Pride and Guilt VERSUS Arrogance and Self-Pity in Politics and Society

pride and guilt are virtues for a people while arrogance and self-pity are vices.
this isn't to suggest that pride and guilt necessarily lead to the success of a people, but they are more likely to make the people decent, and decency is a crucial step in the progress and advancement of a people. or, at least advancement and progress that are morally sound and constructive. after all, a people or nation can amass great power and strength and remain evil. such nations or peoples, however, are doomed to eventual failure as they lack a sound moral foundation for the future.

pride can easily slide into arrogance. and guilt can lead to self-loathing, which is suicidal and destructive. self-loathing can also lead to self-pity. so, a people have to make sure that pride doesn't inflate into its evil twin or that guilt doesn't turn into self-loathing. guilt is useful for it implies conscience, and without conscience there can be no moral values.

self-pity and arrogance are linked though they seem to be opposites. self-pity is self-centered and selfish. though it demands sympathy for the self-pitier, the self-pitier rarely feels sympathy for others. he feels wronged, he feels owed, he feels like the only victim in the world. there's nothing saintly or noble about self-pity because it feels nothing for others. nobility and saintliness presupposes concern, love, or sacrifice for others, for humanity. a self-pitier wallows in his own misery and wants the world to feel sorry for him and fix his problems.
logically enough, self-pity is linked to arrogance. arrogance is also self-centered. indeed, self-pity is often the product of frustrated arrogance. an arrogant person expects to have everything his way, wants everyone to kiss his ass. but, when the world doesn't do him such favors and he falls on his ass, he feels wronged. he wallows in self-pity. this is true of individuals and of peoples in general. on some level, self-pity is linked with self-loathing, but more often than not self-loathing is an extreme case of guilt-consciousness. a self-loathing person blames himself for his own problems and even the problems of the world. a self-pitying person blames all his problems on everyone else but himself. he considers himself as the rightful center of the universe. since no one seems to agree and many other people are better off than he, he blames all the world for his misery.

pride is necessary because a people need confidence, hope, optimism, and a positive outlook. such are not possible without some degree of pride. there is pride in one's strenghts and achievements. why shouldn't a good student or hard worker not be proud of his accomplishment?
guilt-conscience is necessary because no one is perfect, and we all make mistakes or even commit grave sins. a thief without capacity for guilt will never change his ways. a people or society that cannot admit social injustices cannot make progress.
it's a blend of sensible pride and sober guilt-conscience that makes a society both productive/energetic and progressive/reflective. both require a degree of moderation.
too much pride turns into arrogance and laxity. too much guilt can lead to self-loathing. at the most extreme, some people may take pride in their self-loathing, wearing the 'i am a scum' sign as a badge of honor. consider intellectuals like gunter grass whose career has revolved around proclaiming how scummy germans are. oddly enough, this has been turned into a kind of moral arrogance. gunter grass feels superior to americans cuz germans like himse;f readily admit their ugliness while americans--who are just as guilty in grass's eyes--still have national pride.

arrogance is almost always or ultimately self-destructive because it either makes the person or people lazy or overreaching. take mike tyson. he was a mighty boxer, but he got so arrogant that he stopped training. or take nazi germany. hitler was so full of himself that he attacked USSR and got clobbered real bad. and, look at george w. bush and the iraq war. no, bush is NOT hitler nor an evil man, but he got arrogant. he thought going into iraq would be a cakewalk. he was so sure of himself and his plans without really giving it much thought.
arrogance can be a power-booster in the short run, but not in the long run. the arrogant ideology of communism collapsed. arrogant mccarthur who made quick gains got ambushed by the chinese in the korean war. arrogant people or nations also make alot of enemies. this is true whether the nation is evil like nazi germany, imperialist japan, and soviet union or essentially good nations like US, france, and todays' russia. whenever a nation flexes its muscles and thinks it can act alone regardless of what others think, it makes alot of enemies. arrogance is a huge gamble. if US had triumphed in iraq, it would been great for bush and the US--though in the long run, it might have goaded them to go for higher stakes and fall really hard. maybe, in this sense, US failure is iraq checked US from making even a bigger mistake in yet a grander misguided venture.
anyway, US failed in iraq and the losses are huge. US will not lose just a war but the trust of its allies. US still has alot of allies, but allies are not exactly friends. prior to the war, france and germany were friends of the US. since the war, they've only been allies.
now, one can argue that the iraq war wasn't only about arrogance but pride and guilt-conscience. after all, americans have pride in their democracy and wanted to share it with ragheads. also, americans wanted to right the wrongs of past american involvment in the region; US had supported too many dictators in the middle east, and so it was time to build a democracy. this is all true enough. but, the assumptions and the planning of the war were, it's fair to say at this point, based on arrogance. also, the mass support of the war had something more to do with self-pity than pride and guilt-conscience. most americans supported the war because they linked hussein with osama bin laden--and it was sold that way by the government which pandered to american fears. most americans didn't care about spreading democracy in the region or fixing past wrongs. US had been a great victim in 9/11 as if no nation suffered as much as US on that day; there was genuine rage but also self-pity, which led to arrogance of american power. given the extreme climate of the times, all of this was understandable. but, it made american leaders and americans less wise.

when we look at the world today, nations and people that are most decent(and often the most successful) are those who operate with pride and guilt-conscience while those who are most loathsome and mired in failure are those who are obsessed with arrogance and self-pity.
consider swedish folks. yes, they are prissy social-democrats but there is an healthy balance of pride in swedish history, culture, tradition, and values with a guilt-conscience that has goaded swedish to be progressive, reformist, and activist. to be sure, their guilt-conscience has gotten the better of them. why else would they have allowed all those hideous muslims who have turned certain areas of sweden into hellish slums? again, when guilt turns into self-loathing, self-loathing seeks to alleviate its pain by morphing into a demented form of moral arrogance. it's as though the swedes felt, 'we feel sooooo guilty for our collusion with nazi germany during WWII that we are gonna redeem ourselves by pouring tons of aid into africa and by allowing muslim immigrants into sweden; btw, this makes us morally 100x better than those evil racist, capitalist, and neo-imperialist americans.' all these europeans heard about race relations in the US and thought it was all the fault of bigoted white americans. they thought they could do much better if they had non-white minorities. unlike 'racist' americans, they would treat the non-whites real nice, and non-whites would appreciate this and there would be social harmony and love and so on. well, well. much of europe is breaking apart due to racial problems arising from very liberal and multicultural programs.
still, much of sweden has been governed by moderate pride and sensible guilt-conscience. and, swedes have been much good for themselves.

in the US, anglo-americans have been successful thanks to their balance of pride and guilt-conscience. look at the arc of american history, and there was optimism and hope in the american enterprise. but, there was also guilt-conscience that pushed america toward greater liberty and justice for all. anglo-american whites balanced concepts of positivism and negativism. they felt positive enough to be hopeful and negative enough to reflect and reform society.
in contrast, look at the negroes in the US. yes, part of their problem is the legacy of social discrimination. and part of it has to do with biological factors such as blacks are generally less intelligent, emotionally more aggressive, and physically stronger--which makes them less likely to respect and learn from the most successful races whom blacks look down as 'faggoty ass pussyboys'.
but, another problem of black is their mired-ness in self-pity and arrogance. to be sure, this is linked with black history and black biology. blacks produce more hormones which make them more arrogant, aggressive, self-centered, nasty, and shi*. blacks are not really known for being reflective or introspective. they are a very extroverted and jiveassed folks. they can be soulful but this rarely has much to do with self-examination as was the case with jesus or buddha. it's more often a negro looking into his soul to pull out some rhythm with which to shake his arse. and, of course the history of blacks in the US naturally encourages self-pity since it was a story of slavery, racial discrimination, and being called a 'nigger'.
but, black self-pity and arrogance are ugly and hideous. they are also stupid and lacking in thought. for one thing, blacks see only the negative side of their experience under whites. they fail to see that it was at once a history of oppression and of liberation--from african savagery and ugabuga. indeed, the most advanced blacks in the world are those in the US whose ancestors have been oppressed but also civilized by whites. blacks in africa are hopeless and backward. many of them are totally savage and crazy. also, there is more to black history than its experience in the US. before the white man arrived on the african continent, blacks were murderous, crazy, lunatic savages killing, raping, and enslaving one another. whites may have done alot of bad things but black africans were no different in this regard. so, the idea of wonderful innocent africans being oppressed by evil whites is a fairytale, a myth. blacks had their own slavery, imperial wars, genocides, and such in africa--and no way to build civilization and put an end to their savage ways. blacks weren't enslaved by whites because blacks were noble while whites were evil. it was because whites had more power thru superior technology. thru african history, tribes with better weapons demolished, raped, enslaved, and killed tribes with less effective weapons.
so, there is nothing noble about black history in the US. it was simply a case of a weaker people being oppressed by a stronger people.
now, blacks could have looked upon their own history in the US and grown wiser from it. they could have attained pride in the sense that they did what was needed to survive and gain justice. and they could have learned to feel sympathy for other people since they themselves had suffered much under white racial oppression. and there was a glimmer of this possibility in the 50s and early 60s--there was a sense of community pride led by black middle class, and the message of non-violence implied that the victim too can become evil by acting like the oppressor. but, black movement soon turned into arrogance and self-pity. guys like muhammad ali shouted that he was the greatest and could up all honkeys. his defacto message is 'blacks are the superior race cuz it could whup anyone'. to be sure, ali was too self-centered to effectively speak for the collective. his mantra was more 'I am the greatest' than 'we are the greatest'. anyway, if civil rights movement started with an emphasis on non-violence and mutual understanding, it was soon usurped by a larger social and cultural black awakening that said 'honkeys are afraid of us and we can whup their flabby ass!' in city after city, wild negroes rioted and witnessed whites cowering in fear. in integrated schools, black boys found out that they could easily whup white boys, and black girls found out they could easily outshout and slap white girls. in time, many whites moved out of integrated neighborhoods. blacks understood all too well that whites were a bunch of faggotyass scaredy cat motherfuc*ers. blacks soon become arrogant. as their culture was obsessed with the athletic and the sexual, blacks saw themselves as the best of the best. they could outfuc*, outbox, and outjump, and outrun any honkey. honkeys were not real men. and honkey girls were increasingly turning to black men cuz they began to feel that black men were real men while white men were just a bunch of dweeby voiced white boys.
now, arrogance is self-centered. and in time, it developed into rap culture. the message of this culture is 'i'm the baddest thug of all and i can whup all your asses'. every black kid began to see hisself as a jack johnson, muhammad ali, or mike tyson. there was no need for them understand or respect other people; rather other people had to respect and understand them. whites should all be like ken burns, a faggotyass sappy-eyed liberal pussyboy who gets on his knees and kisses black ass. blacks in time came to despise and/or show no interest in anything that was not badass and wild. indeed, your average black kid in the US is less interested in other cultures and peoples than a kid of any other race is. white kids will listen to black music, but most black kids only listen to black music. non-blacks will try to learn about black history and culture, but most blacks show zero interest in non-black peoples and cultures. we are talking generally here.
arrogance is self-centered but so is self-pity. and there are two roots of black self-pity. one is a selective remembrance of history, and this has been made worse by influence of leftwing jews who've taken over the media/academia and white liberals whose guilt-conscience has unfortunately slid into the morass of self-loathing; worse, alot of white liberals have become morally arrogant thru self-loathing. they feel morally worthless vis-a-vis blacks yet this worthlessness is a point of pride vis-a-vis conservative whites. white liberals feel morally superior to white conservatives cuz the former supposedly have a conscience about past sins. now, having a conscience is not a problem but when it becomes pathological, obsessive, and suicidal, it's worthless and ugly.
anyway, because blacks have a very selective reading of history--supported and encouraged by leftwing jews(who use blacks to undermine wasp power) and self-loathing white liberals--they only see themselves as wonderful, colorful, noble, creative, etc while they see whites as evil, sick, demented, etc. so, from the beginning of time, blacks were supposedly wonderful while whites were evil. all problems of blacks are the fault of whites. whether you're an american black or african black, all your problems are due to whites.
the narrative goes like this: wonderful africans were living in eden, in paradise. but, evil whites came and messed it all up. that's why africa is so poor. that's why many blacks have social problems in the US. it's all white folks' fault. there was a time when whites felt a mixture of pride and guilt in regards to their history. yes, there was the fact of slavery and oppression of blacks. but, there was also the story of bringing the savages of the dark continent to the most progressive and advanced nation on earth. to be sure, blacks got the shorter end of the stick throughout US history but even that shorter end was better than most people got around the world--better than what africans got, chinese peasants got, russian serfs got, arab slaves got, etc. this balanced view of history was lost in the latter part of 20th century because liberal/leftist jews and self-loathing wasps took over all institutions of culture. leftwing/liberal jews saw wasps as their main political/economic/cultural rivals. and the most effective way to challenge and undermine wasp power was to portray wasps as a bunch of slave-masters and bigots. also, US was locked in a global struggle with the USSR, and in order to win US had to show the world how progressive it was. USSR was the creation of leftwing jews, and the black movement in the US was largely funded and guided by leftwing jews. leftwing jews pitted russians against wasps in a struggle which would ultimately empower jewish power while crippling both slavic and anglo power. if russia had not fallen to leftwing jews, it wouldn't have posed a worldwide communist threat to the world. then, americans wouldn't have felt pressured to win the cold war by proving to the world how 'progressive' it was. the white/black reconcialiation could have taken place at a more measured, meaningful pace. whites would have apologized for slavery and racial discrimination while blacks would have appreciated the good things america has done for them. but, the whole thing was rushed in the middle of a Cold War. as long as communism was 'anti-racist' and rousing up non-whites around the world, US felt an urgent need to change the system overnight. and, the social tumult has led to black arrogance and self-pity. among white liberals, it has led to self-loathing and a demented kind of moral arrogance. among white conservatives, alot of bitterness and anger.

both self-pity and arrogance do not foster reform-mindedness and moral seriousness. self-pity demands that others do things for you. and, arrogance suggests that you have some inborn quality that makes you naturally superior. we can see this among many blacks. many blacks think they are simply born morally superior. the historical aspect of black suffering has been transformed into a racial quality. blacks are born noble and wonderful while whites are born evil and wicked. since whites are born with original sin or guilt, in order to cleanse their souls they must choose liberalism and go out of their way to say they are sorry and such.
of course, white domination of the globe took place only in the last few centuries--a domination which effectively ended in the latter part of the 20th century. also, white domination around the world, all in all, did more good than bad, something western nations are not given credit for. also, all of humanity was aggressive, oppressive, and wicked in their own ways. non-whites failed to conquer the world cuz they were too busying oppressing their own kind or those near them. every tribe or people were imperialist on a local level.
what the history of western imperialism, expansion, and colonialism teaches us is not that white folks are particularly evil and that non-whites are inherently noble but that power in anyone's hand can lead to great abuses. and there are plenty of examples of white folks using their power to oppress and exploit other people. but, other peoples weren't any nobler than white folks. they were just weaker, and in many cases, their cultures, civilizations, or values were far more brutal, oppressive, violent, and wicked as that of white folks. in other words, anyone can be like 'white folks', and white folks can be like 'noble people of color'. indeed, greeks under ottoman turks were victims of imperialism. and russians and other slavs were victims of mongol imperialism. spanish were, at one time, under muslim rule as algerians were later under french rule. and, there was a time when northern europeans were bought and sold to non-white civilizations. the word 'slave' comes from 'slav' cuz so many slavic peoples were sold into slavery to places like the middle east. before there was the african slave trade, there was the white european slave trade. the slave traders were muslims, pagan europeans, or white christians who sold pagan whites. in time, white christians deemed the selling of even pagan folks as wrong; pagan folks should be converted, not sold as slaves--it simply wasn't christian to sell a fellow man. and, in time, christianity would play a major role in the end of the african slave trade. even people who were not particularly christian came to object slavery on morals that were rooted in christianity--what does it benefit a man who gain the world and lose his soul?
anyway, the point is there was a time when whites were victims of slavery and imperialism. and if history had been different, whites would have been the 'oppressed race'. there is nothing that says one group had to prevail and dominate while others were fated to suffer and be victimized. indeed, yesterday's victims are today's victors and today's victors are tomorrow's victims. in segregationist america, whites would lynch negroes. today, negroes are whupping white boys. in the past, white men had their ways with black women. today, black men are having their way with white women--who are often all too willing cuz they lost respect for soft, flabby, slow white boys. so, things change. during much of 19th and 20th century, china was the sick man of asia. it was seen as hopeless, sorryass, pathetic. today, it is rising fast. even up until WWII, europe had mighty empires around the world. since then, all those empires have been lost. today, the invasion is not white into non-white territory but non-whites into white territory with very low birth rates. population growth is very high in africa and the middle east, and many millions are going to europe and america every year to look for opportunity, freebies, and a new place to settle. if this trend continues, white europe will be no more. already, there are regions in UK and france where tough negroes go around whupping pathetic white boys. white folks cannot raise their voices on this matter because any white person who complains about such matters is deemed 'racist'. this is where non-whites have become historically self-pitying and morally arrogant. they can do as they please. meanwhile, whites must have become pathologically self-loathing. indeed, 'white pride' is seen as a great evil. never mind arrogance; white people cannot even have pride in their race--though it's okay for arabs, blacks, asians, etc to have racial pride.
this is the reality at a time when the rules of yesterday no longer apply. we are not living in a world of oppressive whites and oppressed non-whites. we are living in a world of non-white nations with either explosive populations--like africa--or explosive economies--like china. we are living in a world where chinese made goods flood the world or where africans and arabs inundate the territories of europe. white guilt, which has become self-loathing, cannot effectively say NO to all those who are seeking refugee status in europe. indeed, demoperialism--demographic imperialism--is far more dangerous than old style imperialism. old style imperialism was about setting up small colonial outposts in non-white nations. there was no chance of the imperialists maintaining dominance for long--unless the land happened to be largely unpopulated like australia or north america. in most cases, the impeiralists or white colonialists had to rule over masses of darkies who, in time, gained national consciousness and demanded independence.
the fact is it's much easier to overthrow and toss out an imperialist regime than deal with masses of people. suppose israel had remained majority palestianian. suppose jews only made up 2 or 3% of the population and ruled over the area like the british ruled over parts of africa or india. in time, they would have been booted out. but, jews arrived in droves and made israel into a jewish majority nation. it made israel viable for the longterm.
it was relatively easy to throw out the british in india. the british arrived as lords and masters. it's easy to spot and get rid of a master. but, suppose british had mainly arrived in droves like jews arrived in palestine. suppose most british arrivals came as lowly workers and came in huge numbers. suppose these brits came to make up 20-30% of the population and had a birthrate 3 or 4 times that of hindus. it would have been harder to deal with this demoperialism. today, we are seeing demoperialism in europe and US. because the arrivals are often poor or desperate, we see them as merely helpless victims in need of help. but, there is an endless supply of such folks, and if you send them a message that they will be accepted, more and more will come. we are talking of some regions where it's not rare for women to have 10-15 children. the african population doubles every 30 yrs. just do the math. and, african reality sucks because africans are naturally less intelligent and have a stupid culture. but, the liberal explanation is africa is a mess purely because of past white evil--slave trade and so on. saying otherwise is deemed 'racist'. anyway, blacks continue to have problems when they come to white nations. it's not because most whites are evil or hostile which they are not. it's because blacks, being less intelligent, do much worse in school and at work. it's also because the liberal/leftist dominated media and academia fill blacks with self-pity and arrogance. though africans and arabs come to the west to look for a better future, their kids attend schools that tell them they are noble victims while whites are evil. so, instead of showing any gratitude for living in a prosperous western nation, they come to hate the west even though the west saved their butts. much of islamic radicalism is rooted not only in islamicist hatred and teachings but in white self-loathing. immigrant muslim kids who attend schools in UK are told by leftist and liberal teachers that white people, british civilization, history, and such all suck real bad. since whites hate themselves so much--to the point of radical suicidal decadence--, why shouldn't muslim kids hate whites as well? and why should muslims try to assimilate into a nation that calls itself 'evil', 'racist', 'worthless', etc. muslims admire power, yet when their kids come to UK, they see whites wallowing in self-loathing and begging non-whites to hate white civilization. so, muslim kids merely oblige. see the films of ken loach and mike leigh. what do they tell us? UK sucks and will continue to suck unless led by marxists and other leftwing jews.

problem of self-pity and arrogance can also been seen in east asia. while china, japan, korea, taiwan, etc. have made significant economic and social progress, they cannot be said to be decent nations. consider china. traditionally, it's been very arrogant. today, its attitude is a mixture of arrogance and self-pity. chinese love to wallow in self-pity just like blacks. they complain about how their nation was exploited by the world in the 19th and 20th century. there is some truth to this, but china's inability to make progress and defend itself in the past was the result of its long history of arrogance. and, why did china become so big in the first place? china practiced local imperialism. they conquered and invaded huge areas inhabited by non-chinese people. so, if chinese are really anti-imperialist, they should let go of tibet and huge parts of northwest china. anyway, chinese arrogance made them blind to the rest of the world and to the need for change. it made them resistant to reform and new ideas. as such, china remained a miserable place for most of its inhabitants who were ruled by insufferably arrogant pompous bureaucrats and nobility. even if the world hadn't intruded on and exploited china, most chinese would have been terribly oppressed under their own system of government and values.
but, chinese wanna play the innocent lamb who were terribly exploited by evil whites and japanese. on the one hand, there is the chinese chauvanism and arrogance. there is still some of that middle kingdom bullshi*. but, there is also the self-pity, the narrative of poor noble china mistreated and trampled on by the great imperialist powers of the world.
this combination of self-pity and arrogance has made chinese totally blind to all moral issues. they are so sure of their superiority--cultural and moral. there is the historical and cultural sense of superiority in being part of a long ancient civilization. but, there is also the moral arrogance rooted in self-pity. since chinese feel as though no one suffered as much as they, no one understands real pain--never mind that much of this pain was self-inflicted as when mao's policies killed tens of millions. since they are sooo great and soooo tragic, they don't need to hear any criticism. instead, they have the right to lecture to the rest of us.
one may say japan has made greater political and social progress than the chinese, but there is also a combination of arrogance and self-pity in japanese social and political consciousness. there is still some of that samurai-mentality that emphasizes violence, brutishness, and aggressive thinking. but, there is also the lopsided remembrance of WWII which argues that japan was only looking out for asian interests against the true imperialism of white nations. to be sure, jappers got beat real bad in WWII, but jappers have used this terrible tragedy to whitewash much of their own crimes and evil.
notice that a self-pitying person or nation has a very selective memory. he remembers how he was the victim of such and such but has total amnesia of when he was the oppressor of so and so. he remembers and bitches about how some guys whupped his ass but has no memory of how he whupped others' asses. or, he does remember the latter but only takes pride from it. when he whups others, it's a time for arrogance. when others whup him, it's time for self-pity. he can't understand that since it's not good to be whupped, he shouldn't whup others. self-pity is self-centered so he cannot mold his grievance to sympathy for rest of humanity. he's upset that HE got whupped but doesn't care if others got whupped. indeed, he loves it when he does the whupping. indeed, self-pity is often more about the one got whupped than did the whupping. he's not upset over the terrible act of man whupping another man; he's upset that the whupped happened to be him. had it been he whupping another man, he would have been all for whupping. self-pity and arrogance are animalistic, crude, and primitive. we can see this among korean athletes in the olympics. when they gain a medal by cheating or unfair call, they love it and wave the victorious flag of arrogance. as long as corruption goes their way in sports, they are all for corruption. but, suppose they lose due to some bad calls or corruption. then, they bitch like they are the purest saints burnt at the stake. asia nations have made much progress economically and socially, but as they are still mired in modes of arrogance and self-pity, most of them cannot be said to be decent nations. also, even their progress was based on copying the achievements of nations--of the west--that embraced pride and guilt-conscience. indeed, the lack of homegrown progress in all fields in asia rather proves the point that real progress comes only thru pride and guilt-conscience.

asia today may be compared with nazi germany. this is not because asian nations are racially supremacist or war-mongering which, for the most part, they are not. but, like nazi germany, there is too much arrogance and self-pity. since WWII, germans have stressed pride and guilt-conscience--though the latter has sometimes slipped into self-loathing as though germans are born wicked(this had led to brainwashing german kids with self-hatred which is just as ugly as when hitler brainwashed them with national arrogance). today, germans take pride in their work and achievements. and they are also capable of criticizing what's wrong with germany. they have a guilt-conscience which makes them cautious and accountable.
but, during the weimar and nazi era, germans were dangerous cuz they were filled with self-pity and arrogance. during the weimar period, many germans blamed all their problems on the victorious nations of WWI. they also blamed the loss of the war on backstabbing politicians. these bitter germans who were filled with both self-pity and arrogance supported hitler who was the epitome of self-pity and arrogance. with hitler, it was always other people's fault while he was always right. why was he not accepted into art school? because they didn't recognize his genius. why should germany attack USSR? because germans can do anything since they were the superior race. so, german self-pity was rooted in an acute sense of superiority or arrogance. germans felt that since they are naturally superior, they should be at the top of world power. instead, they lost WWI and suffered tremendous economic duress. many germans couldn't accept this as the result of their own doing. they wouldn't accept criticism since they were naturally superior. it simply cannot be their fault. cosmic law demands that germans rule the european continent if not the world. and why wasn't that the outcome of WWI? dirty tricks; had things been allowed to develop naturally, germany would have won WWI. so, who were to blame? the politicians. the jews. everyone but the germans. so, german self-pity was not rooted in self-worthlessness but too much self-worth. the pathological self-pity was borne of the fact that germans felt they should be number one. it was not a case of a poor person feeling sorry for himself cuz he's poor, but a poor feeling angry cuz he should rightfully be rich; if he isn't rich, it can't be HIS fault but everyone else's. often--though not always--self-pity and arrogance are associated with laziness. in the case of nazi germany and asian nations, self-pity and arrogance have been associated with industriousness, making them hunger for the day in the sun. but, this could well have something to do with the national character that puts much value to usefulness and respect for authority and respectability. a lazy person in such society may be made to feel tremendous deal of shame.
the problem we see among many negroe is arrogance, self-pity, and laziness. blacks feel arrogant as the master race. though black leaders say all the politically correct things, great many blacks really feel they be racially superior to all others--they be more 'creative', musical, funky, rhythmic, stronger, etc. they be soooo cool and jazzy!! so they ask, why are so many blacks poorer than many non-blacks? why are blacks falling behind when so many are making progress in america? why is africa falling behind when much of the world is making gains? it's arrogance that feeds black self-pity. blacks wonder, 'if i be so badass and cool, why that white, hispanic, or chinese mofo be richer than me?' arrogance makes the negro think that he's naturally entitled to success and privilege--money and privilege are simply owed him. since reality doesn't work that way, the negro feels a great deal of self-pity. arrogance makes him lazy. laziness makes him achieve much less. lack of achievement makes him envious and self-pitying. and, so the negro always needs scapegoats whether it be white, jewish, asian, hispanic, etc.
africans blamed whites for african backwardness so kicked all the whites out. they were still backward so they kicked all the asian-indians in africa out. yet, they become even poorer. so, tribes blame other tribes. it's always blame others, not themselves. to be sure, some clever african leaders go thru the motion of self-criticism in order to attract more foreign aid by well-wishing white nations.

we also see much self-pity and arrogance today in much of the islamic world. on the one hand, there is much muslim arrogance about allah, the great prophet, and the truth/beauty of islam. this arrogance is such that many muslims refuse to examine the weakness of islam or explore other possibilities. but, it's not just islamism that is arrogant but arab nationalism. even guys like mubarak are fat, lazy, and pigheaded though not particularly religious. he's used to arab autocracy and that's that. such arrogance makes arabs feel as they should be major players in the world. but, the fact is many arab nations are weak when compared to europe or US or even israel. this is very embarassing. how can a people with such a true and glorious religion and culture be so backward? this leads to self-pity. again, we see the connection between arrogance and self-pity. unlike christianity, there is little guilt-conscience in islam, at least regarding violence committed against non-muslims or from man to woman. as such, there is much less honest criticism of problems of islam. also, the vile arrogance of islam has created many murderous hotheads. so, even those who are thoughtful enough to criticize the problems of islam are afraid of being killed in the streets.
muslims scream and shout with arrogance and are filled with self-pity.

so, we must find a way to foster pride and guilt-conscience in all people. and, we must tell all people around the world that arrogance and self-pity are great vices that blind the heart and mind whereas pride and guilt-conscience bind the heart and mind. people say we should help africans, and i think the best way to help africans is by goading them to drop their arrogance and self-pity and take on pride and guilt-conscience. africans are filled with moral arrogance. because of white imperialism, they think they are noble victims for all time. such arrogance makes them blind to all their own faults. instead, all the problems are blamed on whites or a few corrupt leaders when, in fact, problem of corruption and idiocy is rampant throughout african culture and society. if african people were so decent and intelligent, could they have elected or supported so many murderous crooks for so long? and what did these crooks use to win support? by promoting arrogance and self-pity. just look at mugabe of zimbabwe. he has ruined his nation but only blames whites. and many african leaders refuse to criticize him because he symbolizes black power and values. when mugabe was using demogoguery to brutalize and kick out all whites, the fact is MOST blacks wildly supported him. today's black victims of mugabe had empowered him all these yrs. they too are to blame.

now, some people may say that it's crazy to foster guilt-conscience among the victims. why, that's like blaming the victim! but, there is no permanent or total victim. in history, no people were ever totally guilty or innocent--also, a political victim can be a personal tyrant; a slave can still beat up his wife and children and abuse those around him. the problems of africa existed before the white man came. even before white oppression, there was genocide, slavery, tribal warfare, corruption, idiocy, and superstition in africa. and after the whites left, all these problems are still with africans. everyone, whether 'victim' or 'oppressor', is capable of wrongdoing. suppose there is a crooked politician who exploited a certain people. suppose the crook is thrown out of office which is then occupied by a member of the exploited group. thus far, the new leader may only have been a victim. does that mean he will not be corrupt himself or abuse power? EVERYONE is capable of evil. africa has been liberated from whites for some time now. the old reliance on moral arrogance and self-pity will not work. if africans want genuine pride, they have to develop a guilt-conscience. the likes of mugabe need to face the music and admit he made terrible mistakes; and all the peole of zimbabwe must take blame for their own mistakes and corruptions. leaders all over africa need to be able to take criticism. and african people in general need to study their own societies and expose what is wrong or rotten about it. with that will come real cleansing. and with such cleansing will come real pride(too often crooked blacks say 'why blame me when it's simply my turn at the trough?' since he was once a victim, it's his turn to rob and steal everything he can get his hands on and that's that. and, such crook is often clever enough to make other black people feel that since a black man is now doing the stealing, they should be glad--even if they are getting nothing under the new order; this is rather like imelda marcos saying that she needed to be rich for the psychological needs of poor filippinos; it's the politics of demagogic identification. since the masses don't expect much from society, it's cathartic and satisfying just to see one of their own in power, wallowing in wealth, and living a fantasy life). there can be no pride without guilt-conscience. evil isn't so much a matter of historical past but a matter of the human heart. every child is born with the capacity for evil. it doesn't matter if the child is born into an oppressor race or class or a victim race or class. if and when he takes power, he has all the best and worst attributes of man. therefore, he needs to have a guilt-conscience and admit wrongs. the problem is guilt-conscience today is apportioned and obligated only by race or nationality. some peoples are obligated to have it while others are not. the so-called victim peoples can just wallow in self-pity and arrogance. the irony of this is that nations that are being punished with guilt-conscience are doing better than those that are feted with self-pity. those with self-pity don't use their energy productively and are blind and arrogant. meanwhile, the nations that are capable of self-examination and introspection make social reform and progress. so, the way to help poor nations is to foster guilt-conscience which will lead to reform and real pride. they may not be guilty of global imperialism but they are certainly guilty of local corruption, social brutality, political oppression, etc. but, as long as the likes of castro, mugabe, and kim jong il clothe their national identity in 'victimhood', there is no need for guilt-conscience on their part. so, there is no progress. their nations remain poor or grow poorer. moral arrogance and self-pity. and not only moral arrogance but the arrogance of the wanna-be major power. but, how can they achieve major power status when there is no room for guilt, criticism, reform, and genuine change?

Is Stupidity among the masses a Virtue or Vice in Politics?

it's funny how political commentators decry the stupidity of the american people. for example, many liberals have despaired over the fact that 80% of americans saw a connection between 9/11 and saddam hussein. they complained that americans are uninformed, ignorant, paranoid, and simple-minded.
of course, this particular stupidity didn't bother bush and the neo-cons as it helped their venture in iraq. what did it matter as long as the stupidity goaded the people to support the war?
so, are we to conclude that liberals are for truth and intelligence while conservatives are for deceit and stupidity? sometimes yes, sometimes no.
at other times, it's the opposite.

indeed, consider these cases where liberals and leftists not only tolerated stupidity and ignorance but welcomed them.
take the JFK mooie by oliver stone. it's pure fantasy based on paranoia, sensationalism, fear-mongering, wild speculation, conspiracy theories, and such and such. it says lee harvey oswald was just a patsy while the real killers of kennedy were members of the vast rightwing conspiracy. there was no factual basis for this, only wild guesswork and fabrication. yet, so many liberals embraced and championed JFK the mooie simply because it had the preferred effect on the people--it promoted anti-americanism and distrust of 'rightwingers'. after the film's release, 80% of americans said they believed that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. yes, all because of a movie. yet, liberals didn't decry the fact that great many americans had been shamelessly manipulated, conned, and lied to, nor the fact that so many people were dumb enough to be affected by stone's movie. of course, many so-called educated liberals were themselves taken in by all the conspiracy theories. they refused to believe that liberal JFK was killed by a communist. only the evil rightwing could/would have planned such a thing.

there were some liberals who were dumb enough to take JFK the movie seriously. but, even those who didn't buy any of it endorsed it because they liked the impact it had on the masses. they knew that the masses were being fooled by a charlatan, but it was okay as long as it was driving the people to the left.
of course, there were even bigger stupidities supported or tolerated by liberals simply because it drove many americans to the leftist or liberal camp. take communism. we know that communism was evil. and US was the good guy vs evil communist nations. but, liberals put forth this myth that communism wasn't so bad, and in some ways, even superior to our system because its commitment to 'progressive' ideals was more total or radical. it was said that the only real sin of communism was in trying to do too much good too fast. in truth, communism was a destroyer of all freedom, property, thought, culture, and tradition. yet, a moral equivalence was allowed to take root in the minds of many americans. and many americans came to believe such nonsense because the liberal media bought into it.
now, many liberals knew this to be a lie and knew that communism was indeed evil. but, as long as making anti-communists look bad made liberals look good, liberals were all for spreading lies and stupidity among the masses on the matter of communism.

now, we must distinguish between populist stupidity based on ignorance and elitist stupidity based on arrogance. the notion that 9/11 was related to hussein was a classic case of populist stupidity, based on bigoted feelings toward 'ragheads' and ignorance of world affairs--indeed, most people bunched together all of the middle east as one entity. and, the right often depends on this kind of populist know-nothing stupidity.
liberal stupidity, on the other hand, pretends to be based on knowledge, sophistication, intelligence, curiosity, and compassion. this is why liberal stupdity is, in some ways, more exasperating.
it's understandable why some red state peckerwood couldn't tell iraq from iran or pakistan from afghanistan. but, we really wonder why someone who has a college degree and read so many books could possibly have a soft spot for communism, make apologies for stalin and his ilk, love che guevara the marxist totalitarian, believe that jfk was killed by a CIA plot, and why africa would be all fine and hunky dory if more aid was made available. conservative masses are stupid cuz they really are ignorant. but, it looks like liberals are stupid because... they are educated!! of course, many of them are 'educated'--more like brainwashed--by leftwing jews who look down on the masses of goyim as stupid sheep to mind-control and manipulate. when a leftwing professor looks about the classroom, he thinks, 'look at all those dummy goyim. what can i do to make them kiss my jewish ass? how do you castrate their balls and then turn into a bunch of sorryass pussyboys following liberal and leftist jewish orders?' and, in a way, this is the genius of liberal brainwashing. even though it is no less idiotic, stupid, and moronic than rightwing brainwashing, it has the conceit of intellectualism and thought. this is done by, first, instilling much self-loathing and guilt upon a certain group--mostly white males. meanwhile, it instills moral arrogance and self-pity among certain groups like blacks and homos. from a young age, depending on your race or sexual orientation or sexuality, you are made to feel noble, wonderful, and innocent OR hideous, evil, and guilty. once these controls are in, liberal media and academia feed the people with SELECTIVE information which passes for 'knowledge'. for example, PBS will re-run the same special on emmit till and his murder in the 50s. so, that counts as historical knowledge. yet, PBS will never ever run a program on all the whites beaten, raped, or killed by blacks since the 1960s. there are many many more white emitt tills who were savagely killed by blacks than vice versa. but, where is the remembrance of such? nowhere as the media and academia are run by leftwing jews and guilt-ridden pussyboy white gentile liberals who kiss leftwing jewish ass.
liberals flatter themselves on openmindedness but their search and reporting of news are always extremely selective and lopsided, especially when it comes to jews and blacks. for example, liberals remind us over and over of the holocaust. they point to this as liberal interest in history and truth. but, they cover up the other side of jewish history--that jews played a very big role in the creation and spread of communism which killed 100 million people in the 20th century. that many many american jews who posed as liberals were actually radical leftists and communists who spied for USSR and did everything in their power to subvert american power and security. we are told over and over of how mccarthy was evil but hardly told of the extent of communist penetration in US government and cultural life. during the 40s and 50s, it's true that most communists and communist-sympathizers were removed from US government. but, institutions of arts, entertainment, academia, and media were infested with them. and they would subvert the nation from all these angles. NY Times helped castro to power. and US media helped north vietnam win the war. some liberals were genuinely anti-communist and opposed the vietnam war because it couldn't be won, but many more liberals actively wanted the communist side to win. liberal knowledge is never openminded and fair but selective. but, liberals sure are busy in disseminating their 'knowledge'. since even selective knowledge can be volumnious, we mistakenly think that liberals are really for knowledge and truth. but the real truth is that liberals have their simple apriori notions of good and bad. and all they do is find those facts that serve their causes while totally ignoring or snuffing information to the contrary. this is especially true of leftwing jews. because leftwing jews make up only a small minority in the US in terms of overall numbers, they need to castrate the majority population. leftwing jews experienced what a proud, unified, nationalistic people can do to a minority in germany. so, liberal and leftwing jews want american goyim to be bland, pussyboy, faggotyass, etc. and liberal jews do this by baiting white guilt about slavery and by using blacks to take predominance in the athletic field. this way, white boys have been tamed and castrated mentally and physically. since, liberal jews don't wanted to be baited on their role in communism, they are busy to remind all of us over and over that red-baiting or jew-baiting is evil. but, of course, jewish baiting of christians and whites is okay. according to liberal jews, they can accuse white christians of what the latter did to negroes, BUT white christians must NOT bait leftist jews on what leftist jews did to millions of slavs who came to enslaved and mass-murdered under communism. indeed, soviet communism killed more people than all the negroes now alive in the US. and leftist jews played a big big role in it. but, if we mention it, we are 'jew-baiters'. but, when liberal jews bait white america about slavery, why that's simply 'progressive activism'.

anyway, both the right and left have given up on the intelligence of the people. leaders of both sides have long concluded that people are generally stupid and 'can't handle the truth'. so, it's really a matter of steering stupidity their way.
what does it matter if rush limbaugh is a stupid liar as long as he wins over morons to the rightist cause?
what does it matter if michael moore is a stupid liar as long as he wins over morons to the leftist cause?
this is nothing new in politics, but let's be honest and say both sides have invested heavily in stupidity. both sides love stupidity and ignorance as long as such serve their interests and hate intelligence and knowledge if such help the enemy. it is for this reason that liberals are more hypocritical because they talk as though they are for thought, intelligence, and openmindedness. is this why bono has such a simple-minded understanding of africa? is this why springsteen's semi-retarded musings on the economy is taken for wisdom? is this why liberals are addicted to jon stewart lebovich, michael moore, madonna, and oprah?
is this why jews have so much power, influence, and wealth, but we are not even allowed to talk about it whereas jews can bitch on and on about cuban-american influence, asian influence, white christian influence, catholic influence, etc?

or consider princess diana. what a dumb twad. but, as long as she supported darling causes of the left, liberals turned her into a saint. indeed, all paris hilton has to do is go to africa, adopt a baby, and demand more aid be given to africa and she'll be hailed as the model citizen of the entire world. whether jane fonda or paris hilton, liberals love useful idiocy.

intellectualism is never about the truth but only a truth... or only a lie. anything can be intellectualized whether history, movies, star trek, etc. liberals have this funny notion that the more something is intellectualized, more truthful it is; and since, liberals tend to be more intellectual-ish than conservatives, they must be closer to the truth!!! in fact, this is often just narcissistic gameplaying by liberals to show off their fancy mental fireworks. but, what does it have to do with truth? sartre was a million times more intellectual than solzhenitsyn but who was right and who was wrong about soviet communism? of course, sartre knew of stalin's crimes but as long he could intellectualize(rationalize) them, what did actual facts matter--why they were merely an annoyance standing in the way of intellectual brilliance?
who has more genuine sense about economics? a marxist intellectual or small business owner? the latter of course, but the liberal will often prefer the former; since the marxist is an intellectual, speaks brilliantly, and has written many essays and books, he MUST be closer to the truth. many liberals really think thus. consider studs terkel who kissed sartre's ass all his life. terkel has never let us forget of the evil of mccarthyism--which amounted to some folk singers being blacklisted--but he was always eager to praise and admire sartre, a man who apologized for a regime that killed 30 million and enslaved many more. terkel interviewed many people, wrote alot of books and articles. he is your stereotypical liberal. but, did he understand humanity and history any better than a peckerwood? no. now, i'm not defending willful ignorance of such folks as hillbillies and stupid negroes. i'm all for more knowledge. i'm just saying that alot of liberals are full of shi* cuz they mistake intellectualism for truth and because they betray their own principles and promote and rely on ignorance when it serves their causes. at other times, they resort to outright lies and simplifications to gain a political or cultural advantage.

when larry summers said sexual differences should be looked into as the possible causes for wide divergence between male and female achievement in math and sciences, he was calling for an openminded inquiry. but, most 'liberals' went crazy and said such matters should not even be broached. we should take it on faith that sexes are totally equal, and all differences in society are due to social factors--of white male oppression. this is surely ignorance and censorship but as it's a piece of 'progressivism' with a lot of 'intellectual' theory and 'science' behind it, gee, it must be truth and the only truth; so, there is no reason to look into this subject, no reason to think!
same with the issue of race which many liberals tell us is just a social fabrication, a myth. again, liberals rely on selective gathering of evidence and lopsided argument based on this incomplete data to make the point that their arguments are irrefutably 'scientific' and 'objective'. true openminded and scientific inquiry would allow all questions to be asked; it should tolerate no taboos. we shouldn't be afraid of any truth, any possible conclusion. but, liberals wont' have any of that. they know what is good for us. if certain truths are too 'dangerous' for us to handle and if it's better for us to live in ignorance, then the liberal will always choose ignorance and intimidation.

so, don't tell me that liberalism is about truth, intelligence, and knowledge while conservatism is about lies, stupidity, and ignorance. both are for intelligence only to the extent that it serves their cause while both are for stupidity when stupidity serves their cause.
liberal jews tell us to be smarter and know more about the past as long as it involves stuff like the holocaust. but, when it comes to jewish role in communism, liberal jews would prefer if we knew NOTHING. they want us to be intelligent and knowledgable about the holocaust but stupid and ignorant about the bolshocaust.

personally, i say that as long as liberal jews keep using black slavery to castrate and weaken white christian power in the US, white christians ought to rub the liberal jew's nose in communism to show that two can play that game. liberal jews say that white christians ought to kiss jewish and black ass for the holocaust and black slavery. well, it's time white christians said liberal jews ought to kiss white christian ass for communism and radicalism. how many christian slavs died because of communism? how many asians and latinos?

we have liberal jews going on and on about southern baptist power, catholic power, mormon power, cuban american power, asian lobby, etc. well, let us talk similarly about liberal jewish power which is greater than all others combined. yet, liberal jews wanna keep us stupid and ignorant about the extent of liberal jewish power. indeed, many stupid goyim think that being critical of jews is the greatest sin; oh my, it's 'anti-semitic'!! this is funny when these goyim are far poorer and less powerful than liberal jews who are superrich and powerful. yet, these poor weak helpless goyim feel pity for the billionaire liberal jew!! charlie rose is merely a puppet of liberal jews yet he acts like he's the friend that poor helpless jews need in order to survive in a nazi dominated world. now, that is stupid.

The Impact of the French Revolution on Communism and Fascism.

it's often been argued by leftists and even liberals that marxism or communism was superior to fascism in the sense that the former at least shared enlightenment principles of the french revolution. they say that while fascism is only about naked brutality, prejudice, war, violence, oppression, and hierarchy, communism or marxism is about equality, social justice, progressive values, peace, and etc. of course, such notion is based on the definition of fascism that is purely pejorative than ideological. after all, 'fascism' has simply come to mean thuggishness in our culture. to be sure, fascism isn't the only ideology which has fallen victim to widespread pejorative usage. think of how 'anarchist' is often meant to simply describe social chaos and breakdown of law & order--a kind of mindless nihilism--when, in fact, anarchists too sought a form of social order. the anarchist argument was that social violence was the product of institutional oppression. anarchists were not arguing FOR social violence but against social violence arising from class, national, religious, and cultural oppression. anarchists believed in the use of violence but as a means, not as an end. their ideal society was not made up of the kind of soccer fan hooligans that exist in the UK.
to be sure, 'anarchist' hasn't met the exact same fate as 'fascist'. in some ways, the very negative connotations of 'anarchism' are valued as expression of youth rebellion--as among the punkers and beatniks and such. at the very least, 'anarchism' has come to mean justified violence against the system or against 'the man'.
fascism, in contrast, is regarded as the violence by 'the man' to keep the masses oppressed and obedient.
now, there are a lot of dangerous things about fascism. and, fascism, as it became known to the world thru mussolini, hitler, and japanese militarism, was truly a monstrous creed and movement. but, there is much more to fascism than what leftists and liberals would have you believe. it is not simply or even primarily about being thuggish or monstrous. in fact, fascists considered themselves as the bulwark against true thugghishness and monstrousness.
fascism is obsessed with power but in the name of civilization, nobility, and beauty. it is not power for power's sake. it's doesn't have the kind of philosophy of power--if we could call it that--at the core in the 'gangsta paradise'. among many negroes, power is simply about who can whup whose ass. it's about whose pitbull be the baddest mofo dog there be. there is no appreciation of tradition or history, no vision of nobility or beauty, no ideals, no love of anything beyond one's own power and wealth. see the movie 'city of god'--about brazilian negro gangs--, and its concept of power is totally at odds with the fascist philosophy of power. thug power is expressed thru rap music. it's the war cry of savages and animalists. they wanna tear down society, law and order, all rules, civilization, art and culture, etc. fascism's preferred music is classical. since high, noble, and serious culture dosen't have the tough or barbaric element to defend itself, the fascist must resort to power to hold the barbarians at bay. suppose there is a rapper who howls ugly F-words and shakes his fists and acts like he wants to whup everyone's ass. and suppose in his vicinity is a guy with a violin who likes to play mozart or beethoven. the rapper wants to whup the violinist's ass, so what is the violinist supposed to do? the classical violinist is too refined, too civilized, too genteel to fight with his cultural values. the rapper's 'art' is a war cry, a call to mayhem, to whup ass. the art of the violinist is refinement, beauty, elegance, nobility, dignity, etc. clearly, the violinist is helpless before the rapper. this is where the fascist steps in with the club to batter the crazy rapper's ass. the rapper doesn't respect anything. he thinks he can push his weight around and spread ugliness everywhere. he mocks everyone and everything that is 'pussy' or 'weak'. against such savage force, civilized values are helpless. for civilized people to survive such attack, they need to resort to fascist force. in this sense, there is a fascist element in our society as expressed thru the federal law authorities and local police. most of us obey the law and respect civilized laws and obligations. but, some don't and wanna act the savage. since they respect no law and wanna grab power thru ugly means, the fascist element of society must clobber them and throw them in jail.
anyway, fascism isn't simply about thug power. a gangbanger is not a fascist. a rapper is not a fascist. they have no vision or ideal beyond their jiveass hunger for power. fascists serve an higher cause. rapper and gangbangers serve only themselves.
the problem with the fascism of mussolini, hitler, and japan was mainly two-fold. while they demanded respect for their nations/peoples, they failed to respect the rights of other nations/peoples. a true fascist must be nationalist and respect the nationalisms of other nations. hitler attacked his neighbors. so did japanese imperialists.
also, too much stress on civilization ironically leads to barbarism. when the ideals are too lofty, rigid, or impossible, people become intolerant, chauvanistic, and ruthless. hitler's ultra-aryan-ideal led to war and genocide. and, mussolini's highfalutin idea of reestablishing the roman empire was too much for spaghetti munching italians to swallow or handle. as dirty harry said in Magnum Force, 'a man's gotta know his limitations'. mussolini and hitler did not know their limitations, nor that of their own peoples. still, even their barbaric and brutal forms of fascism were not mere thuggery. they were for higher ideals.

in other respects, fascism is also much more than leftists would have us believe. for example, fascism isn't a simple-minded reactionary ideology. rather, it was a syncretic and fusionary ideology which tried to coordinate if not harmonize the best elements of various systems and ideologies. fascism was not pure capitalism nor pure socialism. it was not pure traditionalism or pure modernization-ism. it wasn't pure spiritualism or pure secularism. it wasn't pure nationalism or pure internationalism. at their best, mussolini's fascism and hitler national socialism achieved many worth goals in the 20s and 30s while most western democracies were mired in economic depression and social chaos, or when communist USSR achieved its progress at the cost of tens of millions of lives, destruction of traditions, mass prison camps, total extinction of freedom. indeed, up the hitler's invasion of poland, the human rights record of fascists were much better than that of USSR. and if we compare mussolini's italy in its entirety with any communist nation, mussolini's italy comes out much better. and, when it came to treatment of its own people, national socialism was more humane than soviet communism--or any communism--even during the terrible war. and, recall that during this period, the so-called democratic world powers were imperialists in their own right. indeed, it was funny when france and UK condemned mussolini's invasion of ethiopia when the former nations had much bigger empires around the world--and after WWII, france would fight two terrible and bitter wars in vietnam and algeria against national liberation movements(in other words, french were doing to many people what the germans had done to them during WWII).
the great crime of german fascism or national socialism was rooted in hitler's insane racial ideology which deemed that jews were an inferior race of sewer rats that had to be exterminated. now, there are alot of bad things about jews in the sense that every people have their unique negative traits--whether germans, japanese, arabs, mexicans, etc. but, hitler made jews out to be some subhuman cockroaches that had no reason to exist. and, so fascism forever became associated with the holocaust. and, as the jews came to dominate the media and academia of the most powerful nation in the world, the jewish-biased definition of 'fascism' came to stick. also, as western europe--the most influential and powerful part of the world next to the US--came under attack by national socialism, most western europeans equated fascism with the worst political system. had western europe fallen under stalinism, our remembrance of history may be very different.
anyway, fascism wasn't so simple as people make it out. if it didn't have a core unified ideology like communism, it was because fascism was flexible, pluralistic, and openminded. it didn't adopt pure capitalism or radical socialism. it believed that society could use and indeed needed elements of both. though social democrats were ideologically closer to communists, in practice they were closer to fascists. both social democracy and fascism were for hierarcho-socialist, not egalo-socialist. they were for providing basic services for all people within the national polity but not opposed to the idea of classes and hierarchy in income and privilege. in theory, social-democrats expounded that social-democratic system was merely a step to future communism, but in practice, social democrats were not all that interested in radical change or shifting to communism. they knew that capitalism was the goose that laid the golden egg which paid for socialist programs and services. so, social democracy was economically both capitalist and socialist. nazi germany was economically very similar to sweden which would come to epitomize european social democracy. of course, the crucial difference was that sweden was democratic while nazi germany was not. but, communist nations were even less free than nazi germany.
anyway, fascism was doomed to fail for two reasons. both italian and german fascism came to rely on the concept of the infallible leader, a very dangerous idea investing all the power in a megalomaniac who grew more and more reckless and ambitious. also, even if hitler had been cautious and didn't wage war and maintained his own nation, in the long run all dictatorships grow stagnant because necessary criticism and freedom are suppressed. still, had it not been for hitler's crazy racial ideas and wars based on them, the history of fascism in the 20th century would have been much more humane than the history of communism.
fascism, at least in the domestic or national sphere, was more conciliatory, peaceful, and tolerant than communism. indeed, this was precisely why so many leftists came to hate fascists. it had stolen left's thunder. the left had argued that there is the bloodsucking capitalists and noble suffering workers and the twain shall never meet. the workers must overthrow the bloodsuckers. also, there could be no peace between secularists and spiritualists. so, communists in russia smashed 50,000 churches and killed millions of christians.
in fascist italy and national socialist germany, mussolini and hitler proved that tradition and modernity, capitalists and workers, religious and secular, etc and etc could work together, complement one another, and live in peace. it violated the concept of marxist dialectics where one side had to oppress or overthrew the other. just as democrats hated nixon in the 70s for stealing liberal ideas and as republicans hated clinton in the 90s for stealing conservative ideas, leftists hated fascism not for its violence but for its relatively successful peace in dealing with class tensions. of course, with WWII, leftists had plenty of obvious reasons to hate fascists. but prior to WWII, fascist record on human rights was infinitely better than that of communists. with far less bloodshed, fascists in italy and germany provided more for their people, established social peace and mutual respect among various sectors, and staved off violent revolution. as far as the leftists were concerned, fascists were mere stooges of the bourgeoisie who'd devised a system using smoke and mirrors to fool the workers and peasants.

anyway, we were talking about how leftists have defended communism as, at the very least, belonging to the tradition of the enlightenment. as such, communism shares something with liberal democracy and even capitalism. communism is said to be rationalist whereas fascism is just alot of black magic.
now, how true is this? for one thing, enlightenment has its roots in the long tradition of western history. much of enlightenment principles go back to ancient greek and roman civilization. and both mussolini and hitler had the greatest respect for greek and roman antiquity. both mussolini and hitler saw themselves as part of the western tradition of science, progress, art, philosophy, etc. neither mussolini nor hitler was calling for the dark ages or for western man to start living in caves again. to be sure, both mussolini and hitler were anti-democratic but this isn't necessarily anti-western nor even anti-enlightenment. there was much in western political thought that was anti-democratic--beginning with socrates and plato themselves. also, not all enlightenment thinkers were pro-democratic. many thought society should be governed like clockwork--by the 'best and the brightest'. also, communism certainly was anti-democratic. in other words, pro-democratism isn't necessarily pro-enlightenment and anti-democraticism isn't necessarily anti-enlightenment. if so, the argument that communism is part of enlightenment tradition goes out the window.
also, it's important to understand that fascism was rationalist though it's often been described as irrationalist. as it's been labeled 'irrationalist', people assume that fascism was based on hocus pocus or some such. to be sure, there were guys like hess and himmler who were into the occult and such. but, no one opposed reason in the workings of fascism. fascism's link with the irrational was not in order to be irrational but to understand and harness its power. in this sense, facism was the rationalism of irrationalism. irrationalism had two underpinnings--philosophical and political. the philosophical aspect posited that man is a creative, inspirational, artistic, visionary creature. history isn't merely historicist or determinist but created by exceptional men of talent, genius, vision, etc, whether in the arts, science, politics. marx said that there are rational laws that govern history, and we can't do anything about it. fascists say men can do something about it. thru one's 'irrational' creative genius, we can re-write the laws of history. we can change the way we see the world, the way we see mankind. in this context, the 'irrational' means the inspirational, the emotional, the romantic, the spiritual, the musical, the visionary.
in the political sense, 'irrationalism' roughly meant populist. it posited that mass psychology cannot be rationalist. an individual can be rationalist sitting alone working as an accountant, mathematician, scientist. but, masses are about millions. millions cannot think rationally together; newton or machiavelli didn't think in tandem with millions of other people; they rationally thought on their own, and this true rationalism cannot be applied on the large poltical scale. also, people's sense and view of politics tend to be emotional or passionate or about self-centered bread and butter issues. a rational economist may say that the economy is doing well--for example, that the GDP has gone up 5% in the past year--but those who are out of work cannot 'rationally' accept this data. he 'thinks' thru his own experiences or thru his feelings. indeed, all democracies depend on and work because of legalism, not rationalism. people in the political process have never been rational. democracy is the sum product of legally coordinated irrationalisms. if indeed all democratic folks are rationalist, all candidates should rationally agree and all people should rationally vote for the correct candidate who is rationally most sound. but, people mostly vote for their own self-interest or based on their own biases, and candidates play to our emotions, not to our intellect. american democracy works not because it's rational but it is powerful and effective in coordinating a million irrational factors and forces.
this is what fascists rationally understood. they understood that the poltical process, psychology, and development were driven mostly by irrational forces. the problem with a democracy--at least during times of social crises--was that all these contradictions threatened to burst at the seams. to ensure social stability and order, fascists felt that a strong inspirational hand was necessary in order to hold society together. in this sense, fascism wasn't pro-irrational but trans-irrational--for a leader to transcend the irrational longings of the masses. but, this trans-irrationalism was based on accepting the irrational nature of mass psychology and politics. since mass psychology and politics are irrational, the people have to be led thru inspiration and emotional appeal than thru rational argument. there's no way millions of people can rationally think Together. thinking can only be done individually. there are things people can do together but thinking isn't one of them. people can sing choir together in perfect synchronization but cannot think and search for the same rational truth together. if thinking must be done, it must be done individually; even so, a million people may rationally come to different conclusions. conservatives and liberals may consider their views utterly sensible and rational; if so, why do they disagree? they disagree because they start from different interest, agendas, prejudices, biases. as such, even rational ideas are rooted in emotional attachments or preferences.

anyway, what fascists understood about the french revolution--the big kahuna in the enlightenment canon--was that its politics was essentially populist, not rationalist. and, in this sense, fascism owed a great deal to the french revolution--if not in principle, then in actual practice.
a fascist may well ask, what was so rational about the politics of the french revolution? you had intellectuals who were well-educated and rational... yet who Passionately disagreed with one another. also, the revolution was impossible without the support of the masses, most of whom were illiterate, dirty, ignorant, and superstitious. just how rational is a revolution when impassioned leaders must rely on the support of the unruly mob? could this mob be led and guided by reasoned discourse? of course not. they could only be roused to action thru calls for hatred, rage, vengeance, violence, looting, and such. the leaders of the revolution soon learned that the people could only be led thru 'irrational' populism. the leaders had to pander to mass anger, prejudices, and hatred. so, from the very beginning, the french revolution was populist, not rationalist. and, even its rationalisms was more Rationalist than rationalist, introducing the cult of scientism. the leaders of the french revolution began to kill one another for 'rational' reasons. each thought he was more Rational than the other guy. also, in order to prevail, they had to rely on armed gangs and the state police which weren't filled with the best educated of men. in order to be win as the most Rational leader, one needed the ability or the knack to appeal to the greatest number of 'irrational' mob.
in time, napoleon was better at this than anyone else. as such, he became the first populist emperor in history. napoleon also came to embody the spirit of the revolution, and many leftist scholars have argued that napoleon was a great liberator, a progressive. while it's true that napoleon spread enlightenment values in principle, in practice--like his predecessors who brought about the revolution--his real lesson to future generations was the power of irrationalism and populism in politics. is it any surprise that both mussolini and hitler revered napoleon? in this sense, mussolini and hitler were the best students of the french revolution--not so much in what it proclaimed but in how it actually worked. the french revolution was essentially a populist and irrationalist revolution. all the forces at work and all the tools used by its leaders and luminaries were essentially populist and irrationalist. these men flattered themselves as rational prior to the revolution when they had the privilege of thinking as lone individuals or devising theories in their own minds. but when confronted with the reality of power and governing society, they realized that power cannot be maintained rationally nor the people led rationally. power can only be maintained thru the logic of political power which defies all rational theories. and the people's loyalties can be maintained only thru appeals to mass psychology which was something very different than individual rational psychology. is it any wonder that even most democracies today rarely elect real thinkers into government? one look at american presidents in the past 50 yrs ought to prove that there is nothing rational about the political process. at best, it can be moderate which is not synonymous with rational.

french revolution is seen as a landmark event in the development of democracy and human rights, and there's some truth to this. but, it also served as a blueprint for both communism and fascism. most leftist and liberal historians will note the connection between the french revolution and soviet communism but will deny there's any link between the french revolution and fascism. they will insist that fascism stood for everything opposite of what the revolution stood for. on one level, ther is some truth to this. the french revolution was about egality, liberty, and fraternity. fascism was not about equality--but it wasn't about rigid or permanent inequalities either, at least among the people of the nation. and, fascism wasn't for 'liberty' if liberty means democracy. to be sure, fascism was for fraternity, at least for people within the nation.
in contrast, one could argue that communism, in principle, had more in common with the the ideals of the french revolution. it was for equality. it was for fraternity--at least among the proles. it wasn't for liberty if liberty means democracy, but i suppose 'liberty' could also mean liberation from wage slavery or worldwide revolution to free all of humanity from bondage of one sort or another.
but, if we look at the actual practice and product of the french revolution, we can't help but realize that fascists were as good students as were the communists. in some ways, fascists were better and more honest students. communists had something in common with the french revolutionaries in the sense that both were intellectual types who thought they could rationally figure out all the answers. but in practice, both french revolutionaries and communists were hardly different from the fascists. when nakedly dealing with actual power, both french revolutionaires and communists discovered that there is no such thing as rational mass psychology, rational politics, rational social power, or rational laws of history. rather, politics and power are about appealing to the masses anyway you must, holding onto power thru any means necessary, ruthlessly wiping out enemies and rivals, and ruling over the population thru irrational use of symbolism and mythmaking. french revolution led to the napoleon myth and communism created its own gods. it's like this: if highly educated intellectuals who've read 1000s of books cannot agree on principles and policies, how can you expect the masses who are far less educated and intelligent to think or act rationally? those who don't rationally understand the irrationals of politics can never survive in politics. rational thinking is done alone or in small groups. but, ruling a nation and leading the people are done 'irrationally'--thru irrational or populist appeals.
and, this is something fascists learned from the french revolution. the main political difference between fascists and communists was that the former was honest, the latter not. fascists understood and admitted the irrationals of their political reality and practice. communist rule was just as 'irrational' and cheaply populist, but there was the conceit of obeying the rational laws of history... and enough intellectuals--who were supposed to be sooo rational--bought into it(and still buy into it. so much for 'rationalism').

now, i am not arguing that democracy is crap because it too is irrationalist. democracy is the best of all systems because it arrives at some kind of compromise--no matter how messy or imperfect--among all the irrational agendas, conceits, biases, preferences, etc, etc.
to be sure, democracy isn't the best system for all places and times. suppose a nation is made up of 100,000 smart people of race A and 10,000 dumb people of race B. democracy will work because whites will maintain control thru democracy. but, suppose the nation is 10,000 people A and 100,000 people B. in that case, democracy may be worse than dictatorial rule by A because it means people B and their idiot ways will take over and run society.
still, under ideal conditions, democracy is the best of all systems because no one side can take total power and force all others. as such, abuses by all sides are checked.
still, whether a democracy works or not is not a matter of rationalism but of legalism. democracy must be either rooted in tradition--great britain--or constitutionalism/legalism--united states. it must also be led by people of more or less moderate and cautious temperaments.
because the parliamentary system slowly evolved in the UK, british democracy had no conceit of remaking the world in a single day.
and, american democracy was based on sober laws and statement of rights; in contrast, french republic was based on sloganeering and radical proclamations. jefferson's Declaration of Independence soberly states that 'all men are created equal'. it suggests that differences should be resolved thru peace; war should be only the last resort. in contrast, the french 'egalite, liberte, and fraternite' sound shrill and populist. also, we sense bloodthirst, a contempt for compromise.
indeed, it's hard to sum up the spirit of the american revolution with a few slogans. even the brief bill of rights reads very soberly. it's not something anyone would want to shout out in the streets. it's not so much that the american constitution is rationalist; actually, it isn't. rather, it's remarkable for its understanding that humanity and the political process are irrational; therefore, the paramount importance is not mapping out a totally rational system but creating a system that best harmonizes and balances all the irrational forces. rationalism is based on logic, and as such requires an idea to reach its logical conclusion; such is a recipe for totalitarianism in politics. the american constitution doesn't try to unify or explain all political reality thru a single idea or theory. rather, it seeks the best way to allow many different people with different values and ideas to live together in relative social harmony with basic rights and with respect for the law. it helped that the founding fathers were mostly men of even/sober temperament and not pompous hotheads like the french. they were rationalists, not Rationalists. jefferson liked to be rationalist in his own study or labotory, not THE Rationalist ideologue for all of america.

also, people like john adams and alexander hamilton were anti-populists. they understood mob psychology and mass dynamics. they not only saw such as dangerous in and of themselves but as potential political weapons wielded by unscrupulous leaders who might resort to riling up the masses to get things their way. this fear was the greatest with the presidency of andrew jackson but even jackson turned out to be sober and moderate than the napoleon of the US.
because of the strong legal tradition and the moderate political culture established as the norm by the temperate founding fathers, american democracy has proved to be resilient. though there have been populists in american politics--huey long, george wallace, perot, etc--, they've more or less been at the margins. americans love a character but still prefer the system to The Savior or The Agenda. it's remarkable that two of the presidents who did most to change america--lincoln and FDR--were not populists who appealed to naked irrationalism. it's not that they were rationalist; the important thing was that they were sensiblists.
the french and communist tradition was both intellectualist-rationalist and populist-irrationalist. both are dangerous as the former seeks the one Rational idea that logically solves all problems and as the latter relies on the enraged passions of the masses(and, as such, always requires a scapegoat or bogeyman when there are no quick fixes to problems).

What Is Required in order to have REAL Fairness and Balance in the Media

some people say that we need to bring back the fair and balanced act in the media. they say that talk radio, for example, is dominated by conservatives, and there's too little balance on the radio. and, this is so because conservatives don't know the meaning of fairness or balance.
in contrast, media outlets dominated by liberals try to be fair and balanced. for example, many people know that most newspapers, tv news, and such are dominated by liberals. so is the academia. and, on the surface, there is an objective or fair-minded style. the newsman or commentators will often speak without much emotions and try to be as objective as possible. the best of this breed was represented by ted koppel on Nightline. but, look beneath the style and surface, and liberal dominated media and academia have been just as down-n-dirty as talk show conservatives. in a way, liberal objectivism is even more offensive because of the pretense of fairness.
even if the style is objective or fairminded, real objectivity or fairness is impossible for several reasons:

1. use of terminology. words like 'racist', 'sexist', and 'homophobic' are not neutral but value-loaded and emotion-laden. so, is a word like 'anti-semite'. it is judgmental. and liberal run media don't challenge the veracity or meaning of these words. some person on NPR, for instance, will speak in an objective tone but use the word 'homophobic' to describe a person or agenda. no matter how straightforward and objective the delivery, it is a value judgment.
recently, there was a PBS documentary on boxing in cuba. it ended with the narrator saying that boxers in cuba today face a future where they will continue to fight for the 'revolution' or for money. this is how terminology can distort how we see the reality at hand. from the choice of words, we are led to believe that cuban boxers are selfless revolutionaries instead of greedy pigs. they are noble amateurs than selfish professionals. but, suppose we change the narration to 'the cuban boxers face a future between fighting as free individuals or as puppets of the state'.
it completely changes our view of that reality. words carry great meaning, and in a way, cuban communism is propped up by powerful words like 'revolution', 'sacrifice', etc. purely on material evidence, cuban communism is a total failure. even its healthcare is a joke, more effective as a slogan than as reality. its power rests in its being called 'free and universal' than being available to the masses, which it is not. and, of course, athletes in communist nations have always been professionals. they want to succeed because they want more privileges, fame, and favors. athlete 'heroes' have it much better than most people in communism.
that a PBS documentary would use the word 'revolution' without any sense of irony is rather odd. that's like pretending that china is really a republic because it's called the people's republic of china, or north korea is really democratic because it's called democratic republic of north korea. the idea that cuba represents a revolution is hilarious. isn't revolution supposed to be about change? well, what has changed in cuba since the 60s in terms of culture, politics, economics, etc? looks like chile under pinochet saw more real change than cuba. cuban revolution is a revolution in name only. cuba is stagnant one-man dictatorship who rules thru crude demogoguery thru effective use of words. it looks as though PBS has also fallen under the spell of these words.
also, adjectives are very important. notice that even objective liberal news often resort to strongly charged adjectives to tilt our view of reality. and when these adjectives are used over and over, it's burned into our psyche that certain ideas are unspeakably evil.
consider how 'virulent' and 'rabid' have often been used to describe 'anti-semitism'. so, anyone critical of jewish power is 'virulent' and 'rabid'. but, a radical jew who's hateful toward christians is never labeled as 'virulent' and 'rabid' but only 'controversial' or 'alternative'.

2. choice of topics. no matter how fairly or objectively a topic is covered, the choice of news topic is, in itself, a form of judgment. suppose some negroes beat up a honker, and suppose some honkers beat up a negro. suppose the news objectively covers the latter while ignoring the former. the mere choice of the latter will make viewers think that white-on-black violence is a bigger problem than black-on-white violence.
or, consider how media and academia have given us countless books and news items about jews killed in the holocaust while giving us almost nothing about how jews played a very big role in communism. or, consider how the media and academia never make us forget about the 'evils' of mccarthyism while hardly dwelling on how leftwing jews in the US spied for the USSR or secretly worked for radical causes while pretending to be all-american. because of this imbalance, it's a greater sin to be anti-communist than communist in the US. anti-communism carries connotations of paranoia, witchhunting, mccarthyism, etc. communism, on the other hand, carries connotations of being falsely accused and hounded by bigots, louts, and demagogues. to be a communist in the US means to be a hapless victim of meanies. to be anti-communist means to be a meanie. why do we feel this way? because the media have given us many topics related to the abuses of mccarthyism. now, mccarthy did abuse his powers and was a no-good punk. but, his enemies were far worse. yet, his enemies are not defined by what they stood for or did but only by their victimhood by mccarthy.
also, notice that there have been far fewer books and far less retrospective coverage of FDR's policy against japanese-americans even though it was a much much greater abuse of political persecution and greater case of paranoia gone bonkers than mccarthy's anti-communism.
also, we are told again and again of what happened to negroes prior to civil rights movement. we are never made to forget what happened to emmit till. of course, much of this coverage isn't even objective but emotional and judgmental. but, even if such were objective, the very choice of topic--black victimhood at the hands of whites--would tilt our sympathies toward blacks and against whites. notice that the media rarely covers stories of how blacks have raped, beaten up, murdered countless whites since the civil rights movement. hardly any of that is covered, even objectively. we are not supposed to take notice of such things.

let us go back to the documentary on cuban boxing. notice that it's about kids, which makes us feel more affection for the subject. also, notice that it's about the pride of cuba--its boxing--than about other realities of cuba, such as the rising prostitution, corruption, and police brutality.
the documentarians chose a topic that would do most to make us sympathize with cuba. even if the documentary is mostly objective, the choice of topic makes it pro-castroite.
also, we are not fully made aware of the context of filming in cuba--that the view of reality is highly restricted and limited by authorities. it's not an honest look at cuba but look at cuba permitted by the cuban government.

3. choice of taboos. certain irrational taboos make it hard for even a fair-minded and objective news organization or academia to look into certain areas. one is the topic of race. we are told that 'racism' is evil. now, certain forms of radical racism is evil in their blindness, hatred, bigotry, and extremism. but, racism, in and of itself, should not be seen as evil. it means races exist and there may be general differences in temperament, IQ, physical strength, etc among the races. and research has borne this out to be true. but, there are taboos which make it nearly impossible to speak of races because the liberal orthodoxy says race is a myth. the idea that races are same as species is a myth, as all humans belong to one species. but, race is not a myth. many biologists believe in race in the sense that certain groups of people share certain traits distinct from other groups due to geographic/demographic isolation for tens of thousands of yrs. that a negro has a much greater chance of making the NBA than a mexican is not a myth but fact. that an ashkenazi jew is much more likely to have genius IQ than a fat hawaiian is also not a myth. there is a great deal of variances within each and every race. and all races are fundamentally similar. but, some races have more of certain kinds of traits than others, and that's the truth, and it's based on the dynamics of evolution. how anyone can accept evolution and deny race is idiotic. race simply means generally-shared-biological-traits prevalent in a certain group. races exist not only among humans but among animals. all dogs, wolves, and coyotes all belong to the same specie but constitute different races. if you don't believe me, have a wolf fight a poodle and see which one wins. 999 times out of 1000, the wolf will win. race is not the only taboo. there are some who argue that sex is also a myth. they say differences between men and women--other than reproductive differences and physical strength--are purely based on social conditioning. as such, there is no sex but gender, which means that one's 'sexual' identity is defined by culture and society. this is alot of caca. there are real biological differences between male and female on many levels. but, when lawrence summers tried to look into this, he was hounded and thrown out of office thru a witchhunt.
now, the media and academia will insist that they are open to all ideas and so on. but, if you ask them why they are not open to ideas about race and sexuality, they bitch and whine and hurl insults and throw fits. they put on prissy face and say that they are sooooo 100000% sure that race and sex are myths that it's not even worth bothering to discuss those matters. we should just accept liberal or leftist orthodoxy on faith. this is not about real science but the cult of science--since liberalism is supposedly about scientific inquiry, all liberal ideas must be scientific. of course, this is no different than what marxists used to say: since marx was a social scientist and understood history scientifically, there is no need to deny his Scientific Theories. this is the cult of science, not real science. no real science can conform to taboos. there are no taboos in real science. to be sure, many radical racist 'scientists' of the past use false methods to prop up their prejudices--also a case of cult of science. one was measuring skulls with crude instruments. but, racial science today is not what it once had been. surgical science in the 19th century was barbaric compared to what we have today, but that doesn't invalidate ALL surgical science.

4. choice of footage, subtleties, and narration. when a documentary filmmaker makes a movie, he ends up with alot of raw footage. suppose he ends up with 200 hrs of video or film material. there are endless things he can do with this. selective footaging can tilt the documentary one way or another. then, there is the narration which is just as or even more important than the footages. also, the panel of 'experts'. two exact same sets of footages can appear totally different depending on the narration. a documentary can show poor people in cuba while the voice-over narration telling us that though these people face many harships, they are still supporters of castro. or, the narration can tell us that for all the promises of the revolution, the people of cuba are desperate. same footages, two very different perception of reality.
also, there are many subtle ways to tilt our view of reality thru certain adjectives. consider the controversy in japan and china about japanese textbooks. japanese textbooks will describe japanese invasion of china using more neutral language instead of harsher language. this is the difference between 'kill' and 'murder', or between 'incident' and 'massacre'. or between 'intrusion' and 'invasion'. when a black man or a jew expresses hatred toward whites, he is said to be 'controversial' or 'outspoken'. but, if a white man expresses animosity toward blacks or jews, he is said to be a 'racist', a 'hater', etc. communists are rarely if ever described as 'ugly' while 'racists' are said to be ugly.
experts are used in documentaries to ostensibly add more objectivity but, in fact, most experts tend to be liberal or leftist partisans. as liberals or leftists, they are protected by the cult of science though many of them don't care about real science or truth. since liberalism is said to be 'open-minded' and 'secular and scientific', there is the assumption than a liberal or his opinion must be objective and open-minded simply because it conforms to liberal orthodoxy. this is like saying that since a priest is a man of god, his words must be that of god. too often, liberals think they monopolize Reason just as some religious zealots think they monopolize god. in their worship of almighty Reason, they are unreasonable.
so, many experts on documentaries are Liberal, not really liberal as meaning open-minded and unbiased. they have their own interests, agendas, biases, prejudics, preferences, etc.

suppose some documentarian makes a film about a religious community. he promises the members of the community that he will be objective and have the members tell their own story. he will merely record the reality. suppose he ends up with 200 hrs of video. even without narration, he can choose only the footages to make the people look like fools. or he can choose only the footages to make the people look like saints. but, if he adds narration, he will greatly change the meaning of the documentary. all narration focuses or shapes our attention to certain things while distracting us from others. but, suppose he goes the extra step. suppose he intercuts from his footage to talking head commentaries by experts--who turn out to be mostly liberal, often jewish. then, despite all the pretenses, it will not be an objective documentary.
of course, there is no such thing as a purely objective documentary. any footage chooses or favors one set of images or reality while missing all the others. suppose a documentary is about a community of a 1000 people. when the camera is shooting one person, it's missing 999 other realities. also, people can put on an act or lie. some lie cuz they wanna, some lie out of fear. most chinese living under mao lied to western academics when interviewed. they all said they love chairman mao and everything was hunky dory. so much for truth.

also, there is much one can do with the video or film footage. one can use slow-motion or grainy b/w. and there is also the use of music. in the cuban boxing documentary, there was a scene about the boxers who had defected to the US. they were shown in b/w and walking in slo-motion. they were presented in a trashy, hiphip gangsta manner. though the narration was objective, the image suggested they are traitors to the revolution.
whenever news stories wanna make us hate or distrust certain a certain group, the members of the group will be shown in slo-motion, made to look ominous and dangerous. they may well be evil and dangerous but such use of imagery doesn't allow or encourage us to think for ourselves. the imagery is thinking for us, manipulating us.

5. way words are spoken. even if the script or words spoken are objective, the way they are spoken can tilt the way we see reality. take charlie rose, for example. notice how he sucks up to liberal jews. when he once interviewes david remnick about what's happening in yugoslavia, he asked, 'how do you...(long grave pause)...as a... jew.......(long pause) feel about what's happening in yugoslavia?' in other words, jews are oh-so-noble. no one understands suffering like the jews. never mind that remnick grew up in the US with all the privileges and wealth of NY jews. simply the fact that he's jewish somehow makes him wiser than the rest of us!! this is funnier when we consider that over 30 million slavs--of which yugoslavs are a part--were killed by communism which was cooked up and largely guided by radical jews.
in a more recent interview with steven bach on leni riefenstahl, charlie rose put on a prissy grumpy face when discussing leni. he didn't show his emotions outright but was hinting to us that he's such a wonderful fellow and so offended by this topic that he's doing his best not to puke.
there are infinite shades of emotions one can express. oftentimes, the liberal news person will maintain the official objective face while suggesting shades of outrage, anger, and animosity when interviewing someone or discussing a certain topic. other times, he will maintain the official objective face while beaming favorably covering other topics. so, a newsman can look objective hinting toward grave/angry or objective hinting toward happy/favorable.
this is why the so-called liberal objective news is all caca.


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

and there are many other ways that news can be biased and slanted. this isn't to suggest that talk radio should be the standard by which all news and information should operate simply because it's more honest. god forbid!
the point is there is liberals don't give us fair and balanced news, and for them to attack talk radio for unfairness is alot of caca.
indeed, i would argue that the only true way to ensure greater fairness is not in the way news is presented--which allows for endless and subtle ways of manipulation and biased reportage--but by setting quotas on how many news outlets can be owned by certain interested groups. now, this proposal is unconstitutional, and this is only a devil's advocate argument. but, IF INDEED fairness and balance in the media are truly important, the best way to ensure such is to make sure that no one ethnic, racial, or political group has dominance over the media and academia. the fact is much of our media outlets are run by jews, mostly liberal jews. CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, and etc, etc are owned, managed, and/or operated by mostly liberal jews. and many conservative journals are owned/run/operated by conservative jews though conservative jews make up only 8% of jewish community and even smaller number of overall conservative folks. this is why many traditional conservatives resent neocons whom the former accuse of being more loyal to israel than to the USA.
now, liberal jews may counter that it doesn't matter who owns or operates the news as long as they do it well, fairly, professionally, and etc. but, ironically, these are the very same jews who insist that diversity is important because fairness isn't only about professionalism and ability but range of perspectives which are often determined or defined by race or ethnic background.
the problem with the liberal jewish argument is they want diverisity among the troops but not among the commanders. NY Times and such will be for hiring more minority reporters but when it comes to those who own and manage the media, they find no problem with jews--who make up only 2% of the US population--being so dominant.
the fact is the real power, agenda, standards, rules, etc are set by those at the top. the guy at the top do the hiring and firing. those below may be diverse or disagree with those at the top but if they diverge or disagree too much, they are fired or shunted aside to less favorable posts. the jewish controlled media will carefully screen those who are most friendly and obedient to jewish interests and agendas. many of the hirelings are liberal jewish. but even when they are not liberal jewish, they better be jew-ass-kissers. consider charlie rose whose show depends on bloomberg media corporation. rose better kiss jewish ass or he's out of a job. of course, jews don't maintain control thru obvious and blatant means. outwardly, they act all fair and objective and so on. but, they know who is a jew-ass-kisser and who isn't. for entertainment value and in the interest of objectivity they will have guys like pat buchanan on certain shows, but guys like buchanan will never be allowed into the core centers of decision making in the liberal jew dominated media industry. now, there are powerful conservative media moguls too, like rupert murdoch, and they are often even scummier than the jews. indeed, fox tv is mostly a joke and most of murdoch's publications are shi*. and washington times is owned by looney tunes mofo reverend moon. and, there are some real pigheaded shi**ers in that outfit.
when it comes to professional skills, ability, and such, jews are indeed the best. and jews gained prominence in the media mostly fairly. they made money and bought media outlets. and, jews are more intellectualish than other groups so more jews go into academics and the media(and the arts). so, it's not the jews' fault that they are powerful. BUT, if we want real fairness and balance, we cannot get it with jews having such dominance in the media.
think of these scenarios. suppose mormons owned or operated CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NY Times and etc, etc. suppose many many news writers and commentators were mormons. suppose mormons were very professional and skilled in reporting the news--as NY Times is. who would deny that the media would be slanted, subtlely or non-subtlely, toward mormon interests. even if the mormon publishers and moguls hired many non-mormons in the media ranks, the ultimate power would be held by mormon bosses who would determine and define the main agenda of the media. also, suppose there is a certain thing called 'anti-mormonism' that is deemed utterly evil because, at one point in US history, one million mormons had been rounded up and killed. so, suppose many of us feel historical guilt regarding the mormons. and suppose mormons today are so powerful that even though they make up only 2% of the population, they owned like 30% of the national wealth. out of guilt AND fear, we would all be afraid of criticizing mormon power. mormons could be the most powerful group in the US but we would not be able to discuss mormon power. meanwhile, suppose mormons feel free to openly criticize, condemn, mock, and insult all other groups.
or, replace mormons with muslim-americans. if mormons or muslim-americnas had the kind of control over US media and academia that jews have, would we say there is NO problem with this? bullcocky!!
indeed, suppose muslim-americans had the kind of media power that jews have. our view of the middle east would have been very different. in 1948, we probably wouldn't have supported the creation of israel. we wouldn't have given tons of aid to israel. we wouldn't have carried out a long policy in the region that alienated over a billion muslims against the US. muslim-american moguls would surely have done everything to make US feel closer to muslims. they would have used US media to serve muslim and/or arab interests. now, all groups--muslim, irish, chinese, polish, greek, turkish, armenian, cuban, etc--in the US have tried to steer US policy to serve their interests. in this regard, jews are no different and no worse. but, jews have more power that just about all other nationalities combined. most of the bigtime media is owned/run by jews. the most influential minds in the academia are jews. also, as both US and western europe feel guilt toward jews(i don't know why this is so with the US when gentile american soldiers sacrificed their lives to save jews in WWII; the answer is jew run media and academia brainwashed all of us toward feeling sorry for jews), jewish power cannot be identified or criticized. jews can not only have superwealth and superpower but we can't even discuss their power. while liberal jews can go on and on and on about arab power, chinese power, european power, russian power, japanese power, christian right power, cuban american power, and so on, we can't say anything about goddamn jewish power.
take an average american; walk up to him and and tell him about christian right power, and whether he agrees or disagrees, he finds nothing wrong with discussing such. but, try to talk about jewish power or influence, and he will look at you as though you're sick, as though you're 'rabid' and 'virulent'. why? because the jew run media and academia have brainwashed him that jews are the noblest folks in the world and that any discussion of jewish power is evil!!
to be sure, it's okay to bash conservative jews as 'uncle tamowitzes'.

so, if we really want fairness and balance in the media, we have to deal with the fact that much of the media(and academia which feed the media)are owned and/or operated by liberal jews who are also immune from any accountability or criticism. the relationship between the media and us is like a one-way see-through mirror. the jew can see us but we can't see the jew. the jew can't see his reflection cuz he's on the other side of the mirror. we can't see the jew cuz the mirror reflects our image. the jews who control the media will hire all-american looking types as the face of the media--diane sawyer, katie couric, tom brokaw, charlie gibson, charlie rose, judy woodruff, some negro, etc. so, when we see the media, we think WE are in control. but, all these dimwit whites and negroes were educated, brainwashed, and hired by liberal jews. they are the pretty goy puppets of the liberal jews. we see our reflection on the mirror but the real force behind the mirror is the liberal jew who provides the voices accompanying the image.

if we really want fairness and balance, affirmative action in the lower and middle level is not enough. we need affirmative action at the very top where the REAL POWER resides. with affirmative action only at the middle and lower, liberal jews can hire people to provide the window dressing of diversity and fairness. but, in the upper echelons of REAL POWER, it's jewish domination. jews make up 2% of the population yet control most of the biggest media outlets. just think about it. they make us care for what THEY care about and then make us think that it's OUR concerns. liberal jews, thru biased coverage, made us loathe apartheid in south africa while making us support apartheid in israel and occupied territories. why do WE feel this way? cuz we read and see the news with countless biases and subtle tricks. and who controls the news? the liberal jews. so, we are appalled by afrikaner apartheid against blacks and appalled by palestinian resistance against israeli apartheid.
liberal jews are so clever that even the worst excesses of israel are blamed on american christians; it's often said that the only reason why israel acts extremely at times is because they are encouraged by christian rightists. so, even the evil of jewish occupation in palestinian territories is the fault of overzealous american christians. zionist liberal jews benefit from the staunch christian right's support of israel AND accuse of the christian right of being the main obstacle to peace in the middle east. yes, liberal jews are very brilliant. never mind that much of american support of israel is the product of biased jewish reporting in the media dominated by liberal jews.

so, if we want real balance and fairness in the media, we need to restrict ownership of the media along ethnic or racial lines. suppose a law says a racial or ethnic group's ownership of the major media cannot exceed 5 times their represention in the population. since jews make up 2%, such law would not allow jews to own more than 10% of national media. the rest would be owned and run by other groups. this would lead to REAL fairness and balance. as it standards, fairness and balance supported by liberals is mere window dressing.