused mish-mash of styles. It was too slick for the Boomers and too dated for the X-ers. Most problematically, despite Stone’s ideological commitment to the People(the losers of the world), his ‘idol-ogical’ obsession was with the winners, the men of power, the conquerors, the warriors. He hit pay-dirt once again with BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY(not least because Tom Cruise starred in it) in 1989, but it was the previous movie, WALL STREET, that had the biggest lasting impact on culture. Ostensibly a damning criticism of New Wall Street and the culture of greed, it made a whole generation of kids want to be like Gordon Gekko. It was almost like a sequel to RISKY BUSINESS, another movie that is ostensibly critical of capitalist ethos but ends up celebrating it just the same. (And of course, everyone is awed by the robot in THE TERMINATOR and Hannibal Lecter in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.)


Oliver Stone’s egocentric and era-centric view of history tended to see all the world’s problems as stemming from unfinished business of the 1960s. From his series UNTOLD HISTORY OF AMERICAN HISTORY, it's obvious that Stone has a deeper sense of history(than what happened in the 1960s), but he shares in the boomer self-regard that everything came to a head in the Counterculture Moment. While great things happened in earlier eras in history in different parts of the world, the Future of Humanity was to be decided in the 1960s. Why? For most of history, even in relatively prosperous America, most people had to struggle to have enough to eat. They were living for survival or subsistence. The majority of the people didn’t belong to the middle class. It wasn’t long ago that most Americans were farmers or factory workers. But after WWII, unprecedented numbers of people attended college, and their kids, the boomers, had an even greater chance of attending college and living a life based on personal meaning than moral dogma or material need. They didn’t have to worry about hunger or basic needs. Despite American Ideals of equality and justice, there simply hadn’t been enough to go around prior to the postwar boom to make the American Dream possible for most people. But in the 60s, the colleges were overflowing with students. And American industries were producing more than Americans could consume. So, the good life could be offered to just about any American(and its model was being exported all over the world). In material terms, America had overcome the economy of want. So, there was no more excuse to hold back the social and cultural revolutions. Even though past racial discrimination was unfortunate, could we really be too judgmental on white folks who also faced hard times and were desperate to find work? Or had to toil on farms from dawn to dusk? People who labor all their lives tend not to be the most generous people.
But postwar America was an affluent society, a land of plenty. So, the 1960s was a time to make things right for all Americans. America could finally afford it. And as the overseas European empires all faded, there was the promise of world peace. And even if US and USSR didn’t see each other eye-to-eye ideologically, weren’t both liberal democracy and communism founded on the same principles of the dignity of man? And unlike too many young people of earlier eras who had to find work right after basic schooling(or were held back by overall cultural conservatism), the youths of the 1960s had more time to read, dream, travel, think, and be creative, like in the Simon and Garfunkel song "America". They could seek out meaning and ask why instead of just grasping for what.

So, the boomer generation could be the most educated, knowledgeable, poetic, and philosophical. But the racial dynamics became derailed almost as soon as blacks won their greatest victory. Cities were burning, and blacks were running wild. And instead of peace, the US got embroiled in a war that never seemed to end. And the Counterculture became plagued with ‘bad vibes’ right smack in the Summer of Love. There was so much hope and promise, but so much went wrong. So, what happened? Well, I would say too many boomers were over-drugged idiots who got too immersed in childish hedonism and decadence. Also, the differences between the US and USSR were far deeper than many presumed because both systems were predicated on the notion that it’s vision of the future was the End of History. It wasn't easy to just end the Cold War there and then. One side had to win. As for the black issue, the problem was never just white ‘racism’. It was black genetics that led to the BAMMAMA factor, or Blacks-are-more-muscular-and-more-aggressive. Blacks were biologically predisposed to act more unruly, wild, and predatory, especially toward the weaker races. So, when blacks got more freedom, a lot of it was bound to be used on raising hell and acting like pathological lunatics.
Also, history is not guided by magic, and no moment in history, however pregnant in potential and promise, can fundamentally alter the core dynamics of power-lust and madness that will always determine the overall trajectory of mankind. There is no happy apotheosis in history. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the 60s had its share of tragedies as well as triumphs. But a fairytale-like cult grew up around the 1960s that wanted to believe that all that hope and glory for America(and all the world) was aborted because of a series of key events: The killing of John F. Kennedy and the coup in Camelot, the death of MLK and the resilience of white ‘racism’ that simply couldn’t give blacks a fair chance, and the Vietnam War. But many historians believe that Kennedy would have gotten the US involved in Vietnam. They also point out that Kennedy was not a ‘radical’ president and, if anything, Lyndon Johnson gave the Liberals pretty much all they demanded in terms of legislation. It is also possible that without the Vietnam War, the domestic situation could have been worse. After all, even as the war divided many people, it also galvanized support from broad swaths of Americans of all races. And before the media elites and even some in the military began to lose hope in winning the war, it had united both parties under Johnson. Indeed, the current polarization of America suggests that a nation can be badly divided during peace-time. Though the US is still embroiled in Afghanistan and Syria, it hardly makes the news and is barely picked up by the radar of public discourse. The current divisions in America are almost entirely a domestic issue, even though the large number of foreigners and foreign-born people in America complicate the issue of domestics vs international.

Oliver Stone is an interesting figure because he's been so hopelessly behind the times yet so eager to stay relevant in the changing world. Except for WALL STREET and TALK RADIO(which I still haven’t seen), the bulwark of Stone’s films were either set in or defined by the 60s(which would include the early 70s). SALVADOR takes place in the 80s, but it replays all the themes about Vietnam and Cuba. He made the Vietnam Trilogy: PLATOON, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, and HEAVEN AND EARTH(one of his best but dismissed by both critics and the audience). He made THE DOORS, JFK, and NIXON(his best work). His documentaries about Latin America and Russia(and Putin) are informed by Stone’s worldview that developed in the 60s and early 70s. According to Nixon, the US could have had good relations with the USSR and Latin America even during the Cold War. The real aggressor was not the communist bloc but the US and capitalist world. While Stone clearly overstates his case(and showed excessive enthusiasm for has-been Fidel Castro[who really missed his chance to be a great man] and the repugnant idiot Hugo Chavez who, in his own way, was as idiotic as George W. Bush, his arch-enemy.) But if the Cold War was the excuse for the rift between the US and USSR(and its allies) in years past, why are relations between the US and Russia worse than ever? Of course, we know why — Jews control the US and they hate Russia — , and most likely, Oliver Stone knows too, but he knows he can’t go there. If Stone was overly zealous about the US as the source of most problems during the Cold War — most likely due to his sense of betrayal by the national institutions during the Vietnam War — , he has grown into a kind of elder-statesmen among cultural figures in the 21st century. He has been critical of Obama as well as of George W. Bush. He admires figures like Edward Snowden who blew the whistle on the NSA violations of civil liberties. He is generally above partisan politics. He will call foul on both sides even if he’s been on the American Left. Stone identifies the real locus of American Power not in the government but in the Deep State. Though his depiction of this power was rather loony in JFK, the recent events with FBI, CIA, NSA, and their close relations with big media, academia & think-tanks, and corporate power to bring down Donald Trump indicates that Stone was onto something, and it has gotten even scarier over the years with the virtual ethno-monopoly of all institutions and top industries by Jewish Supremacist Power. While Stone can empathize with men like George W. Bush(his movie W. is pretty solid) and Obama, he doesn’t respect them. They are too phony, too manufactured, too controlled. And too willing-to-be-controlled for personal ego or gain. As critical of Nixon and contemptuous of men like J. Edgar Hoover as Stone has been, I would wager he has more ‘respect’ for them than for cardboard cutouts like Bush II and Obama. NIXON the film is a tragedy of a politician as a perennial outsider who, being so disliked and detested by the Establishment, felt compelled to do things his way because it was the only way it could be done in the Capitol where so few were willing to work with him in good faith. Hoover is presented as a sinister figure in NIXON, but he understands what real power is... as does Mao whom Nixon eventually meets. These are all men who, by hook and crook, moved mountains to get their hands on real power. It is with Kennedy that Stone gets a bit soft-headed, probably because of the assassination that opened up a whole can of worms about ‘what really happened’. Was Kennedy just another sleazy politician who was killed by some lone lunatic? Or was he killed by the System because he was about to smash the CIA and pull back from Vietnam and work toward some kind of rapprochement with Russia? Did the Bay of Pigs fiasco alert Kennedy as to the psychotic nature of the Deep State? Did Kennedy begin as just a pretty face born with a silver spoon but grow into a transformational president as he became genuinely inspired and affected by the spirit of the age in the early 60s? Historians disagree, but the Kennedy Myth(more than the Kennedy the man) is useful to Stone as the last chance for the Dream to prevail in America. According to Stone, Kennedy’s death led to Johnson who brought us the Vietnam War, and the death of Bobby Kennedy led to the triumph of Nixon. And yet, Stone has a begrudging respect for Nixon because, all said and done, he was so hated by the system. (Indeed, Nixon's gripe was that the system loved Kennedy too much.) In some ways, he was hated far more than Kennedy ever was(if he was). In one way, Watergate was triumph of US democracy. Stone said that, as a young man, he was riveted by the movie ALL THE KING’S MEN, but upon doing his own research, he realized that it’s mostly BS. Even though NIXON doesn’t suggest it, Stone likely wondered if Watergate was used by the System to remove Nixon. Could it have been a palace coup?

At any rate, one has to respect Stone for never having lost his fire as a critic and challenger of the system. So, if so many on the ‘left’ chose to shut their mouths about Obama’s continuance of Neocon policies in the Middle East and needless provocation of Russia, Stone called out on it. He didn’t play the role of partisan hack. The very progs who sided with Latin American leftist regimes against Bush were suddenly silent about Obama-and-Hillary’s maneuvering(at the behest of Jewish globalists) to undermine every leftist regime in Cental and South America. The very progs who cheered Wikileaks and Bradley Manning in the Bush era were either silent about or hostile toward Edward Snowden who spilled the beans on the NSA during the Obama era. And when Wikileaks released information on DNC collusion, especially against Bernie Sanders, the progs turned into total partisan hacks and attacked Julian Assange and even called for his assassination. Also, the very progs who had opposed Bush’s warmongering activities around the world were totally on-board with Obama’s ‘new cold war’ with Russia(all at the behest of Jewish globalists who totally controlled him). And after Trump won in 2016, the very people who’d been harping about the evil of Red Scare and Joe McCarthy over several decades pushed the most ludicrous hysteria about Russia behind just about everything that is going wrong with the US. Even though Obama himself endorsed BLM, we are to believe that the racial divisions stemming from BLM had to do with a few Russian ads bought on Facebook. Even though the Big Media and Deep State clearly colluded with the DNC to push Hillary over the top, we are believe that the real collusion was between Putin and Trump. All this hysteria is a testament to how foul, ugly, and venal Jewish personality can be and how idiotic and moronic the cuck-mentality can be.

But then, we've had a two party system and a school of journalism where the Truth is whatever the holy-wonderful-fantastic Jews say it is. Since Jews insist on and push the crazy narrative on Russia, it must be true. The reason why Trump wants better relations with Russia must owe to Putin having something on Trump. The sheer insanity of such willful paranoia and deception has resulted in at least one thing. More Americans are waking up to the fact of how utterly deranged Jewish personality and power are. Also, it’s becoming pretty clear that goy cucks are either really stupid(and will believe anything, even stuff that Jews privately don’t believe) or opportunistic(and will say ANYTHING to get their leg up in the Jew-run media; of course, if the Jews were to hand out orders to stop with the anti-Russia hatred and start calling Putin ‘uncle’, these cucks will do just that).

Oliver Stone, who'd been a useful cudgel to the Boomer Left in the Reagan 80s, has become an albatross around its neck. The Boomer Left promoted Stone too far as a name and brand to totally disavow him now. After all, Stone was a much celebrated figure who was awarded with Oscars and favorable press. He was seen as the bane of the American Right, and the American Spectator ran a story about him as Leni-Riefenstahl-of-the-Left(even though Stone’s montage-laden works have more in common with the Soviet great Sergei Eisenstein, though not too much). And over the years, Stone has gained many fans from the younger generation of ‘progressives’. For awhile, he seemed like a miracle: The only out-of-the-closet radical film-maker working in Hollywood. In the 80s, Hollywood Democrats found Stone useful against Reaganist triumphalism(as Cold War drew to a close) and what they saw as Vietnam Revisionism. After all, wasn’t the consensus after the war that it had been a huge tragedy(if not a crime) for the US to have gotten involved? Now, Ronald Reagan wasn’t willing to re-fight the war. His idea was that America did what it felt was right at the time, and that Vietnam veterans should be honored, especially as so many of them had been insulted and defamed as ‘baby killers’ and worse. But the RAMBO phenomenon was something else, especially with similar-themed movies about how the US could have won if it had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by politicians and the media. Stallone's muscle-head war porn was preceded by the less insane UNCOMMON VALOR, but these movies all seemed to re-fight the war in the realm of fantasy, like professional wrestling. So, if the Vietnam War Memorial represented the need to bury the hatchet, these neo-patriotic gung-ho movies dug it out(if only for box-office play). For all its problems, PLATOON was a necessary film because of this cartoonish stupidity on the ‘Hollywood Right’. (Stallone’s degeneration from the wonderful writer-actor of the first ROCKY to the Jock-Moron of RAMBO and ROCKY sequels was hard to stomach). While the Media commemorated the 60s and the boomer generation with so many articles in the 80s, the overwhelming mood was that the 60s were so over and had no relevance in the era of "I Love L.A." and "We Built This City". Jefferson Airplane, one of the edgiest and confrontational acts of the 1960s, had in the 70s turned into a mellow hit machine called Jefferson Starship that, in the 80s, cranked out a few plasticine tunes for MTV(though I rather like them). As if to accentuate the passing of the last remnants of the 60s, the 1980 ended with the death of John Lennon. If the Beatles livened up America after the death of the young John F. Kennedy, it was up to elderly Reagan to restore American patriotism and confidence in the aftermath of the 1970s that had been like one long coda to the battles of the earlier decade. Up to the fall of Saigon, the US found it difficult to shake free of the cultural and psychological debris of the 60s. There was promise of new beginning with Bicentennial and the Carter presidency, but America got mired in host of new problems, and the ghosts of the 60s came back hard with the Boat people fiasco. And even though US didn’t get involved in Iran, the taking of US hostages was like the Fall of Saigon all over again. (It also anticipated all the problems the US would have in the Middle East, not least because Carter began the process of arming Afghan rebels against the Soviet occupiers.) As for cultural fads, disco was very big for awhile, but it faded faster than hippie-dom because it was without any meaning. As for the punk culture, it would have a baleful effect, especially in the UK. One of the worst trends was the popularity of cocaine that, along with its derivative crack, would ruin so many lives, indeed far worse than pot and LSD ever did. Also, the sexual revolution that began in the 60s really took off in the 70s, especially among the homos, and this would lead to the AIDS epidemic in the ‘gay’ community. A lot of these awful trends continued well into the 80s and, in many ways, never went away(or got worse with drugs like meth). But for awhile, it seemed like America really was coming back. There was an economic boom of sorts, and America really began to surge in high-tech, which it would totally dominate by the 1990s with the rise of the internet. Also, the relative and precipitous decline of the USSR made the US seem even more powerful. As for Japan, it was a double-edged sword for the US. On the one hand, it made for great propaganda for the ‘free world’. Capitalist Japan allied with the US was so much richer than Red China and USSR. But, for a time, there were fears that Japan would become #1 with its work ethic, cohesiveness, and mercantile practices. Reagan was popular because, deep down inside, he wasn’t really a conservative ideologue or a man of ideas. He was a conservative in the emotional and cultural sense. He liked symbols and slogans that reminded him of American pride, patriotism, and prosperity. His main beef with the 60s generation was their ungrateful attitude. Though Reagan didn’t approve of the beatnik manners and hippie fashions, what really angered him was the lack of patriotism and respect among what he deemed to be spoiled rotten kids. But his ease with celebrities of all kinds suggests he was willing to be tolerant of a wide array of people as long as they were patriotic and not anti-American. He was good friends with a number of Hollywood fruiters. And that is why so many people in the 1980s found Reagan to be endearing. Even though Reagan was allied with the Christian Right, he wasn’t an overt moralist or sermonizer. He seemed willing to live-and-let-live as long as Americans of all stripes shared in the general sense of pride in the American nation.

But for some on the Democratic side, especially the Jews, Reaganism represented so much of what they detested about America. By the 1980s, most Jews were not communist or even socialist. They were deeply invested in the success of capitalism, and even many former 60s Jewish radicals had found lucrative positions in the market economy. And some were about to become super-rich like no one could believe. But both the brazenly capitalist Jews and symbolically leftist Jews(who also practiced capitalism in practice) despised Reagan. For nasty Wall Street Jews, Reagan was a dupe and fool who really believed in all that stuff about free enterprise and American liberty. As far as they were concerned, Reaganism was a license for the savvy and devious(such as themselves) to find ways to rig the game and steal as much as possible. Reagan sincerely believed that fewer regulations would lead to more competition and best outcome for everyone. But especially in the labyrinthine world of finance and high-tech, this wasn’t going to happen. Because both elite finance and elite tech were understood and mastered by so few, they were bound to be a game of insiders and the well-connected. And the collusion of high-tech and big finance led to the Dot.com bubble fiasco of the 1990s. By hyping the optimism of the Internet Age, the matrix of Finance, Media, and High Tech(all heavily dominated by Jews) fooled almost the entire nation that everyone was going to get rich by investing in all these start-up companies, 99% of which turned out to be worthless. So, while the savvy Jews appreciated what Reagan did for people such as themselves in the New Economy, they laughed at his sincerity and naivete as to what would really happen if psycho-nerds were allowed to run wild on Wall Street and Silicon Valley. As for the Jewish Leftists, despite their private acknowledgment that capitalism was definitely superior to communism/socialism, they’d staked too much pride(as Jews and ideologues) in their commitment to ‘progress’ that had become synonymous with the Boomer Left. But with the fall of communism and triumph of capitalism, what were these Jews supposed to do, especially since they were making lots of money as capitalists too? The New Leftism just became anything associated with themes and idols that happened to be anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-traditional, and anti-goy-nationalist. And for awhile, anti-military. After all, Reagan put military buildup(especially the making and deployment of more nuclear bombs) at the centerpiece of his rollback policy against the ‘Evil Empire’. And with movies like RAMBO, it seemed as if the American Right was revved up to take on the world.
Then, it is understandable why someone like Oliver Stone seemed so heaven-sent to the Hollywood Left in the 1980s. The message of PLATOON seemed to condemn American jingoism and neo-imperialism. After all, the Anti-War stance was crucial to the Counterculture and opposition to both Johnson(seen by some as usurper of Kennedy’s throne) and Richard Nixon. As Vietnam War ended badly and Hollywood’s creative departments liberalized for the good part of the 1970s, there were a number of sour anti-war movies about Vietnam. COMING HOME and APOCALYPSE NOW were championed by many critics(though some later questioned if Coppola’s treatment of John Milius’s screenplay was really anti-war). THE DEER HUNTER was also praised by many critics as an anti-war movie with grim scenes of violence, but there was a backlash from some critics who said it was really a right-wing movie since the Viet Cong were made out to be a bunch of sadistic degenerates and because, despite the film’s ambivalence about America’s role in Vietnam, the American soldiers/veterans were presented as capital fellows deserving of our love, support, and sympathy. Oddly enough, Stallone’s first Rambo movie, FIRST BLOOD, was politically ambiguous and could be seen as anti-war and pro-war. On the one hand, Rambo was like the characters in EASY RIDER: Just some guy minding his own business harassed and wronged by petty small-town folks. But by the end of the movie, it seems he’s really angry because the system didn’t let him win the war, the only thing he was ever good for. As the decade progressed however, the violence in movies grew more outlandish and cartoonish. Compare ROCKY with ROCKY III and especially IV. Compare DIRTY HARRY with THE TERMINATOR. Tough guys turned into muscle-heads. Was it the influence of video-games, rise of Lucas-Spielberg, MTV aesthetics, and soulless yuppie narcissism/materialism? Did it have something to do with rise of ‘gay’ sensibility, a mutation of disco silliness? Even as violence got more extreme, it seemed less real(something that couldn’t have been said about Peckinpah, Scorsese, and Coppola’s use of violence in the 1970s), like in James Cameron’s ALIENS that was like RAMBO in outer-space. With certain movies, as with ROBOCOP, some critics maintained that such films were actually sly satires on the fascist-ization of America in the law-and-order Reagan 80s. When such violence was limited to fantasy, perhaps they couldn’t have done much harm. Who’s going to mistake PREDATOR with any kind of reality. But Oliver Stone likely and justifiably took umbrage at movies like RAMBO that extended cartoonish fantasies to real events and real moral issues, such as "Could the US have won the war in Vietnam?" And it was for this reason that PLATOON was such a landmark movie at the time(though, in retrospect, it wasn’t all that great; year earlier, the Soviet Union made COME AND SEE, also a war movie with some of the grimmest depictions of violence; oddly enough, even though COME AND SEE and PLATOON are far more realistic in their presentation of violence, they too are not without cartoonish and maudlin elements in characterization and dialogue; the Nazis in COME AND SEE are cartoon villains, and Willem Defoe and Tom Berenger in PLATOON are like ‘angel on my shoulder’ and ‘devil on my shoulder’; also, Stone, as the writer for works like MIDNIGHT EXPRESS and SCARFACE, often indulged in sensationalism and overstatement).



Anyway, even though the anti-war message of Stone’s movies was useful to the Hollywood Left as cultural ammo against ‘militarist’ Reaganism, Jews had mixed feelings about opposing the American military. For one thing, putting down the US military was never good for elections. Also, the reason why Reagan in 1980 got over 40% of the Jewish vote was due to fears that the US would not be fully prepared militarily to come to the rescue of Israel in the Middle East that was, back then, filled with Arab regimes with close ties with the USSR. And the 80s was also the era of ‘Save Soviet Jews’. Furthermore, as Reagan and Gorbachev moved closer to a nuclear deal, maybe the Gipper was NOT about to blow up the world with nukes and leave us with the Day-After blues. Finally and most importantly, some forward-looking Jews were surely thinking of the post-Cold-War future. Via contacts with Jews in the USSR, they would have known that the Soviet Empire was on shaky legs and could soon be no more. Then, with the US as the sole superpower, just think of all the stuff that Jewish elites could do around the world to further Jewish interests and crush the enemies of Israel. So, why be so anti-war and anti-military? Consider the Jews who were divided about the Gulf War. Due to their roots in the Anti-war movement of the 60s, many of them had a knee-jerk antipathy toward supporting another war, especially as Iraq was hyped as a fearsome power. Many predicted that tens of thousands of Americans would die in the war. It would be Vietnam all over again. But many powerful Jews of both political parties wanted Iraq crushed because it was one of the viable rivals of Israel in the region. Also, some of the biggest opponents of the war were Paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan and goy columnists like Mike Royko. (Buchanan was accused by Abe Rosenthal of 'blood libel' for suggesting that white and black soldiers would be sacrificed at the altar of Zionist interests.) And later in the 90s, with Russia on the ropes, Jews in the Clinton administration were eager to get the US involved in the Bosnian War to take over the region. Also, by making a big stink about how the good ole USA had come to the rescue of Muslims against Christian Serbs in Bosnia, the US could use it as moral leverage when it later invaded Muslim nations: "How could the US be anti-Muslim when it’d gone out of its way to defend Muslims from Serbians in Bosnia?"

With changing world dynamics, Oliver Stone increasingly became something of a burden to the Hollywood Left that was essentially Zionist and Jewish-supremacist. Indeed, even the Jewish Left's opposition to the Vietnam War hadn’t been entirely ideological. Rather, Jews regarded it as a Wasp War that would disgrace and discredit the right-wing military if the US were to lose. But by the late 80s, Jewish position in media, academia, finance, and much else was far more secure, and since civilian power controls the military in the US, Jews understood that the Pentagon was on the cusp of becoming the War Toy of the Jewish-Zionist Globalists. (Jewish Hollywood generally makes paranoid & antiwar movies during a Republican presidency and pro-government movies during a Democratic presidency. Notice that THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT was made at the height of the Bill Clinton presidency. And while there were no movies about dead Iraqi kids and anti-war movies about Bosnia during the Clinton presidency, there were the BOURNE movies, V FOR VENDETTA, and a host of anti-war movies during the Bush II presidency. There was almost no anti-war or anti-Deep-State ‘paranoid’ movies during the Obama presidency. And during the Trump presidency, the Deep State is seen as the last hope by the Jewish-run media.)

Indeed, JFK became a problematic movie for Jews and Liberals as years went by. Made during the George H.W. Bush presidency, it was useful as a ‘progressive’ assault on government power. Because Republicans held the presidency from 1968 to 1992 except for the Carter years and because the Cold War came to an end only in final yrs of the 1980s, many on the Left still regarded the Government with deep suspicion. Maybe the state was into neo-Red-Scare hysteria and promoted neo-jingoism. And wasn't the CIA was up to nasty stuff all over the world by propping up ‘right-wing’ regimes? And for most of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the FBI was associated in Progressive minds with federal war on leftists, radicals, blacks, and American Indians. (Michael Apted and Robert Redford collaborated on INCIDENT AT OGALA: THE LEONARD PELTIER STORY. Redford later directed THUNDERHEART.) For the longest time, the FBI was synonymous with J. Edgar Hoover in the minds of the Left, and the CIA was the organization that took out leftist darling Salvador Allende in Chile and had something to do with funding Contras in Nicaragua when William Casey ran the show. So, it’s understandable why Stone's JFK was much beloved by Liberals. Roger Ebert(and it's difficult to think of a more mainstream movie critic) wrote in his review: "Well, do you know anyone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald acted all by himself in killing Kennedy? I don't. I've been reading the books and articles for the last 25 years, and I've not found a single convincing defense of the Warren Commission report, which arrived at that reassuring conclusion. It's impossible to believe the Warren report because the physical evidence makes its key conclusion impossible: One man with one rifle could not physically have caused what happened on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas. If one man could not have, then there must have been two. Therefore, there was a conspiracy... Its achievement is that it tries to marshal the anger which ever since 1963 has been gnawing away on some dark shelf of the national psyche. John F. Kennedy was murdered. Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone. Who acted with him? Who knew?"
Gene Siskel(on the TV show with Ebert) said JFK is a necessary movie because it reawakened the nation what happened in 1963. Supposedly, the killing had been so traumatic and benumbing to the American psyche that it led to prolonged amnesia and apathy about politics, and Oliver Stone deserves credit for stirring American Consciousness to revisit the event. But, I must ask, does Siskel not remember the 60s? The ten years following the Kennedy assassination was anything BUT apathetic. The apathy set in only in the 70s because everyone was burned out from the riots, war, civil strife, and scandals.
Anyway, while Hollywood had made many movies about conspiracies before, JFK was different because it didn't merely allude to a historical event but accused the Entire Power Structure of having carried out a murderous coup against the President of the United States. Hollywood was playing for very high-stakes. JFK the movie came out in 1991 when many Liberals weren’t sure that a Democrat or Boomer would win the presidency in 1992. They were desperate to undermine traditional trust and authority to create a space for Boomer takeover of power against Bush, once a CIA man. In the election of 1992, the Liberal Media exaggerated a mild recession as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Jews and boomers were that desperate to get their guy in.
And, Bill Clinton did win(signaling the twilight of the 'Greatest Generation'), and it heralded the Boomer takeover of the American Establishment. All the elite institutions and industries — Wall Street, High Tech, FBI, CIA, Ivy League, etc, — increasingly came to be dominated by the Boomers, and Jews were the most powerful and successful among them. While Jewish power among the ‘Greatest Generation’ had been considerable, it was NOTHING like Jewish power among the Boomers. So, while a movie like JFK was useful against American Conservatism and Republican presidencies, it became problematic as Liberals gained control over just about everything that mattered. Then, it is not surprising that Hollywood gave the world THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and the Martin Sheen TV series THE WEST WING. And of course, one of the biggest cultural events of the 90s was FORREST GUMP, a movie that says goyim best be dummies who should just leave it all up to fate(while Jews are pulling all the strings) because, golly gee whiz, you might end up with a box of chocolates on your lap. (And in CONTACT, the government is all good while the real danger comes from some blonde-and-blue eyed Nazi Christian lunatic. Apparently, the government is trying to unite all the lifeforms in the galaxy while national-earthlings want to keep things local.) All of a sudden, the Power was good. People should trust the government. THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT was directed by none other than Rob Reiner, or Meathead on ALL IN THE FAMILY who was always so distrustful of the Official Story and the Power. The rise of the Homo Agenda also didn’t like the fact that one of the arch-villains in JFK was a twirly-headed tootkin played by Tommy Lee Jones(in one of the most ridiculously funny roles of all time).

JFK didn’t just question the Warren Commission but boldly(and recklessly) speculated(in a style that might make Alex Jones blush) that ALL the government agencies(and even LBJ himself) were involved in the hit. As years passed, a certain discomfort, if not hostility, would grow in Liberal circles. Even though Stone could indeed be nutty and over-the-top(and contradictory), he was genuinely committed to playing a contrarian and oppositional role in American politics. (The contradiction was that, in decrying US hegemony, he sometimes over-idealized and even cozied up to anti-American dictators and demagogues like Fidel Castro.) So, while many Liberal Boomers were no longer interested in anti-government politics since THEY now had the power, Stone stuck to it. While Liberal boomers tolerated Stone throughout the 90s and then found renewed interest in him during Bush II years, their ambivalence turned into outright hostility during the Obama years when Stone publicly said Obama furthered Neocon wars & needlessly alienated Russia and that Edward Snowden is a hero of sorts. This was too much for the Power Progs who have zero sense of principles. For Power Progs, ‘hysteria’ is what Joe McCarthy did in the early 50s, not what they are doing now. It's like 'hate' is an emotion felt only by their enemies, not by themselves. According to Prog Power logic, defending free speech is what radicals did in Berkeley in the 1960s, not the struggle against PC(enforced by Jewish control of media and big tech). Whistle-blowing is what Daniel Ellsberg did during the Nixon administration, not what Snowden did. While Snowden did have a considerable following among certain more principled Progressives, the Power Progs accused him of treason and would love to hang him high, not least because he ended up seeking sanctuary in Russia(though not by choice).

Meanwhile, Oliver Stone’s star has risen among some on the Right. Even though many on the Right still find his ideology too nostalgic(for the 60s) and outdated, they can’t help but acknowledge his courage and independence(relative, of course, in a world of weasels and sharks that dominate journalism and academia) as a Public Intellectual-and-Artist. And even though Stone tends to make crap when he gets carried away — JFK is a ridiculous movie that turns into self-parody — , he has the capacity for empathy, nuance, and even bigness of heart that made NIXON and HEAVEN AND EARTH into works of art. NIXON was especially interesting as it seemed to imply that the boomer generation that had grown up by defining itself against the Man may have become even worse and more corrupt. WALL STREET, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, and NATURAL BORN KILLERS seem to indict that the financial, idolatrous, and cultural world dominated by Boomers was many times more nihilistic, brazen, and excessive than anything prior. With NATURAL BORN KILLERS(failed satire if there ever was one), Stone even acknowledged partial blame for the sensationalization of culture. He desperately tried to moralize Tarantino's nihilistic script.
According to Stone, America was always about greed BUT the Wall Street of Old(his father’s generation) still had some sense of limits. And in depicting Nixon’s childhood, Stone shows how shame and morality were once vital to American ethos. (Granted, Stone’s view of Old American moralism is ambivalent. It was about tough men and women laying down the law and raising their kids to be righteous and hard-working. But it was also harsh & repressive and suppressed the development of souls at ease with their own nature. So, when Nixon the young moralist came face to face with the way of power, he could only become an obscene hypocrite.) With THE DOORS, Stone both glorified the liberating energies of Counterculture and lamented its ugly self-destructiveness. The fire had been lit but consumed so many souls. Jim Morrison was one of the many casualties of the Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll lifestyle. Stone found it especially tragic in Morrison’s case because he aimed to be something more than a star; he wanted to be a poet, maybe even a prophet, the Lizard King. But he died pathetically in a bathtub. (But then, Elvis Presley, who railed against 60s drug culture and made common cause with Nixon, also ended up as bad as Morrison and Nixon.) There was always corruption, but the dividing line between the Before 60s and After 60s was the element of shame. Prior to the rise of boomers, Shame had been a cardinal feature of American culture and politics, for good and ill. In the positive sense, public figures genuinely felt ashamed and contrite when they were caught in some scandal. In the negative, it was easy to find dirt on anyone and use it for blackmail in an overly moralistic society, the theme of ADVISE AND CONSENT by Otto Preminger. J. Edgar Hoover and Media Moguls often used dirt on others not to make society cleaner but to pull even dirtier tricks. It’s like what happens to Welles’ character in CITIZEN KANE. A crooked politician derails Kane’s candidacy with a sex scandal.

A good thing about a more shameless society is that people are more tolerant of the imperfection of men. So, when they find out that some politician did some hanky-panky, they don’t get overly triggered or outraged. But the dark side of the loss of shame is a society that is outlandishly, excessively, and trashily exhibitionistic about its filth and ugliness. At the very least, there was the theme of liberation in the 1960s, a sense of rebellion from repressive social norms. But look at the kids in DAZED AND CONFUSED. They grew up into a world of shameless excess. They are not bad kids(and can be funny as hell, especially pothead Slater), but they seem totally comfortable with their mostly stupid self-indulgence. And now, it’s gotten even worse and more shameless, what with even people who graduate from elite schools acting like whores, getting ass tattoos-piercings-purple-hair, and wallowing in the pornification of culture. Also, it’s one thing to tolerate flaws in people. It’s something else to encourage and celebrate the excessiveness, whether it comes from Bill Clinton or Donald Trump. Of course, it’s so disingenuous of the progs to bitch and whine about the uncouth and boorish aspects of Donald Trump when they were the controllers of TV, Hollywood, music industry, fashion, pornography, and Homo agenda that utterly vulgarized society. To progs, even Churches should be decorated with symbols of homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. Magazines for young women urge them to strap on dildos and ‘peg’(or anal-brutalize) their men. Nowadays, feminists have nothing to discuss but ‘my vagina this’ and ‘my vagina that’. And yet, these vulgar and trashy idiots are also throwing fits about Trump the ‘pussy grabber’ and wallowing in the #MeToo movement. One of the downsides of a shameless culture is it also leads to a less reflective and less self-aware one. The romantic streak in Oliver Stone relished the liberating Dionysian force of 60s Counterculture, but the moralistic side of him recoiled from the demonic forces it had unleashed. At the very least, the Counterculture came with big themes. Even as they were having a good time, it wasn’t only about that. In THE DOORS, Stone portrays Morrison as a seeker of truth, a poet, a shaman, a man on a Vision Quest. Sure, he likes to party and flies off the handle sometimes, BUT he also sees American Indians in his drug-induced reveries and seeks reunion with the long buried pagan soul. So, he wasn’t using drugs only for recreation(like how kids smoke weed in DAZED AND CONFUSED and yuppies snorted coke in the 80s). Drugs were seen as aids to the Other World, as suggested by Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, and other characters. But over time, the themes had evaporated and all that was left was the thrills and the kick. And that is why Stone was so appalled by the culture of the 90s depicted in NATURAL BORN KILLERS. It had roots in the youth rebellion and free love movements in the 1960s, BUT the addiction to the High was no longer rooted in anything real, substantive, or meaningful. The Indian in NBK says to the killer, ‘Too much TV’. A yuppie version of NBK, made about a decade earlier, was LOST IN AMERICA by Albert Brooks where all the talk of freedom and rebellion(and touching Indians) turns into a Winnebago vacation until the money runs out(in Las Vegas of all places), which takes the couple to NY, NY. Another film that caught the new mood was TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. by William Friedkin. And I had no idea back in 1985 that AFTER HOURS by Martin Scorsese would be so utterly anticipatory in the rise of a soulless globo-homo NY. When the boomers finally captured power in the 90s with the Clinton presidency, the only thing that really mattered was creating a world fit for Lawyers in Love. Clinton signed onto Free Trade, Deregulation of Wall Street, pandered to the worst hedonistic tendencies, unleashed the vain & narcissistic Homos, and rode high on the Dot.com Bubble Economy. If people like Newt Gringrich were upset with Billy Boy Clinton, it was because the latter had lifted so much from the GOP platform.
If Reagan(and Margaret Thatcher across the pond), in all his naivete, had believed in the moral tenets of his socio-economic philosophy — less government and more enterprise makes for a more dynamic and productive society and less waste — , the ONLY thing Clinton and Boomer elites cared about was, "Is it good for us?" So, while Reagan-inspired Conservative thinkers throughout the Clinton and Bush II presidencies supported the philosophy of ‘free markets’ out of some principled-but-misguided commitment to ‘liberty’, the Boomer globalists and progs just ran with it because it was working to make them rich. Even though the ‘conservative’ boomers made more noises about the wonders of free enterprise, there were plenty of liberal boomers(especially Jews) who were just as good or even better at business. Also, because the Liberals controlled the media and academia, they set the prevailing Narrative and Dogma for all. So, even ‘conservatives’ had to agree that the far right(like the Nazis) were worse than the far left, that ‘racism’(esp by whites) was the greatest sin, MLK should be worshiped like the second coming of Jesus, it was great for women to take jobs from men, and etc. It got to the point of Conservatives meekly arguing that ‘liberals are the real racists’(because ‘socialism’ really hurts blacks), ‘liberals are the real sexists’(because they won’t condemn Muslim traditionalism on the sexes), and ‘liberals are the real anti-Semites’(because they suck Zionist cock but don’t always swallow). ‘Conservatives’ even came around to telling themselves stuff like ‘gay marriage is a conservative value’. The fact is most business types don't start out with much interest in politics or big ideas. They’d rather think about money, technology, and systems. But people don’t live on money alone, and these vain materialists also want to see themselves as men of vision. Now, where do they get their ideas and news from? Media controlled by Jews. And where do they get educated? Academia controlled by Jews. Also, most business types are not glamorous — just look at Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and etc. — , and in order for them to get close to celebrities, they have to suck up to Hollywood ‘values’.


As the 1990s progressed, people like Bill Clinton and other Boomers came to realize that they are the Man, the System, the Deep State, and the Power. And two major events happened in the 1990s that accentuated this shift. One was Federal Government vs the Cult Compound at Waco. The Left that had decried the government’s war on American Indian radicals and Black Panthers in the 1970s was fully on the side of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno(even though there were some leftist mavericks who condemned the New Power as well). If many on the Right had been willing to give the government the benefit of a doubt in the 60s and 70s when the biggest domestic threats came from the Left and blacks, there was growing sense in the 1990s that the State was the main enemy of the Right. There was mutual paranoia between the white militia movement and the Deep State. Militias saw globalist goons, and the State(increasingly controlled by Jews) saw 'nazis' in any white-conscious movement. The 1988 Costa Gavras movie BETRAYED foresaw the growing rift.

Bill Clinton banned Assault Rifles, and then Waco disaster happened. And then, there was the Oklahoma bombing. Many suspected Muslims, but the perpetrators turned out to be ‘Angry White People’. While Timothy McVeigh did have a sympathetic ear from maverick Gore Vidal, most Americans across the political spectrum were shocked and appalled. And Liberals made a lot of noise about the culture of paranoia that believed in ‘black helicopters’(and various conspiracy theories about the death of Vince Foster and etc). Both the Right and Left were pretty amnesiac about this major shift in political culture. Throughout the 60s and 70s, the main purveyors of conspiracy theories came from the Left. Indeed, the Watergate Scandal began as a conspiracy theory of how the break-in couldn’t have been pulled off by a few rogue over-zealous men. Over time, even Big Media rode on the conspiracy theory of a coverup and how the scandal went all the way to Nixon himself. Also, the Left was running high on conspiracy theories of how the CIA had been behind Allende’s ouster in Chile. PBS documentaries on Castro and Cuba never failed to mention how the CIA had worked with the mafia to cook up all sorts of bizarre assassination schemes. (And in the 1980s, Reagan was almost brought down by a conspiracy theory that linked the selling of arms to Iran to the funding of Contras in Nicaragua.) The fact is some of these conspiracy theories turned out to be true. Even though we still don’t know the full extent of Watergate scandal, it seems Nixon knew a lot more than he let on. And yes, the CIA did have a hand in the coup in Chile. And even though Lee Harvey Oswald seems to have killed JFK, there are lots of murky and weird facts about the event, and the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby made it even stranger. And yes, there was some funny business in the 1980s with Iran and Nicaragua. And the story about Enron and Bernie Madoff proved that there are foul deeds happening between the government and big business. Enron fiasco was enabled by Republican politicians, while Madoff was able to get away with so much rot because he made a lot of money for Jews for a couple of decades. And the recent Theranos scandal makes us wonder to what extent these people in Deep State and Deep Pockets are just clueless & incompetent or venal & mendacious.

We know Elizabeth Holmes is a sociopath but what about all the illustrious people around her? This is why we don’t need outlandish conspiracy theories. Just look at events closely, and we can dig up so much filth and rottenness. Take the Jewish(Russian and American) collusion in the 1990s to fleece Russia of its wealth. Look what happened with Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Look at all the foul US operations against Iran. We don’t need to cook up wild conspiracy theories. Just take a cold look at the facts and read between the lines of what’s really happening, and there are conspiracies to be found all over the place. This Russian Collusion nonsense is a total conspiracy of Deep State, Media, Jewish Power, and etc. As Ryan Dawson says of 9/11, we don’t have to go to Alex Jones levels of kookiness to find a lot of dark facts about what really may have happened. And much of it is an ‘ethnospiracy’ or ethno-conspiracy of the Jews.
As Jews and Liberal Boomers took over the Power and all the institutions, they learned to stop worrying and love the Deep State and Deep Pockets. They still found the utility of conspiracy theories and culture of paranoia now and then, especially during Republican presidencies, but they began to realize that the main conspiracy-theorizing was happening on the American Right than on the Left. With each passing year, the Right(at least the Dissident Right, Independent Right, maverick Right, and what later came to be called Alternative Right) was more likely to question the Power, decry the War State, and call for more transparency in intelligence services. To be sure, the radical left is still anti-system, but as its main enemy happens to be ‘Nazis’(which now means anything from support for Traditional Marriage to White Nationalism), its members are willing to make common cause with anyone and anything — even the FBI, CIA, Wall Street, Hollywood, and Big Media — against what they consider to be the greatest evil. (As for the Pop Culture Left and their shenanigans with stuff like ‘pussy hats’, their ideology can be summed up as ‘Too Much TV’.) In the 60s and 70s, Jews and radicals came up with tons of alternative journals and magazines. And even MSM had its share of journalists who were sympathetic to Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, the North Vietnamese, and such ‘anti-American’ forces. (Indeed, it’s been argued by some that Herbert Matthews of NYT played a crucial role in aiding Castro to power. NYT also hired Jon Lee Anderson, the hagiographer of Che Guevara, for reports on Latin America. But, more recently, the MSM’s dismissal of Chris Hedges indicates that Jews are now totally for power. Hedges had been useful for Jews during the Bush II presidency, but when he continued to call out on US imperialism under Obama, he was no longer welcome in any part of American Media. As the result, he had to find work with RT.)

A man like Oliver Stone is now clearly a liability for the Jews and the current 'left', the main ‘ideology’ or ‘idolatry’ of which is globo-homo zeal to spread ‘gay marriage’ all over the world and to destroy nationalism everywhere but in Israel. Recently, Jews have also waged character assassinations on Gore Vidal. When Vidal the haute-leftist Wasp had directed his invective and sarcasm at the Wasp-controlled neo-imperialism or Republican-led Cold War, he was most useful to Jews as a critic and commentator. But as Jews took over America and became the new neo-imperialist overlords of globo-homo hegemony, Gore seemed more and more like a ‘reactionary’ and ‘anti-Semite’. Al Gore and Gore Vidal make for interesting contrasts. One is a Power-Liberal and the other was a Principle-Progressive. All said and done, when push comes to shove, Power-Liberals will always go with the Power. So, even if the latest revision of Liberalism or Progressivism betrays the core or classical tenets of the Left, they don’t care. Anything for power. In contrast, Gore Vidal was a man of principles(or principled egomania), and he never deviated from his essentially adversarial view of American Power. Though he was usually harsher on the American Right than on the Left, he saw the problem of Too Much Power in Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, and Bill Clinton, and he connected the dots among all of them that drew a picture of American Imperialism that only got bigger over the years.
Now, what is to be done with Principle-Progressives by Power-Liberals when they are no longer useful? There is very little mention of Gore Vidal among globo-homo progs, and Oliver Stone makes people nervous as he believes that the US is the aggressor against Russia than other way around. The reason why Stone can’t be wholly effective in arguing this is due to the Jew Taboo. He can’t mention the fact that Jews played a key role in looting Russia in the 90s. He can’t name the Jew in the mess in the Middle East. He can call them ‘neocons’ or some such, but he can’t name the Jew. His movie W. is pretty interesting and exposes the grand scheme of US neo-imperialism, but there is no mention of the fact that most Neocons are Jewish and that, more than anything, Iraq Invasion was a War for Israel. Stone can’t mention that Jews raped Russia in the 1990s and that Putin, as patriot, played a role in rescuing his nation from the clutches of hideous and venal Jews. So, the globo-homo prog media can easily tar-and-feather him as a Putin puppet when, in fact, they are either Jewish agents of Globo-Homo or cucky goy shills of Jewish supremacism.


Alex Jones came to prominence in the 1990s, and initially, many were confused as to his ideology. If you listen to his ranting in WAKING LIFE(by Linklater) — as I was first introduced to him — , he could be mistaken for an anarchist, not least because he chose to operate from Austin, Texas of all places. My impression of Jones is he’s not a drug-guy like Linklater. But maybe Jones is the kind of person who is so emotionally intense that he gets high on his own biochemistry(like Camille Paglia). In an earlier age, he might have been a preacher. But like many of his generation, he was affected by the Counterculture even if he didn’t take to its core ideology. I can understand why Linklater felt a certain rapport with Jones. Drug-people like Linklater are likely to feel more ‘paranoid’ because they’ve had their minds altered and hallucinated patterns that may be real or unreal. Oliver Stone’s vision also owes to drug-induced states, and JFK looks like something fantasized after smoking, snorting, and popping everything in sight. NIXON unfolds like Tricky Dick’s bad trip(after some hippie prankster slipped some funny stuff into his wine). THE DOORS and NATURAL BORN KILLERS look as if the whole movie crew was on something while making it. People on the Left were heavier users of drugs, and it’s very possible that their narco-mental state fed much of the paranoid literature and movies(and maybe even journalism, straight along with the gonzo) of the late 60s and early 70s. William Burroughs and Philip K. Dick were heavily into drugs and paranoid-as-hell. While some drug-people remained reliably on the Left, some began to question everything. In Linklater’s adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s SCANNER DARKLY, there is an all-pervasive paranoia of everything and everyone, even of one’s friends. For ideology to be stable, the mind has to be fixed and the emotions committed. But in SCANNER DARKLY, we see the faculty of reason dissolve while emotions become unsure of what to remain loyal to. This may explain why Philip K. Dick’s ideology became increasingly unstable as years went by. FIGHT CLUB also seems to be a drug-person movie, although I don’t know anything about Chuck Palahniuk’s life or habits. I haven’t read anything by him, but the cinematic adaption of FIGHT CLUB(if it is faithful to the book) suggests an imagination fueled by lots of drugs. Also, the ideology seems uncertain, ranging from anarcho-left to pop-Nietzschean nihilism. The ideology of the French film director Gaspar Noe is also hard to pinpoint on the basis of his insane films that must have been fueled by lots of bad drugs. Of course, another weirdo is Slavoj Zizek, a kind of Alex Jones of the Left. But traditional ideological categories of ‘left’ and ‘right’ can’t do justice to Jones who is a ‘rightist’ with strong anti-establishment impulses and Zizek who is a ‘leftist’ — he even calls himself a ‘communist’ — who would be nothing without capitalist pop culture and sensibility. Michel Houellebecq is another odd case, but then so is Milo Yiannopoulos, the so-called Zionist libertarian ‘conservative’ who loves orgies, decadence, and Negro dongs up his bung. And Camille Paglia has been a leftist who has earned more affection from the Right and Libertarians than from the Left(that largely hates her). Perhaps, if anyone anticipated the ideological chaos of our times, it was Norman Mailer who cooked up his own strange brew of intellectual ferment that seemed a bit of Marx, Freud, and Mussolini. Instead of submitting to an ideology, the trick was to do what Tuco did with pistol parts in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND UGLY and come up with your own special formula of what was right. Bob Dylan did this too as he left the Folk Movement with its ideological straitjacket and cooked up his own strange musical brew.

Such people may gain admiration for their independence of mind and spirit, but they also make enemies on all sides because they won’t stick to any ready-made script. They are always inspiring to some while infuriating to others, or both to the same people at once. And it is very possible that the reason why Alex Jones is seen as a major threat to the Power is that he does his own thing. Indeed, the reason why he hasn’t been defended by the GOP(not even by Donald Trump) after having been banned from the top internet platforms and services is because he has made enemies on all sides. If Rush Limbaugh had been taken off the airwaves, we know the GOP will make a big stick about it because Limbaugh has been reliably and predictably within the spectrum of acceptable opinions. In contrast, while it’s undeniable that Jones has said crazy things and acted like a childish clown, he has also tackled topics and addressed issues that should be gravely disconcerting to the powers-that-be.
Jones became big enough that he wasn’t willing to jeopardize his place in the media by pushing TOO FAR(like naming the Jew), but he has also been sufficiently on the margins of the media to venture into subjects and issues that are too ‘triggering’ for Establishment Press. Also, for all his faults, he’s been more willing to confront and challenge the powers-than-be than anyone in MSM who, as employees of one of the six mega-corporations, always has to stick to the script. The problem for the MSM(but also to the GOP and Trump) is that Jones is unpredictable and speaks his own mind. While most of MSM is anti-conservative, it prefers a conservatism that is predictable, reliable, and scripted. A conservatism that is fenced in. But Jones was like a wild pig that all too often knocked down the fences and ran for freedom. Because Jones even lambasted Trump when the missiles were launched at Syria, it’s possible that even Trump finds Jones to be a liability. Jones would be more acceptable to the established ‘left’ and ‘right’ if he were like Archie Bunker only. Problem is he’s like a mix of Bunker and Meathead. He waves the red, white, & blue and howls like a patriot, but he will oppose wars, call out on the Deep State, and denounce corporations as forces of evil. When he rails against the excesses of capitalism, he sounds like a far-left radical, but he will also turn around and attack socialism. His view of corporations is rather like the Hollywood Left's depiction of big money in movies like like MICHAEL CLAYTON. Or the novels of John Grisham. Jones steals or shares in the anti-corporate thunder of the American Left. Actually, Jones may actually be more anti-corporate because his tirade is served as news than as entertainment. After all, movies like MICHAEL CLAYTON, NO WAY OUT, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, and THE FIRM can have it both ways: Peddle paranoia to the public but then hide behind assurance of fiction and make-believe. In contrast, Jones(in his cartoonish and clownish) has acted out this role out in the public arena of reality as a combination of Edward Murrow and Hulk Hogan, screaming and taunting the powers-that-be for covering up who-knows-what. Of course, many accused Jones of showmanship at the expense of sober journalism, not least because it pays better to be big personality than a serious commentator. Given so much corruption and nastiness in corporations and government, did Jones really have to expend so much energy on sensational speculations that either went nowhere or turned out loony tunes? This is why some suspected that Jones is nothing but controlled-opposition(like in MEET JOHN DOE) all along, but the recent ban would suggest that wasn’t the case. Also, despite his rants and tirades, he’s obviously a far more calculating operator than the newsman who loses it and goes nuts in NETWORK. Still, he couldn’t have faked his passion for so many years and with such doggedness. There’s no denying that he has become something of a ‘folk hero’ in the Grand American Populist Tradition, a man of bold self-actualization and reckless self-immolation. Of course, Jones’ biggest setback is also his greatest triumph insofar as the Big-Tech collusion against him has proven that conspiracies really do happen and that the Big Media and Big Tech are in bed with the sinister Deep State.


And irony of ironies, the so-called ‘Left’ decided to shut down Alex Jones because he carries on in the leftist style of paranoia and conspiracy-theorizing that was commonplace among the Left in both academia and alternative media. The academia was filled with Jews who cooked up bogus conspiracy theories arguing that those who’d been convicted for Soviet espionage had really been railroaded by Nixon and HUAC. And even though mainstream media, for the most part, stayed away from blatant conspiracy-theorizing, there were plenty of alternative press on the Left that ran with all sorts of speculations about the CIA, FBI, and the military-industrial complex. And many of these people were considered as folk heroes by many in the Liberal Media that lacked the wherewithal to push that far. Also, because of the Jewish and Liberal control of the media, it was far less taboo for those on the Left to speculate than those on the Right. Because ‘McCarthyism’ had been attacked and smeared so thoroughly, many conservatives even under Reaganism dared not voice concerns about spies and traitors. Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric wasn’t about enemies-at-home, a big theme in the early 1950s, but about the big Evil Empire abroad. While those on the Left could accuse the Right of harboring all sorts of terrorist and ‘racist’ groups in America itself, those on the Right had to pretend that even extreme anti-Reagan lefties were patriotic Americans. It’s like a Jew can accuse white people of being ‘antisemitic’ but white people better not accuse Jews of being ‘anti-white’ because such accusation would be... well, ‘antisemitic’. Because the prevailing consensus ideology excoriated right-wing ‘paranoia’ far more than left-wing ‘paranoia’, the culture of conspiracy-theorizing was bigger among Leftists and Liberals in the 1970s. Indeed, almost all the Kennedy assassination theories came from the Left, and the culprits were always the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, or some dark ‘right-wing cabal’. It would have been scandalous for American Rightists to speculate that some dark radical Jewish elements were doing harm to America, but Hollywood was okay with Stone suggesting in NIXON that the Kennedy hit was the doing of some dark right-wing conspiracy.


The great irony is that everything Alex Jones has been doing over the years owes something crucial to the politics of radical cynicism and paranoia that defined so much of Counterculture and leftist college sub-cultures. Peruse through the radical literature in alternative journals, weeklies, and pamphlets(the ideas and attitudes of which sometimes even made it into mainstream journals) of the 60s and early 70s, and there are tons of stuff about evil police, evil CIA, evil FBI, evil capitalist corporations, evil US military, and etc. They were saying the US is like a Nazi nation. And they were filled with all kinds of faddish ideas about diet and drugs, even how aliens may have brought mushrooms to Earth. Jones’ INFOWARS offers a right-ish populist twist on that once beloved Narrative on the Left. This Left was in decline as the 60s faded. Too many Counterculture boomers entered business and office buildings(and the state). They became the New Power but were blind to their own abuses because they’d told themselves(as young radicals) that they’d complete the Long March into the Institutions(and Industries) to make the world a better place. So, their having the power is not really having the power because they gained power in the name of fighting the power. It’s kind of like trying to dry yourself with water. See, you’re not wet because you used water like a towel to dry yourself of wetness. Granted, there is nothing wrong with seeking power to use that power to do good. That is the moral essence of politics. But the Boomer Left and especially Jews had a hard time admitting that they had the power. And of course, they were also loathe to admit that they’d betrayed or give up on just about all the things they’d once espoused and championed. For starters, the dominant power among the Boomer Left were the Jews, and they turned out to be far more tribalist, racial supremacist, imperialist, and ruthless than Anglo-Americans of old. The total plunder of the Russian economy of the 1990s, the utterly heartless attitude toward destruction of Muslim nations in the Wars for Israel, the hideous glee at the prospect of whites in EU and US becoming minorities in their own homelands or nations that they’d built, the demand that all Americans support the ongoing terrors in West Bank & Gaza, the recruitment of neo-Nazi types in Ukraine to pull off a coup, the sheer robbery of the world via Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Dot.com bubbles, and etc, etc. Because goy boomers lacked the will to confront Jewish Boomer Power, the ideals of Counterculture(good or bad) came to mean nothing. In the end, the result was Jews Own All, or Jewish Supremacism. As for boomer goys, it was only natural that only the most craven, sleazy, slimy, nasty, and opportunistic would rise to the top. In a system where one cannot criticize the Power, the only game left is to suck up to it. If there was one good thing about the 1960s, there was growing courage among youth(and even elders) to speak truth to the Power, which was mostly held by the Wasp Establishment. So, instead of just sucking up to the Power to ‘get what is mine’, there were lots of criticism, ranging from sensible to excessive, about what-is-to-be-done to make for a better world. This caused a lot of problems(as Counterculture unleashed excesses of sex, drugs, and Rock n Roll), but it did address the issue of power.
But one of the negative consequences of the Counterculture owed to its neo-spiritual tone. It is one thing to confront and challenge the power but another thing to ‘sacralize’ and idolize certain groups as holy-schmoly. It’s one thing to discuss the problems of white police brutality or corruption, but it was dangerous to pretend that blacks were just hapless victims of the police. Such mentality led to the explosion of black crime all across cities because the Liberal Media and Progressives were so unwilling to address the true nature and extent of black pathology and crime epidemic. (Things must have gotten really bad in the 1970s because Liberal Jewish film critic Stanley Kauffmann wrote a half-sympathetic review of DEATH WISH and detested THE WARRIORS as sensationalizing, thus encouraging, thug-hoodlum-ism in NY.) Because blacks were made into holy objects in the Civil Rights Era, we still have nonsense movements like BLM and trashy Negroes and Negresses yapping about ‘white supremacy’ as the cause of all the problems in their excessively ugity-bugity community.

But even more dangerous was the icon-ization of Jews as not merely a holy people but the new-messiah-people. The Holocaust became so central to the US narrative(even though America had nothing to do with it) that it was as if every Jew who died during WWII died for the sins of goyim who were, therefore, supposed to repent and suckle Jewish toes and kiss Jewish butt. The Shoah-narrative was Pogrom-narrative writ large. Prior to WWII, Jews demanded that the US take in Jews to save them from pogroms in Russia(that were vastly exaggerated though real enough). After WWII, the idea was that US exists mainly as a sanctuary for Jews, a place where they can survive, thrive, gain dominance, and then rule the world. And to ensure Jewish survivalism-to-supremacism, the US must be made hyper-diverse so that goyim could never gang up as a united force against Jews. Of course, it never occurred to Jews that Slavs sometimes acted like thugs and boors because Jews did some bad shit too. Both communities were to blame and should have sought sensible common ground. Unfortunately, an insensible common ground turned out to be communism that brought together Russian Jews and Russian goyim to smash and destroy so much of Russian culture and Slavic populations that weren’t so eager for radical change. Jewish role in communism plus their nastiness in Germany during the Weimar period fed into anti-Jewish anger among many Germans, and that led to rise of National Socialists who would eventually commit some of the greatest crimes in history. At any rate, there is plenty of blame to go around among all groups, but the ONLY context in which we were to discuss the Shoah was (1) totally innocent Jews were murdered by totally evil Germans (2) Holocaust was ONLY the culmination of European antisemitism and has NOTHING to do with bad Jewish behavior that alienated so many goyim (3) the core interest of all nations of the world must be to prevent another Holocaust by worshiping and serving Jews, even if these very Jews, in the name of suppressing future Nazis, act like Judeo-Nazis who spread wars and destruction all over the world on the basis of tribal supremacism.

Because such a mentality came to prevail among nearly all boomers, it was impossible to honestly discuss Jewish power. Imagine that. Boomer Counterculture, which prided itself as a radical voice against the Power, became utterly slavish, servile, and subordinate to the Biggest Power in the world, that of Jewish Supremacism. The most rebellious generation turned into the most subservient generation. The loudest generation became the most silent generation(on the issue of Jewish Power). In SILENT SPRING, Rachel Carson bemoaned a world without birds due to widespread use of pesticides. The US is a SILENT STATE because in the academia, media, and culture-at-large, there is such utter silence when it comes to discussion of Jewish Power. Sure, there are pockets of resistance, but even these voices have to make clear that they just have a little beef with some elements of the Israeli Right and that, in no shape or form, are they suggesting that Jews have ‘too much’ power in the US, no sirree. Consider the moral disclaimer in THE ISRAEL LOBBY by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. It’s embarrassing to read. It’s like, "I will massage you and suck your cock before I get to pinch you a little." The PC pesticides have totally messed up the Political Ecology of America. In a healthy eco-system, any single group must be balanced out by others. Otherwise, you end up with total domination of one over others, leading to grave imbalance. This is why Diversity of Ethnicity is so problematic. As every group wants its fair share of power, there’s bound to be clashes. On the other hand, a Diverse Order where only one group has all the power would be even worse. Even in a homogeneous nation, there is the Diversity of Class, and that always caused problems. But problems could be handled through negotiations among the owner class, managerial class, working class, and the underclass. Generally, it worked best if the middle/working class made up the largest share of the population. Communism sought to solve the problems of Diversity of Class by making a classless society made up only of workers(who, for a time, would be guided and led by radical managers), but it went too much against the grain of human nature.
Anyway, a healthy political ecology demands some kind of balance. It’s like lions are the top predators of Africa, but they still don’t control EVERYTHING. Their power is counter-balanced by elephants, hippos, rhinos, cape buffaloes, crocodiles, hyenas, cobras, other rival lions, and etc. There is some push-back against the lion-kind. So, even as lions do lots of ‘damage’(to other organisms), they don’t to get to dominate and hog everything. But such is the political ecology in the US where Jewish Boomer-Xer-Millennial weasels get to do just about anything and everything without any fear of repercussions. (Only recently, there has been some push-back due to the #MeToo Movement that backfired on Jews. Jews promoted feminist rage at ‘pussy-grabber’ Donald Trump, but some famous ‘shikse’ celebrities began to connect-the-dots and blurt out, "Wait a minute, the biggest grabbers of my pussy were Jewish executives." Things got so out of hand that even the hulking Terry Crews said, "A Jew grabbed muh dick.") White Boomers became total cucks to Jewish Boomers, and Jews decided to turn whites into cucks of blacks and homos as well. Just look at white boomers like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both were born in 1946 and became total cucky-wucks to Jews. Joe Biden(as born in 1942, he isn’t technically a boomer) is a total cuck to Jews. And both Obama’s black side and white side totally sucked up to Jews. Boomer Power is really Shylock-Boomer Shoomer power. The oh-so-very-courageous goy boomers turned out to be the pathetic dogs, toadies, and flunkies of what would become the biggest power in the world: The Empire of Judea, or EOJ.

The reason why EOJ hates Alex Jones isn’t hard to understand. As a ‘conspiracy theorist’, Jones stole the thunder of ‘radical paranoia’ from the Left. Unlike cuckservatives of the National Review crowd, Jones has been willing to take on the corporations and the War State. Even though Jones wasn’t the ONLY one on the Right doing this, he made the Right relevant again as a populist voice against elitist power. Under Bill Buckley conservatism, so much of the American Right became slavish to all things rich, privileged, elite, and powerful. Sure, Rush Limbaugh played the vulgarian populist but ONLY IN STYLE. He fully endorsed 99.99% of the GOP ‘free trade’ globalist agenda. Even as he railed against the ‘Chicoms’, he never objected to the Rust-Belt-ization of small towns all across America. When Pat Buchanan called for Economic Nationalism in the 1990s, Limbaugh said Buchanan is not a conservative but a ‘populist’, which is rather funny coming from someone who was the #1 star in populist Talk Radio. So, according to Bill Buckley and Rush Limbaugh, ‘conservatism’ meant total de-regulation of markets, total ‘free trade’, giving corporations all they wanted, sucking up to Jews, purging people like Sobran & Buchanan, and cheering for Wars for Israel I, II, III, IV, and etc. So, their polemics against elitism made no sense because they always sucked up to Power. Their idea of fighting elitism was to take funds from PBS. There was nothing the Zionist Neocons and Pentagon demanded that Conservatism Inc. said NO to. So, American Conservatism got staid, soulless, and predictable. There was a lot of rhetorical fireworks on Talk Radio, but as all the stations were owned by handful of Jewish corporations, they all pushed the same message. The ONLY voice that was more courageous and daring than most was Michael Savage.

But then, Alex Jones got bigger and bigger, not least because of the equalizing factor of the Internet. Even though Alex Jones at his worst could be crazier and stupider than anyone in Conservatism Inc., at his bold and brazen best, he could spill beans and drop bombs to undermine the Official Narrative. Granted, Jones knew his limits too. Sometimes, he was willfully ridiculous, like saying Saudis control Hollywood. Even after Jews shut him down recently, he said the ‘Chicoms’ did it. But there was a wink-wink factor between Jones and his audience. They always knew what he REALLY meant. Also, even in opposition, Jones would have long interviews with people like Cynthia McKinney and David Duke. Even if he didn’t agree on everything, there would be some points of common ground. And this drove Jews crazy.
But Jews couldn’t really do anything for awhile because they'd gained monopoly over much of the internet by promising to be fair and neutral stewards of information. As Google once said, "Don’t Do Evil", a motto it took down recently as it’s all about power now. If Google, Facebook, and etc. had sought so much power and control during their ascendancy by saying they will favor certain views while shutting down dissident views that speak truth to power, they never would have gotten so big. There would have been much populist pressure against the government's working with Google to expand Google's reach. And many people would NOT have signed up to Facebook if its founding principles had been so biased and skewed. Google and Facebook(and other platforms controlled by cucks or the ADL) became dominant by promising ALL OF US a fair shake in the discussion of news and ideas. They drew so many people in with false promise of neutrality, but once they got the power, they began to purge the significant and influential voices on the Right that undermine the globo-homo narrative of Empire of Judea. But they don’t just stop there. Jews also shut down or shadow-ban so many BDS and pro-Palestinian voices.

What Jews want is a Monopoly of Conspiracy Theories. If the Jewish Media can lie and present us with Fake News such as Russia Collusion nonsense, the lie can easily be exploded as a bogus Conspiracy Theory cooked up by the collusion of Deep State and Jew-run media. So, true conspiracy theories about Jewish Power can undermine the false conspiracy theories that the Jew-run media feed us everyday. But if we can’t counter their false conspiracy theory with our true conspiracy theory(that connects the dots among Jewish money, Jewish media, Jewish finance, and the Deep State), then false conspiracy theories pushed by Jew-run MSM will be accepted as Truth by everyone... just like the WMD lies about Iraq and the Fake News stories like Assad using chemical weapons in Ghouta. Or, how the ‘fall’ of Aleppo was some great tragedy when, in fact, most of the people were happy to see the government troops drive out ISIS and Alqaeda fighters.

To understand what is really happening, carefully read the text in the image below. Jews openly brag about how they got the power and should use it to shut down what they deem to be 'hate groups' when, in truth, the biggest haters are Jews who use the media to compel all of us to support Jewish hatred against Russia, Iran, Syria, Palestinians, Christians, and patriotic white people in US and Europe. According to Jewish globalist logic, Jewish Hatred = Love, whereas White Emancipation from Jewish Hatred = Hate.

As nutty as Jones can be, we need more people like him to counterbalance the perfidy and venality of Schoomer Power. Jews banned Alex Jones. Cucks at Word(Su)press went after Jay Dyer.

From (((Semitism))) by Jonathan Weisman.