Commentary on "NYT: Homophobic Racist Trump Supporters Try to Lynch Gay Black TV Star in Downtown Chicago"(by Steve Sailer)

https://www.unz.com/isteve/homophobic-racist-trump-supporters-attempt-to-lynch-gay-black-tv-star-in-downtown-chicago/

Just like there is the Paranormal, there is something like Para-politics where strange things happen but are accepted as 'normal' within the Virtual Political Universe. It's like the Paranormal, though unsupported by science, is 'normal' within the social domain of such 'sightings', 'studies' and 'research'.

Often, the Paranormal has less(or nothing) to do with actual events or observable phenomena in the real world than with one's own fearful and/or fascinating projections onto the world. Often, these fantastic projections are fueled by 'sightings' or speculations by like-minded individuals(who are often naturally predisposed to hyperbole or exhibitionism). And the mass media can play a key role in the panic or hysteria. The UFO craze of the 50s to 70s wouldn't have taken off without the sensationalism pushed by MSM and Hollywood.
In time, a cult-community forms, and one alleged 'sighting' of a flying saucer turns into thousands. "Yeah, I saw one too!!" One 'sighting' of Big Foot(or Chupacabra) turns into literally hundreds upon hundreds. As sensationalism sells, media spread it far and wide, getting even more idiots, lunatics, pranksters, fantasists, and charlatans on-board.
 Then, it's hardly surprising that so many Progs, warped by comparable mental distortions of Parapolitics, should regard Donald Trump as the Abominable Snowman and that there have been all these sightings of MAGA-hat-wearing Big Foots(or Big Hats) everywhere. But even before Trump, let's not forget the hysteria about how the KKK was prowling the Libby-Dib community of Oberlin College. And who can forget the Crypto-Nazi blonde fratboy rapists(led by none other than Haven Monahan) of UVA.

Now, if memory serves us right, there has been many physical attacks on patriots and conservatives in big cities like and Chicago. Donald Trump had to cancel his speech in Chicago due to Mob Violence. Not pitchfork mob violence mind you but silverspoon mob violence, the type with the full blessing of the globo-homo Jewish elites. And, who attacked Tucker Carlson's home?

So much of what we are shown and told is Inverse Reality, the exact opposite of what is really going on. But then, Inverse Reality is nothing new. By the Middle Ages, the Christian West gained power over the pagans and went about massacring and stomping out every last vestige of paganism, BUT it freaked out over 'witches witches everywhere'. In America, whites settlers encroached on the Red Man's land. White man was clearly the aggressor, but the Narrative back then spoke of Red hostiles attacking whites. But really, did Indians conquer Europe or did Europeans conquer the Red Man's land?
Inverse Reality is all around us. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the aggressor against Russia, blatantly interfering in Russian politics and economics, BUT we are told Russia is the aggressor and violator of American Sovereignty. (By the way, if the US doesn't even have the right to protect its own borders, why should it enjoy sovereignty of any kind? If Open Borders are great, maybe American Power should be Open Politics or Open Corridors[of Power]. If US demography should be invaded and replaced by hordes from all over the world, maybe the US deep state elite institutions should also be taken over by foreigners.) More Inverse Reality: The US has military bases encircling China in Asia[a legacy of Western Imperialism], but somehow, China is painted as the aggressor. Israel has 300 nukes and violates international norms whereas Iran allows nuclear inspections and has no nukes, but Iran is the rogue nation while Israel is praised to the heavens by all US politicians who endless pontificate about International Law. Nationalism, borders, and security are said to be stupendous for Israel, but the very Jews who lionize Israel turn around and say Hungary is 'neo-nazi' and 'xenophobic' for wanting to preserve itself. Blacks are the toughest and most aggressive race, and they commit the most crimes and create most social problems in the US, but they are portrayed as hapless & innocent victims by the PC Jew-run Media. Zionists took land from Palestinians who now live under Occupation and Apartheid-like policies in West Bank, but American Policy would have us believe Jews need protection from Palestinians. Non-white Immigrants flee from their own kind and move to white nations to live with white people(whom they prefer over their own kind), but they blame whites of 'racism', rejecting them, or not being sufficiently welcoming of them. People who reject their own kind accuse whites of rejecting them: "I'm a Hindu who doesn't want to live with all those stinking Hindus, but whites better want to live with my Hindu self." All these vile Hindus do NOTHING for their own people who still shi* outdoors and lived in disease-ridden communities, but they come to the West and bitch about how whites aren't doing enough for them. What leeches and louts.

People need to re-watch FALLEN IDOL(written by Graham Greene and directed by Carol Reed). Lies may start out as a game but can turn addictive and mess things up royally. We are living in a Parapolitical world of Inverse Reality.
Now, it's good for white souls to confess what they've done wrong, but it makes no sense to confess to those who don't confess themselves. Under Stalinism, the 'heretics' were forced to confess by tyrants and goons with blood on their hands. The Stalinist mass-killers themselves never had to confess anything. PC isn't about inquiry for the truth but just another inquisition full of hysteria, lies, and lunacy... all with the backing of the Power.

Commentary on "Tomgram: William Astore, Turning Victory Into Defeat"(by Tom Engelhardt)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176520/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_turning_victory_into_defeat/

How, then, was it possible, month after month, year after year, to turn the promise of eternal victory so repetitiously into the reality of defeat (and spreading terror movements)?

The notion of the US losing wars or being defeated must end. For example, it's oft-been said the US lost in Vietnam, but, in fact, the US was untouched by the war and lost only 58,000 men. In contrast, Vietnam was turned into a total clusterfuc* and possibly up to 2 million(soldiers and civilians) were killed in the war. The US abandoned the war in Vietnam, but most of the tragic losses was suffered by Vietnamese, not by Americans.

Same goes for the Middle East. Despite all this talk of 'defeat', the US has remained untouched by the war. In contrast, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have been turned into smoldering ruins by the intervention of the US and its puppet-allies, not least because Zionists control US foreign policy and shaped it to spread terror and mayhem across MENA(Middle East and North Africa) to derail the advancement of modern Arab nations and spread of Iranian influence.

When commentators(even as anti-war advocates) say that the US 'lost' or was 'defeated' in these recent wars, it's predicated on a rather perverse logic. After all, the US itself lost nothing(and its military-industrial complex has gained quite a lot). It can choose to keep its agents and troops in the Middle East or bring them home. Either way, the US remains untouched by war. In contrast, the Arab and Muslim world has been utterly wrecked and turned upside down. So, who suffered all these losses? Who suffered tragic defeats?

Now, some may argue that 'victory' and 'defeat' are relative to a nation's ambitions. One can argue that the US 'lost' the recent wars in the sense of having failed to achieve its objectives. But were its goals really about spreading democracy and human rights in the Middle East? If indeed the US cares so much about human rights, why does it continue to support Zionist Occupation of West Bank? Why is it so chummy with Saudi Arabia, a nation hardly known for its adherence to what goes by 'human rights' these days? The real objective of US intervention was to wage Wars for Israel, and to the extent that much of the Middle East has been scorched to the ground, Zionist-controlled US succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

Consider. If a big strong guy beats up a small weak guy, breaks his bones, permanently damages his organs, bites off his ears, and knocks out all his teeth BUT fails to make the little guy call him 'uncle'(the stated goal of the big guy), who 'lost' and was 'defeated'? The big strong guy for having failed to make the little guy say 'uncle' or the little guy for having been utterly wrecked in body and health?

Let's stop speaking of US defeats. It's too perverse upon pondering the scale of destruction OVER THERE. Even though it's meant as criticism, even condemnation, of US foreign policy and warmongering, the effect is to turn the US into an object of pity and sympathy. Poor poor US, it suffered all these 'defeats'.
But, after 17 yrs of war, compare the US with the Middle East. Top US cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco are richer than ever, full of glitter and shine. Now, consider the cities in Syria, Libya, and other parts of MENA. Americans are fat and well-fed and living in peace and prosperity. In contrast, countless people are facing starvation and/or exposed to harsh elements in the Middle East. So, who really lost? Who suffered all these defeats? The fat happy peoples of the US(and Israel) or all the people driving to destitution and desperation in the Middle East and North Africa?

Commentary on "Notes on a Curious People: The Maya and Their Doings"(by Fred Reed)

https://fredoneverything.org/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/

This is probably because they were in fact murdering, torturing savages given to human sacrifice. Why this is thought especially reprehensible is a mystery. The Romans sacrificed large numbers... so that the public could enjoy watching them die, crucified large numbers, and poured molten lead down the throats of criminals. In the European witch hunts, sort of 1450-1750, some 500,000 were killed depending on whose numbers you accept... The Tudors hanged criminals, cut them down still conscious, opened their abdomens and removed their bowels while still alive... . And of course everybody and his dog put entire cities to the sword, from Joshua to Hiroshima. Despite their best efforts the Maya could not keep up with the moderns.

Why was Mayan human sacrifice 'worse' than the bloodbaths of Western Civilizations? Romans shed blood for entertainment or punishment. Now, killing people for entertainment is ugly and grisly, but it is what it is. Mass spectacle. Romans didn't pretend otherwise, as if it could be anything more than bloody fun. People like to see violence. Lots of people love violent movies and violent video-games. People love to see animal programs where predators hunt down prey. Americans are addicted to violent football and fighting sports. Romans did it for real, with bodies piling up in earnest. But Romans never claimed there was any moral or spiritual dimension to gladiator sports. As for practices like the crucifixion, they were meant as punishment. A bit extreme perhaps but still a tool of 'justice' and power, nothing more and nothing less. Draconian but meant to send a strong message to make people comply with the Order. At the very least, the innocent weren't randomly summoned to be crucified. (It's also worth mentioning that gladiatorial sports could, in some ways, be a crude form of justice, at least according to the movie GLADIATOR. Certain criminals were forced into it. Also, conquered men of other tribes who were spared death were given a second chance to prove their mettle in the arena.)

As for European witch-hunts, while they could be ugly and violent, the point was to hunt down demonic forces and root out evil. Europeans believed that certain individuals were possessed of evil spirits or practiced witchcraft in service to Satan. So, they believed 'witches' must be exposed and punished in the name of God. Witch-hunts were NOT carried out to honor Devil but to ward him off.

As for the Tudors, they certainly had an ugly way to handling criminals, but it was still a form of justice, punishment for bad elements.

In any case, one could put forth moral and/or rational arguments against the practices of the Romans, Christians, and Tudors. One could argue that gladiatorial sports, while fun and exciting, were cruel and ugly. One could argue that hunting witches, though in the name of God against Satan, was excessive and unforgiving(against the preaching of Jesus). And one could argue that the Tudors were a bit too outlandish in their treatment of criminals. Even if we agree that earlier European civilizations acted in ugly, gross, and excessive ways, we can still understand the motivations behind them on the human and even moral level. Romans favored thrill over good-will in their addiction to blood spectacles. And Romans, Christians, and Tudors were overly zealous in meting out punishment or rooting out Evil.

But what is to make of the Mayan human sacrifice? It wasn't for sports or entertainment, which would have been ugly but understandable as spectacle & entertainment. It wasn't to root out evil(as in the witch-hunts common in Medieval Europe). It wasn't to punish the criminal elements as most who were killed hadn't committed any crime.
It was a ritual of sacrificing innocents to amoral or even immoral gods. The very cosmology of the Mayans was morbid and psychotic. It believed that the universe is ruled by cruel, uncaring, and sadistic gods who demand sacrifice of the innocent. Against such cosmological psychopathy, no moral or rational argument could be put forth. The culture was demonic and demented at its very core. Christians misused the teachings of the just God. Mayans correctly served their immoral gods who demanded the slaughter of innocents.

And that may have been why no South American civilization achieved traction and longterm viability. They could make art, do math, pursue astronomy, and build temples. But they failed to conceive of a deep and resilient theory or vision of justice.
Greeks and Romans, even as pagans, believed in gods possessed of the power of reason and justice, though far from perfect themselves. Apollo and Athena upheld reason, order, and intelligence. Zeus was not without sentiment and, when not indulging his whims with the ladies, tried to be fair-and-balanced with other gods and humans.
And even though Jews and Christians stained their hands with blood time and time again, their conception of God was one of power AND justice. In contrast, the spiritual conceptions of South American civilizations were dead in soul. While alive in the arts, architecture, and rudiments of 'science' and math, they failed to bridge the gap between cosmology and rationality and morality. Their gods were all about the whims of power.
Civilization after civilization, from Mayans to Aztecs to Incas, they fell into the trap of ritual human sacrifice to appease the appetites of amoral or even immoral gods. When a people believe that even the gods lack souls, they are bound to fall no matter their achievement in monuments and math.

As for modern wars and their massacre of millions, war is hell. Always has been and always will be.

Movie Notes: AMERICAN ANIMALS, READY PLAYER ONE, HOT SUMMER NIGHTS, HEREDITARY, PATERNO, GOTTI, LAST RAMPAGE, WHERE IS KYRA?, UNSANE, OUTSIDE IN, PUZZLE, SOLLERS POINT, BEAST.

https://www.unz.com/isteve/at-least-crazy-rich-asians-didnt-get-any-oscar-nominations/



AMERICAN ANIMALS, like KINGS OF SUMMER, is an instant classic. There are lots of skilled directors in the business but stuck with poor/weak material, with so much talent going to waste. David Fincher is maybe the best example but hardly alone. Because kids today grow up with so much high-tech gizmo, they picked up lots of stylistic savvy from cradle. They don't so much learn to develop a personal style as pick and choose from countless pomo bits and pieces swirling all around, what with easy access to everything from youtube videos(made with green screen + effects) to Tarantino flicks to blockbuster movies(that are also often omnivorous in their cultural references, like the Beatles movie YELLOW SUBMARINE). A kind of reverse-dada-ism seems to be at play. If dadaism was about the freedom of breaking all the rules, reverse-dada-ism selects fragments from the nonstop maelstrom to improvise new arrangements. It's like Wellington Wimpy picking stuff from the food fight between Popeye and Bluto.



If Dadaism smashed art forms into smithereens, the current culture, being so inundated with excesses of cultural 'junk', opts to take and make of them as it pleases. When a culture is junked, the distinctions among high, middle, and low lose their meaning. It's like the space debris in GRAVITY is no longer distinguishable from complex to simple. The new collage incorporates elements from all forms of expression in ways that range from ingenious(on rare occasions) to clever(often) to mocking(too often) to retarded(all too often). Anything becomes fair game(though the formula in Pop Culture will always be winnowed in accordance to audience preference for fast and easy). Among big-budget movies wallowing in hyper-pomo-sity is READY PLAYER ONE by Steven Spielberg. Apparently, an old dog can learn new tricks, and Spielberg has proven time and again that he's up with the latest styles and gadgets. In contrast, men like John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock mostly clung to their tried-and-true styles(though Hitchcock pushed boundaries with PSYCHO). If one missed Spielberg's name in the credits, one might think READY PLAYER ONE was made by some up-and-coming movie geek weaned on videogames than Disney movies on TV. READY PLAYER ONE references and 'quotes' everything and may be the most pomo-crazed big-budget movie ever. The hologram scene with Elvis and Sinatra in BLADE RUNNER 2049 is nothing compared to pomomania of READY PLAYER ONE. More than any movie, it captures the kind of virtual reality that kids now grow up with. In GHOST WORLD, the girl had to pay some weird kid to acquire exotic cultural products, like a VHS of Bollywood musical. Today, via various devices and sites, so much of cultural history is at one's fingertips, and kids can access every picture, sound, or motion clip from all times and places. Because there is so much stuff yet so little attention span, not least because of the effect of fast-paced video games, everything gets tossed and turned in a whirligig. Before anything is processed(let alone understood), the senses are assaulted with ever new(yet culturally recycled) stimuli. Because the emphasis is on the Initial Impression of WOW, most people fail to absorb much of anything. Before anything could be mentally processed, there is the constant rush of something new and new and new, a never ending mania of images, sounds, and effects. This is of course true with all those computer-animation movies where characters bounce around like rubber balls and talk at breakneck speed. As READY PLAYER ONE restlessly moves back and forth between animation and live-action(which itself is heavily animated), the overall impact is like getting a whiplash. There was a time when George Lucas and Spielberg were accused of turn movies into roller-coaster rides, but their works of the 70s and 80s now look slow and 'classic' by comparison to what goes on in READY PLAYER ONE. Also, back when they were 'Movie Brats', Spielberg and Lucas took on one genre at a time or carefully mixed together a handful of genre elements in movies like STAR WARS and TEMPLE OF DOOM, mostly an action-adventure with musical number as intro. On one level, READY PLAYER ONE has the fireworks and schmaltz of most other Spielberg movies, and maybe it's faithful to the graphic novel(as source material). But there is something dark and dystopian about the material that movie halfway addresses but mostly overlooks... which makes it different from A.I.:ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where Spielberg did depart from the usual comfort zone(possibly because Stanley Kubrick's pull was so strong). READY PLAYER ONE tries to have it both ways. It is a total celebration, mindless but technically awesome, of the latest possibilities in CGI that favor fantasy and cultural pomo-miscuity, and there are some ingenious passages. But it also tries to end with a message that we need to wake up from our escapism and face reality... but then, its idea of reality is as far-fetched as the one offered in MATRIX movies. As with ROGUE ONE, the evil villain is someone who looks like Paul Craig Roberts. He's yet another Waspy type who stole the idea from some Jewish-looking genius with the most gentle nature. The too-muchness of READY PLAYER ONE makes it tiresome after awhile, but it is an amazing work that ups the ante in special effects. Even though CGI is now advanced and makes lots of sci-fi movies look impressive, ingenuity is still rare. READY PLAYER ONE has what TOMORROWLAND, ANT-MAN, and remake of ROBOCOP have. Not just visual muscle but visual wit.


In some ways, AMERICAN ANIMALS is the opposite of READY PLAYER ONE. The plot revolves around a rare book of Audubon's famous paintings of birds, a work where each image was carefully crafted by the author-artist. One of its leads is an art-student, a painter(specializing in an almost archaic artform), something of an eccentric who isn't cut out for fraternity life. He admires the great masters and wants a taste of what made them feel and see beyond the ordinary. He hooks up with another guy, and together, they recruit two more fellers who seem rather serious about life and study. They are far more grounded than the pomo-maniacal gamers of READY PLAYER ONE.
And yet, the guys in AMERICAN ANIMALS were also weaned on pop culture and think it might be fun, hip, and cool to pull off a heist in the special collections library. Also, even as they pull off something tawdry and shameful, they have some of the frontier spirit that created America through 'theft' and violence of men of impulse and impatience. The 'ringleader' is Warren, the driving spirit. He's the John Lennon of the crew. Without him, the others would not have entertained the idea. Indeed, the three seem to join in the scheme largely because they want to be liked by Warren, a bundle of energy. He's like what Don Rickles said of Scorsese.



The movie was certainly not meant as an allegory about the Iraq War -- it is set around the same time -- , but the heist and the war have one thing in common. They were both driven by power of personality. Warren has 'vision' and insistence. He marks himself as the Alpha of the pack. The other guys are not bad kids. If anything, they are from respectable families and seem normal(maybe not the coolest thing for a young male). But humans are animals, and especially young males(raging with hormones) respond most to the guy with the biggest hunger. As young males have yet to make something of their lives, they are in a state-of-being. As none of them have power or wealth of their own, they gravitate to the guy who possesses the greatest will for 'power', and Warren has that. This movie, which claims to be not just based on a true story but IS a true story, inter-cuts between the real-life persons and their movie counterparts. And the real-life Warren really has that cowboy spirit. He might have gone far in the frontier world of the 19th century but feels out of place in a ready-made world. He needs to shed excess energy because, unlike frontier men, he doesn't have to hunt for food or build one's own shelter. By coincidence or not, the guys with latent frontier spirit, end up stealing a book by man who captured North American wild life in his travels. (They sort of have something in common with the character of INTO THE WILD except the latter literally decide to become a neo-frontiersman in an all-too-discovered country. Maybe they should have just built a tree house or something, like kids in KINGS OF SUMMER. AMERICAN ANIMALS considers the difficulty of the American character in coming to terms with age and tradition. While younger than Old World civilizations, the US is no longer exactly a young country. Furthermore, it's an extension of Old Europe. Yet, just like young males have this naturally rebellious propensity to break free from home and normality to go off and conquer, the American mythos is that of youthful people coming to the New World as virgin territory to conquer and claim as their own. So, even as the US grows older, the culture has been stuck on the cult of youth[increasingly more so since the 60s due to pop culture's effect of amnesia and hedonism]. American history is an epic version of rebelling against parents and home to be 'different'. Some have compared the founding of US with the founding of Israel, but whereas Israel was about the return to ancient homeland, the US was[and is] about permanent detachment from the ancient homeland to reinvent oneself in a new land. Such being the mythos of America, so many Americans still crave for that dramatic jump into the Bold and New... and over time, what with US cultural hegemony, Americanism has come to infect even people in the Old World, what with Europeans welcoming the reinvention of their ancient homelands with multi-culti colonization by endless flows of Muslims and Africans. AMERICAN ANIMALS was directed by an Englishman whose emotional detachment from America allows for a keener perspective.)
If young males without power are attracted to the guy with the most hunger, established older men are drawn to those with the most actual power. It's less a matter of hunger than fullness. People like Sheldon Adelson are belly-full of money, and so, politicians are drawn to such men. Many Jewish oligarchs are also belly-full of money, and furthermore, due to the holy cult of Jews(and 'antisemitism' being the greatest sin), Jewish power has the biggest gut. What the GOP has envied most about the Democratic Party was not that it has the black or brown vote. Rather, it has the rich, powerful, smart, and holy Jews. So, what could the GOP do to win over Jews? Neocons offered a deal. GOP would do a great thing for Israel by smashing Iraq, and maybe many more Jews will come over to the GOP. After all, even NYT, New Republic, ABC, and CNN were pro-war, just like Fox News. The plan turned out rather like the heist in AMERICAN ANIMALS, though the far bigger crooks of the Deep State didn't go to jail. Justice is only for the little guys apparently. Still, it was a huge loss for the GOP as, even after 8 yrs of Bush II groveling to Israel, most Jews went with Obama.

AMERICAN ANIMALS is not a political movie but offers a psychological glimpse into the reckless radicalism among the young from the 'far right' to the 'far left'. It says something about the problems of boredom, the appeal of excitement, and the allure of the dominant edgy personality. Alt Right's strength and weakness owed to the element of Alpha-male-ism. GOP's manner of cuckservatism(also shared by white males in the Democrats) was about low testosterone, submission, and passivity. (In one scene, Warren is taken aback by the sight of his father weeping after discovering his wife wants divorce.) Among white male Democrats, it's been about sucking up to POC. Among white male Republicans, it's been about sucking up to Neocons. Also, white males need permission to be passionate about anything. Otherwise, they are derided as 'angry white males'. Their anger is justified ONLY WHEN it's directed at PC-approved targets or whatever-happens-to-be-hated-by-Jews. So, white males can hate 'bad' white males(like James Watson or the Covington MAGA kid), resulting in a kind of Multi-Sclerosis of the white race: White nerve system attacking its own. Or, people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are allowed to bark at Iran, Syria, Russia, and etc. to win doggy biscuits from their Zionist masters.
In contrast, Alt Right was Warren-like in demonstrating agency and aggression independent of the globalist master class. But such alpha-male-ism, especially when up against a much greater power, can recklessly shift into high gear on a difficult road and drive into a ditch. If you're climbing up a hill to take the fortress, you have to be extra careful as the advantage of gravity is with those on top. They can just roll rocks down the slope. Also, men with independent aggression tend to be reckless, even borderline psychopathic at times, feeling bulletproof and rushing into action without much thought or preparation.
But the mentality in AMERICAN ANIMALS also say something about Antifa members. Many of these guys seem bored, listless, and disoriented UNLESS they have some handy excuse and target to take out their frustrations on. Even though they are idiots whose only score against The Man is smashing a few coffee shops here and there, they seem to get excited over being part of a Cause.

AMERICAN ANIMALS is top-notch film-making based on promising material. The director's cinematic grammar is amazing, stylistically ranging from meticulous brushstrokes -- he has background in painting -- to feverish licks, combo of an illustrator's eye and guitarist's ear.

Based on the movie alone, few would think HOT SUMMER NIGHTS was made by a black guy(Elijah Bynum). Spike Lee made a few all-white movies -- SUMMER OF SAM and 25th HOUR -- , but they were mostly unconvincing or infused with irrelevant stuff that applied more to black concerns. In contrast, Bynum really seems to know the feel of white culture from inside-out. Maybe he was one of those Negroes who mostly hung around whites and non-blacks. That was true of Obama as well, which is why his 'black' stuff usually came across as phony or strained. HOT SUMMER NIGHTS is low-budget but stylistically impressive. Where it fails is in striving for significance that is either absent or missed. It has some of the drawbacks of young directors(as evident in early Coens' movies). Sometimes, it tries too hard to impress, it is overly derivative of the masters(esp Scorsese), and it plays a bit cute, especially with voice-narration. But once the story finds its groove and tracks the fate of its character to sure doom, it's often riveting. Especially impressive and unexpected is the emergence of the girl's father as a minor but key character.

HEREDITARY is a puzzle. Time will tell if it's a genuine horror classic or merely a nice try, but it is clearly the work of someone with big ideas. Maybe the problem is the youth of its Jewish director. 30 yr old Ari Aster seems to have Kubrickian ambitions. He might have done better to start with a simpler project and then work toward something more complex. It took several tries for Darren Aronofksy to finally knock it out of the ballpark with MOTHER! It seems Aster went for THE SHINING the first time out. Not sure if even he understands what he's aiming for, but it's a remarkable piece of film-making. And very relevant in our taboo age of HBD. Another esoteric movie like ROSEMARY'S BABY about the power of blood and tribe. Far more impressive than the phony art film UNDER THE SKIN by Jonathan Glazer.



THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS could have been more, but it's pretty good for what it is.


LAST RAMPAGE is yet another in the genre of White Psychopathy. Though set in the late 70s, it says much about the degradation and depravity now so common in white communities all across the nation. It lacks the directorial mastery of something like William-Friekin-directed KILLER JOE -- ultimately a sick demented work -- , and it's rather familiar material, but one can't help feeling for the characters on some level. Like AMERICAN ANIMALS, it says something about the power of personality. The father-convict is a most terrible man, but he has what it takes to be a leader... and his sons tag along in a state of awe, fear, and/or haplessness. Not great but pretty decent.



Italian-Americans in trouble. PATERNO and GOTTI were made by different directors but could have been made by any capable professional. Barry Levinson directed PATERNO in impersonal style, not always a bad thing. It is a TV drama about the fall of Joe Paterno, and it's solid stuff and says something about power, truth, and celebrity. The movie overlooks one thing though. Based on what we know about People of Power, the question is no longer "who is the pervert?" or "who knew and when?" It is really, "Who gets to decide who, why, and when someone falls out of favor?" That's what the movie fails to ask. Look at the light sentence Jeffrey Epstein got. And how did Ed Buck get away with so much bad shi* over the years?
Everything about GOTTI is similar in style and treatment as PATERNO. The latter is somewhat better due to its focus on a specific case. In contrast, GOTTI covers too much ground for a movie under 2 hrs. And even though John Travolta does a creditable job, he's always too likable to be convincing as a monster. Al Pacino as Paterno is acting on a higher level.


WHERE IS KYRA? is an art film directed by a black guy of African origin(Andrew Dosunmu). As with HOT SUMMER NIGHTS, one wouldn't think it was made by a black guy based on the movie alone. Maybe a bit too arty and slow but a provocative work just the same about the problems of family, identity, and crime. The 'crime' here lacks the suspense of the one in AMERICAN ANIMALS, the sensationalism of ones in LAST RAMPAGE and GOTTI, or the grossness in PATERNO. Basically, a woman tries to steal her mother's identity to gain benefits. There is both an element of fealty and desecration in her scheme. Strange work.


UNSANE starts out brilliantly, and I was hoping it'd be another masterwork like THE INFORMANT, the one film where everything just came together perfectly for Steven Soderbergh. His use of odd angles is genuinely disorienting. Much feels, than merely looks(as with Gilliam), strange and off-balance. But for an admirer of Kafka, Soderbergh attempts something foolish here. He ultimately tries to make sense of his weird idea, and the story goes from warped to weary.



DOUBLE LOVER by Ozon is a pretty solid movie but more a cold exercise than a story about anyone we might care about.




OUTSIDE IN, PUZZLE, and SOLLERS POINT are well-made films I didn't care for. I got through about 40 min of OUTSIDE IN(directed by Lynn Shelton) before I couldn't take it anymore. Idiot male character and stupid woman. I'm sure the film is true to life on some level, but it's no fun watching a total moron.
PUZZLE(Marc Turtletaub) is a remake of some Argentinian movie. Well-acted and well-done all around. Another one of those true-to-life movies. But it also feels all-too-familiar, what with the housewife who feels unfulfilled and turns to puzzles to fill her void. It's not long into the movie before she meets up with some Dotkin as puzzle-partner, and all of a sudden, it felt less true-to-life. (Granted, the movie doesn't vilify her white husband and kids as Bad People.) I began to wonder where this movie would go and just Fast-Forwarded and, yep, she ends up in bed with the Dot-Man. I don't need to see Curry Fever, so all in all, I may have seen about 30 min of it.
SOLLERS POINT(directed by Matthew Porterfield) has some moron kid who looks like Andrew Anglin. Like the guy in OUTSIDE IN, he's out from prison and lives in Baltimore with blacks and white 'trash'. Overall, it's true-to-life though it underplays black urban pathology, and of course, the nastiest characters are white 'trash' idiots with white power tats. After about 30 min, began to Fast-Forward, and it struck me as one of those dull 'honest' films about 'reality'.


BEAST(directed by Michael Pearce) is far superior to OUTSIDE IN, PUZZLE, and SOLLERS POINT. It's like a cautionary real-life version of TWILIGHT. The girl is less attractive and has serious personality problems. The boy, also less attractive, is truly disturbed. The film is either confused or complex in the way it pulls our emotions in opposite directions with an ending that seems as dramatically unexpected as morally necessary. Whereas OUTSIDE IN and SOLLERS POINT pretend to favor truth but only in a half-hearted way, BEAST pushes its implications much further. But what it has in common with the other three is the sheer idiocy or repulsiveness of its characters. Such moronosity is dispiriting.
In AMERICAN ANIMALS, the guys do something awful, but they still come across as recognizably human and sane. One hopes they will learn from the experience, make better choices, and regain membership in society. In contrast, one wonders if the fools of OUTSIDE-IN, SOLLERS POINT, and BEAST even belong to the same species as us.

Commentary on "Debate with Nick Fuentes: What Caused the West's Decline?" -- Why Fuentes is Wrong to blame the French Revolution as the Source of the Fall

Nick is wrong to pinpoint the French Revolution as the beginning of the Decline of the West. French Revolution and American Revolution(that shared similar ideals) opened up new possibilities and paved the way for Western greatness and domination. From the time of the French Revolution to World War I, the West saw rising numbers, wealth, might, and influence. There was advancement in every field of science and technology. More people became educated, ate better, and lived longer. The historical trajectory of Western Might was on the up and up for the West until 1914 when World War I destroyed much of Europe. Still, consider the rapid recovery of Germany in the 1930s. Had Europe avoided WWII, things might have been great all around. But Hitler sunk Europe into WWII and tens of millions died.
EVEN SO, the fact is that most Europeans never had it so good as during the post-WWII era. All European economies recovered quickly, living standards rose, and most people were better off than ever. And in the US, the majority entered the middle class. Even communist Eastern European nations saw considerable rise in living standards from end of WWII to the 1960s -- though behind the Capitalist West, they were better than any other part of the world. The West was mostly riding high after WWII. For example, France became a real industrial power only AFTER World War II. Prior to the war, 1/3 of Frenchmen were farmers. It was in the 50s and 60s that France became truly industrial and modern. Living standards improved markedly after the war. Also, the loss of empires didn't hurt the European economy at all. For one thing, nations like Sweden and Norway, which never had overseas empires, did very well. And France and UK saw their economies rise higher just as they were letting their empires go.

So, why did things begin to fall apart for Western Man?

1. Jews took over the US that controls the rest of the West. Jewish Supremacists, filled with virulent resentment against whites, used media power to fill whites with Guilt and Fever. 'White Guilt' paralyzed white pride and confidence. Whites were told that their history was one of oppression of others, and therefore, any notion of collective white identity and interest must be denounced and suppressed. To atone for 'white guilt', whites must serve OTHER peoples, beginning with the Holy Holocaust Jews.
And 'White Fever' made white boys and girls addicted to black music, black sex, and black cool. Today, white boys imitate rappers, and white girls want to have mulatto babies with black guys who are seen as superior studs. If the black race didn't exist in the West, white decline would have been far less dramatic. It was blacks who destroyed white male pride and confidence by kicking white ass and conquering white pussy. Blacks have been especially threatening to whites because blacks win so much in the areas that give whites the biggest collective orgasms: sports, pop music, oratory, and sex culture. Faceless white crowds cheer like mad for black sports heroes. White guys act like cucks before black athletes who hump 100,000s of white women. And white butts and groins pump and grind to black music whose message is "white girl, suck my big black dick". And because blacks have louder deeper voices, whites react to Negro speech like it's the voice of god. Would MLK cult exist if King didn't have a bellowing voice?

2. Good times and youth culture led to decadence and degeneracy. When times are good, people take things for granted. They lose the fighting spirit and survival instinct. Americans got soft and flabby in their post-nationalist affluence. A people who feel secure and well-fed don't care about nationalism. And young people lost respect for tradition and old people. They got addicted to new fashions in youth culture that were all about 'me, me, me', and 'admire the Negro singers'. Young people's idea of culture became loose sex, drugs, and imitating trashy celebrities(marketed by Jews). Look at Miley Cyrus and other shikse cunts pulled by Jewish puppet-strings. Jewish globalists want white girls to be turned into sluts for portnoic Jewish and black men.

3. Rising economy meant more jobs, and that meant more women at work. As more women found work, they grew more independent and spent much of their spare time and money on having fun than raising family. Also, when women take good jobs from men, there are fewer men with good jobs to afford family formation. So, they have a hard time getting married. And women with good jobs have a hard time finding mates because they want to find men with good jobs. But if women take good jobs from men, there are fewer men with good jobs. Also, as women became sexually freer, they had tons of premarital sex, and this made them less appealing to men who want marriage. Most guys don't want to marry some 'ho' who's been at spring breaks and been sprayed upon by lots of frat boys and wild Negroes.

4. Pop Culture in general. Prior to electronic media, people felt lonely unless they were with other people. So, they wanted to get married to be with other people and have a sense of belonging. And they joined local communities to feel human connection and warmth. But with TV in every home, even lonely individuals could just turn on the TV and live with substitute family members and friends(who were prettier and cooler) on TV. This affected old and the young. Check the last scene of Barry Levinson's AVALON where the kid just stares at the TV.

5. Spread of universal-elitism. As more people got college education, they came to value only fancy jobs and higher status. This is a problem in the East as well as in the West. In the past, people had kids just to have kids. Today, people don't want to have kids unless they feel assured that their kids will grow up to go to good college and get fancy jobs. So, both whites in the West and Asians in the East have fewer kids. This socio-demographic trend leads to labor shortage, and that means FOREIGNERS must be brought in to do all the 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning' jobs. Even Japan finally decided to let in hundreds of thousands of foreigners to fill up jobs because Japanese don't have kids. Why don't Japanese want to have kids? Japanese don't want to have 'loser children' who may not attend good schools and get fancy jobs. When a people come to despise labor, they are doomed. This is why we all need a bit of socialist mindset. Socialism respects the working class, the laborers. But in today's globalist world, whites and yellows only respect white-collar professional jobs. They see working class jobs as 'dirty'. So, they figure they should bring in foreigners to do the lowly dirty jobs.

Finally, French Revolution and American Revolution were actually good for the West. The theme of both was nationalism, the idea that the national elites should represent and serve the national masses. Prior to the French Revolution, the French aristocratic elites looked upon their own people as subjects. If anything, fancy elites identified more with aristocrats of OTHER kingdoms than with their own French folk. It was like a network of elites, all of whom regarded their own folks as lowly subjects.
In contrast, the French Revolution said that the people matter too, and that the main role of the national elites is to represent and lead the national folk. The populist-nationalism we see today is very much in the spirit of the French Revolution. The globalist rhetoric is neo-aristocratic and much like the elitist worldview PRIOR to the French Revolution. Globalism says the elites of the world should link up together in their own cloud castle realm and look down all the masses as 'deplorables' to exploit. Yellow Vests represent the French Revolutionary Spirit. Emmanuel Macron represents neo-aristocratism. Aristocrats were fancy-pants and dressed like fruits because they recruited haute-homos to make fancy things for them, like those puffy wigs that the French aristos wore. Is it any wonder that the globalist neo-aristos promote Homo Stuff as the 'new progressivism'? It's really just neo-aristocratism.
What the West needs is to recapture the national-revolutionary spirit of the American and French Revolution. It must break free of the globo-homo neo-aristocratic rule of Jewish Hegemonists. (Notice that Jews, even as they undermine the unity of elites and masses among goyim, insist on the unity of Jewish elites and Jewish masses, esp in Israel. When Jewish masses in Israel demand a wall to keep out Arabs and Africans, Jewish elites listen and deliver. That's why Israel is so sturdy; it is founded on the unity of elites and masses. But when Viktor Orban in Hungary tries to serve his own people the same way, Jews shriek with horror because they see goy nationalism as a barrier to Jewish penetration and total takeover. Jews know nationalism means ethnic solidarity and power. That is why they guard nationalism for themselves but denounce it among other peoples. And they bribe goy-cuck-collaborators to do their bidding.)

According to Nick Fuentes, the heart of the matter is the European Man lost the sense of spiritual authority, and THAT began the process of inexorable decline. But notice that Byzantine, French, and Russian Monarchies all fell to foreign armies, popular revolt, or minority-subversion DESPITE their adherence to tradition. If traditionalist spiritual authority is such an effective bulwark against degeneration and destruction, why didn't the Byzantine Empire go from strength to strength despite its arch-spiritualism? Why was the French Monarchy, despite blessings of the Catholic Church, unable to stem the revolutionary tide? Why was the Russian Czar, despite the backing of conservative Russian Church, fail to stave off the Socialist Revolution?
While there is something to be said for spiritual roots and guidance, history shows us that church authority, like any other kind of authority, tends to grow corrupt, stagnant, and dull over time. But then, this problem goes back to the very moment when Early Christians joined with the Roman Empire. A religion founded on peace, forgiveness, and brotherly love made a pact with the 'devil', the very imperialist power that sacked Jerusalem and used ruthless violence to maintain military hegemony over much of the known world. Once politicized, religion turns into just another arm of Power Politics and Insider-Privilege, and then, especially in times of severe duress(when people are desperate) or happy affluence(when people are decadent), traditional religious authority seems either supportive of 'tyranny' or obstacle to good times(aka party poopers, like when Moses returned from Mt. Sinai and said NO MORE to the festivities with the Golden Calf).

Commentary on the Nassim Nicholas Taleb's IQ Controversy on Twitter

In a way, maybe Nassim Nicholas Taleb speaks a certain truth about IQ, at least in the socio-political sense if not so much in the cognitive-scientific.

Now, IQ can tell smart apart from the dumb, but it is now essentially a ideo-economic tool used by the IYI('intellectual-but-idiots') to favor their own kind. The great contradiction of the Current Order is that the 'right' supports the concept of IQ whereas the 'left' tends to suppress it, BUT it is the 'left' that benefits from it far more than the 'right' does. Look at all the elite academic institutions that rely on IQ-esque tests, and they are totally 'leftist'. So, even as the 'left' tends to downplay IQ, it is the biggest beneficiary of it. And even though the 'right' emphasizes IQ, it is the biggest casualty of it. After all, the biggest beneficiaries of IQ meritocracy, the Jews and the 'left', use all their power to shut down the 'right'.

Even if affirmative action were to be eradicated and pure meritocracy reigned supreme, the fact is the elite institutions will remain 'leftist' and anti-'right'. Why? Because people aren't just rational beings but righteous beings, and 'leftist' ideology is simply seen as more on the side of 'justice'. (Also, the modicum of 'diversity' on campus gives the elites the justification for their own position and privilege on the basis of IQ. Affirmative Action & Diversity create just enough impression that the most prestigious institutions operate on the basis of 'inclusion' than elite exclusion based on IQ.)

The problem with Taleb is he throws out the baby with the bathwater. He should have said IQ, while measuring real cognitive abilities, doesn't measure integrity, individuality, courage, and honor. It only separates the smart from the dumb. But in a society where both smart and dumb are inundated with PC from cradle, even the smart grow up using their mental skills to aid and abet the Official Holiness.

This is why the 'right' is foolish to put all its eggs in the IQ basket. IQ alone is just a cognitive tool. It's like an advanced computer has super-fast processing power but works according to algorithm. If Google rigs the algorithm to ban certain ideas and information, the processing system does as programmed no matter how fast and efficient it is. So, IQ alone won't lead to truth. IQ serves something deemed 'higher', something holy. And all kids, smart and dumb, are raised to worship PC gods.

To break out of this mold, society needs people with traits other than IQ. Even though higher IQ is always better than lower IQ(all things being equal), higher IQ doesn't guarantee anything. Even a high IQ person may get all weepy about MLK and Mandela because of childhood indoctrination. Or even a high IQ person may be conformist in personality, craven and cowardly. China had a system of choosing smart people over dumb ones for over 1,000 yrs, and it produced little more than IYI obsessed with passing eight-legged essays.
In China(past and present) as well as in the current West, IQ is mainly associated with careerism, so the Smart Art is mostly about test-taking and memorizing knowledge WITHOUT the individual-and-independent will to ask questions as to WHO is pushing the knowledge and WHY. It's been said the Deep State is brimming with smart people with super-credentials, but notice there is hardly any real integrity-and-independence of thought. It's filled with cretins like Cass Sunstein, Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, and James Comey. Things are so bad that one guy with a modicum of integrity finally said enough and quit.




Anyway, it's too bad that Taleb went the throw-baby-with-bathwater route. He would have done better by saying that even as IQ measures real mental ability, it does little to separate those with integrity and independence of mind from craven careerist-minded sheeple whose main passion is status and social approval. And status according to whom? That would require the JQ(Jewish Question), and most people don't want to go there(because of conditioning-from-cradle that Jews are the Holy Holocaust people who must never be criticized or doubted). What the world needs is ICQ or Integrity-Courage-Quotient, the will to break out of the mold and speak the truth against social opprobrium and political pressure. Something Socrates had(and Galileo too though not as much).

Anyway, the mob-lynching of James Watson by none other than the cognitive elite goes to show that IQ is no guarantee for honesty, integrity, and courage. All said and done, most smart people push the Big Lie for two reasons.

(1) Cynical power play. Smart Jews privately know that Watson is right, so why do they torment him? They need to perpetuate 'white guilt' about blacks to keep whites browbeaten and servile to Jews and their allies(mainly homos and blacks). 'White Guilt' paralyzes white pride that enables white independence that leads to white agency liberated from Jewish Power. So, Jews feel a need to push 'white guilt'(especially about blacks) as long as possible.

(2) As for smart goyim who attack Watson, they act as they do because they've been raised since cradle in the secular church of Magic Negro Worship. They've been instructed from a young age that blacks are holy and that whites can atone their 'historical sins' only by helping blacks fulfill their destiny of becoming First Humanity, the Wakandans. So, if blacks are lagging in schooling or some such, it's all due to ANYTHING(often associated with 'white evil) except the mundane facts of biology. Blame history, geography, or economics.

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

Now, a theory as to why Nassim Taleb may be the way he is.



Nassim Nicholas Taleb claims to admire the Romans than the Greeks; he called Ron Paul a 'Roman among Greeks' as high praise. Romans got things done whereas Greeks theorized without solid grounding in reality. But it seems like the Romans he feels closest to are the Byzantines than those of the Western Empire. Taleb comes from a world that was once part of Byzantium, a world where everyone cautiously eyes the hidden power, the shadow hand, the ‘deep state’. Turks, Lebanese, and etc don’t trust anything at face value. And it seems Persians are much the same. Watch any Iranian movie, and there are no straight lines, physically-emotionally-dramatically. It’s all about navigating roundabout ways, with the shortest distance from point A to point B avoided for any number of reasons ranging from tragic to farcical.



BLACK SWAN’s success, as I take it, was the argument that what people consider to be straight lines of cause-and-effect in history really aren’t. It’s just the illusion of straight lines of cause-and-effect. Sometimes, the suppose straight lines are false or illusory. In fact, there are OTHER hidden factors at play almost everyone fails to notice.
And this is where Taleb was right about the financial crash in 2008. So many experts were speaking in terms of cause-and-effect straight lines between home-ownership and economic growth. Everything was getting better because more people were ‘owning’ homes. And yet, this supposed straight line between cause and effect was bogus and illusory because it required so many crookedness and devious instruments — derivatives that allowed for bad loans which could be bundled, sliced, and sold around the world — to keep it afloat. But people willfully ignored these hidden factors and just thought in straight-line terms of cause(the policy of ‘ownership society’) and effect(economic growth and rising home prices making everyone richer).
Taleb, having worked in the financial industry, knew what kind of devious forces are at play to distort prices and value, to effectively bribe politicians into supporting nutty policies based on dubious high-sounding ideology, such as that led to ‘compassionate conservatism’ which should really be called ‘compassionate libertarianism’(and let’s not forget ‘compassionate neo-imperialism’ of warmongering and ‘spreading democracy’).
It’s interesting that Adam McKay who made BIG SHORT, a movie about ferreting out the hidden factors behind the mess, failed to really address the role of Jewish power. He was even more negligent in this regard in the new movie VICE where he blames Big Oil for the war. When a movie purports to expose the hidden truth but does a switcheroo with an even bigger lie, it’s worse than a simple lie.

Anyway, Taleb comes from the Byzantine part of the world. Christian-Greek-Lebanese, his 'emotional' and 'temperamental' worldview isn’t much different from Turks of the Gulen School.

And this could be why he finds it difficult to trust the methodology of IQ. It’s too simple, too much of a straight line. He’s used to black swan thinking. In his worldview, there are no Occam’s Razors, just the Assassin's Daggers(hidden behind shadow behind a shadow). So, Taleb has a tendency to be distrustful of ANY theory or argument put forth by the western intellectuals(most of whom he dismisses as IYI) who, in their naivete or childishness, still believe in straight lines and cause-and-effect when, in fact, the truth is hidden and/or lurking.

But what Taleb fails to understand is that IQ theory is NOT part of correct or approved Western PC ideology. If anything, it is PC ideology that is downright ‘byzantine’ in looking for the ‘black swan’ excuses as to why blacks fail. It can never be the simplest answer that blacks are less intelligent and more impulsive(thus less likely to focus on study because their cultural life is all about fun and jiving). Besides, the current IQ theorists are the crime-thinkers who are going against the grain of Western PC, a true poison of the mind. A true black swan is what everyone fails to see. PC, in contrast, constructs fake black swans(or rubber ducks) as explanations for black failure in school. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Even Freud said so. And IQ is real. But it doesn't measure integrity.

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

To understand Taleb, you have to consider his cultural personality. Emotions, often unchecked, override reason and logic. This is true of Jews with excess chutzpah as well. You have to know their mindset before you really understand their minds. Tucker Carlson said he often felt confounded in the presence of Robert Kagan. Kagan's a smart and erudite guy, so one would think someone like him would be cautious and thoughtful. But no, too many like him get all boorish about certain matters, esp pertaining to Jewish power and advantage, with which their egos and pride are invested.

Some people have smaller personalities and bigger minds.
Some have bigger personalities and smaller minds.
Big minds with small personalities tend to be more rational, but they lack direction because reason is 'adirectional'. Reason doesn't favor one agenda over another. It tries to understand all sides. Reason lacks emotions or passion and is 'blind' as judge and jury. It is passion(love, hate, pride, paranoia, greed, resentment, envy, etc) that pushes reason in a certain direction. Big personalities with small minds do have a sense of direction, but they fail to see the big picture because they're stupid. It's just a matter of 'me, me, me', and such narrow-minded egotists burn out fast.
And then, there are big personalities with big minds. Now, which guides which? The big mind or the big personality? It's the latter because the mind, no matter how capable, is 'adirectional' and neutral(and objective in analysis of all things), whereas personality is about ego and passion.
This is why big personality with big mind will push around small personality with big mind. This is why Jews gained over Wasps. Wasp culture was about controlling emotions, and Wasps may have been bred to be reserved than temperamental(a trait that was sent to the gallows for bad manners). Also, small personalities with big minds are drawn to big personalities with big minds. Because they lack passion of their own, they latch onto the impassioned egotism of others. It's why Albert Speer was drawn to Adolf Hitler, why Zhou En-Lai was drawn to Mao Zedong. It's why cucks like Romney and Ryan are drawn to Jews with big big personalities.
The key difference between big personalities with big minds and big personalities with small minds is that the former see the big picture. They realize that 'me, me, me' isn't enough for sustained power and reach. It must be 'we, we, we'. So, while Nicky Santoro -- big personality but small mind -- in CASINO can't think beyond 'me, me, me', the Jewish moguls who eventually take over Las Vegas have a sense of 'we, we, we', i.e. We Jews working as one. After all, individuals don't last forever, but the Tribe can last a long long time.


Of course, there are white goyim with big personalities and reasonably big minds. Trump is such a person, and that's why Jews fear him and what he stands for. He has White Chutzpah though, to be sure, he can't do much as he is hemmed in by all sides by Jewish Deep State chess moves. Still, his own ego and passion are big enough that he doesn't need to latch onto Schlomo-Ego to feel pride and show bravado. Jews don't fear the White Negro, but they fear the White Jew, the Goy with chutzpah to match that of Jews.

Taleb is obviously smart, but he is also a big personality, and his egotism drives his reason... sometimes unwisely, as with the recent IQ controversy. But then, his perspective on IQ is different from our own. We tend to see the IQ issue as breaking the PC ice so that truth can be told. It is the battering ram against the Establishment's Wall of PC.
In contrast, Taleb sees IQ testing as the tool of the IYI establishment to keep the power and pat themselves on the back as the 'best and the brightest'. How many times have we been told that Obama Administration had the Most Qualified people or that Hillary is the 'most qualified' candidate who ran for president? The elites justify their grip on power on the basis of 'meritocracy', which is primarily grounded in various forms of IQ testing. But Taleb regards so many individuals selected by means of 'meritocracy' to be worse than retarded. So, he considers his anti-IQ stance as anti-Establishmentarian. Still, he failed to be measured on the matter because it became so contentious and personal(and because he made it so personal).

He comes from a part of the world and gene pool where people tend to be Infuriating. A diverse world of many religions, sects, ethnic groups, clans, and etc. Even within the same ethnic group, it was often more a matter of kinship than shared identity. So, no one got anywhere in such a world without the personality of a haggler or bully. In a diverse world, one has to be willing to raise his voice to be heard. You have to hustle and tug at harder to get 'what is mine'. In a homogeneous trust-society, people believe that 'what is mine' will come their way in time if they wait with trust and patience. In a diverse world, you get nothing unless you make a fuss, and Taleb sure knows how to make a fuss.
The extreme opposite of Taleb's culture of Infuriating-ness is the Inscrutable-ness of the Japanese who, even when upset and angry, try not to express their real feelings lest doing so upsets the social order. In between Far East personality and Near East personality is the culture of Indecision of the Anglos. Anglos aren't as restrained as the Japanese but aren't really keen on speaking their minds because it might constitute bad manners and form. So, there's a ironic micro-push-and-pull between repression and expression. Much is intimated and hinted but never really laid out.
In contrast, the culture of 'infuriation' is never afraid to speak one's mind though it doesn't necessarily mean honesty or truth. It's more like expression of ego and personal pride than well-reasoned thought. (There is the Insane cultural personality of blacks, but that belongs in a world of its own.) But 'Infuriation' is often a ploy. It can be personal but can also be a game of how far you can push before being pushed back. It's a measuring tool in social situation. It's about acting as if you take everything personally without really doing so. So, people of this culture can switch emotions in a heartbeat. They can go from trying to slit your throat to hugging you as best-friends-forever.

Anyway, the essence of Taleb's personality can be seen in the MR. SHOW video below: People from that part of the world emote and act like that. Too often in the West, people try to understand others by their stated views and ideas. It's the product of the Cult of Reason and Enlightenment, the notion that humans are, above all, thinking beings with reason.
More often than not, knowing their personality(individual and/or cultural) hits closer to the mark of what they are really about. If one really wants to understand people like Max Boot, Robert Kagan, and Victoria Nuland, one should first study their cultural personality than their stated reasons. More often than not, their reason follows their passion than vice versa. In THE GODFATHER, it's not just about conflict of abilities but personalities.



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

Nassim Nicholas Taleb vs Stefan Molyneux(on Twitter) suggests the real reason why Taleb dislikes IQ as the measurement of all things. It makes Europeans and East Asians look smarter than his own folks. It might matter less if not for the cultural baggage of the Near East and Greece, the cradle of civilization. But those parts had long been surpassed by Western Europe and even by East Asia. Taleb is nothing if not proud, and the idea that Northern European upstarts got the better of the people of Greece and Near Easterners is too much for him to bear. He attacks Molyneux of Nordic supremacism, but Taleb's pride is animated by Levantine Pride(if not supremacism). If IQ tests showed his folks to be as smart or smarter than Northern Europeans, maybe he wouldn't be so anti-IQ. Taleb sees himself as a wise man from the Levant who has arrived to teach the bright but childlike people of the West. Sure, the West reached great heights, but it is too materialistic and trusting in the Cult of Reason(which is too often manipulated by Deep Reason, the hidden undercurrents of Official Reason. Official Reason: Home Ownership For All makes perfect economic sense vs. Deep Reason: It's a killer way for Wall Street to rake in billions).

But there are ironies about Taleb's thinking. He prefers Romans over the Greeks but thinks like a Greek. Romans were more pragmatic in politics and technology. They were doers, whereas Greeks, in their preference for theories and ideas, were talkers. And yet, Taleb's role is as a talker who sticks up for Eastern Cultural wisdom & prestige against Western arrogance & materialism. Taleb consciously roots for the Romans but thinks and feels more closer to the Greeks(and presumably Persians and etc). Molyneux mentions real material achievements of the Modern West, and Taleb dismisses them by invoking the once-greatness of the East.

Now, I think Molyneux's argument about Iraq and Jeffersonian democracy was stupid. The democratic project failed in Iraq because of diversity more than anything else. Sunnis who'd had the most power were suddenly shut out. Shias and Kurds, with less practice in politics, took power. Also, they were in revenge mode and made things bad for Sunnis.
Furthermore, the US didn't pound Iraq like it pounded Germany and Japan. At the end of WWII, all Germans and Japanese knew they better go along with the new order or it'd be extermination by rape, bombs, and nukes. US and USSR invaded those nations as victors with all the righteous fury and pride. In contrast, the US entered Iraq as liberators and friends. So, the moral advantage was with the Iraqis. US position was Iraqi folks are wonderful and ONLY HUSSEIN AND BAATH PARTY were bad. So, Iraqis never felt defeated by Americans. They just saw an opportunity to grab whatever under the New Order.
Also, keep in mind that the US has been extremely cynical, devious, and hypocritical in its promotion of democracy. When Hamas won in the Palestinian territories and Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt, the US did everything to subvert those democracies. US also pulled a coup in Ukraine and toppled the democracy that was replaced by an odd alliance of Jews and Neo-Nazis. If Iraq had been homogeneous upon US invasion, maybe things would have worked out better. But Sunnis couldn't swallow defeat, just like the white South had difficulty accepting the terms of defeat imposed by the North after the Civil War.
Also, did Japan and Germany really become democracies? Japan became a one-party state with the backing of the US. The Japanese Left was powerful after the war and with US backing. But once the Cold War set in with Mao's takeover of China, US worked with the Japanese Right to effectively suppress the Japanese Left, and Japanese politics has been more like Chinese one-party system ever since. Except for few yrs, the LDP has ruled Japan. (Oddly enough, both homogeneous Japan and diverse California became one-party states albeit for different reasons.) And German Democracy didn't really matter because regardless of the party in power, Germany was just a puppet of the US. Look how worthless Merkel is. And when Europe elects real leaders with the will of the people(like Viktor Orban), the US elites lead the way in condemning it as 'anti-democratic', 'autocratic', and 'far right'. As far as US elites are concerned, 'democracy' around the world means national leaders taking orders from Soros & Co. and submitting to Homomania. If success of democracy = High IQ, then why are Jews, the people with the highest IQ, doing everything in their power to subvert real national democracies all around the world? Maybe democracy works best when the IQ of the upper class isn't all that different from IQ of the rest of the population. Higher but too much higher. But when IQ differences are considerable between elites and masses, the the former may want to lord over the masses than merely rule over them.
Anyway, democracy certainly didn't work in Yugoslavia due to diversity. So, I don't necessarily agree with Molyneux that democracy = high IQ. Singapore is high IQ but found a rational non-democratic way of rule that is effective.

But Taleb's argument fails too. He says the Near East came up with all the great stuff until recent times. But this isn't really true. Even during most of the Ancient Era, most of the great civilizations stopped advancing. Egypt was a fossilized civilization for 1000s of yrs, even at its peak. And Greeks stopped being inventive long before the rise of the Modern West. What was the great achievement of the Byzantines or even before that? Except in some periods of the Ancient Era, the Near East didn't produce much that was revolutionary. And much of Arab achievements in the Middle Ages were due to rediscovery of ancient Greek learning.

But even if we agree with Taleb that the East was far more accomplished than the West until about 500 yrs ago, it doesn't follow that those who invent or found something are naturally better at it. Japanese invented Judo, but bigger whites and blacks have natural advantage over Japanese(all things being equal in training and diet). Whites invented boxing, basketball, football, and etc, but blacks are naturally better at them. White people invented the saxophone, but black Jazz musicians were most creative with it. On the other hand, blacks invented blues and rhythm-and-blues, but British whites took the forms to new levels of sophistication. So, there is no guarantee that the people who found or invent something are going to be naturally better at it than those who didn't.
Due to reasons of climate and trade, the East was more advantaged than the North West in Ancient Times. North West was too cold, and people there focused mainly on survival(though not as much as the Eskimos). Also, as the Near East was situated among Europe, Asia, and North Africa, it could draw ideas, goods, and talent from all sides. But trade and communication routes could be a disadvantage as well. While people in the Near East could gain access to new goods and new ideas(and new blood in talent and intelligence), it could also be invaded by peoples of lower IQ or enslave them in great numbers. Tyrants were addicted to slavery as easy source of labor. So, great civilizations oftentimes brought in tons of foreigners as laborers. Egyptians enslaved a lot of blacks, but what did this to do the Egyptian gene pool? And maybe Greeks used a lot of dummy foreign slaves who came to mix with Greeks and mess things up. Would it really be to Japan's advantage in IQ if it took in lots of less intelligent people as labor force? Japan is doing just this, and it will be profitable in the short term for Japanese businesses, but what will it do to Japanese gene pool and IQ? Not good. Japan will be Philippinized... just like European IQ is being Arabized and Africanized. But for awhile, all that cheap labor was surely great for businesses.

Finally, the Taleb Controversy is amusing because so much of Taleb-ism isn't really about East vs West but East vs East. Taleb won't say it, but he knows that the West came under the control of Jews who originated from the East. And Taleb himself originated in the East. So, much of Taleb's tirades over the years have really been against Jews. He can't believe that a handful of Jews hoodwinked the West so effectively and sold them on PC, financial fraud, and wars for Israel. Naturally, Taleb has been an admirer of men like Ron Paul who refused to play along to Neoconism and such.

Taleb feels that the West has become a platform for one part of the East: Jews who originated in the Levantine East. So, the West is all about supporting Israel, waging wars for Israel, and praising Jews to high heaven. He sees himself as the OTHER side of the East: Christian Greco-Arab side. Though he's not too crazy about Muslims, he has much in common with them because both Christians and Muslims in the East have been pounded by the West controlled by Jews. Deep down inside, he may wish that the West would wake up, stop sucking up to Jews, and come to appreciate a better relation with the Other East, the non-Jewish one.

IQ debate goes against his agenda because it says (1) Jews are smarter, so they deserve all their power and privilege(the argument of Jordan Peterson) and (2) Northern Europeans are smartest after Jews, so they should feel closest to Jews(the argument of Jared Taylor despite being bashed by Jews from all sides). All this IQ debate puts Jews at the top and makes whites aspire to be accepted by Jews, the royalty of IQ. This makes it more difficult for whites to wake up to the dark side of Jewish power and take sides with the Other East.
And this is why Molyneux's remark about Iraq and democracy is especially hurtful to Taleb, and I'm inclined to agree with him here. Blaming the failure of Iraqi democracy on IQ is besides the point. While higher-IQ people may be better suited for running a democratic system, the implosion and destruction of Iraq owed other factors. For instance, real achievements in living standards had been considerable under secular Hussein. Iraq moved from Third World nation to Second World nation, and that was precisely why Israel was so triggered by Iraq as a rival power. Not because it was a total basketcas but because it was making real gains. (Iran is sanctioned for the same reason with bogus nonsense about nukes.) Contrary to official line about 'Muslim Terrorists', the US(under the control of the Jewish Levantinians) has been most opposed to secular modernizing Arab nations. It has been in bed with arch-Islamic monarchies with which it colluded to spread terrorism against secular regimes and the Soviet Union. The one exception was when the US aided secular Iraq against Islamic Iran(which however, contrary to Zionist-US claims has NOT been one of the main patrons of terrorism). After the Gulf War, Iraqi economy and healthcare were destroyed by sanctions, not lower IQ. And by the time the US invaded, the Iraqi economy was a mere shell of itself and civil society had all but vanished in a world of misery. Imagine if the US sanctioned Israel over its human rights abuses in West Bank and starved 100,000s of Jewish kids to death. People would have called it another holocaust, but the West mostly pretended not to notice all the misery in Iraq except in the alternative media.
So, sometimes, this talk of IQ can be obscene in explaining the failure of nations. Recently, the fall of Libya was engineered by the West(controlled by the Jewish East). Given the total domination of the West by the Jewish East, it's not a bad idea for the West to pay more heed to the Other East: the Christian/Muslim Arabs, Greeks, Turks, and etc. of the Near East. While IQ is important, it isn't everything. If the West applied the kind of pressure it placed on Iraq on Israel, there would be great social crisis in Israel despite the presence of some very high IQ Ashkenazim there.

Enlightenment was great for the West in paving the Way for Reason. But the Cult of Reason and Freedom has fooled so many in the West into believing that they live in a world defined by facts, logic, reason, truth, and liberty. Well yes, the West has comparably been more rational and free than other parts of the world. But, the real power in the West happens behind the scenes, and in this, the West is like the non-West.
Indeed, the non-West may have a better grasp of power and its dark ways because it is less under the Cult of Reason. In contrast, Westerners think even the power that governs them is guided by concern for facts and logic. In fact, reason can be used in a million ways by those who control the platforms and outlets of 'rational discourse'. The Power can use 'reason' to fool people into thinking that men are 'women' and that Iraq with its WMD poses an 'existential' threat to the US.
Reason is good, but power will always be about something darker and deeper than reason. It will be about passions of ego and/or ethno. The West is now controlled by Jewish East because of its immense ego/ethno. Wasp Episcopalians have been known to have IQ equal to or even higher than Jewish Ashkenazim, but they lost out big. Why? They subscribed to the Cult of Reason whereas Jews were animated primarily by the dark powers of ego/ethno. Jews used reason alright but as directed by their deep passions.