The not Wonderful not Wizard Of Oz
Crypto-jew Wrote Popular Anti-Family Pro-Royalty Tale
We’re off to see the humbug, the criminal humbug of Oz
Don’t get me wrong. I have always enjoyed the movie The Wizard Of Oz. In my youth, jew-owned CBS showed it annually, and I was there nearly every time. Even now, in my greatly diminished ignorance about this world, I still enjoy it. It’s a good ride. But I also enjoy looking under the hood.
The movie and the book are very different experiences. Since most of us adults grew up on the movie and didn’t read the original book, I’d like to focus on the book. I finished reading it yesterday. Today, as I write this article, it’s the 15th of May 2011. The original book was officially published 111 years ago — on 15 May 1900.
For those aware of some history, it’s worth pausing to consider what was going on in the world and our country at around that time. Mark Twain, who I think was a crypto-jew, was still humorously lying while sliding toward death. Jews were in the USA begging for money for revolution in Russia. The Rothschild-led banksters had profited from another “panic” that they’d created several years earlier. Education and other institutions were getting strong-armed into an anti-American force by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others.
I ask you
In a country founded to specifically reject royalty, why would heavily promoted children’s books teach the opposite? Why does The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz (not wonderful, not a wizard) and the catalog of Disney films and books, and an over-abundance of others, go exactly against the foundation of our country?
Why not feature presidents and governors who are chosen by the people for short terms instead of royalty, usually self-chosen, for Life? That’s just for starters, folks! We, the vast majority of Americans, have many values that we basically agree upon that usually were not and are not promoted to children. Again, why?
The answer is because those media have been owned and controlled for a very long time by self-described “jews” and crypto-jews (secret jews) whose goals include the undermining and destruction of our culture to conquer our country.
NOBODY can disprove that. Nobody can disprove that jews have controlled our media for a very long time. Nobody can disprove that a main goal of the conspiring-jews has been to undermine our culture and conquer our country. In fact, in my last two years of research, I haven’t seen anyone even try to disprove that.
There’s no body of evidence that they can assemble to try to prove that conspiring-jews have tried to uphold the main culture of our founders and our country. The overwhelming evidence, if only our fellow Americans would open their eyes to it, proves the conspiring-jews’ attack on our main culture.
There’s no body of evidence that they can assemble to try to prove that conspiring-jews have not tried to take treasonous control of our country. The overwhelming evidence, if only our fellow Americans would open their eyes to it, proves that their goal of treasonous control has been 99 percent achieved.
From the top: The title is a lie
Before a couple of days ago, I never thought about this, but here it is. The title “The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz” is a lie. A double lie. If you read the book, the lie is very clear. The schmuck from Omaha is not “wonderful” and is not a “wizard.” Never was. He was a ventriloquist and a balloonist for a circus before his accidental flight to Oz.
Now, if we may pause a moment: What kind of people are usually the leaders, tricksters, and advertisers of the circus? (Your answer is welcome in a comment at bottom.)
And how many famous books of merit can you name that offer a lying title fully contradictory to the book’s contents? (Your answer is welcome in a comment at bottom.) Right off, I can’t think of any. Usually a title leads the reader in the right direction.
Bill Still and the Money Masters metaphor
The main reason why I’m provoked to write about the 111-year-old book is the popularity of a very good video on the Internet. We link to it in Nugget 30, at right. It’s a video by the relatively famous Bill Still, and a recent version of his film offers the idea that the author of The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz had purposely embedded a wise and telling theme of U.S. money history, including symbols of gold, silver, bankers, and 3-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.
That’s why I felt compelled to read the original book.
First, let me say, it’s a good video, but not great. Why? Bill has still never heard of jews! (No, not “all” jews. I always mean the giant subset of criminal conspiring jews.) Furthermore, if we, as adults, choose our symbols carefully, we can trump up a basic money theme in the book.
But I’m here to tell you that I find the book not internally consistent in any major money or economic theme. In fact, even a major character stands as a symbol of striking inconsistency, which I’ll explain below.
However, what the book does with the most consistency is
- minimize family,
- glorify royalty, and glorify “precious” metals and stones,
- and give Dorothy no character growth whatsoever.
And since the book was intended for children and heavily promoted — making it an instant, huge success for the author and his publishers — we must judge the book on what it feeds to children’s sponge brains.
Baum and his lessons to kids
The author was L. Frank Baum. Anybody know what the “L” stands for? The “L” stands for Lyman. That sure looks like a jewish name. Maybe not. Nobody I’ve read says he was jewish. But I’ve read of his background, and Bill Still offers some background on Baum in the video, and I’ve read many cases of jew name-changing, and I’ve read many cases of jew and crypto-jew life trajectories, and my tentative conclusion is that “comrade” Lyman Baum was a crypto-jew. I say “comrade” because he dedicated the book to his “comrade” wife. Also, he has Dorothy and the Lion use the word “comrade” in regard to their new friends.
Therefore, it’s no surprise that an anti-family, anti-American purpose is obvious in this work of Baum as well as of Disney and most of the programming on tv throughout our lifetimes.
As for Baum’s Oz, its money theme, such as there is of a money theme, will not be recognized by kids. So, it doesn’t matter. But other themes by Baum certainly do matter.
Minimized family. TV loves to portray our family’s adults as stupid. The Modern Family is the latest popular example, which I recently wrote about. Baum’s Oz did it a century ago.
Dorothy is an orphan, so parents are completely erased from life. Dorothy lives with Uncle Henry and Aunt Em. The uncle and aunt are as gray as their surroundings, and they never laugh — as we are told. Toto, Dorothy’s dog, is the life in Dorothy’s life and “saves” her from turning gray, too. She “loved him dearly.” But there’s no mention of love with family. So, there we have, as with Disney, the minimizing of family adults and the extreme elevating of animals. As the Cyclone comes, the uncle runs to take care of the animals. The aunt tells Dorothy to get in the cellar under the house, but then the aunt jumps down into the cellar as Dorothy is trying to retrieve Toto. How’s that model for parenting? Later, when Dorothy meets the good witch of the North, she says her Aunt Em told her all the witches were dead long ago. That makes Dorothy’s favorite family adult wrong.
Glorified royalty. Nearly every group of animals and people who Dorothy meets have a King, a Queen, a good or bad Witch, or otherwise a Ruler-for-life. It’s the model presented to children. Children should want a ruler, and should want to be a ruler. Only Dorothy’s consistent desire to return to her (gray, laughless, perhaps loveless) substitute parents in Kansas runs counter to the ruse of royalty. But what does the typical child think about Dorothy’s desire to leave Oz? Children think she’s crazy, don’t they? At the end, our beloved Scarecrow, Tinman, and Lion all want, and get, to rule over different countries or sections of Oz.
Glorified metals and jewels. Iron, and copper, and agates, oh my! No, nothing so inexpensive as those are featured in this book. The metals and jewels that have been long-controlled, nearly monopolized, by jews are “sold” in this book. By the way, the yellow-brick road is never mentioned as “gold.” So, children won’t make that connection. But gold and silver are described everywhere as adorning things of desire and worship. They are adored. The Silver Shoes of the Wicked Witch of the East, which Dorothy assumes ownership of after her falling house killed the witch, are the most powerful objects, though Dorothy doesn’t learn that till the end. And the Emerald City has its “wonderful” emeralds and diamonds. And the good witch of the South, Glinda, has her “wonderful” rubies. In our lives, what makes these supposedly “precious” things so very much more expensive than other beautiful and useful metals and stones? Salesmanship. Salesmanship in the form of lies — both overt and covert. Gold and diamonds are equated with love. Absurd. Yet, belief in that absurdity is a kind of common sense. No, make that common nonsense.
Two more remarkable themes worth special attention are embodied in Dorothy and the Tin Woodman. After them, we shall put the spotlight on the supposed Wizard.
Dorothy. Usually, the main character in a book or movie goes through some kind of growth or change. In a story of merit and value to society, we hope the reader also benefits from going along for that ride of growth or change. But Dorothy, who is the main character (the Wiz of the title is not the main character) goes through no growth, no change. Dorothy begins the book as an apparently good kid with a mix of smarts and ignorance. Upon arrival in Oz, she immediately wants to return to Kansas. In the middle of the book, she says to Oz, “I don’t like your country.” At the end of the book, despite all her success in Oz, she still wants to return to Kansas. Meanwhile, she had not realized her own power, and so she had obeyed the Wicked Witch of the West, and she went through arduous ordeals of travel unnecessarily. Her character is consistent throughout, really. It was a surprise to me to realize this. In literary analysis, we must ask, Why? Why did the author choose for this result in his main character? I think this result makes it easier for children to reject Dorothy’s desire to return home and to instead wish to stay in Oz and be a Queen (or king) over a country.
In the book, this is the Woodman's second rebuild.
Tin Woodman. The Tinman exhibits two jolting contradictions. One is about a heart. The other is about killing. One: The Tinman wants a heart. When he was of the flesh, he loved a girl. But a wicked witch made his axe chop off his limbs, one by one, and then split his body, so that each in turn was replaced by tin. Without a heart, he said, he lost his love for the girl, but she was probably still waiting for him, so he wanted a heart so he could feel love again and go marry the girl. But after he gets the silk-and-sawdust heart from the nonWiz, he never mentions the girl. His desire is to be a ruler. And in the end, Glinda the good witch of the South grants him that. Two: Early on, Tinman laments stepping on an insect. He’s very sad about having killed it. Later, when the nonWiz demands that his group kill the Wicked Witch of the West, Tinman says he can’t/won’t do the killing. He says: “I haven’t the heart to harm even a Witch.” But when Tinman sees a wildcat chasing a mouse to make a meal of it, Tinman swings his axe and purposely beheads the feline! There’s no reason for it. There’s no reason for Tinman, without knowing either animal, to choose to kill or protect either of them. The wildcat was simply doing a natural thing, and it’s a thing his Lion friend surely does. Later, the Tinman takes it upon himself to protect the group from 40 attacking wolves. He swings his axe 40 times and beheads every one of them. Why is his character so strikingly contradictory? Within the story of the book, it makes no sense to me. Bill Still suggests that the Tinman is a symbol for factory workers. Were factory workers in the late 1800s strikingly contradictory, and does that fit with an extension of that symbolism throughout the book? I can imagine an explanation. Perhaps the idea is that factory workers went after the wrong enemy, aiming too low, never attacking the top enemy. (Again, your ideas are welcome in comments below.)
The not Wonderful not Wizard of Oz
As the late great author Eustace Mullins enjoyed saying, the Federal Reserve System is neither federal nor a reserve. Likewise, we can say that the Wonderful Wizard of Oz is neither wonderful nor a wizard.
Early in the book, the good witch of the North tells Dorothy that “Oz himself is the Great Wizard. He is more powerful than all the rest of us together.” Now, we adults realize: Wow, that’s completely wrong. And as Dorothy journeys to meet the supposed wizard, nobody says he’s a “wonderful” wizard. Nobody. The witch of the North says he’s “good.” Others along the way say “terrible.” Oz himself announces to each visitor: “I am Oz, the Great and Terrible.” In English, the language in which Baum wrote, “great” doesn’t have to mean good, as exemplified by the Great Flood or the Great Depression. And “terrible” is always bad.
After Toto accidentally exposes the little bald man behind the screen, the Tinman holds his axe over the man’s head and asks who he is. The impostor utters: “I am Oz, the Great and Terrible — but don’t strike me … I’ll do anything you want me to.” Later, he admits: “I’m just a common man.” Yet, totally self-centered, he attempts to draw sympathy: “Think of me, and the terrible trouble I’m in at being found out.”
Dorothy and friends call him “a humbug” many times, nothing but a humbug, and he agrees. He stalls their desire for immediate results and he diverts their attention from anger by showing them how he did his tricks of appearing as a Head, a Lady, a Beast, and Fire.
And he tells his story: born in Omaha, he became a ventriloquist, then a balloonist to get people to pay to see the circus. Still a young man, he suffered an accident with the ropes to his balloon, and the balloon sailed a day and a night, finally descending through clouds to this land. The people thought he must be a great Wizard, and he let them think so, and they were afraid of him, so he used them to do everything, to build the Emerald City, everything. Further, he tricked them all in the following way: The city is not really all green. He requires everyone to wear green-glass spectacles 24/7 that make the very many nongreen things look green, too. The spectacles are locked on to their heads. Yes, on Dorothy and her little Toto, too.
He had no powers at all. He broke his promises, which were lies.
Dorothy says he’s “a very bad man.” He retorts that he’s a very good man but a bad wiz.
Psyche out. Then, the nonWiz uses a jew-famous trick on each of them. Psychology. (For fun, let’s not use “Wiz,” but let’s use “Whiz” as in “leave a whiz.”)
- The Whiz tells Scarecrow he is as a baby and is already learning every day. He doesn’t need brains, but he’ll put brains in his head tomorrow. That makes Scarecrow happy.
- Whiz tells Lion he already has plenty of courage, but lacks self-confidence. Lion still wants the kind of courage that’ll make him forget he is afraid. Whiz promises to give him that on the morrow.
- Whiz tells Tinman he’s “wrong to want a heart”, that a heart “makes most people unhappy.” Tinman argues, and Whiz says, very well, he’ll “play the part of a Wizard a little longer” and give him a heart tomorrow.
- Whiz tells Dorothy he must think for two or three days about a way to carry her over the desert. (The entire land of Oz — North, South, East, and West — is surrounded by desert. The Emerald City is in the exact center.)
- Furthermore, Whiz tells them, as they’re waiting, they can be waited on by the people of Oz if they promise to the Whiz that they will not tell the people any truth about him. In a blazing example of the mixed morals in this book, they all agree.
For Dorothy, who is really ‘wonderful’?
In the movie, Dorothy and the others get what they want and what they think they need in the Emerald City, where the yellow-brick road ends. But in the book, Dorothy gets nothing of value from the Wizard of Oz in Emerald City.
In the book, after the Whiz sails alone in his new balloon, Dorothy has to go to the South in hopes of getting help to return to Kansas. To the South, there’s no road at all. So, for those supporting the MoneyMasters metaphor of the yellow-brick road as gold, the golden road led to a bad end.
Dorothy finally gets what she wants and needs from Glinda the good witch of the South, who lives in a castle, sits upon a throne, and wears a costume bejeweled with rubies (picture on throne, above). Glinda tells Dorothy that the Silver Shoes have always had the power to take her home. Glinda tells Dorothy how to use them. Immediately, Dorothy says her goodbyes, clicks her heels three times, and commands the shoes: “Take me home to Aunt Em!” By the way, notice that Dorothy singles out the mother figure, leaving out the father figure. That’s been a staple of “entertainment” from all media in my lifetime. And in the book, there’s no dreamy recitation of the movie’s “There’s no place like home.”
So, Glinda is the one ruler who could be called “wonderful.”
That said, I think I should also inform you that there is a contradiction in the book in regard to the implied definition of the word “wonderful.” At one point, Glinda says that Scarecrow has a “wonderful” brain, and when Scarecrow asks, Really?, Glinda says it’s certainly “unusual.” Thus, we’re given “unusual” as a lame synonym for “wonderful,” which could be applied to the “wonderful” wizard. However, the Whiz was not in any normal way “wonderful,” nor was he a wizard. There, I rest my case.
Real, reel
In the book, Dorothy’s adventure was not a dream. The Silver Shoes whisk Dorothy back to Kansas, where she and Toto tumble-land on grass near the new house Uncle Henry has built. (The old house is in Oz.) But the Silver Shoes are gone. They fell off, “lost forever” in the desert, says the narrator.
In Kansas, except for the replacement house, everything is the same. No gain due to gold, silver, nor whatever. Dorothy returns, apparently, with no new maturity nor wisdom. The same Dorothy.
However, in the tiny final chapter, there is a bit of a happy ending. Aunt Em runs out and exclaims, “My darling child!” And she kisses the little girl. Dorothy ends the book with: “I’m so glad to be at home again!”
The movie is a very different experience. Hook-filled songs. Better character consistency. Better story consistency. The nonWizard is more important. I haven’t watched the movie for many years, so I’d better stop there in my assertions about it. But the VigilantCitizen.com says the movie has been used as a programming tool in child abuse and mind control. That’s another subject.
I’m content to finally end this article by saying these final things. I can still enjoy the book and the movie. I think I prefer the movie. We need to help children and fellow adults be aware of the anti-family, anti-republic, pro-glitz, and pro-stupidity aspects of the “entertainment” and “education” we’re all bombarded with every day.
We can’t click our heels three times and be delivered. We, in real life, need to put forth a bit more Action than that.
Oz links
- Library of Congress has a trove, which I have not delved into.
- The free pdf file of the book, The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz, pub. 1900.
OZ update, 18 May 2011
I’ve just read another Baum book, Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, published in 1908.
In this book, the nonWizard is treated as full friend and good man. Actually, from reading the original Oz book, we know he was quite a criminal. In this article, above, I suggested that circus leaders are jews. Now, in this book, Baum gives the nonWizard a full name. Prepare yourself. Wait for it.
Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs.
Jew, indeed.
In this book, yet again, the nonWizard commits a serious crime. He conspires before a trial in which he will be among the jury. He fixes the trial with the defense attorney. At the end of the trial, the nonWizard is totally exposed, yet his act is called “kindly” and his offense is totally brushed aside. Meanwhile, the not-guilty defendant is shunned because of her intention to commit a crime.
Also, this book continues the adoration of royalty and their having a permanent servant caste, the adoration of super-expensive stones and metals, and the near-total exclusion of human family.
Such books should be considered as rated PG-r, which I intend to mean Parental Guidance required. Without good guidance, they’re unfit as educational entertainment.
=
Filed under: Uncategorized Tagged: | anti-family, bill still, character, contradiction, crime, crypto-jew, education, Entertainment, jew, lyman frank baum, money masters, wonderful wizard of oz
The Good Virus.
What kind of people are usually the leaders, tricksters, and advertisers of the circus?
cons
as a child I didn’t get anything out of the movie except visuals and songs. I knew the “wizard” was a con. I didn’t understand why he played different roles, always a mystery to me. I never figured out the importance of the ruby slippers. Glinda said “they must be very special or the wicked witch wouldn’t want them so badly”. I was always mad that Glinda caused Dorothy to keep the stupid things! Ok the slippers got her home but that still didn’t makes sense. Of course I get it now but if you are a kid and you like things to make sense, the movie did not! Plenty of loose ends.
Ok this comment is going to be a bit shallow since I’ve never even watched a movie, I’ve read the book in Russian translation but I was a kid so that doesn’t count. My point is, after reading that article and one of the most recent ones on ZombieSoup.net (on Oz) here’s one thing in common. In that ZS article they say that characters (excluding Dorothy) are symbols of actual leaders or types of leaders, so the “king” thing is probably not a big deal. It also says that Green Glasses stand for money and that it’s just a trick as compared to silver. But what that ZS article doesn’t stop about is that Dorothy’s parents (who aren’t even in the book) are NOT symbols for anything. So we’re to guess that either that’s a Jewish propaganda trick against family or (honestly, I like the second guess way more) that the authors’ childhood kind of sucked and that’s why he wrote about family that way. Some hip-hop fan said: “Yes, western rappers rap mostly about gang shootings and blowing weed, eastern rappers rap more about police drama and selling drugs, and southern rappers rap more about going to parties and being flashy.. but everyone should be rapping about what they know and that’s what makes them real”. So the writer wrote about being raised with no nurture/education/whatever because that’s what he mastered. But, if anything, it’s safe to say he did NOT picture an ideal family.
By the way, your blog rocks. I’ve always thought that political correctness was mostly made by artists for artists to protect themselves and society from those kinda guys who might think they’re John Wayne or Al Pacino or Danzel Wahington or whoever else. And it was. But it also was used by the Jews to undermine that same society with that same kind of people.. who might think they’re Tupac Shakur or Lady GaGa or Hannibal Lecter. And I found out about that second part only recently, especially about the Jews standing behind that. So I’d say PC is a useful concept but it’s not nearly enough to protect society from those who are good at and willing to give and create Roles.
____________________________________
“What kind of people are usually the [...] tricksters, and advertisers of the circus?”
Gypsies and Jews. Only that Gypsies didnt’ write the Bible and they don’t create real-life Black Swans…
Wow, Cowboy, that’s a wild ride. I tried to like your comment and accept it without rebuttal, but –
You admit to “shallow,” but then you prefer to guess:
“the authors’ childhood kind of sucked and that’s why he wrote about family that way.”
Yeah, right. Did you read about Baum at all? And author aside, how do you prefer to guess why the publisher didn’t change the book to fit American values and why the publisher came to highly promote Baum’s first Oz book over many others that would have supported American values? (In case you don’t know it, publishers endlessly receive manuscripts from hopeful writers, though now they use a network of jewish literary agents as gatekeepers.)
Really: Why, in self-admitted ignorance, try to undermine my message?
Sure, I like the praise you provide, and I like your apparent awareness of the jew problem. But when you tried to undermine my message, you also pre-undermined your own. That throws up a red flag to me.
Speaking of red flags, your stats seem to confirm that you are in Russia. What’s the current state of common knowledge in Russia regarding jews in control of Russia? Which of the famous top leaders are said to be jews and crypto-jews?
You’re right, me arguing about the reasons why Baum choose to sescribe Dorothy’s family that way and not the other wasn’t necessary. I confused the question of author’s intentions (are they good or bad) and the question of the result of his actions (i. e. portrayal of a bad family -might- empower those who had bad childhood, but it’s a balm and isn’t a cure). For that, I apologize.
As for Russia and the jews I have to do my research yet.. Some even argue that Alexis II (Moscow Patriarch) is a crypto-jew, there is a picture of him holding a cross with a freaking hexagram at the center of that cross.. Now that’s surprising.
Also (that one is not so serious, but still) every now and then somebody talks about Vladimir Putin’s (Prime Minister/ former President), posting picture of how his “horns” grow larger with age. I don’t know it sounds like a joke to me, kind of hard to believe that it’s some kind of ritually/implant enhanced thing, looks more like a result of frowning too much to me. But still I don’t know.
I have yet to find any authors/sites in Russian language about contemporary Jews and their influence in politics and culture. The thing is most people who know anything tend to shy away from publicly speaking, so the more public a person or a source is, the less relevant information that they/it provides. The only way to find a sane/responsible person is by accident. It’s probably like that in other countries too.. I’ve only found out about Vigilant Citizen site because some youtuber talked about it on Xtina’s Not Myslef Tonight video, and if it wasn’t for my homophobia I wouldn’t even go there.
Also the problem with Russians is that we are irrational. What we choose to know or to not know mostly depends on what side do we choose. There are two “sides” in thinking (with many variations) a pro-Western one, anti-government, education-friendly side and a pro-Native (I woudn’t say pro-Eastern because honestly there’s nothing more discouraging for a person with that style of thinking than to think of himself and his family and friends as “Eastern”, i. e. Not White), poverty-friendly, obsessed with political correctness in that for or the other, violence-friendly side. Needless to say both ways of thinking are insane. It’s not about the money, on can not have any money right this moment, but in one case he won’t be aware of it and in the other case he would despise himself for not amounting to anything. So the person with that second style of thinking would have no problem if happen to see that most politicians and oligarchs are jews, but he would have a major problem trying to realize that Communism was a jewish idea too. The person with the other type of thinking would simply refuse to care about jews, in his eyes “the jews” thing is simply a diversion and an escuse for not getting and education.
That the 1917 revolution was mostly made by jews is I guess a common knowledge in Russia. But that Stalin’s (who wasn’t a jew, as far as I know) style in politics was opportunistic and “jewish” that’s really hard to convince anybody in. He cared more about prosperity of his country than he cared about the Revolution and the world’s working class. But his actions were effective and provided a positive change, and things like that are what divert most of people here..
Also I’d like to discuss with you on that “roles” problem. Inaccurately put: many whites want to be black, and many blacks want to be white. Nobody wants to be just an adventurous person, or just to be an inventive person, but they want to combine these two. The problem is they use jews’ (in that case: Hollywood producers, movie/music video directors, actors, singers, lyricists &c &c) help as negotiators. Turns out though, abovementioned jews (whether jews by race or not they’re still jews) don’t care about people’s life or sanity or anything like that (in that VC article on Black Swan actors are killed by their roles, which is insane). I for example am tired by everybody seeing me like I’m some kind of a cripple (a smart person and all that but NOT a criminal) but on the other hand I do realize that everything violence-related is just yet another wardrobe and entertainment. The question is, is needing the new roles a good (free, positive, whatever) thing? If no, how do I stop needing them? If yes, how do I by-pass jew owned mass media in getting a new role?
Sorry for the spelling and stylistic mustakes I really do try to avoid making them.
Also what American authors describe family in a good way? I mean I’m not arguing or anything like that. I for example have always been fascinated by how Lovecraft depicts families (especailly since family wasn’t hist main subject so he described them like that almost unintentionally), where the members are more conserned about being loyal than about being lucky or safe. For them loyalty equals luck and that kind of attitude is in my opinion worthy of trying to adopt and of being proud of if one has it. Those are criminal families in his books of course, but still.
Thank you very much, Educated Cowboy. Admirable comment.
Apology accepted.
Your view on Russia is very interesting. History. Jews. Two kinds of people. Etc.
But I’m surprised by your saying Stalin’s action brought “positive change.” Multimillions of murders of nonjews was positive change? Stalin chose to marry a connected jew. It may be that later in his reign he departed from the jews’ orders. But wholesale slaughter of the people overwhelms any supposed “positive change.” Right?
If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Putin, etc. He’s a jew or complicit. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been Poland’s government dying in a plane crash last year in Russia. It would have been Putin and others going down.
Again, if you know I’m wrong, please correct me.
You asked 2 main questions.
1. “Roles.” I don’t exactly understand your question. But I’ll say some things in response. First, if you’re a decent and basically honest person, then you are already better than average. Let go of outside influence on your “role.” If you’re still learning in life, seeking and sharing the truth, then you’re way better than average. But with this comes a problem. The more a person is honest, knowledgable, and sharing the truth, the more lonely life will be. At least, that’s my experience. Anyway, you can know that you are a good person. Improve yourself as you see fit. Most people aren’t trying to improve themselves in any way that is meaningful to our countries or the world.
2. “What American authors describe family in a good way?”
Good question. I can’t immediately think of any. The place to look is not lists of famous authors. Nearly all of them got famous because of jew-publisher and jew-media support. So, it’s unlikely that you would have heard of any pro-family author.
Recently, I’ve read books by home-schoolers. They’re wonderfully pro-family. Let me think of somebody famous. Bill Cosby: I haven’t read a book of his, but his reputation is pro-family.
Anyway, the dearth of famous pro-family authors proves my point.
Yes, as you pointed out, criminals have been allowed to glorify their families in the major media. (I don’t remember anything I might have read long ago by Lovecraft.) The Bush family, for example. And in fiction, mafia-family garbage such as The Godfather and The Sopranos. They glorify the wealthy. They glorify the criminals. Meanwhile, they never admit that jews have always controlled those families — the real-life Bush, mobs and mafia families, I mean.
Maybe another reader will suggest pro-family writers who I’m not thinking of.
==
Cowboy, I guess you don’t want to give your exact identity away, but I want to ask you. What’s your situation in life?
In almost about the biginning of Lovecraft’s “Holiday” story the narrator explains why he choses to go to his distant relatives’ religious festival while his nearer relatives won’t even answer his letters about it in a short sentence – “because only poor and lonely remember”. That line didn’t impress me at first, it looked to me like just another vain person saying “I’ve got the weight of the world on my soulders”, “it’s so hard to be me”, that kind of stuff. But then I came to notice about how much Lovecraft tends to write about this subject (i. e. dysfunctional families that still stick to each other) and I realized he doesn’t talk about money and connections (“being poor and lonely”) at all, for him (the narrator, not necessarily the writer) being with his family is simply more important, his relatives are the most important society in his eyes and being at their festival is the best kind of wealth. Of course later he finds out that his family is all about living at cemeteries and eating flesh, so he chooses to part with them. When Lovecraft writes about family intentionally, he portrays it as irrelevant at best. But his real views on family (whether he was aware of them or not..) are surprising, because I’ve never seen them in the actual, non-fiction life. When friends stick to each other, they do it for safety (at best), but these characters stick to each other just because.
I don’t know about Lovecraft’s life (except that he was raised by his mother who was overprotective and his father went insane when Lovecraft was little, and he’s from New England where supposedly they had very high moral standards about family and every other aspect of life) but he’s a writer and his characters has a lot to do with having bad blood (which, by the way, isn’t the same thing as with mafia family characters, the latter are connected and professional and -in movies and books, that is- trying to abstain from trouble, but the characters of “witches’ blood” descent, while they are professional, in a way, but they’re not “professional criminal” kind of people, they’re crazies, but crazies who were raised that way so they’re even more dangerous, so the books like that are more about glorifying sex and violence than about glorifying wealth; but these kind of stories are a problem too, because it casts shadow on the good citizen, “everyday normal people” while in fact without normal people and their silent approval neither of these two types could exist, but they’re a different problem, because these people, i. e. lunatics, sectants etc are below the law, while the first type, the mobs and corporations, are “above” it), and one of his characters even needs to emphasize (in a way someone would say “I’m not drunk”) that he didn’t have mentally ill or interested in occult people as his heritage – to prove his mental stability and the credibility of his story. I doubt that Lovecraft stands alone on that view of family (that it’s “more important than luck”), Poe doesn’t have, I wouldn’t be surprised if Hawthorne has something like that, but I didn’t have a chance to read him yet. Are American values coming from English values or do they have different source?
Stalin I think should be compared to other politicians, not because “politicians have to adopt different morals than ordinary, retiring citizen” or any stuff like that, but because his actions might turn out as just a result of their other actions or other decisions – that’s to say, they might turn out to be events and not actions. I compare him to Trotsky. Stalin was criticized for abandoning the idea of the World Revolution (which he did abandon) and for trying to minimize the exposure caused by the troubles and situations in other countries. Orwell in his “Homage to Catalonia”, on the fact that communists in Spain (on whose side Orwell was fighting) didn’t receive any real, balance-changing help from Russia agains Franco, on wich he wrote (I quote from memory) “I wouldn’t be surprised if Stalin’s policy, though portrayed as so extremely cunning, would turn out to be just a simple opportunism”. Orwell (as far as I know) wasn’t a Jew, but he say exactly the same thing that Trotsky would say, and did say on different occasions. Before the WWII, but right after the Revolution, Stalin opposed the policy of treating Russia as just a means to the probable World Revolution, and managed to force the rest of the government to support his policy and not the other one. Whether he calculated the forces of the world working class right or not was debatable (As Ceasar says about the Pharsalus battle, “Pompei underestimated how the velocity of the first strike enhances the force of blows and improves courage of the attackers”), but trying to accomplish the World Revolution would most likely involve much more human casualties then Stalin’s policy did. On repressions.. you’re right it wasn’t a positive thing. Of course one could say the repressed people were criminals, or that Lenin or Trotsky would either have to do the repressions exactly the same way, or lose the power, not from the people of course, as the people doesn’t have the necessary connections, but from their immediate subservients, but all that aside, there were still a lot of people incarcerated, executed and even tortured and a lot of them were innocent people who were just victims of slander and false accusations. Only thing I could say in defence of Stalin’s administration is that in the 90′s (i’m not sure how accurate the statistics is, just what I read), when Soviet Union fell and people couldn’t first adapt to the impunity, the casualties of the organized crime and of the random violence together were about 3 times more that casualties of WWII.
The “diversions” I was speaking about are the victory in WWII, the first man in outerspace, these kind of things. These aren’t enough to justify murders of innocent people. Most of them weren’t innocent, but still.
Now, Trotsky. He was real hardcore. Not only as and administrator, but as a leader. In his book “Stalin” he wrote “A new comrade joining the organization knew, that a few months since now he’s liable to be incarcerated, and then exiled. His ambition was – keep working low-profile and keep using time before the arrest; keep a straight face before the g-men; clean, if possible, the criminal record of other comrades; read in prison as much books as the opportunity allows; run out of exile to through the border [to Europe] as soon as possible; gain there wisdom and return to revolutional work”. That’s something different, treating Revolution as a very simple and interesting game. As Orwell in 1984 states, “War is Peace”. I know that murder, spying and betrayal are all wrong, but with that kind of leader, I have to admit I’m not sure how much my moral boundaries would extent. The Civic War was all about Trotsky, despite all Stalin’s effort to exaggerate his role in it.
By the way, I once overheard the conversation (mostly listening) where some older (30-40 years in general) people were talking about “what’s mother language?”. Some were saying, “the one that person is speaking on”, “the one that were taught in childhood”, but the luckiest answer was “the one that person is thinking on”. Trotsky was a Jew, but his Russian was more fluent than most of the Russian guys speaking, even. Sverdlov (Trotsky’s contemporary) for example, he was Russian and he’s very clairvoyant and his writings are easy to read, but he readed so much foreign literature that it takes additional effort to relate to his writing. I try to read Stalin’s speeches but they just wouldn’t read, leaves reader with the expression that the author might think Russian words, but he doesn’t think the processes and links between processes, that words supposed to signify. Trotsky has that, not only the knowledge of Russian language, but also the knowdledge of Russian logic.
About Putin I think you’re right. I’m still trying to accomodate with the fact that some of the key figures in government are jews. I’ve always thought, although they are lazy bastards, they’re trying to do what’s best for the country. But now I’m not so sure, maybe it’s not so much about lazines as it is about different agenda.
Position in life.. let’s see. I’m 21 years old, unemployed, uneducated, working odd jobs from time to time but mostly just kicking the air. I live in a small (about 150 000 people) city about 3 hours of driving from Kazan, “the capital” of Tatarstan. There is none or almost none national tension between tatars and russians, nobody I know (except old people) know tatar language, so there’s about no difference. The city is far from Moscow, but the people on the internet who live in Moscow say there’s a lot of “racial tension” between russians and “kavkazi” (sp?) people, escpechially from Che chnya who don’t care to assimilate and act like they own the whole building. Anyway, nothing like that down here. If it weren’t for all kinds of punk kid teenagers getting drunk and singing, playing guitar every single night all around the town, the illusion of safety would be complete. I’ve had a crush on Avril Lavigne since ’07 which made me see all the girls I know as annoying toothless crackwhores, but also, because of the fact all these big-time rich famous superstars are inaccessible for me, it messed with my self-esteem pretty hard. Most important thing is, I’ve managed to mess up all the friendships I had, because my friends kind of slow on questions where political correctness and availability of information are concerned – the way I see it, everybody is supposed to share a certain amount of respect, but certain people and certain groups seem to parazite on the “respect” of other people, and it gets me, but what get’s me more is in a healthy society such people, once recognized, would be avoided forever, but with my friends, they just say “so what”. Like some priest said “the AIDS isn’t about how God punishes homosexual people, it’s about how God punishes society that tolerates homosexual people”. I don’t hate gays, as long as they don’t flirt with me, but I hate bisexual people who are that way just because that’s fashionable, and I kind of noticed (sexual preference is just an example, it’s not only that) all my friends are that way, not really bisexual, but not really straight either. So here I am, tired of my friends, tired of my life, not knowing what to do and where to go. What I want to do is leave everything and go to some good country where decent white people live (America, England, France, Israel, Japan, something like that), or at least change town just for the thrill of it, but I don’t have money nor the communication skills for that.
About “roles”, I’m not sure what I’m asking either. I’ll try to think it through, how to put it in words. Right now, I can only give two examples. First, it’s strange why, say white supremacists can’t enjoy listening to gangsta rap, and jews can’t enjoy reading Mein Kam pf. On one side, it’s good, because since they’re racist, that abstaining from certain information helps them work, and hepls them be who they are, namely racists. But on the other hand, it drives them back, because it makes them one-sided and to convince them of a certain opinion, one only has to discredit the contrary opinion, as the opinion of contrary side. So, it makes them one-sided, but if they could by-pass, through this or that role, seing themselves as white, or as jewish, they could be more three-dimensional. The second example, there was that guy on the internet who, when I asked him about, what’s that with people who don’t care? said that although it’s true, no one cares about the problem until it touches him personally, but that only proves one thing, that to stop all these bad people one needs to find a way of sistematically doing two things – make the normal people care about these things, and frame the bad people for it, thus getting rid from both of these problems. He was right, but to actually find that way of doing these things, one has to “let go” of his being a good, law-abiding person (because there’s an obvious question, where do I stop, and what makes me different from supposedly bad people?). And needless to say he can’t ask the System for help with letting it go. That second example is what jews were doing for hundreds of years now, creating the hype and frame all the sides in it. But what they did wrong is they create hype over the wrong details, i. e. to hide themselves, so there’s got to be a way of reversing that hype and make everyone see them.
These two are just examples of why sometimes it’s expedient to bypass a role by using the other one. I’ll try to come up with a definition or at least with better examples.
Very interesting! Thanks for all the info, thoughts, and ideas.
I’d like to react to two things, for now.
1. You told us that somebody else said:
“…to stop all these bad people one needs to find a way of sistematically doing two things – make the normal people care about these things, and frame the bad people for it, thus getting rid from both of these problems.”
So, I think I understand your “role” idea much better now.
For a while on this website last year, I often repeated a message that I thought would help free people from a role. I said: “We’ve all been mis-educated, mis-led, and mis-informed our whole lives. And our parents were, too.”
I thought that would help people open up to new (and shocking) truth.
But this website’s readership has not grown much, which disappoints me very much. So, I try new ideas, always with the truth, as best I can.
2. Tatarstan. Thanks to you, I’m learning more depth about Russia. I did a search, and google images showed an interesting variety. I was intrigued by the Qolsharif MOSQUE. And I found the following info. Is it correct?
QUOTE:
“Tatars are a minorty ethic group of Russia, they are muslims, they are a Turkic people (they are not Turks… but they are family of Turks)
“Tatars had a great islamic nation in the today region of Tatarstan (in Russia), but when Russia invaded it, they destroyed the first Qulsharif mosque, and tried to convert Tatars to orthodox church (during Sovietic rule, they tried to convert tatars to atheism)
but, I think that they hava failed… because the most practiced religion in tatarstan is islam… Tatars has not left islam… and some Russians have converted to islam in Tatarstan”
END OF QUOTE.
And your city is called the “third capital of Russia.” So, there must be a lot going on there.
FINALLY, I think you’re overcoming your purposely bad education!
I don’t live in Kazan, I live in one of the small cities near it. I’ve never heard Kazan called as “third capital of Russia”, that term is mostly applied to Sochi because of their money. The 2014 Olympiad is going to be in Sochi. That quote looks correct to me, only except “they are muslims” part of it. It would be wrong to say “most tatars are muslims”, but instead “in Tatarstan, most muslims are tatars. Most people here are athists, but the religious ones tend to choose religion by their nationality. Most christians here are russians. I have a russian mother and a tatar father and neither a christian or a muslim.
Oh and no the communists didn’t fail converting tatars (and russians here) in atheism! Same as the Hollywood didn’t fail to convert tatars (and all the world) in whatever it is they believe in. Drinking and smoking, and listening to most kinds of music are taboos in Islam but most everyone here does it, even some of the people who do believe in Allah. But yeah there’s a lot of mosques in every city, I’m not sure that more than churches, but at least as many mosques as churches.
“For a while on this website last year, I often repeated a message that I thought would help free people from a role. I said: “We’ve all been mis-educated, mis-led, and mis-informed our whole lives. And our parents were, too.””
Yeah, I’ve read that. I like how you say “‘entartainment’ AND ‘education’” in the Oz article. There’s a comic book (a very quality and thought provocing one) called Scalped, one of the characters, an Indian is seeing that nightmare where at some point his mother says to him “you have to face who you are / No matter how much you hate yourself, THESE people hate you more” and than a few pages later he’s looking at the Rushmore (sp?) mountain with Indian chiefs on it and a line written on it “You Are On Indian Land”. Kind of interesting in the same way, because really, non-jews don’t have to hate themselves and each other.. Doesn’t have to be like that.
*am neither a chritian or muslim.
Just in case – that comic book reference wasn’t a joke or anything like that, I really do like the book and read every new issue. Criminal and Scalped are the most worthwile comic books ever written/drawn.
I appreciate the education! Thanks.
Sorry for forgetting that you are “3 hours” away from Kazan.
I’m looking forward to discussion on other articles. The point of view of a young man in your country and situation is interesting and enlightening.
What happens to the Jews when a gentile takes power who believes Jews to be inherently wicked?
Are you asking the Cowboy or me?
It’s a loaded question in three ways.
1. You don’t distinguish between criminal and innocent jews, so your implication is All jews.
2. You say “a gentile.” No single person takes power over a country. It must be a group. (Some readers may want me to explain about the single male Rothschild top boss. He would have been displaced long ago without the supreme unity of that family and extended family. They’re a big group.)
3. “inherently” wicked.
If we ignore all that and simply respond to the superficial thrust of the question, then my answer is, it depends on the group of gentiles who take power.
As our Platform page makes pretty clear, no spree of murderous revenge would occur from our leadership. We get justice done under long-established laws, prosecutions, imprisonments, killing secrecy, beheading treasonous corporations, and unleashing “unalienable” rights and freedoms.
How would you answer your own question, if you take power?