Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Contra Trump

One morning, Lord Byron woke up and found himself famous. One more recent morning, we awoke and found ourselves infamous: Donald J. Trump had been elected President. Only an atom bomb would be a worse alarm clock.

Now you may ask if one did not vote for him, or promulgate him in any fashion, why would one feel guilty. Because what you are surrounded by, submerged in, taints you. Even the time to be spent deriding and deploring him is humiliating, wasted. And, of course, divisive. In a time of plague, even the rare uninfected are bound to be affected. Trump should have been stopped by a joint effort from all of us, though who knows what that might have been other than the nonvote deployed against him, which clearly proved ineffective. So we are stuck with him, his family, his toadies, his ghastly appointees, for years to come, with a couple of weeks of his presidency already proving poisonous.

His very name might have warned us. Donald, Eric Partridge’s informative “Name This Child” tells me, is “the English form of Gaelic Domhnall, [meaning] world-ruler.” Isn’t that the way the Donald sees himself? As for Trump, it has several meanings, one of them, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a helpful and admired person.” I ask you: can you trump that? Evidently part of the man’s delusional repertoire. Finally, there is “trumpery,” defined as “a worthless article” or “junk.” Which covers him, most of his family, and the whole gang of his appointees. Or would you buy a used car from Stephen K. Bannon, or share the views that Mike Pence, with equal measure of fanaticism and smugness, espouses?

Just look at Trump! Even the hair, which, though purportedly genuine, the seventy-year-old surely has blondined, just as he makes his each new spouse that much younger than himself, as if coiffed could constitute coeval. Next, the face, which I would call porcine if it weren’t an insult to honest porkers. Take the way his mouth purses itself into a horrid cuteness, to accompany the childish vocalism and prissy finger and arm gestures. All of which would be laughable if the accompanying utterance weren’t balderdash or a monstrosity. I can think of only one face equally horrible, albeit in a different way, that of Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader.

And what of Trump’s ideas? They run mostly from preposterous to deleterious, with a very rare spark of common sense here and there, though as likely as not an empty boast or promise. And the style? Why, anyone who has read a few good books, which Trump evidently hasn’t, could manage a bit better. But the disheartening thing is that the very grandiloquence and pomposity, snappishness and obloquy are what have turned, even some of his betters, into his defenders, on the naïve assumption that any change has to be for the better. You know the one about the devil we know etc. Still, the majority of Trumpsters seems to consist of uneducated and unemployed whites in the red states, who may well deserve change, but not of this kind.

It is not as if, even so, he had far fewer voters than Mrs. Clinton’s millions. But under the obsolete and absurd system of an Electoral College, no better than the Trump University, the Donald managed to slip in. It should be the eternal shame of the Republicans that they could not come up with a better candidate, although not easy, considering the available field. We did have the overwhelming popular vote, but that manifestly wasn’t enough to get rid of him. So here we are now, at the mercy of a sinister, self-serving sot for years to come. Such narcissism, such egomania, such vengefulness for the slightest disagreement, cannot but wreak substantial harm on this country, this nation.

Our only hope, such as it is, is the courts. The “so-called judge,” as Trump declared the worthy who has been able to foil him, and other judges who joined the opposition, may find  ways to curb Trump, but it will be hard. How does one get around a Republican Congress—all who put party ahead of country? One wonders what circle of hell a contemporary Dante would consign Donald to. Meanwhile what is certain is that he is making America grate, nationally and internationally. But what the hell, he is making Putin happy.


  1. "In times of ascendancy, the conjecture that man's existence is a constant, unvarying quantity can sadden or irritate us; in times of decline (such as the present), it holds the assurance that no ignominy, no calamity, no dictator, can impoverish us."
    Jorge Luis Borges

  2. Trump personifies everything the rest of the world despises about America: crass materialism, relentless self-aggrandizement, vulgarity on an epic scale.

    The fact that so many republicans are comfortable with the thought of this monumentally unqualified man in the Oval Office shows how warped the Party has become.

    1. You dumbshit, you just noticed now that America is about crass materialism and vulgarity? Just now? Where have you been, moron? Liberals own Hollywood, media, and academia, and what have they been promoting? Rap music, Pornography, whore culture, slut pride, Miley Cyrus, American Idol, madonna, Jay-Z, Beyonce, twerking, homo vanity, tranny narcissism, and etc.

      How did Clintons make over 100 million out of office? How did progressivism turn into the ideology of globalists who rule Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street?

      And why are liberals who run pop culture spreading stuff like tattoos, piercing, etc?

      And who runs fashion? A bunch of nasty homos who are into me, me, me.

      True, Trump is crass and vulgar, but at least he's honest about it... unlike you Liberal scum who promote trashy vulgarity and rake all the profits from it but pretend to be above it.

    2. Where were you, shithead, when Obama and Hillary were cooking up lies to destroy Libya? Yeah, that is now a hellhole. Libya used to be nicest place in Africa. Now, it's overrun by terrorist armed by the Globalist-USA.

      And who started the New Cold War with Russia? It was Bush, Obama, and Hillary at the behest of Jewish globalists who are pissed that Russia has regained national independence from globalists who raped the nation in the 90s.

      Btw, if you have problems with vulgar and trashy US culture, just remember that Music industry, Hollywood, media, and academia in the US are totally dominated by Libs and Progs.

      Look what's become of our academia. Colleges now teach pornography and comic books. They now allow college students to act like spoiled brats and bitch about 'microaggressions'. Emma Sulkowicz the skank is no conservative.

      Conservatives warned about the vulgarization of culture for a long long time, but you Libshits didn't listen. You made fun of conservatives as repressed, bourgeois, and puritanical.

      Well, the total vulgarization of culture has made even the Right comfortable with a crass vulgarian like Trump.
      And yet, now you bitch like a wuss.
      Oh, those republicans are sooooooo vulgar and crass.
      You know why? Because they also grew up on the trash culture cooked up by hollywood and music industry. They too went to schools where they indoctrinate kids with pornography, homo propaganda, and pop culture as core culture. '


    3. Where were you, vile piece of scum, when Obama was funding and aiding terrorists in Syria to topple the secular modern government of Assad?

      Where you were, scumbag, when Obama and Hillary were aiding Jihadis to topple Gaddafi in Libya? Gaddafi gave up his WMD, but he still ended up lynched to death. Why would any nation trust the US after that?
      No wonder North Korea wants nukes. US is the main terrorist state.

      And Cold War is over. So, why this hostility with Russia? Let me tell you why. Jewish globalists colluded to economically loot Russia in the 90s, leading to the premature deaths of 10 million. That is why Russians went with nationalism and Putinism. They sought to regain national sovereignty from rapacious globalism(favored by both Clintonism and Bushism that favors the interests of urban elites while letting rust belt folks to rot in hell).
      US destroyed Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Its sanctions have crippled Iran, a nation with zero nukes. But the US feel it has some moral authority to accuse Russia? Gimme a break. US has been the main killer around the world since end of Cold War.

      This is how the US acts:


      You New York elite scum remained silent while Clinton, Bush, and Obama were helping you globalist scum rape the entire world.

      But now, you act like Mr. Sensitive

      You dirty louse.

    4. While I agree that the US is a vile and vulgar nation -- just look at Hollywood, Las Vegas, San Fran decadence, homo vanity, tranny excess, gangsta rap culture, slut pride, whore behavior among women, Jewish remaking of Disney into skank-factory of youn girls, etc --, what makes you think most of the world is any better? Have you been to Latin America? Lousy nations filled with filth, corruption, degeneracy, and violence.
      Have you been to Europe? High culture is dead. Europe has long been totally Hollywoodized and MTV-ized and McDonaldized. And its immigration population don't care about European high culture. They just listen to rap and watch Hollywood movies made by Liberal scum.
      Have you been to Japan? What a trashy nation where even adults have mainly cartoons and videogames as culture.

      The whole world is messed up.

      Trump is trash but better any other politician cuz he went against BOTH parties to call for peace with Russia and concern for American working class.

      But scum like you only care about elitist globalist self-aggrandizement.

    5. http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/a-troubled-cia-analyst-finds-jesus/


    6. Thank you, Summertime. That's telling that stupid motherfucking piece of unmitigatged dogshit swarming with maggots.

    7. Here be some truth, bro:


    8. Well, lookie here.


      THIS is what has become of our national culture thanks to 'sophisticated' and 'rational' so-called Liberals and Progs.


      And yet, we have all these supposedly 'secular' and 'rational' people on the 'left' preaching to us about how Trumpism is the problem.
      If the US is a crazy mess, it's because the Culture War has been taken over by degenerates and lunatics.

      This is what Liberals gave us for culture:



      This is what passes for a Liberal intellectual:


      Huffington Post writes endlessly about pussy:


      This is what passes for protest:



      And if you want performance art?


      BUT TRUMP IS THE PROBLEM, we are told.

  3. What have we done to deserve this and do we deserve to get out of it? That about gets the whole tragedy, Mr. Simon.

  4. Some interesting political analysis a friend sent me:

    See, Trump is a twisted fuck. Sick in his heart, in his mind, in his soul, but he is a winner. You are no doubt laughing now, bc I used that term, but winners win, and some of the time there’s no explaining how, they’re called “gamers”, they look bad in practice, they look bad in pre-game, they may be injured, limping, lethargic, hung-over, puking in a bucket, but then the game starts and they’re just on it, and they attend to the outcome, to the exclusion of all else, and win. THEN, they have their party, maybe by drinking alone, cheap whiskey, from the bottle, in the dark, sharpening their blade (Roman axiom: “after a victory, sharpen your sword”), that’s a common M.O. for gamers. Losers over-plan their parties ahead of time, to the point that the outcome of the contest is left unattended…

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Healthcare Provider Strangelove

    To the critic Simon looks are key,
    Thus he is wont to dump on Trump;
    But oddly no sights on Hillary,
    At the chance you'd think he'd jump.

    We come to hear that Vladimir Putin
    Always made Secretary Hillary cringe:
    Her bony finger hovering Vlad's button
    Would have been, her aide the syringe.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. A search for "Clinton" reveals one result,
      Stating just her voters were millions more---
      But surely we'd have no President Trump
      Had the Dems not nom'd a candidate so poor---

      Millions grabbed the chance, said "F--k the system"---
      They had their reasons---I won't here list 'em.

  7. Both poems are terrific, kids! Nice job!

    Every day another outrage is perpetrated by that imbecile and his cronies. I hope the entire country marches on Washington and tosses them all into the Potomac river. Probably won't happen, though. Too much trouble. Where would I park? I wouldn't want to end up in Baltimore. Traffic is crazy in WDC. I'll just watch it on CNN.

  8. Not to change the subject, but does anyone know a book in which I can find Paul Éluard's poem "Le tableau noir", which the poet dedicated to Leonor Fini? (I didn't vote for Trump, I swear!)

    1. The Blackboard (Merwin)

      The question itself has not changed
      but only the depths of memory
      through which it rises and now in a late
      dream of childhood my father is a blackboard
      that I have just erased and I am standing
      with my back to it holding the old worn gray
      felt eraser that we will take later
      out into the schoolyard and will clap it
      against the others that were used today
      and the clapping will raise a cloud of white dust
      a thin ghost that will float above us
      for a moment and then will be gone
      and no more rises from the old erasers
      almost clean and then how had my father
      come to be on the blackboard it may have been
      because of what he liked to call sins
      of omission which sounded impressive
      and he thought would impress the congregation
      and where are they now the sins of omission
      where is the cloud the schoolyard the dream
      even now I am forgetting them

    2. Thanks, U.K.! I tried to search for poems ABOUT blackboards, but I kept getting "blackboard poetry," i.e. poems WRITTEN on blackboards...

  9. A pre-programmed robot like Simon, marinated in the stupid propaganda of Hollywood, can graduate with a Ph.D. from Harvard and gain pulpits in multiple national publications? I think the death knell of the United States has sounded.

  10. Mr. Simon, I understand why you don't like Trump. That's okay with me. Trump is a vulgarian and boor and etc.

    But how can you be for Hillary? She is a witch. She has no convictions but lust for power. That's it. Did you see how that bitch reacted to the lynching of Gaddafi? Sure, Gaddafi was a bad guy, but was he worse than American leaders who spread lies, invaded countries, and etc? And besides, the US had been supporting forces like Alqaeda(as long as they were fighting the USSR) and Saddam Hussein(as long as he was fighting Iran).

    Hillary is a monster. And her taste is worse than Trump. Why else did she attract so much trash to her side. Look at the kind of scum she attracted to her campaign: Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, madonna, every Hollywood trash, Yoko Ono(the baboono), etc.

    Also, she was the favorite of CIA, FBI, Pentagon, and the war state. In this post-cold-war world, we still have creeps who want more troubles all over the world to justify more empire.

    Trump is a boor, but he's for nationalism, which means national sovereignty for all nations. He's an American president for American people. American government should represent and serve the American People. This empire business must end. Globalism is imperialism, and imperialism sucks.

    And Obama, the pet monkey of globalism, has been aiding terrorists to destroy Assad, a secular modern Arab leader. US under globalist rule has been on the side of the Devil.

    It is amazing that, today, the American Right is anti-imperialist and for leaving other nations alone, whereas the American 'left' is for more wars, more intervention, more imperialism. And the 'left' homo agenda its proxy to penetrate and destroy every national culture. This must stop.

    Just listen to the lying press. This Jake Tapper lowlife is a pro-US-imperialist propagandist. Tulsi Gabbard really cares for people over there. If not for Russia, Syria would be overrun by lunatics like Libya, which came under the Obama-Hillary treatment.


  11. This is worth a read for open-minded people:


  12. John Simon makes no sense. He stands for serious & high European culture. But he supported Obama and Hillary who egged on Merkel to flood EU with tons of Africans and Muslims.

    Also, even though Trump oozes of American vulgarity, his worldview isn't about Americans telling other nations what to do. He wants peace with Russia. He wants Europe to become more independent of the US and defend itself.
    He's for America for Americans, Mexico for Mexicans, and Europe for Europeans. He's not telling Europeans to follow the American Way. He's not calling for globalism that seeks to McDonaldize the world. No, Hillary and Obama and Bush were for that stuff.

    Trump may not be into high culture, but he has no problem with other nations and cultures maintaining their independence and sovereignty. It's been Obama and Hillary, at the behest of globalists, who've been pressuring Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Austria to open their borders and be flooded with tons of Muslims and Africans.

    So, if John Simon is about serious European Culture, why does he side with the globalists who seek to Americanize the entire world?

    Trump may be a boorish American, but he wants Europe to remain European. He's not happy about Brussels now being 1/3 Muslim or with London and Malmo being taken over by non-Europeans. In contrast, the Liberals that Simon hangs around with wants all white nations to become like Latin America or North Africa. Simon wants that?


    And Simon needs to read this:


    His beloved Europe is being overrun by Muslims and Africans... but he sides with Merkel and Hillary? Is he nuts?

  13. Here's the difference between Trump and Obama/Hillary/Bush.

    Watch this music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

    Even though Trump may be a vulgar ugly American, he's for keeping his Ugly Americanism to himself. As a nationalist, he is about America for Americans and Americans minding their own business.

    In contrast, people like Obama, Hillary, Hollywood, MTV, George Soros, and globalist media are about spreading American-Style 'values' and 'ideas' all over the world.
    So, if US worships 'Diversity', all the world must also worship it even though diversity is the reason for all the problems in Latin America, Middle East, and North Africa.
    Also, why are there all these refugees from Muslim world? Because the US, ruled by globalists, spread all these wars in the Middle East that led to destruction and uprooted peoples.

    Anyway, Trump may be a vulgarian who eats Big Mac, but he wants to keep it in America.
    In contrast, the globalists want to McDonaldize the entire world.
    Trump is not the one pushing Lena-Dunhamism on the entire world. Globalists do that. Globalism is totally crazy. It says push homo agenda and feminism on the Muslim world BUT also flood the West with tons of Muslims who hate 'western values'.

  14. John's *popularity* with the unwashed spiked a bit with this blog post. Nice going, Simon. Try not to breathe too deeply.

    1. U.K., what do you consider some of the "ugliest" mainstream films from the 1970s? Movies that left you feeling degraded and soiled when you left the movie theatre --- I nominate:

      Demon Seed
      The Sentinel
      The Tenant
      Looking for Mr. Goodbar
      Taxi Driver
      The Omen
      Exorcist II: The Heretic
      To Live and Die in L.A. (OK, 1980s, but ugly as hell)

    2. And 'Mother, Jugs and Speed' !

    3. The 70s were the best decade for film. I don't think it's even close. I agree with all of your films on the "soiled list" except for one. The Tenant, although creepy, is one of Polanski's many masterpieces. I don't find it ugly in the least. Polanski also showed his acting chops in that film, despite what Simon wrote about it.
      Here are some other films from the 70s that make you feel slimed when you leave the theater.

      Straight Time
      Don't Look Now
      Cutter and Bone

    4. U.K., do you know of the film 'That's the Way of the World', from 1975? I highly recommend it --- here's a blogpost about it:


      Some kind soul put the whole movie up on YouTube:


      I watched it on a DVD I rented through the mail from Facets---they have a lot of things Netflix doesn't. $15 a month for 3 DVDs at a time (although they arrive slowly, from Chicago, and often broken)---well worth the money though: I've recently viddied 'The Devil's Playground' and 'Last Orders' (both dir. by Fred Schepisi), and 'Race with the Devil' (1970s drive-in fare with Peter Fonda and Warren Oates). Here's the link to Facets:


    5. Nooch, thanks for the links. I'm browsing Facet right now. Great website. I don't know the first film you mentioned, but I love Schepisi. I'll have top get Last Orders. Never seen it. And Race With the Devil is very good.

      How about another car driver film>>>>"Two Lane Blacktop" Dennis Wilson and James Taylor (of all people) in the leads. Warren Oates was fantastic in the film

    6. Thanks, U.K., I always get that one mixed up with 'Vanishing Point'---I'll check it out---I also liked 'Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry'....

      Are you a fan of the 'Lolita' with Jeremy Irons et al.? Mr. Simon didn't like it, but I think it's amazing....

    7. All worthy films.
      If I was going to a film version of Lolita, I'd go with the Kubrick one. I love Irons, though. The real gem, though, is the novel. Nabokov has the girl as 12(!!!) years old, which puts everything on a different level. A better level. The book is fantastic.

    8. In Nabokov, is Lolita pubescent? After the Milo Yiannopoulos contretemps, I learned from 'Radio Derb' (John Derbyshire's weekly podcast) that there are distinctions between pedophilia and hebephilia (and ephebophilia). Who knew? Not I, and still not most...

    9. Dolores Haze is 12 years old. Call her what you will. By all accounts she's pretty hot. Ask Humbert. He'll tell you.

    10. I've been viddying 'Mother, Jugs and Speed', there's actually some good stuff in there. Allen Garfield is great as the ambulance company owner---even Leslie Halliwell praised his performance in his 'Halliwell Film Guide'.

    11. Have not seen it. Always loved the title, though.

    12. It's real 70s stuff: lots of great L.A. locations, and Bill Cosby (as Mother) and Harvey Keitel (as Speed) do great work... Looked at 'The Seven-Ups' last night, from 1973---great mob flick, with superb use of NYC locations---and of course the greatest car chase ever, through NYC streets....

  15. There is a great contradiction.

    Progs and Globalists see Trump as an embarrassment. He is a vulgar and boorish Ugly American. He is an embarrassment to the entire world. The man has no class. He has no manners.
    But we must ask.. in contrast to whom? Hillary has class? The drunkard? The ill-tempered wench? And her husband? Geez. Obama’s manners were all just an act. He was some pothead punk who cleaned up his act for Jewish elites because he figured on hitting the jackpot by toying with white psychology. He even got the Nobel Prize for what-he-might-do. What he really did was mess up MENA worse than Bush. As for Michelle Obama, I’ll be nice and just pass.
    But even if we were to assume Hillary and Obama are people of class and manners, what kind of cultural personalities did they attract and hang with? Rappers, trashy celebrities, the likes of Lena Dunham, madonna, and Miley Cyrus. All the vain vulgar trash in Hollywood. All the decadent and excessive homosexuals and trannies. That is culture? Looks like the flotsam in Fellini’s LA DOLCE VITA.
    And what has become of higher education in recent yrs? Even Ivy League colleges invite porn performers to give lectures. There are now tons of classes on Pop Culture. Even fancy colleges have kids with tattoos and blue-dyed hair. Even some professors dress and act like teens or children begging for attention. (When a 8 yr old girl puts funny things in her hair and says, “Mommy, Look”, that’s cute. When grown-ups dye their hair green and stick a piece of metal through their nose, it is PATHETIC!) So, if there’s any distinction between Trump and Liberals, it’s not no class vs class. It’s conventional no class vs bohemian no class. Even trashiness now comes in many shades. So, if you’re well-educated and have tattoos & a nose ring, maybe it’s a statement or radical gesture. But if you’re a deplorable and have tattoos and piercing, you’re just vulgar. Likewise, if you’re part of the globalist elite and wear nice suits, you have class. But if you’re Trump and wear nice suits, you’re just crass.

    Anyway, given the pervasiveness of pop culture and PC(with homomania and tranny excess) everywhere, it makes no sense for anyone to accuse anyone of vulgarity. It is all around. Maybe the Liberal elites think theirs is a kind of haute or ironic vulgarity, but trash is trash. Even the British Royal Family is immersed in celebrity trash culture. Even smart women who went to nice schools still read teen fiction and write about them in respectable journals. And full-grown men are devoted to video games and comic book movies across the political spectrum.


    1. Be that as it may, even if we were to agree that Trump is more vulgar than other politicians, why should this matter when he is for America First? He’s for nationalism, which means Americans should focus on America and leave the rest of the world alone. So, even if Trump is vulgar trash who represents a gross and vulgar America, his worldview won’t do much harm since he isn’t promoting Americanism as the template for all the world. America First is nationalism, and that means other nations should put their nations first also. So, it should be Germany First for Germans, Japan First for Japan, Turkey First for Turkey, France First for France, Russia First for Russians, and etc. Whatever one may say of Trump — vulgar, trashy, boorish, crude, etc — , he’s not foisting his brand of Americanism on the entire world. His nationalism and anti-globalism are respectful of the rest of the world. It means Americans should mind American interests and affairs, and let each people pursue their own national business and decide on their own values and culture. So, even if Trumpism is trashism, America First means Trumpian Trashiness will be confined within the walls of America. It will be not forced on the rest of the world. Globalism has sought to remake the entire world in the image of America. Its vision is America For All and All For America. In other words, America should use its great might — military, economic, cultural, and ‘intellectual’ — to spread its ideas, values, sights, and sounds all over the world. It would be Hollywood uber alles, rap music uber alles, Pentagon uber alles, Wall Street uber alles, Harvard uber alles.
      But Trump rejects globalism. His nationalism means that, good or bad, Americanism is for Americans in America. As for other nations, it is up to them to determine their own interests, ideas, icons, images, and values. So, what is the problem?

      Progs, who are globalist, deride Trumpean America as trashy but then complain that Trump isn’t committed to spreading Americanism all over the world(and opening America to all the world). This is a contradiction. If America that elected Trump is that trashy and stupid, why should America be ruling and dominating the world? If America is that horrible and bad, shouldn’t Americanism be limited to America as Trump says? And if Trump’s America is so horrible, why bring all those people to hell that is America?

      Now, progs might say they are for America exerting its vision, values, and will around the world under the decent leadership of someone like Obama or Hillary. But where do they get this notion that Obama-ism or Hillary-ism has anything to do with truth, decency, or morality? Creating conditions like post-Gaddafi Libya or Syria torn apart by civil war fomented by US and its allies? Trying to convert the entire world to the notion that Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’ or that there should be massive parades in honor of what George Takei and Milo do in private?
      Rap music and its foul expressions are something the US should be proud of and spread all over? ‘Twerking’ as a dance? Open sewage porn even for kiddies? Stuff like GIRLS and other TV shows(which would have been X-rated even up to the 90s), the mania for tattoos, slut culture, and juvenilia? Are we to believe that Obama’s or Hillary’s America is any classier than Trump’s America? Where is the evidence? Miley Cyrus and Jay-Z?

    2. We can agree that there is something crude, vulgar, and boorish about Trump. But what in current ‘Liberalism’ or ‘Progressivism’ is noble, dignified, refined, intelligent, sane, rational, or decent? Even Liberal professors in colleges are saying they are sick of snowflake millennials throwing tantrums.


      Should the US project Black Lives Matter all over the world? But BLM is premised on a lie. The real truth is blacks are killing blacks and peoples of other races in the US. But even if BLM were valid, what does it have to with other nations with totally different histories and realities? Why should an American political cause be foisted upon other nations? It’s just a form of Justice-Imperialism. If any place needs a lesson on treating black lives with more civility, it is black Africa.

      So, Proggism makes no sense on any level. Progs say Trump is terrible and represents the rot that is America. Okay. If the US is so rotten, let’s contain the American disease INSIDE America. Let’s not infect the entire world.
      BUT, progs are upset that Trump is quarantining Americanism in America while letting other nations do their own thing. Progs want the US to use its muscle to force its values and ways on all the world. Some progs might argue that Americanism would be good and sound but for the fact that Trump smeared it with his ‘hate’. (But then, why are all these Libs and Progs mostly silent about US support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians? Where were all these Libs and Progs when Obama invoked BS ‘human rights’ to invade and destroy Libya? Or when Obama worked with US puppets in Middle East to arm and fund terrorists to tear Syria apart? And if Libs and Progs are so balanced and rationale, why all this paranoid hysteria about Russia and why all this hateful call for ‘new cold war’? And if Libs and Progs are so full of love of ‘minorities’, why the silence when Bill Clinton was locking up record numbers of blacks? And if Progs and Libs love Muslims so much and care about refugees, why didn’t they oppose Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy that spread wars in MENA and forced so many Muslims to become refugees? And if we go by political violence, which side has been attacking which side? All throughout 2016, it’s been the Bernie-and-Hillary supporters who’ve been most violent, aggressive, hateful, and disruptive… with full blessing of Jewish-controlled Media, which also celebrated the sucker-punching of Richard Spencer.) Anyway, if it’s true that the new wave of social injustice was unleashed by Trumpenfuhrer, why did BLM happen under Obama? If Obama Era was so wonderful, why all this race tensions? And what has American Culture been like during the Obama era? Can any prog or Lib say with a straight face that Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Bruce Jenner as girl, madonna, Ashley Judd, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Sarah Silverman, Seth Rogan, Kardashians, and so many others are people who make America proud? Really? Do Liberals and Progs really believe that morality and history are on their side because their vision of truth and beauty is embodied by Pussy Riot who desecrate churches? (Meanwhile, these sacrilegious lot wax poetic about protecting the Koran from desecration. How these Virtue Nazis love to signal about how they are so tolerant, even as they try to push homomania on Russia, something they wouldn’t do to Muslim world, at least not just yet).

    3. There’s another contradiction at the core of Proggism. When Progs feign sophistication, intelligence, and reason, they always mean Europe, Canada(more European than the US), and the most European parts of America. If it’s about Latin America, it’s always the whitest and most Europeanized parts. Some Western Libs and Progs have fascination with Japanese culture, but they don’t look to Japan as an example or model.
      So, the European Way is, for them, the real City on the Hill that stupid Americans should aspire to.

      Okay. But if Europe is the highest peak of human civilization, shouldn’t it be independent of vulgar and boorish America? Why should European civilization be so servile, slavish, dependent, and subordinate to American power and interests? Why shouldn’t Europeans defend themselves and say GOOD BYE to Ugly American Uncle Sam, especially since WWII is history and the Cold War has long been over?

      Now, one can understand why Progs and Europeans disliked Bush II. Bush II lacked style & manners AND promoted America-uber-alles(and allies). In contrast, Trump, though boor he may be, is telling Europe to be free and go its own way. He is saying Europe should forge its own destiny and stop looking to the US for guidance, orders, inspiration, money, and approval. Given how lowly he is regarded over there, Europeans should jump at the chance and regain their full independence and sovereignty from the US that has dominated Europe since end of WWII. Instead, their attitude is, “We can’t do nuttin’ without you, master.” What the hell is this? Ugly American Trump offers them a chance to be free, but they want to stay under his wing. They are like the son in SIXTEEN CANDLES who wants to be with his parents.


      So much for European pride, dignity, integrity, and honor. Even when the US is ruled by ‘literally hitler’, Europeans are unwilling to forge their own independent path. They would rather plead with the US to protect them, lead them, fund them, and give them orders.

      The contradictions are crazy. Europeans look down on America, especially Trumpean American, but they are in a panic that the US won’t tell them what to do and protect them(even though EU faces no military threats, not even from Russia that has no designs on invading anything; its moves in Ukraine were forced by the US-backed coup d’etat).
      And ‘Liberals’ and Progs believe that EVERYTHING is better in more civilized Europe and that the EU should be the model for America… BUT, they believe the US should continue to exert dominance over the EU. They are upset that Trump isn’t keen on maintaining the US-dominant status quo that took hold in Europe since the end of WWII.

    4. Another contradiction. If Europe is so great, it must be because it’s ruled by Europeans. And Trump seems to understand this. He’s been warning the EU that it is being overrun by migrants and invaders. So, even though Trump is perceived as representing everything that is anathema to Noble Europeanism, he is the one who is warning Europe to defend itself and preserve its great heritage, culture, and territorial integrity. Imagine that. Ugly American Trump is giving advice to Europeans to protect and keep what they got.
      In contrast, ‘Liberals’ and Progs, who profess to admire European nations as the highest achievements of mankind, are advising Europe to welcome invasion by countless Muslims and Africans(and Asians too, esp from Pakistan to UK). And these ‘Liberal’ and proggy Europhiles are livid with Trump for his concern about the safety, security, and viability of European civilization and project under increasing duress resulting form massive invasion. (On the issue of Europe, Trump correctly sees no threat from Russia and a lot of threat from Middle East & Africa, but globalists have turned it upside down. Europeans are to fear a military invasion from Russia while welcoming endless numbers of Africans and Muslims as future patriots and defenders of Europe!) It’s surreal. ‘Liberals’ and Europeans take Trump’s remarks about Sweden and France as insults when those were anything but. Trump, boor that he is, has genuine appreciation for European civilization. He may not have read many fancy books, but he has eyes. He can see that Europeans did something wonderful there and Europe should be preserved. So, when he warns Sweden or France, he isn’t insulting them. He is warning them to keep the great things they got. But the globo-media spun it as ‘insult’. Media turned it into Trump vs Europe when it is Trump FOR Europe. Trump is telling Europe to preserve what it has against the massive tides of invasion. In contrast, ‘Liberals’ and Progs, for all their Europhilia, are urging Europe to take in more and more invaders and turn into something like Latin America or North Africa. (If diversity in Latin America and North Africa is so great, why do people there flee diversity to come to white nations? Europeans are told to welcome most that which non-whites do most to flee from. If blacks and Muslims are so troublesome that even their own kind flee from them, what will Europeans gain by taking them in? If wolves are fleeing from other wolves, should sheep take in the fleeing wolves?)

    5. Another contradiction. If Europe is really the glory of the world, something that the US should aspire to, why are ‘Liberals’ and Progs urging Europe to become more like America by increasing diversity? And if European elites feel that they are so much more refined and dignified than vulgar Americans, why do they want to remake their nations to look more and more like America culturally and demographically?
      ‘Liberals’ and Progs say they admire the socialist-democratic model of Europe, but are they even aware that such a system has worked in some nations, esp Germanic/Scandinavian ones, due to homogeneity and work ethic that made a High-Trust Society possible? Did these ‘Liberals’ and progs ever notice that the most high-trust areas in the US have been states dominated largely by Germanics and Scandies? I thought Libs and Progs are supposed to be smart. But they cannot even connect the dots. (This is where PC makes people stupid. Since PC places a taboo on honest discussion of racial and cultural differences, we are supposed to overlook the demographic factors involved in the variances among societies and nations.) Japan is also a relatively high-trust society due to combination of homogeneity, culture, and racial characteristics of the Japanese. Who thinks such can be maintained if Japan were to become 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Asian-Indian, 1/4 Kurdish, and 1/4 Nigerian? I mean seriously. Do people really believe ‘Japanese Values’ will magically pass onto non-Japanese in Japan in equal measure? The huge divergences in income and influence among various racial and ethnic groups in California have made clear that the ‘values’ and abilities of one culture do not magically pass onto other groups. Compare California’s Jews with California’s Mexicans or blacks.
      Anyway, on the one hand, ‘sophisticated’ Libs and Progs affect Europhilia and claim that Europeans do everything better, BUT their vision is for Europe to become more like the US with more diversity, consumer culture, and youth culture. And even though Europeans and Canandians turn up their noses at the US, they beg for US to lead NATO and offer protection and leadership. And in demography and culture, Europeans and Canadians try to imitate Americanism in every way. Since the US has had sizable racial minorities, Canada and European nations feel they must also be America-like in this regard.

    6. If Libs and Progs love the European Way so much, why do they promote the very policies and agendas that are doing most to undermine, subvert, and destroy Europe? Should every church really be festooned with homo flags? Should Europe welcome tons of Africans and Muslims, as the pope says? Should Europeans have ugly and trashy black-American rap culture and its attitudes as their preferred cultural style? (Just sample today’s French pop music, and it’s mostly imitation of black rap trash attitudes. Same in UK.) For a people who profess to love and admire Europe, their main Europhile agenda seems to Africanize and Islamize Europe as much as possible and fast as possible. And of course, to homo-ize it. But, is it feasible to promote African-jungle-ization, Islamic sharia-ization, and decadent homo-ization at the same time? Are they compatible?

      Now, some Libs and Progs will argue that Europe is really just an Idea. It’s the idea that counts. And two of the ideas are Tolerance and Inclusion. So, if Europeans invoke Tolerance and Inclusion to welcome the world, they are upholding and practicing ‘European Values’. Libs and Progs say it is now atavistic to say there is a European race/people who belong to or have ownership of European lands. No, those people in Europe are merely people with European values and ideas, the only things that matter. So, if tons of non-Europeans arrive and take on those values and ideas, they are also ‘Europeans’.

      But this line of argument doesn’t make sense. If Europeanism is now just an idea, then why can’t it be spread around the world? After all, ideas are easier to spread than peoples. Why do non-Europeans have to come to Europe to partake of these great ideas? Why not have Africans take these ideas and ‘Europeanize’ Africa? Why not have Muslims ‘Europeanize’ the Middle East?
      But then, Progs and Libs might argue that Africa is so mired in African values and the Middle East is mired in Muslim ideas that they don’t give European ideas a chance to take root, grow, and spreads. So, for the time being, Africans and Muslims must come to the West to be ‘Europeanized’. But then, this means that European ideas and values are SUPERIOR to African ideas and Muslim ideas. Why else would non-Europeans be so eager to come to Europe? For sure, European ideas did more for Europe than African ideas did for Africa and Muslim ideas did for Middle East. But then, Libs and Progs say that it would be wrong to say some cultures are better than others — it might be ‘racist’ — , and if anything, the West must have ‘multi-culturalism’ so that non-white immigrants won’t be forced to adopt European culture. After all, assimilation might be construed as ‘cultural imperialism’ or ‘cultural genocide’, and we can’t have that.
      On the one hand, we are told that it would be ‘hateful’, ‘heartless’, ‘racist’, and ‘xenophobic’ if Europeans don’t welcome non-Europeans to become New Europeans. But then, we are also told that it would be cruel, oppressive, intolerant, and imperialist for Europeans to insist that the newcomers abandon their prior identities, heritages, and cultures to become ‘European’. Who is the ‘racist’ ‘Eurocentric’ white man to be telling a non-white person to give up his/her own identity to take on a white one? It’s damned if you, damned if you don’t for whitey.

    7. Europhiles are doing most to defile what is European. For one thing, there is no neat set of ‘European ideas’ or ‘Western values’ that could sum up the nations of Europe. European ideas have changed over time, and no people or civilization should be defined by ideas. If ideas are central, then communist Poland had more in common with communist China than with capitalist Germany. In truth, racially-historically-culturally, Poles are closer to Germans than to Chinese by a 1000 miles regardless of the reigning ideology. East Germany was communist and North Korea was communist. Does that mean East Germany should be bunched closer together with North Korea than with West Germany? If we go by idea-centrism, such would be true. But a nation is more than a set of ideas. After all, Germans were no less German under Nazism or communism than under democratic capitalism or Kaiserism. If Germans are defined by the current set of ‘western values’, then Germans in the past were not German since the prevailing ideologies were different then. Your real father is your real father regardless of his ideology. If he is atheist and if you’re religious, he is still your father. You can’t say another man is your real father since he too is religious, no more than your father can say another young man is his son cuz of his atheism. Ethnos, like family, runs deeper than ideas and ideology.

      Also, a people and culture are defined aesthetically as well, and different races have different aesthetics. If we are to prize Western Art, shouldn’t the people depicted in the art be prized more than the art itself? After all, art is merely a representation of a people.
      Greek sculptures depict certain human forms because there were Greeks who looked like that.
      So, even modern Greeks feel a connection to their art since there is a racial-historical connection between Greek folks and Greek art.
      Likewise, African art depict African aesthetics and Hindu art depict Asian-Indian aesthetics. Surely, the people count more than the stones and woods that were carved in their image. If a make a painting of a flower, what is more important? The painting or the flower? The painting exists only because the flower existed.
      So, all of Western Art has to be appreciated as the expression, reflection, and representation of Western peoples. Sure, other peoples can learn from Western art and draw inspiration in the creation of their own art. Non-West has copied Western methods in sculpture-making and painting and music-making. But Western Art cannot exist without Europeans since it is the expression of the European soul and representation of European physical forms. The Venus statue could not have existed if Europeans who looked like that hadn’t existed. If Europeans looked like Australian Aborigines, their artworks would have looked very different. So, there is a genetic and ‘spiritual’ connection between European arts and European races. And this can be said for any people and culture. Surely, Persian sculptures and paintings depict the peoples who lived there long ago. If another people were to take over Europe, they won’t feel the connection with European art and culture since they feel and look different. It’s like Europeans in Meso-America can study the artworks of indigenous peoples there and learn to appreciate Maya and Aztec stuff… but they can never feel as being part of that culture. It’s like a Hindu can go to Cameroon and study and appreciate African sculpture and art, but he cannot feel a racial or spiritual connection to those expressions and representations. Anyone can appreciate and ponder any culture around the world, but he can only lay claim to and feel direct connection to his own culture. Indeed, one might argue that every people have a duty to to their culture because, if they don’t preserve it, who will? If American Indians won’t preserve their heritage, no one is going to do it for them.

    8. Likewise, Europeans need to protect and preserve their own race, land, and culture. The idea that Europe should be Americanized as much as possible and then invite tons of ‘non-Europeans’ to become ‘new Europeans’ to sustain and preserve European culture is crazy. If Europeans themselves are in suicidal mode and not doing what is necessary to preserve their own civilization and culture, what makes them think others will do it for them, especially when so many of these newcomers are of low IQ, have zero appreciation for learning, and tend wallow in barbarism or savagery? (Also, due to PC and degradation of Pop Culture, Europeans lack the moral fiber, cultural confidence, and seriousness to apply on the newcomers to try harder to become civilized. But then, how can anyone become civilized in a Europe where the greatest thing is going wild at homo parades?) Also, if Europeans themselves embrace trashy and shallow Americanism, why wouldn’t the newcomers also do likewise and prefer easily digestible rap music, porn, cartoons, videogames, dumb TV shows, and Hollywood movies to European arts and culture that require time and patience to understand and appreciate?

      Globalism has turned everything generic, deracinated, bloodless, infantile, and trashy. Every people need nationalism to reconnect with race, heritage, and history. Instead of fleeing from their own nations for better material lives in the West, they need to try to make their own nations better. It’s too easy to run from problems.
      And Europeans need to face up to their own duties to their ancestor and heritages. Their main obligation must be to their own nations, not to the stupid god of ‘humanitarian super-power-ism’ or ‘virtue nazism’ that is making a total mess of Sweden, once a high-trust and low-crime society of homogeneity, history, social-democracy, and nationalism.
      Sweden as Idea and Ikea is doomed. No civilization can survive merely as an abstraction or consumer choice.

    9. "And what has become of higher education in recent yrs? Even Ivy League colleges invite porn performers to give lectures. There are now tons of classes on Pop Culture. Even fancy colleges have kids with tattoos and blue-dyed hair. Even some professors dress and act like teens or children begging for attention. (When a 8 yr old girl puts funny things in her hair and says, “Mommy, Look”, that’s cute. When grown-ups dye their hair green and stick a piece of metal through their nose, it is PATHETIC!)"

      Check out St. John's College,
      Annapolis "M" "D"---
      (There's also one in Santa Fe)---
      Great Books will set you free!

  16. Well, looky here!!!



    If Brooks admits of a ‘dying white America’, it means White Privilege is a myth for large swath of Americans who are not only mired in economic stagnation but facing demise and death.
    That sounds serious.

    Shouldn’t a ‘dying’ people be helped, favored, protected?

    Imagine a black leader saying, “So many black folks be dyin’ and shi*. Dang, let them die. They is worthless. I’s gonna try to replace my dumbass folks with Mexicans and Asians. And Muslims too.”

    Black leaders may ACT like that, but they don’t talk like that. They feel they must, at least outwardly, look out for the interests of their own people.

    If Brooks admits that much of White America is ‘dying’, shouldn’t he tell white elites to take care of their own people? After all, this was the great theme of Progressivism since the French Revolution. French elites must take care of their people. Must lead them and guide them.
    And that is why Linda-Hunt-as-half-Chinese dwarf got pissed about Sukarno, whom he used to admire. He realized that Sukarno plays the symbol of ‘father of his people’ while living like a pampered and vain playboy. Instead of Brooks telling white elites to do something about sick and ‘dying’ white America, he tells them to just dump them(like Max dumped his friends in the Leone gangster movie).


    But if this is the Jewish attitude, why don’t Jews just forget about Roman Polanski? The fact is most powerful Jews still protect him. And Jews never gave up on Pollard even though he’s a lowlife scum. Because Pollard is Jewish and served Israel, they stuck with him to the very end, and he’s a free man making good money. Why don’t Brooks tell white elites to see white folks the same way? Consider how American Jews felt about Soviet Jews. They didn’t say, “They’re a bunch of losers who are prolly commies anyway. Let them just rot and die in the gulag that is the USSR.” No, American Jews did all they could to ‘save’ Soviet Jews. And ragtag Jewish refugees were migrating to Palestine, American Jews didn’t say, “What a bunch of worthless losers, totally hopeless and pathetic. Let em rot?” No, American Jews did everything they could for them, and now, Israel is hailed as the #1 friend of the US. Brooks’ son even served in IDF.

    1. But Brooks’ advice to white elites when it comes to white masses is this:
      David Brooks went Mel Brooks


      Of course, Jewish elites weren’t always so feeling toward other Jews. WWII sobered them up.
      There was a time when Western European Jews, especially German and French ones, turned up their nose at Eastern European Jews and Middle East Jews. Many aspired to be ‘white’ and respectable. Some even abandoned Jewish identity and converted to Christianity and did their best to blend in. And when they heard about the plight of Eastern European Jews, they had little interest. And when some Eastern Europeans showed up in the West, they felt embarrassed to be associated with such lowlifes and signaled to Western elites that they, the refined Western Jews, had almost nothing in common with those lowly dirty Jews from the East.

      Gertrude Stein’s attitude wasn’t atypical.


      And there were German-Jewish clubs that banned Eastern European Jews.
      And some Jews say SHAME on the Jewish-American community for not applied enough pressure on FDR to do more for Jews.

      So, after WWII, the Jewish elite mentality went from seeking approval & acceptance from Western elites to lending support to ALL Jews around the world, even Middle Eastern ones. So, Israel was open to ALL Jews: German, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Yemenese, Iranian, etc.

      So, why are Jews telling white elites to just dump the ‘dying’ white masses? Of course, the reason is obvious. Even though it seems hypocritical, there is a consistency to the extent that both Jewish elite’s concern for Jewish populism/nationalism and Jewish elite’s derision of white populism/nationalism are predicated on “Is it good for Jews?”

      It is good for Jews as a whole if Jewish elites care about the broader Jewish populace.
      It’s like what Pike to Tector in THE WILD BUNCH. They gotta stick together.


    2. If the unity of Jewish elites and Jewish populism/nationalism serves Jewish interests, the unity of white elites and white populism/nationalism may be counter to Jewish interests. So, Brooks tells white elites to dump the ‘dying white losers’. (It seems Jewish elites went from caring insufficiently about other Jews to caring too much about them, even to the extent of harming large numbers of Palestinians, Russians, and white Americans. The New Cold War with Russia premised on Jewish Americans’ main loyalty to Jewish Russian oligarchs is truly an insane development.) And so, Brooks tells white elites to go ‘Max’ on the white people.


      If Brooks had written RED BEARD, he would tell the Japanese doctors to just let the diseased losers to die. Maybe Brooks and Tom Vu can write a movie script together.


      Tom Vu’s three secret little words: “let losers die”


      Granted, much of the problem of White America is moral and spiritual corruption. It’s not just economic. But then, the elites deserve much blame for spreading degrading sounds & images and terrible ideas based on ideological fads. While lower IQ among poorer whites may be a problem, things have been made much worse by moral degradation, especially via Negro influence that wallows in hyper-sexuality and thuggery. And spread of homomania has made shameless vanity, narcissism, and nihilism the new standard in cultural expression.
      Still, no one is starving. And even poor whites on welfare have free medical care. In a way, part of their corruption is due to entitlement mentality, same thing plaguing so many blacks and later generations of Mexicans(and even Asians).

      As for Conservatives, they no longer have any real values. The ones who do, like Evangelicals, are dumb and ignorant. Their idea of righteousness is literal reading of the Bible and Israel, Israel, and Israel. As for Conservatism Inc., it’s lower taxes for the super-rich, Israel-Israel-Israel, and ‘Democrats are the real racists’.

      As for Constitutionalists, they are mostly about liberty and legal protections than righteousness and power of sanctity & taboos. The Constitution guarantees liberties and protections. It doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong. Constitution allows freedom of speech for Neo-Nazis, communists, anarchists, degenerates, and even pedophiles. So, as important as it is in guaranteeing freedoms for individuals, it has no role in emotionally shaping our collective sense of what is sacred and what is taboo. The real power rests with control of sanctity and taboos than guarantee of rights. Righteousness overrides mere rights. What is blessed has power over what is cursed. (In a nation where God and Jesus are sacred and revered, even those with legal rights to mock them will think twice since it will lead to shunning, mockery, and hostility, all leading to social destruction. So, rights are not enough for power.) The Constitution protects the right of both the blessed and the cursed. The blessed and the cursed both have freedom of speech. Constitution allows that much. But the power is decided by who-and-what-are-blessed and who-and-what-are-cursed. So, even though someone with ‘racist’ views has free speech protections, he hasn’t a chance to make the social climb since the prevailing rules of sanctity and taboos will shun, ignore, or insult him.

    3. This is why putting the negative rights of the Constitution at the center of one’s ideological conviction is a losing proposition. Constitution is about the right of free speech even if you’re wrong. It doesn’t guarantee that you are right, therefore blessed with righteousness.
      What is considered right(as opposed to ‘a right’) is shaped by media and academia.
      Today, the debate sounds like “We on the Right may be wrong, but we want the right to be wrong” vs “We on the Left are right, and that is why we deserve the power to enforce what is right.” Even though the Constitution is on the side of the Right(unless Supreme Court cooks up some excuse to ban ‘hate speech’, a real possibility since the Constitution is ultimately decided by Supreme Court that bent and twisted the Constitution to allow all sorts of perversions), the Moral Culture is on the side of the Left. Even if majority of Americans still believe that all speech should be protected, they feel that the Left has the sanctity associated with MLK, Diversity, Inclusion, and homomania, none of which has been opposed by the Right. The Right’s attitude is, “Maybe the Left is right about what is sacred and what is socially taboo, but we still want the freedom of speech to be wrong.”

      Because much of Conservatism Inc. surrendered to the Prog sacraments, the Right lacks the sense of rightness, therefore righteousness. Conzos argue for negative rights against the ‘left’ that pushes for positive righteousness. This is why the Left is currently less tolerant. Those who feel more righteous tend to be less tolerant, whereas those who feel guilty, defensive, and tainted feel more tolerant; it is actually self-serving since the defensive Right invokes tolerance as protection from the righteous ‘left’, i.e. when the Right preaches tolerance, it’s not about the virtue of tolerating their enemies but using tolerance against a shield against a much more powerful enemy what wields the sword of righteousness. Rights is a shield, righteousness is a sword. Righteousness can attack and kill, Rights can only defend and protect.

      This is why the Right used to be more intolerant in the past whereas the Liberals were more tolerant. Back then, much of society was agreed on the sanctity of God and tradition and community norms. Conservatives felt righteous in their judgementalism.
      In contrast, Liberals and secularists felt on the moral defensive and had to patiently plead their case. Today, Libs and progs feel more righteous, and that accounts for their lack of tolerance. It’s not that the left is naturally more intolerant than the right or vice verse. It’s just that those who feel more righteous — according to current rules of sacredness and taboos — tend to be less tolerant of those deemed deviant. To be sure, current PC is nuts because the so-called New Normal goes so against Natural Norms. So, even as progs feel more righteous and holy, on the subconscious level they may be panicking because the basis of their righteousness is really natural deviance forced into the position of normality by a crazy set of circumstances.

    4. Anyway, all this talk of Constitution isn’t enough. What the Right has to do is undermine and blow up the very rules of sacredness and taboos as instituted by PC.
      MLK-myth has to challenged. Sure, he played an important role in a great movement, BUT the premise of the movement was deeply flawed, and the other side had legitimate fears given the fact of racial differences. This has to be spelled out, but Conservatism Inc is too chicken. Even back then, they stupidly argued against the Movement on the abstract basis of ‘states rights’.
      So, instead of arguing to gain moral righteousness, they were merely arguing for legal rights or technicalities. If whites had honestly spelled out the dangers posed by blacks upon whites on the basis of racial differences, some of the righteousness could have been on the side of white southerners.

      Recently, Conservatism Inc just went along with the crazy notion that ‘gay marriage’ makes sense. Their only counter-position offered by Con Inc was the Constitution, or religious liberty. So, ‘gay marriage’ is okay, and the real fight should be about protecting Christian bakers from not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’ by invoking the Constitution. So, the Right didn’t aim for sacredness and righteousness by condemning ‘gay marriage’ for associating a bio-moral institution with sexual deviance and immorality. It conceded the high ground to the homo agenda. So, ‘gay marriage’ is okay, even wonderful according to some like Brooks, Goldberg, and Murray.
      All that the Right can hope is to protect the ‘rights’ of Christian bakers. So, Douthat and Dreher don’t strike at the heart of the beast but merely beg for terms of surrender. “You progs are right. Gee, maybe gay marriage makes sense. But, some Americans are ignorant and benighted cuz of their religious conviction, and their rights should be protected under the Constitution.”
      Rights without righteousness doesn’t win over hearts and minds. By the way, why do Conservatives or even sane Liberals need religion to oppose the homo agenda? Any sane look at biology and morality should make it obvious that homo behavior is gross and goes against nature and morality based on truth.

      Mere rights don’t get people worked up and marching in the streets.

    5. 'The New Yorker' don't like Gertrude 'cuz she panned FDR---
      Whereas I pan 'The New Yorker'---Gert will always be a star.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. http://takimag.com/article/get_out_get_your_money_back_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4a2tCtp4k

    “This film is how racism feels,” said Kaluuya. “You get paranoid and you can’t talk about it. You can’t voice it. No one around you gets it, so you can’t speak about it. And in the end it just comes out in a rage.”

    Funny. If that’s how he feels about ‘white racism’, why did his people flee from beloved Uganda to come to live in white nations?

    As I recall, it was blacks who were actually harvesting black bodies — and still do — in Africa.

    Idi Amin was rumored to have been a cannibal.

    And white-skinned albinos are killed and sold for body parts.

    But blacks and Africans seem to be projecting their cultural pathology onto white people who ultimately ended slavery even in Africa. (Of course, white Virtue Nazis love to wallow in masochism as long as they get to hug themselves as conscientious redemptive whites at war with white deplorables who are still race-nazis instead of Virtue Ones.)
    By the way, it was black Africans who also captured blacks and sold them as slaves to whites. And it was in white nation that blacks, even as slaves, had promise of better future.

    Jews project onto Russia all the things they are doing in America.
    And blacks and Africans project onto whites all the voodoo craziness that happens in Africa.
    Together — Jewish money and distribution AND black writing and directing — , they just gave us something 1000x viler than Nazi movie JEW SUSS.

    Btw, if white ‘racism’ is paralyzing his black ass, he should go back to black Africa and be with his own kind.

    And why do black men reject black women and sexually harvest white women’s wombs to create vile hateful creatures like Jordan Peele?

    Jungle Fever promoted by Globalism is the colonization and harvesting of white wombs to breed the scummy enemies of the white race.



    One thing we can hope from this movie.

    I hope all blacks take this movie to heart, see whites as evil, and move away from white folks.

    Yeah, whites are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Don’t go anywhere near them. Return to Africa. Or go to Jamaica. Go back to Safe African Home.


    1. What makes a person not hate a certain group? When individuals from that group do the person a kindness. I've had individual blacks and Muslims do me kindnesses, so I can't hate either group qua group (as Aristotle might put it). Anyway, I'm done being afraid of the Muslim population bomb---if worst comes to worst and they impose sharia, I'll grow a beard, take a second wife, and schlep myself to dawn prayers (think of the prayer position as Arabic yoga). It's gays and feminists who'll have to worry most about the Muslims---in the words of Bil Keane, "Not me!"

  19. "And white-skinned albinos are killed and sold for body parts."

    Remember the movie 'Hustle', from 1975, directed by Robert Aldrich? There's a scene where an albino guy gets worked over by police. 'Hustle' was one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen, up there with 'Taxi Driver' and 'Looking for Mr. Goodbar'....

    1. @ Nooch---Here's another ugly movie. Yesterday, I tried for the third time to watch "A Cry in the Dark." A great film by all accounts. Even Simon lauded over it. I can never get through the entire film. I'll get about half way, and then I'll turn it off. I can't stand to see that couple being railroaded. I get so angry at the Australian rednecks. Even though the film is after the fact, I blame Schepisi for the plight of the Chamberlains. And, I feel like Schepisi is punishing not only the Chamberlains, but he's punishing me. Schepisi keeps piling on the atrocities. Look, Schepisi, a little advice, when you do a movie like this, the audience needs a break every once in awhile. Every 20 minutes or so, stop beating us over the head with a baseball bat.

      The film manipulates the viewer terribly. The scenes of the locals in scummy bars talking about the case really piss me off for some reason. Why do the idiot Chamberlains keep talking to the fucking press?
      I want to scream at the movie: "Chamberlains, don't talk to the fucking press! They're going to get you in trouble!"
      No, Lindy Chamberlain keeps running her damn mouth getting herself in deeper and deeper.

      Streep does a great job in the film, though, I'll admit that. It takes a good actress to play a complete dumbass, and make her look authentic. Unless it happened in the second half of the movie, I never once thought Lindy grasped what was going on. She reminded me of one of those crash test dummies.

      Okay, maybe Hitchcock (intellectually bankrupt according to Simon and Ingmar Bergman) manipulated his audience, but at least he did it with a sense of humor. "A Cry in the Dark" has no humor. Zero. Well, I forgot about Sam Neil's red shorts and skinny legs. Those were funny.

    2. Another Schepisi manipulo-film is 'The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith'. (I rented the DVD through the mail from facets.org, but there were no subtitles or captions, so it was difficult to make out the dialogue.) I saw 'A Cry in the Dark' over 25 years ago, and was impressed with it at the time. How about the filmed version of 'Six Degrees of Separation'? A book of Schepisi interviews is coming out soon, it could be good, he's a very good talker:

      Awful films by great directors, that would be a fun parlor game. In my experience, bad films by great directors are usually a result of a story that's so complicated that it can't be communicated well: 'Zardoz' by John Boorman, 'Quintet' by Altman are two that come to mind....

    3. U.K., the most fascinating story related to Australian provincialism is the downfall of composer and conductor Eugene Goossens---quoth Wikipedia:

      In the early 1950s, Goossens met Rosaleen Norton, the so-called "Witch of Kings Cross". Norton was known as an artist of the grotesque and for her interest in the occult and erotica, which Goossens secretly shared. They conducted an intense affair, exchanging a number of passionate letters; although Goossens asked Norton to destroy all of them, she kept a bundle hidden behind a sofa.

      In early 1956, Goossens visited Europe, unaware that Sydney police were already in possession of his letters to Norton and photographs of her occult activities, which had been stolen from her flat by Sydney Sun reporter Joe Morris, who had infiltrated her supposed "coven". When Goossens returned to Australia on 9 March 1956, he was detained at Sydney Airport, following a tip-off by informants in London; his bags were searched by Customs officials, who found a large amount of what was then considered pornographic material, which included photographs, prints, books, a spool of film, some rubber masks, and sticks of incense.

      Although he was not immediately arrested or charged, Goossens naively agreed to attend a police interview a few days later, where he was confronted with photographs of Norton's "ceremonies" and his letters. Faced with the evidence of his affair with Norton –- which left him open to the serious charge of "scandalous conduct" –- Goossens was forced to plead guilty to the pornography charges. He paid a fine of ₤100; more significantly, the scandal ruined his reputation and forced him to resign from his positions. He returned to England in disgrace.

      The scandal was the basis of a novel, 'Pagan' (1990), by Inez Baranay; it also inspired a play, 'The Devil is a Woman', by Louis Nowra and an opera, 'Eugene & Roie', by Drew Crawford. The scandal is documented in the film 'The Fall of the House', directed by Geoff Burton.

    4. Oh, and 'Cruising' dir. by Friedkin---man, that was ugly, though I did like this song from't:


  20. John Simon hates Trump.

    Trump thinks globalism is terrible for Europe. He wants Europe to remain European. He wants Hungary to remain Hungarian. He supports Orban's patriotism. He thinks Germany shouldn't become Afro-Islamized.

    In contrast, Obama-Hillary-Merkel want to open up all of Europe to massive colored invasion. They want open borders so that Europe will become majority non-European.

    This is what has become of Paris Metro:


    Simon wants all of Europe to become like that.

    John Simon loathes Trump's patriotism and defense of Europe. Simon agrees with Merkel, Obama, and Hillary that Europe should be open to massive invasion by Africans and Muslims with super-high-birthrates.

    That's what Simon's contra-Trump is about.

    He posed as a defender and champion of high European culture and civilization, but his real agenda is that of George Soros. He wants Europe to be overrun by non-Europeans.

  21. A people without a compelling sense of identity, history, purpose, and unity will grow decadent, weak, confused, and purposeless. Or, to seek meaning, they will turn to radical destructive ideologies like antifa(that is disease where the the body attacks itself, like with multiple sclerosis) or crazy sub-cultures like with ugly tattoos, funny hair color, or piercing.

    So much of today's reality is Crazism or Crazy-ism. Just look at Homomania and Trannymania. It's no exaggeration to say American Culture is run by Crazists. Everything, cultural and intellectual, is infected with Crazism. Cold War is long over but we are to fret endlessly about RUSSIA.

    What held the Jews together in their two great Exoduses, the Ancient and Modern one?
    In both cases, the trek to the Holy Land and development of desert-wasteland into a modern nation was arduous and daunting. But why were so many Jews willing to carry the burden and make sacrifices? Why did they do all that when they could have had easier lives elsewhere? Because they thought their deeds had a purpose and meaning. Why? Because they felt a connection to the past and felt that their achievements would be passed down to their ethnic and cultural heirs. There was a sense of collective self-interest, collective shared purpose, collective destiny. Without such, the exodus wouldn't have been possible.


    This is why capitalism works better than communism in the sphere of economics. Under capitalism, what you earn is yours and you can spend it on your family and kids. So you work with an incentive in mind.
    Under communism, despite the big talk of social justice, the state takes everything and gives you just enough to live no matter how hard you work. There is no incentive under communism. Communism does offer moral incentive in the sense of feeling noble about working for mankind. But the command economy is too cumbersome, and it soon dawns on everyone that most of the goodies are going to the New Elites who hog everything.

    But even in cases where there are no individual material rewards, a person is much more likely to be motivated if the themes and passions appeal to him in some strong specific way. This is why the Batista regime lost to Castro's men. Batista's men were better funded and armed, but they had no incentive to right. They saw their own leaders as pigs who served imperialist gangsters from America. They were paid to fight, as Michael Corleone said. In contrast, Castro's men believed they were on the side of nationalism, independence, sovereignty, and anti-Yanqui-imperialism. Most of them didn't understand fancy Marxist theory, but they understood they were fighting for Cuba whereas Batista's men were fighting for Casino moguls.


    Same thing in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese had more men and more equipment, but no one there had any compelling theme for which to fight for. Themes are priceless. Without compelling themes, one is a mercenary, not a soldier. Among civilians, lack of compelling themes makes on a consumer, not a patriot. A mercenary, believing in nothing, will do anything for money and money alone. A consumer, believing in nothing, will do anything for money -- even flood his own nation with foreigners if it leads to 'economic growth'.


    1. Israelis, in contrast, made great soldiers because they've had a compelling reason to fight and defend Israel. They feel a connection to history and ethnicity. This rooted-ness gave them meaning in the present. And they feel that what they do now will pass down to their kids.
      So, an Israeli soldier feels that even losing his life in battle is worth it because his deeds will be in the service of his own people. Why would anyone want to die for NOTHING? Or why would anyone want to die for strangers who don't care about him? Would Jews in Israel be willing to fight and die for Israel if there felt that Israel in 50 yrs will be overrun by Chinese, Hindus, or Muslims? Why make such sacrifice for strangers who don't even care for your own people, culture, and history?

      When the US was founded, posterity was one of the central themes. So, when white folks went about settling the huge land with much effort and trouble, they did it with the sense that future white folks will remember them, honor them, and appreciate them. Why would anyone go through all that trouble to build something great to hand it to the children of an alien people?
      You should be handing it your own children and your own people's children.

      But the rise of hedonism made whites forget. Rise of PC made white kids spit on graves of their own ancestors. (There is recent controversy about desecration of Jewish graves, but PC is a desecration of white heritage. And look how they are removing Confederate monuments in the South. It is sheer desecration. Sure, one can argue they fought for wrong cause, but one's ancestors should be honored, like Japanese do at Yasukuni Shrine. After all, every people are tainted. Should Israelis spit on founders of Israel cuz they ethnically cleansed Palestinians?) With US defined by PC that infects all new arrivals, we have non-whites pissing on white graves figuratively(which could turn out to be literally. Yale is removing white symbols). So, white people are becoming demoralized, dispirited, and dissipated. If the future of the US is PC and anti-whiteness, why should whites bother to do anything? Why fight? Why make sacrifices? It all seems meaningless. Sure, the smart ones can succeed and make money and have a good life. But is that long-term vision? Some whites will be do-gooders and define their lives by doing nice things for OTHER races, but do they really think non-whites will really give a shi*? Really? They are just being taken for a ride as suckers and cuckers.

      White folks no longer have compelling themes. They either have self-loathing or hedonism. Self-loathers may feel rich in virtue-signaling, and hedonists might feel rich in having fun stuff. But it's not wealth with meaning that really arises from blend of past and future.
      Real meaning comes from doing things in the present in honor of those in the past with the conviction that your own people in the future will remember and honor you and your deeds.
      That sense is what needs to be revived among whites. But globalists forbid it... even as they push it for Israel.



    Please find a way to take your website back from the cuckoos in the tinfoil hats!

    1. I am a born New Yorker, attended a public high school,
      graduated magna cum laude and phi beta kappa from Harvard College, and I am an alumnus of the Harvard Law School.
      John and I have been close friends since College. I admire his film, drama,and literature reviews. His political views have always been typical of people like me. However they are not my views. I believe it is a waste of time to argue politics with John and will not do so. I did find many nuggets of wisdom in the comments of those who did take the time to do so.

    2. Well said Joe, all he needs is someone to go through and clear it out every couple of days.
      As to John Friend, I am a longtime reader of Mr. Simon, so I know
      his reviews have countless times called out shallowness and stupidity
      on the liberal end. So perhaps it is you who are a waste of time to
      talk about politics with?

  23. Show of buts

    The man who hates everything
    To his blog love trolls should bring
    The tone around here is getting acerbic
    A concerted effort is needed to curb ick
    In the form of hate speech hateful
    For some ground rules we'd be grateful
    We are all for free speech but
    Except for cases we deem nut
    Therefore we don't see the crime in
    Censoring the blog uncensoredsimon

  24. http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-failure-of-americas-intellectual.html

    The Failure of America's Intellectual Elites
    To stake their claim to authority America’s elites, especially the intellectual elites, have lately shown themselves to be irrational and emotionally unhinged. Having suffered too much therapy they want you to know that they have real feelings and that they are happy to share them with you. They learned from therapy to overcome their sense of shame, so they regale us with their emotions and do not know that they look like perfect fools.

    Curiously, they believe that acting unhinged is a powerful argument against a president that they consider to be unhinged. Their protestations, their sound and fury, must ring hollow.

    Never doubt that they love democracy. They love it so much that they refuse to accept the outcome of the recent presidential election. They are hard at work, as we speak, trying to delegitimize the Trump victory. If they could overturn the results they would. Instead they prefer resisting Trump, making it impossible for him to govern. They say they are defending democracy from perfidious Russians, but they are undermining democracy by their own refusal to accept the election results.

    I add these points to those made by Victor Davis Hanson in his recent column about the failure of America’s elites.

    Hanson explains that people who are supposedly the best and the brightest have been trafficking in patent absurdities and outright stupidities. The Times’s superannuated foreign affairs columnist, Tom Friedman recently suggested that Trump’s election should be counted among the great catastrophes in American history, like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. As I have occasionally mentioned, the only Friedman I now read is George.

    Not to be outdone in the race to the intellectual bottom, the New Republic, which used to be a respected journal of liberal opinion, opined that Donald Trump must be suffering from neurosyphilis. Now, that explains why Hillary lost.

    These intellectual elites seem to be hell bent on discrediting themselves, on showing us that they are neither the best nor the brightest. Hanson argues that no one should be surprised that the American people revolted against their guardians by electing Donald Trump. The behavior of the elites explains why Trump won.

    Hanson lists some of the greatest hits of our intellectual guardians and overlords. He begins with this:

    In California, state planners and legislators focused on things such as outlawing plastic grocery bags while California’s roads and dams over three decades sank into decrepitude. The result is crumbling infrastructure that now threatens the very safety of the public.

    Beyond the fact that the elites assured us that Hillary Clinton was a lock for the presidency, they also presented us with this spectacle:

    Rhodes Scholar and former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice lied repeatedly on national television about the Benghazi debacle.

    Let us be clear, yet again. No one in the mainstream media cared that Rice had lied. No one asked who had put her up to it. Our self-appointed protectors in the press uttered not a peep about it. Now, of course, they are lecturing us about their love of facts. As I have often pointed out, they have no interest and have never had any interest in any facts beyond those that advance their narrative.

    Hanson muses about that these members of the elite become elite because they possess the proper credentials. That would be, academic credentials. But, given the state of today’s American academy, they have not earned their status. They have had their status conferred by academic institutions that are, dare we mention, hotbeds of brainwashing and indoctrination. The name of Middlebury College comes to mind today, but another famed institution of lower learning will pop into the headlines tomorrow.


    1. And, let’s not forget that these institutions are laboratories for diversity. How is that working out?

      Hanson answers:

      Elitism sometimes seems predicated on being branded with the proper degrees. But when universities embrace a therapeutic curriculum and politically correct indoctrination, how can a costly university degree guarantee knowledge or inductive thinking?

      Is elitism defined by an array of brilliant and proven theories?

      Not really. University-sired identity politics has not led to racial and ethnic harmony. Is there free speech or diversity of thought on campuses? Did progressive government save the inner cities?
      All things considered, the people who graduate from these institutions with the most laurels and encomia have often not earned them. Unless they are studying STEM subjects they have been granted their degrees, not so much because of their achievement, but because of their mastery of the dogmas of political correctness.

      American universities no longer reward merit. They do not believe in hard work. They believe that reality is what they say it is, and that they can change it by speaking differently.

      The problem is that the American people, in their wisdom, are no longer willing to play along. Won’t get fooled again.

      Hanson continues:

      The public no longer believes that privilege and influence should be predicated on titles, brands, and buzz, rather than on demonstrable knowledge and proven character. The idea that brilliance can be manifested in trade skills or retail sales, or courage expressed by dealing with the hardship of factory work, or character found on an Indiana farm, is foreign to the Washington Beltway, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley.

      Instead, 21st-century repute is accrued from the false gods of the right zip code, high income, proper social circles, and media exposure, rather than from a demonstrable record of moral or intellectual excellence.

      Nothing is quite as painful as being exposed as an imposter. No one revels in being revealed to be a fraud. Those members of the intellectual elite who are unworthy of their academic credentials and who have accomplished little in their careers, are seriously unhappy about facing the fact that their titles and their glory were a fiction, were what the bard called “an insubstantial pageant” that was destined to fade away. Don't think that they will go down without a fight. Alas, they have finally found something worth fighting for.

    2. Is this Hal Phillip Walker? I voted Replacement Party in '76.

    3. Dig it, Uncle Kirky, dig it!

    4. Devastating ending. Freaked me out when I first saw it.

      Question: Is Robert Altman a top 10 director of all time? I think a case could be made.

      1) Unique- no other director's films "look" like Altman's.

      2) Longevity- long career, and got better with every film.

      3) Courageous- Tried anything. Not always successful, but not afraid.

      4) Great films- at least ten of his films could be considered among the top 100 movies of all time. MASH, Nashville, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, The Player, Shortcuts, Thieves Like Us, California Split, Gosford Park, Prairie Home Companion, and The Long Goodbye.

  25. It's a cliche but this thread does seem to prove John Simon's point.
    Here we have an endless parade of Trump supporters (most one would
    assume, have never read a word of John Simon) who got a call to come
    over to his website and behave as rudely as possible. At some level
    Trumps presidency is the effect of the slobs trumping against the slobs,
    the Animal House taking over the College.
    We are now facing the sad situation of inmates being unable to fill out
    the forms to keep the lights on at the Asylum.
    John Simon was always quite capable of calling out stupidity or
    shallowness on the liberal side. He was always responsive to art that
    challenged us on the bedeviling truths of life. Such things are way past
    the Trump supporting fools who pissed all over this thread.

      "Donald Trump is a stupid man's idea of a smart man, a poor man's
      idea of a rich man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man."

    2. So... do you agree with Merkel, Hillary, and Simon that Hungary that should be forced to open its borders to tons of black Africans and Muslims?

      Were Europeans wrong over the millennium to defend their own continent from African and Muslim invaders?

      I guess all of you are globalists. You feign sophistication and erudition BUT your prescription for Western Civilization is to be flooded by tons of Africans and Muslims who made hellholes of their own nations.
      Also, have you seen globalist culture? It's all rap, Hollywood, and trash like GIRLS with Lena Dunham and Miley Cyrus. You support that as what you're about?

    3. Hiskips, take your racist hiccups elsewhere.

    4. Right, 'racist' bad. What we must welcome is Europe being flooded with Africans and Muslims because... uh... being 'racist' is bad.

      What is being 'racist'? It means white Europeans wanting to preserve their ethnicity and culture in their own homeland. What evil!!

      Of course, Jews say all whites must support Israel as a Jewish state that ONLY allows Jewish immigration. But white European nations? They must be flooded with non-whites. If you protest, you are 'racist'.

      Hey, if 'racist' means white Europeans saving their own nations, I'm all for it.

      You can take your anti-racism and shove it up your ass.

  26. It's good to know that Hillary-and-Bernie supporters are so sane and nice, unlike those Nazi supporters of Trump who eat babies and worship satan.

    Ah, sane and wonderful Proglodytes:


    This is what I call sanity:


    'Racists' and Nazis want to keep Sweden European, the nation that produced Ingmar Bergman and Jan Troell.

    But Hillary, Merkel, Obama, and Simon can't stand all that whiteness. They want Sweden to stop producing artists like Bergman and Troell and instead give us rap music and jungle culture.

    Stop bitching about crime. Welcome diversity.


    Who needs artists like Ingmar Bergman when the future of Sweden can be like this?


    According to globalism, white men are inferior wussy cucks who don't deserve their own women who should all go jungle-fever and mate with superior black men with bigger dongs.

    Simon is for that too as he's for globalism and invasion of Europe by Africans and Muslims.
    And if you disagree, you are a 'racist'. White men must accept their inferiority and hand over white women to superior negro studs.


  27. Is there a superior race? What would be the best way to assess such being?

    One possibility: the women decide, at least in our open and libertine world of free movement and choices.

    Before anything is possible, race must exist. Without existence, one is nothing. So, existence is the foundation of superiority because 'something' is superior to 'nothing', or what exists have superiority over what doesn't.
    Everything exists because it came into being. It didn't always exist. So, if conditions favor the coming-into-being or the birthing of something, then it has superiority or priority over what failed to come into being.

    So, race and racial identity depend largely on whom women choose to have babies with. That decides which men will spread most of their seeds and genes. Men who are not accepted by women cannot spread their seeds and genes. Deemed inferior as mates, their genetic codes will not pass down.

    At the basic animal-sexual level, what are women most attracted to? Muscle, height, penis size, and musicality.
    On this basic animalist basis, globalist formula is as follows: black men > white men > yellow men.

    And stats bear this out, even though some white guys are in denial because they feel ashamed to admit sexual defeat. In the past, women had far less freedom and were sexually restrained.
    So, there was less animalist factor in sexual behavior. Things were more moral and restrictive. Women had to maintain their reputation as 'good women'.
    Also, most women found one man and married him and had sex only with him. That was part of being a 'good ho' than a 'bad ho'.
    Also, as men had most of the jobs, women relied on men for support.
    Today, women are employed more extensively than men, and they can support themselves. Some choose to marry, but many just spend money on self-pleasure, and that means having loose sex with lots of men. Some become single-mothers with men who don't hang around.
    There was a time when candid talk of sex was deemed uncouth and vulgar among women. Today, young girls are raised on GIRLS(Dunham), SEX AND CITY, VAGINA MONOLOGUE, porny music videos(of Miley Cyrus), and lewd standup comedy. Women now openly talk about female genitalia, male genitalia, and even bungholes. And women brag about their 'conquests' like men do.

    Today, women are free to choose, allowed to be sexually uninhibited, and to have sex with lotsa men. In the past, Italian-American fathers would have thought it an infamia for their girls to act like hookers. But today, men of all races raise their girls to turn to sex at early age and go to springbreak and have orgy-porgies. Indeed, any father who says such thing is wrong and that he didn't raise his girl to be an offering to Mammon is seen as 'patriarchal' and Corleonic.


    So, animal drives come into play, and women are most turned on by height, muscle, musicality, and dong.
    So, from an animal-instinct viewpoint, black men are superior to white men who are superior to Asian men because women deem black men more manly than white men and deem white men more manly than Asian men.
    And, we have more and more white women(raised on rap music, black dominated sports from high school to pros, interracial porn, etc) going black and using their wombs to create babies for black men.
    And we have near-majority of Asian women in America rejecting Asian men as inferior and choosing to have 'white kids' with white men(or with other men). So, women decide which race is superior in our libertine globalized world. Everything else is academic.

    1. In many cases, Asian women prefer to have kids with white men, or even with black men who don't stick around than with Asian men who are willing to stick around. Asian women would rather be a single mother with children of 'superior man' than a married woman stuck with an inferior man who is 'nice'.

      Black men colonize white wombs, brown wombs, and yellow wombs. Plenty of white women are now single mothers with black babies. With millions of Africans arriving in EU, you can guess what the result will be. Massive Afro-colonization of white wombs. Black males whupping and 'pussifying' white males, rap music culture, interracial propaganda, 'anti-racism', cuckery as virtue for white males, promotion of blacks in education, homo-izing white men(even straight ones), and etc will all lead to massive colonization of white wombs by black men who are seen as superior by white women at the base-animal-level. Sexuality is animal drive, not an intellectual drive. It's like, if there is a nice decent homely smart girl with modest body and a dumbass nasty bimbo with big boobs and bouncy booty, many guys(even smart educated ones) will go with the latter. His moral sense may say the nice homely smart girl is superior, but his animal drive says the bodacious bimbo ho is the superior mate. It's like that Leonard Cohen song about how his woman got seduced away by some 'gypsy thief'.


      In past societies where all people were within local & closed societies, the women only knew local men and didn't see them as inferior or superior. They were the only men they knew. But, modern women in globalized world compare their men with other men around the world(seen in movies, TV, sports, music, etc), and they may feel that their own men are 'losers'.
      Today, white, Mexican, Muslim, Jewish, and Asian boys are so desperate to be 'cool' that some imitate blacks or hang around blacks to prove they got 'street credit'. Blacks laugh at such 'puss-ass' behavior, but globo-boys pursue their transracial fantasy. Look at Shaun King. Maybe he is part black or maybe not, but he wants to be black than white cuz he sees blackness as 'cool', whiteness as 'lame'.
      A black guy doesn't have to associate himself with white, asian, or mexican to be 'badass', but globo-boys or globoys feel a need to git down and hang loose to be cool.

      Race is a sexual product. A white person is the product of white woman choosing to have kid with white man. If she prefers black man, then she will produce a black baby from her white womb that will be colonized by black sperm.
      If you are white, You are white because your white mother chose a white man. But if she'd gone black, her white womb would have spawned a black kid. Even white women who do marry white and have white kids believe there would have been nothing wrong if they'd chosen to have black kids. They have no sense of racial loyalty. So, your white mother feels she could have gone black and that would have been just fine.
      White women having black babies are increasing because whites worship blacks in sports, music, and sex. Whites admire black race as the superior race when it comes to sex, and THAT is crucial because all life is created by sex, or one's father humping one's mother.
      And since Asian men are seen as inferior, Asian women reject them and use their yellow wombs to create 'white'babies for white men. If Amy Chua's mama had grown up in the US, she would have likely gone with some Jewish or white guy too.

      So, which is the superior race? Before all else, a person of certain race must exist in the first place, and that means he must be born. And that means some guy has to fuck some woman. Existence trumps all and is the foundation of superiority.

    2. Indeed, existence is the first foundation of superiority. No matter how much a man claims to be superior, if a woman rejects him and chooses another man to have kids with, the OTHER man's sperm will have superiority. (For example, based on IQ scores, it can be claimed that Asian men are superior to all races except Jews/whites. After all, East Asian IQ is higher than that of blacks. But being sexually inferior in a world where Asian women now have free sexual choice, the claim of East Asian racial superiority based on geek IQ becomes irrelevant since women want non-Asian men to impregnate them.
      Asian men may be superior geeks, but women with 'liberated' and 'sexually-revolutionized' animal drives prefer studs, not duds. So, even as Asian geeks may be superior in science and math, they fail at the fundamental level of reproduction. They can multiply numbers but can't multiply genes through reproduction. Biologically, they are all about subtraction of their genes that women don't want.

      In the end, the men who spread most sperm is the superior from evolutionary vantage point. And current social setup of female choice and libertine sexuality favors black men over white men and white men over Asian men. Because Asian men are seen as dorks, they must make lots of money to attract women, and some Asian boys work hard to make money.

      All people are born through women. So, in a free and animalized society, superiority is judged by the raw sexual drives and sexual choices of women. Women watch stuff like SEX AND THE CITY where women are explicit about what they want in bed. Though it's not racially spelled out, it means the Modern Globalized women will admire the Joe Bucks of the world most since Pop Culture tropes go that way. Some may blame Liberal Hollywood for such stereotypes, but most stereotypes have some basis in fact.

      As the entire world becomes globalized by increased travel, internet, and mass immigration and emigration, men and women around the world are discovering they have divergent sexual values. Black men have higher value than black women, and Asian women have higher value than Asian men. And winners want to be with winners.

      White men will increasingly lose to black men(who are arriving by the millions to Europe to white women addicted to rap culture and jungle fever) and Asian men will lose to white and black men because Asian women, once given a globalist choice, prefer non-Asian men as superior to inferior Asian men who are seen as dorks. Globalism offers more freedom and choice to everyone but confers differs desirability to each group and each person. So, sexual freedom for blacks means that both black men and black women can hump anyone. But whereas black men are wanted by many, black women aren't wanted by many. Sex is different consumerism. Anyone with money can buy anything. But with sex, the other side has to agree. Any black woman with money can buy any TV. But is she wants some man, he has to say yes. And most men don't say yes to Thelma Jackson who be saying, "I's wants my man."

    3. For most of human history, women didn't have a choice. Also, they were expected to be faithful to one man for entire life. Even most men didn't have choice since many marriages were arranged by parents. Also, prior to imperialism and globalism, most races lived in separation from others.
      But now, at least in modern parts of the world, women get to choose the men. And they have a wide choice from all races since all societies are getting filled with diversity.

      And we see more and more white women not getting married and just having lots of loose sex. In colleges, many white girls got jungle fever for black athletes(who are worshiped as heroes by cucky white boys). Indeed, college coaches and recruiters attract black athletes with the lure of jungle-fever-mad white girls.

      All this globalism is done in the name of equality and 'anti-racism', but the result is totally about sexual inequality among races and the racial-sexual superiority of some men over others.

      So, what is the superior race? In today's globalized world where women have the freedom the choose, racial superiority is determined by whose seeds women choose to take. Each year, black seeds impregnates not only black wombs but white and yellow wombs. White men lose out to black men but spread their seeds to yellow wombs. So, by women's sexual choice, Asian males become most inferior race. Asian dorks may win math prizes, but their test papers don't create new life. They can only create new life through women.

      Now, we can be PC and say all races are equal or 'race is just a social construct', but the fact is women NOTICE race. And they choose based on race. And that means race is, above all, a sexual product.

    4. I can't read this all, 'cause I'm rather in a hurry---
      But some of it makes sense to me (being a fan of Charles Murray).

  28. http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/u-michigan-student-admits-slashing-her-own-face-in-hate-crime-hoax/

    Effect of PC. Reality Denial and Narrative Conjuring.

    Reality is blacks commit lots of violence. But PC narrative sanctifies blacks as MLK people. So, black violence is disappeared by under-reporting, false reporting(violent riots called 'peaceful protests), or semantic tricks('youths' or 'tens' done it). Reality Denial.

    But denying reality isn't enough. Just like UFO nuts are desperate to bear witness to UFO's and just like paranormal people want to believe they've sensed the presence of ghosts, Paranormal Politics or Parapolitics must have 'evidence' or 'witness' or 'revelation' of White Ghosts since PC says whites possess evil spirits.

    It's like if you tell people there is Bigfoot, many people mistake anything for bigfoot and day they saw it too.

    Or, to gain attention, affection, and approval of the Big Foot community, you tell a tall tale of how YOU saw one too. These tall tales are esp appealing to those who want attention but don't get any. What better way to win affection than by serving as prop for the narrative. If the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, the way to the Current Culture's radar is through hysteria. The (Jackie)Coakley Coax or Coax Hoax.



    Every society has its taboos and sacraments and myths. And those who seek approval and attention within that community conjure fantasies or visions in accordance to the Narrative. So, in Catholic societies of old, people claimed to have witnessed Jesus or the Madonna.

    In Muslim societies, people claim to see Muslim miracles.

    Even though secular people are thought 'factual' or 'rational', they too have human psychology that is essentially mytho-conformist. or conformystic. And PC is neo-religion or neoligion. It has its own Conjurers.

    Under current PC, some people say they saw something they didn't. Some say they are guilty of what they didn't do. Since PC hegemony is about White Evil, all these sightings and confessions revolve around white hatred. Narrative Confomism and Narrative Affirmation. Just like people must keep donating money to 'good causes' or charities, they feel they must donate stories to the Cause to keep its fires going since dearth of stories will weaken the fire. After all, what use is a UFO cult is people no longer say they saw UFO's? What use religion if people no longer believe in miracles? Just like Hollywood can't go on without new movies, the Narrative needs new stories to keep it justified. This is why blacks and progs still act as if KKK is going around lynching blacks. Without new stories, the Narrative will just be an old story that is no longer relevant. Viable Narratives need Malevolence Relevance. (Some whites like to confess to stuff they didn't do. White Atonement makes them feel holy. It's like some guy in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT confesses to a crime he didn't commit because Christian morality is about repentance.)


    1. PC has the logic of the Horror Genre. It is best understood as a form of paranormal pseudo-science.



      Gayday is passe. Now, the thing is KKK-dar.

      If you have 30 children in an outing in a park, and if you tell them a magical pink bunny runs around the forest and tell the kids to look for the bunny, what will happen? Of course there is no pink magic bunny. So, no kid really saw it.

      But of the 30 kids,10 will say they saw it. Or they think they saw it because they were so eager to see it. So, they mistook anything for the pink bunny.
      Another 10 will say they think may have seen it.
      The remaining 10 know for sure they didn't see it.
      Now, if you, as the adult figure of authority, praise the 10 kids who didn't see it as the smart honest ones, the other 20 will feel embarrassed as having fallen for a prank pulled by the adult as cautionary lesson. They will learn to be more cautious about seeing and believing.

      But if you, as the adult figure of authority, give most praise to those who claim to have seen it and give some praise to those who think they saw it but then mock & dismiss those who say they saw nothing, then even the ones who know for sure they didn't see anything will feel compelled to change their stories and say, gee, maybe they did see something. And a clever one might cook up a detailed story about how he saw the bunny do all sorts of magical stuff to get extra attention and affection with the approved narrative.

      It's more a lesson in phenomenology than ontology.

  29. Hillary wanted to be the Merkel of America.

    Merkel's character? Read all about it.


    So, it is preferable to lose one’s nation than lose one’s face by being labeled a ‘nazi’ and ‘racist’.

    These ‘leaders’ are such vain gutless snakes.

    Simon's main priority isn't to save Western Civilization. It is to be invited to cocktail parties by globalist supremacists.

    Simon is for Merkel and Hillary. He is opposed to Trump and Le pen who opposes the Afro-islamization of Europe.