In today’s world it’s as though gentile white people are Reverse-Kafkaesque characters. In Franz Kafka’s famous novel THE TRIAL, Joseph K is accused of a crime, misdeed, or something, but he is kept in the dark as to the nature of his transgression. Thus, paradoxically, he feels, at once, innocent of everything and guilty of everything. He racks his mind over what he might have done wrong but can’t recall anything that might constitute criminality. Yet, given the hidden desires within each individual’s psyche and the various infractions of daily life(that we take for granted as ‘normal’), he frets he might indeed have done something wrong; worse, he feels as though higher authorities or powers—be they political, legal, spiritual, etc—are privy to the secret compartments of his soul, perhaps knowing what he keeps hidden or what remains unknown even to himself. (A person may be unaware of his/her own smell while others detect it quite noticeably.) Politically or legally, K may not have done anything wrong. But THE TRIAL unfolds in a zone somewhere between mundane reality and dream logic; the barrier between physical and psychological realms seems porous. There is also the question of whether Joseph K is being accused of what he IS than what he may done, an aspect that became more relevant with the rise of radical antisemitism, most disturbingly exemplified by Nazism, which targeted even patriotic German Jews as enemies of the state.
Given the rapidly shifting reality of Jewish existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it’s hardly surprising that Kafka’s stories are infected with ambiguities and anxieties. Even though or precisely because Jews achieved great progress during this period, there was an increasing sense of unease and uncertainty(later reiterated in Bob Dylan’s “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” in the sixties, another period of social/cultural turmoil marked by great hopes and dark fears.) In earlier times, Jews had a clearer sense of their identity, an elemental sense of ‘us versus them’. They were Jews, the Chosen People, and non-Jews were filthy goyim. Though various forms of discrimination against Jews had been the norm, they also had the advantage of clearly informing Jews of who they were and what was and wasn’t allowed in relation to the larger goy world. Life may have been highly restricted for many Jews, but at least most Jews had their feet planted in fixed reality with fixed rules. Even when violence against Jews erupted, Jews understood the dynamic of the hostility: filthy goyim were calling Jews ‘Christ-killers’ and ‘leeches’. Hatred and hostility may be unpleasant, but they have a way of clarifying issues. (Things were a lot simpler to both Christians and Jews when their relationship was defined by mutual hatred. What was good for Christians were often not good for Jews, and vice versa. But consider all the problems resulting from Christians—especially white conservatives—pretending that Jews and Christians share same values, agendas, and loyalties. The likes of Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich can pander to Jews all they want, but the fact is most Jews remain the enemies of the white race. Similarly, the alliance of United States and China may produce more headaches than mutual hostility between the two nations.) But with the Emancipation of Jews in many parts of Europe in the 19th century and rapid progress made by the Jewish community, things seemed to be getting both better and more troublesome for Jews—and gentiles. Better in the sense that Jews could attend colleges, expand business opportunities, and even win appointments to government positions. More troublesome in that the world seemed to have slipped into and stalled in a limbo phase between the old and new. Old forms of anti-Jewish discrimination were fading but still present, sometimes in subtle ways. Passing of the old also meant Jews being cut off from their cultural roots that had given them so much meaning for thousands of years. The loss of the old was both liberating and alienating to Jews. The coming of the new promised greater freedom and opportunities for Jews. Yet, Jews also feared assimilation(and extinction)into a newly welcoming and tolerant goy society. Also, with the rise of mass politics with increasing demands for democracy and with advances in the science of race, the new order turn out to be even more dangerous to Jews than the old ever had been. If the ‘antisemitic’ masses had been held in check by aristocrats(dependent on Jewish skills in business)in the old order, the rise of People Power meant that the elites had to pander to populist passions. Given that most goyim tended to be less wealthy and influential than the ascendant class of Jews, mass goy resentment(that could be exploited by demagogues and radicals)was inevitable and indeed all too common. Also, the new science of race could create a wall of separation between goyim and Jews far more fundamental than earlier ones. In the old order, a Jew could convert to Christianity and fully assimilate into Christian society. But, what if Jews were seen as a race? What if Jewish personality, social, and economic traits were seen as biological than merely cultural? The most radical form of this view was Nazism, which tried to eradicate Jews as a racial category.
On the other hand, the science of race could not have been lost on Jews either. Though the rise of right-wing ‘racism’ drove most Jewish intellectuals toward ‘anti-racism’, many Jewish thinkers had been interested in the field of racial sciences prior to its being hijacked by white and ‘Aryan’ supremacist types. Once racial science became politicized and owned by radical right nutjobs, Jews believed they had no choice but to adopt ‘anti-racism’ and politicize it to their own advantage.
Anyway, the world that Kafka knew was like a baby half-inside and half-outside the womb. The worlds of THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE seem both traditional/reactionary and modern/futuristic. They also seem both free and authoritarian. In both novels, the main character often moves about freely, makes easy contact all sorts of people, is protected by or guaranteed of all sorts of rights. But, there is also an overwhelming sense of forbidden places and prohibited knowledge; and of privacies, physical and psychological, being spied upon(though, to be sure, the main characters also seem to be, wittingly or unwittingly, willingly or unwillingly, guiltily or innocently, spying into the realm of hidden power). There are known rules and unknown rules. One is allowed to navigate through spaces with known rules, but one needs to acquire unknown rules to gain access to forbidden spaces. Sometimes, one trespasses into certain spaces without knowing; or perhaps one trespasses knowing only subconsciously, thus being consciously innocent while being ‘guilty’ in a deeper sense. From this angle, the theme of THE TRIAL can be said to be essentially psychological: the conflict between conscious rules and unconscious desires.
The thematic permutations of THE TRIAL are almost infinite, making it one of the richest works in literature. (There is also, of course, the biographical aspect of the novel. Kafka was socially awkward; he could also never resolve the tensions between himself and his father. He was also sickly, and his stories could serve as medical metaphors, and indeed, Kobo Abe, the famous Japanese novelist steeped in Kafka, transposed Kafkaesque themes to medical environments in FACE OF ANOTHER and SECRET RENDEZVOUS.) On so many levels, Kafka felt as an outsider, outcast, and exile. He felt oppressed by his father, felt insecure as a writer, was dogged by health issues, couldn’t find romantic fulfillment(maybe he was a closet-homo), etc. His cultural identity was the product of convergences among German, Hungarian, Czech, Jewish, and other strains. He was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a multi-ethnic melting pot on the verge of a melt down, especially with the new mass politics of nationalism. Thus, he was everything and nothing. He was more than a Jew, but some people saw him as just a Jew, while some Jews saw nothing Jewish about him. He wrote in German but stood outside mainstream German culture.
In the new order, the individual of all stripes had the freedom to move in any direction yet also felt pushed from all directions. Everything that seemed to liberate also seemed to imprison. Freud’s theories could lead to greater understanding of the mind, but they also meant scientists could probe our hidden souls—called ‘subconscious’—to cure various ‘neuroses’. What was once thought to be normal was called ‘repressed’ and ‘mentally ill’, and what was once deemed ‘sick’ was redefined as ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’. The rise of the modern state ensured a more rationally and efficiently managed government, but the machine-like bureaucracy could become labyrinthine and its immense powers could crush the individual. And the new system was built atop the old system, thereby entangling ancient superstitions and customs with modern conceits and methods. Liberation of man from religious superstition could be replaced by the new religion of the law, with rules so complicated and dense that even an army of lawyers couldn’t resolve issues in their lifetimes. One could be freed of the shackles of tribal loyalties, obligations, and hatreds, but there was no guarantee that everyone would do the same; and if everyone did, the world would be filled with rootless individuals alienated in a world of signs and laws monopolized by the ‘system’ whose workings were beyond the understanding of anyone.
Anyway, relevant to the problem facing the white race is the dilemma of Joseph K in THE TRIAL. In the story, K wakes up one morning and finds strangers in his apartment. He soon learns the men are low-level authorities sent to inform him of a pending trial. They do not tell K what he’s accused of, and indeed they don’t know anymore than K does. Also in K’s apartment are his colleagues from work, brought along by the authorities and found by K to be rummaging through his photos. It’s as if the wall between private and public has dissolved, no less than the wall between reality and dreamworld. As K goes about to prove his innocence—for what he has no idea—, he finds the law both with him and against him; sometimes, he doesn’t know when it is with him or against him. At one point, he finds one of the petty officials being cruelly punished by his superior for having stolen items from K’s apartment. On this occasion, justice seems to be on K’s side, but the ‘justice’ seems crude and primitive, like whipping a slave in the ancient world. Throughout the story, K is told that law protects him in so many ways, but the law also accuses him in so many ways, none of them very clear. Sometimes, his very effort to clear his name sinks him deeper into the legal quicksand. Each right move also turns out to be a wrong move, depending on the circumstance and advice. As the story progresses, the initially psycho-legal dimensions of his problem take on social, political, historical, and religious dimensions. There is no way out. When he enters a church, the lecture he receives from a priest is just a spiritual counterpart to his legal problems.
Though it would be wrong to read THE TRIAL only as an allegory of the Jewish experience of modernity, Kafka’s ethnicity undoubtedly serves as the keystone. Kafka, being a member of the most ancient of races and the most modern of peoples(also the most rootless—geographically and economically—and the most rooted—historically and spiritually), felt more acutely than goyim the strange duality of the modern world. In some ways, the novel is like a sci-fi version of the Book of Job, and its ending evokes Abram’s near-sacrifice of Isaac. If Isaac is spared, K is not. Was there no God to order a stop to the killing? Or did God, in the new order, demand the sacrifice of K? Or is the state the new god? Or, was it all just a bureaucratic mess-up leading to a wrongful execution, or was the murder carried out to cover up bureaucratic incompetence?
Given the uneasy status of the Jew in the early part of the 20th century, we can understand the unease, anxiety, and vulnerability that characterize Kafka’s works. Some commentators observed that the fate of the main character in METAMORPHOSIS prefigured the Holocaust. And Orson Welles, who directed the movie version of THE TRIAL, changed the ending in consideration of the Holocaust.
Anyway, that was then, and this is now. Joseph K, once a potent symbol of Jewish fear and anxiety, does not exemplify the current Jewish situation, life, and power. If Joseph K of THE TRIAL feels hunted/haunted by hostile forces and if K of THE CASTLE feels as the perennial outsider, Jews today control the innermost sanctums of power, from where they also control the economy, government, science, technology, culture, academia, laws & courts, media, and etc. By formulating ‘new ideas’ and controlling the channels of information, Jews also do the thinking for us. With the power to mold our minds, Jews have effectively infiltrated our minds. We wake up with Jewish-controlled values, we live with Jewish-devised images and signs, and we go to bed with Jewish-ordered values. If the character of METAMORPHOSIS wakes up as a bug and if K of THE TRIAL wakes up ‘guilty’, we are stalked by Jewish power at all places and all times. Not only did Freud interpret our dreams but our dreams are shaped reality controlled by Jews.
The odd thing about THE TRIAL is the character Joseph K, though seemingly passive and ‘victimized’ by bigger forces, is something of a passive-aggressive figure. Indeed, he may less be a passive victim targeted by powerful forces than someone who obsesses about powerful forces precisely because he is, if only subconsciously, obsessed with (gaining access to)power. Though ostensibly he seems to pursue all avenues of justice to clear his name(to be left alone), HE could be the aggressive party discontent with his lot in life. He could partly be projecting onto the system the desire for power he senses but represses in himself. (Similarly, in the movie ANGEL HEART, the private eye pursues a killer who turns out to be himself.) It’s like someone who secretly or subconsciously desires to be like God but consciously denies it as it would be blasphemous. Thus, he tries to clear his name before God, but what if God knows his true heart? What if God knows the God-complex repressed in the man’s heart? Thus, there may be two meanings of guilt in THE TRIAL. On the one hand, a totally innocent man, Joseph K, has been opaquely accused of a crime or transgression. On the other hand, Joseph K genuinely feels ‘guilty’ in some part of his soul because he wants access to the innermost sanctums of power. From this perspective, Joseph K is very much like K in THE CASTLE. K of THE CASTLE is not accused of any crime. He is a land surveyor just doing his work, but his work requires him to go deeper inside the Castle, but the Castle prohibits his entry. On the surface, it seems as though K is being toyed with by powers-beyond-understanding or powers-behind-the-wall. Yet, K subconsciously may want to enter the Castle to gain access to the source of power. Thus, K plays innocent but really isn’t.
This aspect of K’s existence can be found in modern Jewish history. According to the official Jewish narrative, Jews are simply good decent people trying to get along, minding their own business, and conscientiously doing their work, BUT dark hostile goy forces are out to accuse, condemn, persecute, and even murder the Jew. And though Jews are innocent, goyim project wild fantasies onto the Jew so that the Jew becomes emblematic of everything that is contrary to the values and interests of goyim. It’s not difficult to understand why such narrative would be appealing and useful to Jews. But when we probe into the hearts and minds of Jews in the 19th and 20th century, can we say Jews were merely well-meaning and hardworking people who were scapegoated and witch-hunted by gentiles? Didn’t Jews harbor a powerful ‘will to power’, will to control, will to take over, and will to own the less intelligent goyim? Some Jews may have known this consciously but kept it hidden while other Jews may have felt it in their hearts but repressed it into the subconscious. Thus, there could be more going on in Kafka stories than people generally make out. Joseph K of THE TRIAL could actually be a far more aggressive figure than he may appear. He may feel ‘accused’ because deep within his heart he knows he is ‘guilty’—of wanting to gain the power. (In the 90s there was a trial involving David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt. I sided with Lipstadt for the simple reason that I thought Irving had no right to sue someone for concluding that he’s Holocaust Denier—not least because he’s been one for some time. I’m for the right of people to deny the Holocaust and to call someone a ‘Denier’. Thus, Lipstadt seemed like the hapless Joseph-K-like figure bullied by Irving the powerful thug with thin skin. So, when Irving lost the case, I thought he got what he deserved. But as with the dual nature of Joseph K, it turns out there was much more to the story. Lipstadt, far from being an ‘innocent’ Jewish scholar bullied by a ‘hater’, was a powerful Jewish supremacist who had used the ‘Holocaust Denier’ charge to force publishers to cancel their contracts with Irving. Thus, her calling Irving a ‘Denier’ wasn’t just a personal opinion or academic viewpoint but a weapon of Jewish Supremacist political correctness to deny certain individuals from voicing their views. Though Irving is a loathsome character in many ways, he’s long been an important historian of certain aspects of National Socialism. Thus, effectively banning his books was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater—though to be sure, the bathwater in this case really reeks. Anyway, the point is Lipstadt, with the full aid of the Jewish-controlled media and British courts, played the innocent victim when, in fact, she was an influential Jewess seeking to silence ‘controversial’ views in the service of Jewish Power than an ‘innocent victim’. She was no less foul and disgusting than Irving. Jewish control of finance, law, and courts is also the reason why Solzhenitsyn’s book on Russians and Jews has still not found a major publisher in the United States. Even publishers who would like to release the book refuse to do so out of fear of repercussions from Jewish banks, media, and lawyers. They will be morally and financially blackmailed.) Kafka himself was a complex person. Outwardly, he seemed like a shy, awkward, and passive figure. But his obsessive stories betray a darker side. Politically, he was very much a Jewish radical. His stories are like espionage tales. What do spies do but pretend that they’re innocent in the nation they’re operating, all the while trying to access the innermost secrets of the system? Jews have long operated as spies, literally and metaphorically. They are the most ruthless seekers of power but also the biggest declarers of innocence. This dual aspect of Jewishness was evident in the 40s and 50s when a whole lot of Jews were involved in communist infiltration and espionage—culminating in the transference of atomic secrets to the USSR—, yet the Jewish community claimed absolute innocence—indeed, not only claimed innocence but accused the accusers of the guilt of accusing Jews of guilt. For a long time, many American Jews insisted that the Rosenbergs were innocents railroaded by ‘paranoid’ forces in American politics. Even when declassified documents proved beyond any doubt that Rosenbergs and other Jews were guilty of espionage, the myth of Jewish innocence and martyrdom during the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’ has defined much of American historiography—now controlled by Jews. Plays like ANGELS IN AMERICA by Tony Kushner will have us believe that Ethel Rosenberg was some kind of saint while Roy Cohn was especially evil because he sided with ‘paranoid’ forces against his own kind; actually, he was a double-traitor for he was a gay guy who opposed the gay agenda. Today, everyone in the know knows what really happened in the 40s and 50s. While it’s true that HUAC and McCarthy exploited anti-communist fears, there really was an extensive network of communists and communist sympathizers—many of them Jewish—operating in America for the Soviet Union and interests of subversive radicalism. Yet, this truth hasn’t been mythologized for public consumption; instead, the main mythic narrative on the history of American anti-communism concerns the ‘innocent and heroic martyrdom’ of decent and idealistic Jewish ‘progressives’ at the hands of ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’; it’s nice decent hapless Jews crushed by bullying thug McCarthy. (Saul Alinsky’s RULES OF RADICALS is, in a way, Kafka-ism turned into political theory. Alinsky thinks radicals should work at looking nice, decent, and mainstream. They should act like they don’t care about power or don’t have much of an agenda—like the seemingly hapless K character in THE CASTLE—, all the while working to gain access into the inner sanctums of power, wherein to gnaw away at all structures of white gentile power. The character of METAMORPHOSIS woke up as a cockroach, but powerful Jewish elites wake up everyday as termites, and they are working fervently to gnaw away at the backbone of white power. It is the way of the Jew. In a way, they can’t help it as it comes naturally to them.) So, for most Americans, the real truth about Jewish radicalism and espionage in America gone down the memory hole. Similarly, though Jews played a very significant role in the Soviet seizure of power in Russia, the only narrative we have is “Jews as victims of the Soviet system”. Thus, most Americans think of Jews as hapless and ‘innocent’ victims of communism, Nazism, antisemitism, radical Islam—never mind the history of Zionist violence against Palestinians—, McCarthyism, etc. We are told the ONLY thing Jews ever wanted to do was work and live in harmony with rest of society(and maybe gently make the world a better place), but gentile society just wouldn’t leave the Jews alone. So, a movie like SCHINDLER’S LIST shows all these nice wonderful Jews who wouldn’t hurt a fly being murdered by psychotic Nazis. Though what the Nazis did was indeed psychotic and horrific, we’ll never understand the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust unless we take into account the foulness of Jews in the modern world. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but to understand German wrongs, we need to take a cold hard look at Jewish wrongs. But ‘guilty’ Jews act like they’re totally ‘innocent’. (The ‘innocence’ of ‘guilty’ Jews has become such a fixture in modern politics that even though American & Israeli Jews did most to put Obama in the White House, most conservatives pretend as if Jews and Israel are hapless victims of the ‘stealth Muslim’ Obama. Ironically, this is rather Kafkaesque in the sheer surrealism of its logic. Given the secular religion of Holocaustianity—that teaches people that Jews have been the Innocent People, rather like how Christianity says Jesus was the Perfect Man—, we must take it on faith that Jews are always and absolutely ‘innocent’ even when all evidence shows them to be the most ‘guilty’ of power-lust, deviousness, venality, deception, hideousness, and etc.) The Jewish Innocent-Guilt Complex can be found in figures such as Steven Pinker, David Remnik, and Cass the Ass Sunstein. In public, they act so mild and mellow, like they have no interest in such things as influence and power; oh no, all they care about is truth and doing their work with honesty and conscience. They fool so many people that most goyim must indeed be a bunch of morons. In a way, such Jews are channeling Kafka, but the difference is they are K’s on the inside(of power) than K’s on the outside. If anything, WE are hapless dupes and victims of their power and influence.
Jewish attitudes as they rose to prominence in the modern world could be summarized into three stages: (1) Don’t rock the boat (2) Chutzpah (3) steer the ship secretively. In the early stage of the rise, many Jews didn’t wanna rock the boat too hard because goyim might be alarmed. Though there was no deficit of radical Jews, they wore their radicalism as universalists than as Jews. Don’t-rock-the-boat Jews were ambitious but sought to fit into or at least appear to fit into the larger gentile society. After WWII came the chutzpah Jews, rising to fever pitch in the 60s and 70s. With the Never-Again-ism of the Holocaust, Zionist victory over Arabs in the Six Day war, and social turmoil of the 60s and 70s, Jews felt the sudden rush of chutzpah; whole bunch of them barked like Lenny Bruce and swung their schlongs like porn ‘actors’. Bob Dylan and Alan Dershowitz have been this kind of Jew. At this stage, though Jews were making great headway, they still hadn’t consolidated their power. But Jews who came of age later grew up in the very bosom of power. Thus, though politically liberal, their style and attitudes became more ‘conservative’ and ‘measured’; indeed, similar thing happened with gays; when homosexuality had been taboo, it took the recklessly courageous freako-homos to go out into the streets and define homo culture; but once homosexuality became tolerated and even accepted(as a sexual norm!), non-freako-homos came out of the closet and consolidated their power in a more ‘conservative’ manner; thus, if gay power in the 60s looked like Stonewall riots, gay power today looks like Tim Cook as CEO of Apple, which is now a real fruit.
The Remniks, Zuckerbergs, Brins, and Pages of the world are inner-Jews or steer-the-ship-secretively-and-carefully Jews. Such Jews don’t have to make a lot of noise and fight for power since they are born into great privilege and power. Indeed, SOCIAL NETWORK is amusing for depicting Zuckerberg as an underdog Jew up against Wasps who still presumably control Harvard! What need for chutzpah when you got the power? Of course, many Jews still have a form of chutzpah, but it’s of a quieter kind. When you hold a big stick, you don’t have to speak so loud. Jews need only whisper into the ears of George W. Bush or Obama, and goyboys will do their bidding.
Though the New Jew seems less shrill—compare the young Jew with the older Jew in Woody Allen’s ANYTHING ELSE—, it would be foolish to think the New Jew has become conservative(in the American political sense) and moderate. If anything, they are thrilled with the power they now have and will do anything to keep it no matter how detrimental it may prove for non-Jews. Jews know that it’s to their advantage to seem powerless even though they have the power. Jews know the main threat to their power is the rise of white gentile consciousness that may consolidate as a racially united political movement. So, the New Jew, though seemingly mellower on the outside, is no less driven by will-to-power as the older generation of Jews. Since they got the power, they are energized not so much by will-to-power as by hold-the-power and grow-the-power. Steven Pinker may have the face of an angel, but he has the devil’s heart. His new book argues for the current order because Jews own it. Joseph K now owns the castle.
Perhaps no artist was as keen as to the nature of the new reality as Stanley Kubrick the great Jew. Consider what he did with THE SHINING and EYES WIDE SHUT. Though the former is based on a Stephen King novel, the spirit of the adaptation owes more to Kafka. In a key part of THE TRIAL, Joseph K meets a priest who relates a tale of a man who appears at the gate of a courthouse to receive the law; time passes and the man grows old but the gate remains shut. Near death, he asks why all through these years he was the only one who came to the gate to receive the law, whereupon the guard answers this courthouse was only meant for him. This can be interpreted in two ways. The system—be it spiritual, political, psychological, or biological—condemns each person to his own private hell; we hear of universal truth or justice, but in the end, we stand alone before a ruthless and even arbitrary power. But another interpretation is the man sought out the courthouse of his own volition to gain control of the law; he is left outside the gate but what really brought him there was his desire for power, HIS own power. Similarly, the Jack Nicholson character in THE SHINING is both victim and villain. On the one hand, we might say he is a reasonably decent man who is turned wicked by the evil spirits of the Overlook Hotel. But in another way, the Overlook Hotel could be the projection of his own drive for power and wealth. In a way, it’s as though the Overlook Hotel exists just for him to return to in infinite incarnations to claim the power as the master of the house. Ostensibly, he was hired by the hotel, but deep down inside he wants to own the hotel to the point where every dimension of the hotel, temporal and spatial, becomes a part of him and vice versa. If he is a victim, he is a victim of his own will-to-power. Though the aggressive side of K’s nature—in either Kafka novel—isn’t as blatant as Jack’s in THE SHINING, K too seems to be, at least to an extent, a victim of his own psychological desire to know and have more than he ‘should’. Paradoxically, he is a hapless victim of his own villainous desire for power.
EYES WIDE SHUT is based on the novel of the Jewish author Arthur Schnitzler. Though I haven’t read the book, I heard the two main characters, husband and wife, are recognizably Jewish. Kubrick reverses the situation in his movie where the two leads are clearly goyim, played by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. They seem to be successful and well-positioned, but they are nothing compared to the super-rich, among whom is a Jew played by Sidney Pollack. Thus, the Jew controls the inner-sanctums of power, and it is the goy who, Joseph-K-like, tries to break in.
Cruise’s character is what might be called an Akfak—simply ‘Kafka’ reversed.
In a way, all of us goyim are Afkaks. We are goy outsiders who aren’t allowed into the inner sanctums of power now controlled by Jews. Since most goyim were never on the inside(even when goy elites ruled the roost), they aren’t even aware of the power shift that took place within the Castle. Of course, the elite goyim who used to control the Castle know what happened, but they quietly moved aside to make room for the Jewish usurpers than sound the alarm. After the Holocaust and Jewish control of the media and popular culture—so influential in how people see reality—, the goy elites dared not tell the public what was really happening; the Jewish media would have denounced and defamed them as ‘antisemitic neo-Nazis’. People like Nixon and Billy Graham did discuss the problems of Jewish power in privacy, but when the secret recordings later came out, Graham got on his knees and kissed Jewish ass and sucked Jewish cock and bawled apologies like a baby. (It goes to show who holds the power in this country.)
Even in the upper echelons of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley and the GOP made way for the neocon Jews while figures such as Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran who sounded the alarm were exiled and/or silenced. Since most people are sheep, most mass conservatives went from nodding their heads to paleocons to nodding their heads to neocons. Conservatives who had been skeptical of MLK suddenly turned into worshipers of MLK. Conservatives who were skeptical of Zionism became the biggest fans of Zionism. Conservatives who’d been critical of the Jewish establishment became the biggest fans of everything Jewish.
Even so, it’s not a complete Jewish putsch. Rather, the unspoken deal between the old goy elites and new Jewish elites allowed the former would to maintain a degree of privilege and wealth as long as they accepted and went along with the Jewish agenda. (It was similar to the deal brokered between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in the 19th century. Aristocracy was on the decline relative to the rapidly ascendant bourgeoisie. In the deal, aristocrats would bestow class and status to the bourgeoisie while the bourgeoisie, even as it gained greater control of the economy and culture, would work with than against the aristocracy. Today, the declining goy elites are eager to have their children marry Jews. Wasp establishment has the cachet of prestige, Jews have the brains and money.) Thus, Buckley kept his increasingly symbolic and substantively meaningless status to his final day as neocon Jews took over the reins of the conservative movement. And people like David Rockefeller and others have their cushy positions in the NWO as long as they play along with the Jewish agenda. Clintons also have a new stake in the new order, with their daughter marrying the son of Jewish billionaire who purchased his pardon from Clinton as president.
In EYES WIDE SHUT, it’s not like only the Super Jews are enjoying gorgeous babes in a secret orgy. Rather, Super Jews and Super goy elites have forged an alliance where they gather together to ritual-fuck superhot babes in their Castle. Even so, there are indications that Jews are on the rise while the goyim are in decline. The Super Jew played by Sidney Pollack seems feisty while the super goy rich guy who hands Tom Cruise a note at the gate seems old and crusty; he looks like the old dying David Bowman at the end of 2001; it’s like wasp elite is fated to die, to be replaced by the Jewish Starchild of David.
Long ago, rich goy elites wouldn’t have invited hairy and hook-nosed Jew to an Aryan-beauty fuck-fest, but now they have no choice because one must do business with Jews to maintain one’s wealth and privilege in the new order. Thus, ‘Aryan’ beauty must be shared with Super Jews. And Super Jews like the arrangement because part of the Jewish psyche says, “I don’t wanna belong to a club that would have me as a member.” A totally Jewish club would be filled with hairy hook-nosed Jews who look like Woody Allen and Sandra Bernhardt. Also, even when Jews have the power, they wanna the enjoy the thrill of entering the Castle that had been forbidden to them for so long. Even as insiders, they relish the sense of outsider-ism. Thus, an alliance with the Super-Goy-Elite makes the Jews feel like they finally made into the forbidden zone of power. (The counterpart to the Jewish Innocent-Guilt Complex can found in the politics of Negro crime and sexuality. According to the grand liberal narrative—especially as peddled by hideous Jews—, so many INNOCENT saintly Negroes suffered at the hands of ‘white racists’ who accused black men of having lascivious feelings for white women and/or harboring criminal and violent intent. Such racial stereotyping led to the ‘racist’ view that most blacks are born rapists hungry for white meat or born robbers/murderers who will steal or murder at the drop of a hat. There is some truth to the liberal narrative in that some innocent blacks were accused of crimes they didn’t commit, and some blacks were suspected of being criminal when they were not. But the iconography of the saintly innocent Negro—who presumably just wants to get along—falsely accused of Jungle Savagery by ‘evil white racists’ is baloney, though I must say it was rather amusing when Rodney King, of all people, aksed “Can’t we just get along?” when, in fact, LA riots were sparked by the fact that he never tried to get along with anyone. In fact, movies like BIRTH OF A NATION were absolutely correct that the average Negro male’s main sexual passion is to be beat up ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys and hump as many white women as possible. Just look at black sexual behavior in sports, music, and integrated schools. They love nothing more than acting like thugs, belittling the white boy—now relegated to pussyboy beta male status—,and conquering/owning as many white chicks as possible. Though some Negro males were falsely accused and even killed for having raped white women, most Negro males do indeed have wild fantasies about humping and even raping white women and beating up/belitting ‘white boys’. Even Negroes who were falsely accused of crimes they didn’t commit were ‘guilty’ of having such savage feelings; even a Negro who didn’t whup a white boy and rape white women most likely had such thoughts on his mind. But for the Civil Rights Movement to gain traction, white American had to be convinced that most Negro males don’t have sex on their mind, and if they do, they only wanna sexually hump black women, not white women. So, the sexual fears of white males in the Deep South had to be depicted as rabidly virulent and irrational, unfounded on any real evidence. Thus, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, a movie about some saintly innocent Negro falsely accused of rape, became the standard of liberal racial mythology. Even after all these yrs with so much black-on-white rape, we are told TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is truth while BIRTH OF A NATION is a lie. And in GONE WITH THE WIND, we see a noble Negro saving Scarlett from being raped by a white man. You see, them Negroes be so nice and noble—and so uninterested in sex with white women—that they risk their skin to save a white women from lecherous white males! Even as late as the 90s, we got neo-MOCKINGBIRD movies like GREEN MILE, which had a mountain-sized Negro who wouldn’t even kill a little white mouse. I wonder if Hitchcock’s PSYCHO was partly a counter-argument to liberal sermons like MOCKINGBIRD. In PSYCHO, Norman-Bates-as-his-mother says he/she wouldn’t even hurt a fly. Now, if a skinny-and-harmless-seeming white boy can commit such evil deeds out of sexual rage, what would a Negro male do if let out of the cage? How about something like the Knoxville Massacre? But as Jews have a lock on the mass media, most Americans will still be thinking of Negroes in association with MOCKINGBIRD, COSBIES, and OPRAH—and of course, the Reality TV show called the OBAMAS. But, liberals are a confused lot. On the one hand, they prop up MOCKINGBIRD-ism, the notion of the saintly innocent Negro who done never think of sex, especially with a white woman. On the other hand, liberal tell us Negroes are so great because they gave us sexy Jazz, because Jack Johnson the Negro thug whupped a lot of white boy ass and banged a thousand white chicks, because Negroes got big dicks, because Negroes sing rap and dance like they’re fucking on the dance floor. Not that most conservatives are any better since what passes for conservatism these days is a movie like BLINDSIDE and Glenn-Beck-and-Rick-Lowry-weeping-over-MLK. Anyway, just as Jews were ‘guilty’ of powerlust and hatred of goyim but played innocent like they simply wanted to get along, Negroes have been ‘guilty’ of interracist lust, contempt for ‘faggotyass’ white boy, and violent racial fantasies but act as though they just be wanting to be respected as equals and getting along in peace with everyone. Of course, the saintly Negro with no sex on his mind —especially with a white woman—was the creation of Harriet Beecher Stowe, a nutty Christian woman. If anything, people like Freud should be praised for at least overturning the Victorian sexual bullshit, with which UNCLE TOM’S CABIN fits right in. Having repressed the reality of sexuality in discussion of social and cultural matters, it was possible to believe in the completely spiritual and asexual Negro who only be wishing for love, peace, and justice. Had Americans been more forthright about sex in mid 19th century, there would have been more of a frank discussion of the dangers posed by Negroes. Such was later delivered in the form of Jack Johnson, a walking-talking-fighting-jiving icon of black male sexual lust and physical aggression. But again, white males refused to see reality in the face and do something to bring about permanent racial separation, the only thing that could have saved the white race. If Stowe was simple-minded and naive in her moral fantasies, Kafka seems to have known and hinted a lot more than meets the eye.)
So, what does it mean to be an Akfak? It means there is no way out. No matter how many times you try to profess your redemption or innocence, no matter how much money you’re willing to pay, no matter how many times you apologize, no matter whatever new thing you do, and etc to prove you’re no longer an ‘evil racist’ or ‘rabid anti-Semite’, you will be put on trial just as Joseph K was in Kafka’s novel. Joseph K listened to all sorts of advice, met with all kind of people, and did all manner of things, but he was just as ‘guilty’ in the end as in the beginning. There was no escape. Ironically, we are Akfaks because Kafka(the Jewish elite)is now in the big house, in the Castle. It is a form of Jewish revenge and/or power-lust.
Jews know that white gentiles need to be constantly accused of something because the moment whites no longer feel guilty under the pressure of accusation, they’ll begin to think in terms of their own interests and agenda, even pushing against Jewish interests. To prevent white gentiles from pushing back and gaining momentum, they must constantly be pushed against the wall. Since Jews—even with Negroes—don’t have the numbers to physically push around whites(though this may change with rising non-white population in America), Jews rely on psychologically pushing white people through instruments of education, media, politics, etc. In boxing, if you’re too busy covering up from the opponent’s blows, you don’t have a chance to fight back. You must cower and lean back against the ropes as blows rain down on you. Since it’s too much for one people to keep punching at whites, Jews take turns with blacks, Hispanics, and gays. Jews have even turned a lot of whites—maybe over 50%—into honorary non-whites who embrace interracism and white democide as great virtues. Whites are so busy trying to prove that they are not ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’—white males are also burdened with ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, and ‘xenophobia’—that they have no energy left to hurl accusations back at Jews or blacks. Conservatives are too busy trying to prove that they are not ‘homophobic’ to argue why ‘gay marriage’ really stinks as a abomination of biology and morality. If some white people are too busy fending off accusation of ‘racism’ and other evil ‘isms’, some white people find spiritual meaning in being condemned; they feel like Magic Honkeys when they get on their knees and weep before some Negro or bawl like a baby listening to MLK speeches. A Magic Honkey feels holy for he or she has been defanged and removed of poison glands; they once belonged to a race of venomous serpents but they are all harmless snakes now. But since they are still snakes and may regrow fangs and venom glands, they must always be reminded of their sinful nature.
An Akfak can profess or prove his innocence by doing what is demanded of him, but he will then be accused of more and more crimes and transgressions. It never ends. When the Civil Rights movement called for the end of Segregation and racial discrimination, that’s what blacks got. But that wasn’t enough. Whites were still guilty, and so there had to be the welfare state, aka Great Society. But that wasn’t enough. There was then school busing, but it led to much black-on-white violence. So whites—even or especially affluent liberals, many of them Jewish—moved out. So, whites were guilt of ‘racism’ for merely wanting to flee from black crime. Whites were told that they were guilty of black crime since blacks commit crime due to poverty and rage, both of which are the products of white racial oppression of blacks in the past(and in the present too in all sorts of ‘subtle’ ways). So, there were Afro-motive Action, Section 8 Housing(which should be called Section Hate Housing since violent hateful Negroes are dropped into white neighborhoods), home loans to black deadbeats, and etc. But even that is not enough because the racial gap still remains. (But do not think whites will be declared ‘innocent’ if the gap were to ever be closed. After all, Jews are immensely powerful and rich, much more so than white gentiles, but they still feel entitled to full protection and support as a ‘victim group’. Similarly, even long after Christians brutally and ruthlessly vanquished paganism from Europe, they still maintained the mythology of pure saintly Christians oppressed and murdered by evil Roman pagans and Christ-killing Jews. Myths are powerful, and the most powerful myths today are Holocaustianity and MLK faith. Consider the fact that NFL is dominated by blacks but the main issue is “there aren’t enough black quarterbacks.” No one bothers to ask, “where are the white running backs or Mexican linemen?”)
If whites are not accused of ‘racism’ politically, they are accused economically, e.g. not enough black CEOs in corporations. If not economically, then socially, e.g. white people don’t hang around with enough blacks. If not socially, then culturally, e.g. not enough blacks on TV sitcoms. If not culturally, then sexually, e.g. not enough white women having sex with Negroes. If not sexually, then historically, e.g. slavery have scarred the black soul forever, and even the Rwandan genocide is said to have happened because of what Belgians did long ago. If not historically, then psychologically, e.g. you might be SUBCONSCIOUSLY ‘racist’ or your white baby may be born a ‘racist’. And you thought Joseph K had it bad! Afkaks have it much worse under the power of the hideous Jews.
The people who do most to play this game on us are the Jews, the neo-Kafkas in the pantheons of power. They are inside the Castle with all the control levers while we are on the outside as reverse-Joseph-K’s. We are always on trial, always accused of this or that form or variation or mutation or whatever of ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘xenophobia’, and whatever other bullshit they can cook up. We are accused of ‘racism’ from so many angles—political, economic, cultural, social, sexual, psychological, etc—that we are left feeling like a goy driven crazy by the Jewish gang in Marx Brothers movies. Jewish accusations run circles around us and sting us all over. To Jews, we are nothing but a lump of rotten flesh attracting buzzing flies. Just like rotten meat deserves flies, rotten white race deserves the buzzing pests of Jewish accusations—or so the Jews want us to believe. Even before we can explicate ourselves from one accusation, we are smacked with another, then another.
It’s like NY TIMES keeps coming up with ever more ‘creative’ explanations for the racial gap in IQ and education between whites and blacks. Instead of focusing on the truth—that blacks are generally lower in intelligence and more aggressive in their nature, which makes them less likely to sit still and learn something—, NY TIMES comes up with ‘brilliant’ explanations that all lead to accusations against ‘white racism’. Black under-performance, we are told, is due to stress, diet, health issues, biases, and etc; and all these issues lead to ‘white racism’ since ‘white power, privilege, and greed’ consciously or subconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, wittingly or unwittingly work to keep blacks down. So, even after all these years, whites are still the main culprit for problems of the black community.
At one time, blacks said black educational failure was due to insufficient school funding. So blacks schools were lavishly funded in some communities. But when that failed, it was the ‘bigotry of low expectations’—something Compassionate Conservative Bush and Ted Kennedy agreed on—and poured a lot of money to fix, but when that went bust, we were told there weren’t enough good teachers. But when idealistic teachers tried teaching black kids but still failed to close the gap, it was something else and etc. The madness never ends. Always, we are told something MORE has to be done, and whites support these policies because they did ‘racist’ things in the past, are still consciously or subconsciously ‘racist’, and would be ‘racist’ for the simple fact of not wanting to fix the problem. (Though majority of American whites are children of immigrants who arrived after the Civil War, ALL whites are associated with the ‘sin’ of Southern slavery. Even a newly arrived Polish-American is part of ‘white racist evil’. Again, and you thought Joseph K had it bad? Akfaks have it worse.) Some white people think white ‘racism’ will finally be cured through interracism, especially with pussified white boys welcoming Negro studs to bang white women. But look at Obama the soam(son of a mudshark). Though his mother was white and white people treated him nice from childhood, he played the race card just the same. Also, white folks’ preference for mulattos and light-skinned blacks has also been called a kind of ‘racism’; indeed, light-skinned Negroes who succeed accuse whites of preferring their kind over the darker-skinned kind; they wanna have the watermelon and eat it too; they use their mulatto-ness to succeed in white society but then accuse whites of keeping dark-skinned Negroes down. (To be sure, white liberals are an indeed a dirty bunch. Affirmative action is useful to white/Jewish liberal elites because if promotion was based purely on meritocracy, the upper echelons of business, law, government, academia, media, and etc would be almost totally white and Jewish. That would really embarrass white/Jewish liberals who yammer so much about diversity and equality but live in a world of their own. So, for the sake of good publicity, they need some color in their midst, and so they use affirmative action to choose the clean-cut blacks to rub shoulders with. With Obama at their side, liberal Jews can pretend that they just love diversity and fairness.) There is no end to this. If white people keep trying to earn their ‘innocence’, they are gonna end up like Joseph K in THE TRIAL—or like Don Imus. Yeah, his apologizing sure did him some good.
The issue shouldn’t be innocence. We are all ‘guilty’—guilty of the will-to-power, which is natural enough. Innocent Nice Negro is a myth. Kind Decent Jew is a myth. And Lovable White Person is also a myth. This isn’t to say there aren’t nice, decent, and/or lovable people among blacks, Jews, and whites. It’s merely to say there is more to niceness in all of us. We want power, we want to survive, we want the glory. Since it won’t do for everyone to fight one another for power 24/7 and make a mess of things—like Negroes in da hoods—, we need to play by the Rule of Law. But the Law is only useful to those who are willing and capable of playing by its rules. Also, given racial differences in intelligence, temperament, and physical attributes, not all races are compatible. And given the tribal nature of human beings, excessive diversity isn’t something to promote and celebrate.
Just as Joseph K was indeed ‘guilty’ of something, white people too should accept and admit they are ‘guilty’ of something. Whites mustn’t try to prove that they are ‘non-racist’ or ‘anti-racist’, ‘cleansed of racism’ or ‘working hard to purge themselves of shame of racism’, and all such crap. They should face the fact that they are indeed race-ist. Just as blacks are ‘guilty’ of black power-lust, black lust for white women, and black contempt for the ‘faggoty-ass white boy’; and just as Jews are ‘guilty’ of monomaniacal control of Truth, powerlust, contempt for dimwit goyim, and resentment of ‘Aryan’ beauty; white people should admit they are ‘guilty’ of perfectly rational and justifiable race-ist fears of stronger Negroes, smarter & deviously cunning Jews, waves of non-white hordes invading the West, and the looming extinction of their power race, culture, and heritage. Being ‘guilty’ is the natural way of being. Life didn’t evolve from angels from the hellish struggle to survive and dominate. Though Steven Pinker speaks of ‘better angels’, he’s really a Jewish Supremacist who savors the power, wealth, and influence accumulated by Jews. And though blacks bitch, whine, and holler about ‘injustice’, they just want more easy/instant power, wealth, fame, and glory. Jews and Negroes are not innocent angels asking for their share of justice but devilish agents demanding a larger share of the pie, and they’ll do whatever it takes to get it. They will trample all over justice and rule of law if it’s to their interest because they are ‘guilty’ of the will-to-power.
But same goes for white people. We too are ‘guilty’. We’ve always been ‘guilty’, since the first single-celled organism devoured other single-celled organisms. This isn’t to argue for nihilism where ‘only the strong survive’ but merely to say white people also have—indeed must have—racial interests and instincts for survival and competition. It’s the way of nature. Biologically, we are all ‘guilty’ of following the life force. As humans, we’ve arrived at humane and civilized ways of managing our survival by respecting the ‘rights’ of other peoples with their own interests. But everything has a useful limit. When diplomacy failed between US and Japan and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, America had no choice but to fight and crush Japan. White people were not wrong to try to arrive at some understanding with Jews and Negroes. There are good things to be said about Jewish people and history, and there is no denying the relative suffering of blacks in America. But it’s gotten to a point where nothing remains but bad faith on part of Jews and Negroes. Jews are smart, so they can’t possibly believe the kind of editorial and pseudo-scientific tripe they’re always printing in the NY Times. Negroes, being childlike and crazy, may indeed sincerely believe “it’s all the white man’s fault.” In either case, Jew are too venal and devious for us to deal with in good faith and Negroes are dumb & nutty for us to come to terms with. Thus, we must be race-ist, and by ‘race-ism’, I mean race + ism = belief in races and racial differences and in having racial preferences. Race is a part of reality. The ‘racial justice’ experiment in America failed not because of white people’s perpetual ‘racism’—of which there will be no end to the accusations coming from Jews, Negroes, etc—but because of the reality of race. It’s not that whites are guilty of ‘racism’ but they are ‘guilty’ of race-ism. It is a biological ‘guilt’ that cannot be denied. It is the nature of any group of organisms to want to survive, win, and thrive. It’s true that many white people have been race-ist(and justifiably so) in trying to move away from blacks; it’s true that many whites do harbor fears of smarter Jews. But this isn’t some irrational sickness white people need to feel ashamed of. They are natural and rational responses to the biological fact that the stronger and more fearsome Negroes are a physical/sexual threat to the white race and to the biological fact that smarter and wilier Jews are determined to accumulate as much power, wealth, and influence as possible(and will do whatever necessary to break the spine of white unity and power since Jews see white gentiles as their main rivals.)
*The news story of Stephanie Grace perfectly illustrates the power of AKFAKISM. All she did was send a personal email and express her views on racial differences, but the full force of the Harvard Establishment–led by the hideous Jewess Nell Minnow–came down on her and accused her of unspeakable evil(for the simple act of sending an email to express a personal opinion). Grace, like so many frightened white people, didn’t stand her ground and argue that her rights had been violated. Instead, she hunkered down, accepted the verdict, apologized, and submitted herself to the Jewish Trial. Sad, isn’t it? Not surprisingly, the person who turned her in was a Jewish student envious of Stephanie’s prettiness. This is how Jews are. There have also been cases of Jews faking ‘antisemitic’ vandalism in colleges–many blacks do that too–, but the ‘guilt’ always fall on whites. First, immediately following the accusation of ‘racism’ or antisemitism’ on campus, the college authorities blame ALL WHITE STUDENTS, THE ENTIRE WHITE COMMUNITY, AND ALL WHITE PEOPLE IN AMERICA for creating the climate of ‘hate’. But even when the ‘hate crime’ has been exposed as a hoax, the Jew or black student who perpetrated the hoax usually goes unpunished(and is said to ‘need help’). Instead the ‘guilt’ remains with whites. No matter what Jews/blacks do, they are innocent, and no matter what whites do or don’t do, they are guilt. Whites are told that THEY must do more, even when Jews and blacks commit the crime. That is Akfakism. And when Omar Thorton the rotten Negro killed 9 innocent whites, NY TIMES, the flagship paper of Jewish power, made excuses for him and defacto accused the victims of ‘racism’, implying they probably got what they deserved. Only fools suck up to Jews.