the dangerous legacy of 'get paid, get laid-ism' of Bruce

traditionally, americans worked to make a living.  when americans were
mostly farmers, it was work from morning to evening.  lots of
hardwork. it was to make ends meet, to raise a family, etc.

with the rise of cities and big industry, american workers lost
contact with the soil.  this led to many dangers, especially during
times of economic duress.   if you're a farmer living off the land,
you can get thru bad times by working your land or other folks' land.
food comes from the soil below your feet.   even if you got little,
you can still grow your own food.
this was not the case in big cities. urban workers were in big trouble
during economic depression.   without wages from jobs in factories or
shops, they could not buy food to eat; without trees all around them,
they could not just build a make****ft log cabin if they got evicted
because they couldn't pay the rent.  even a poor farmer can grow
tomatoes on his little farm, but nothing grows from asphalt and
cement. so,  it became more necessary--thru cor****ate and government
powers--to provide safety nets in terms of job security, benefits,
unemployment benefits, food assistance, and even welfare.
there was another crucial factor which might called the 'stink
standard'.   farm folks were never no clean.  they were working with
manure, dirt, soil, etc.  migrant farm workers often slept in the barn
with animals and hay and worked out in the open air. so, a jobless
farm worker who stank like hell could still arrive at some farm and
ask for work--like mexican migrant workers do even today.   he didn't
have to be clean and presentable.  he just needed two hands and
feet.   being 'homeless' wasn't a big disadvantage for a farm worker.
it's like the joad family in Grapes of Wrath could arrive in
california and still found work though they stank like hell.

this was also the case in many early industries in america, especially
since even most americans with homes did not have acess to hot water
regularly.  by our standards, people many decades ago stank like
hell.  also, air conditioning was a relatively recent invention.
also, in the era of horse power, there was horse dung all over the
streets.  so, stinkeroo-ishness was everywhere.
read emile zola's GERMINAL and the working class in france stank like
hell. after a long day's work in the mines, the entire family washed
in the same tub of water that got blacker than fat albert's ass. much
the same applied to america.
since then, standards of acceptable cleanliness have gone up.   in the
early 20th century, a factory would have hired some stinky applicant
for the job. today, such person will be seen as 'homeless' and be
turned away.  so, most people expect to have the basics of modern
necessities in order to stay on their feet.   in the early 20th
century, you could lose everything, stink like hell, and find a new
job.  no longer.  most workplaces expect everyone to shower everyday.
so, americans are much more anxious about their economic security.
and, so cor****ations and government have tried to make sure that most
of will not fall so low as to end up stinky.

this is all very good except it has led to a kind of entitlementism.
we take it for granted than with gratitude.  many americans think they
are cosmically ENTITLED to a good life. even working americans expect
their current security to remain fixed forever. instead of using
today's security and bounty to prepare for a different future, many
americans just lay back and expect today's certainties to last
indefinitely.  this is the negative side of american success.  america
has been so successful during much of the post-war era that good many
americans are afraid to step into a new direction.  of course, US is
not the ONLY nation facing this dilemma. many nations are even worse.
take japan's long recession in the 90s, which was a result of japanese
refusal to do away with lifetime job securities that became a defacto
social right for many japanese. instead of adapting quickly to new
realities, japanese businesses tried to stick to the old way that had
once worked  well for so long.
or, consider latin america's bloated public sector.  the vast numbers
of people dependent on government for jobs and security resisted all
reforms that led to one economic crisis after another.  by the time
neo-liberal reforms arrived, things had gotten so bad that the reforms
unfairly got the blame for the fiasco.
and, look the slow pace of change in many former communist nations.
communist economies were sluggish, backward, and weak, but they
provided the basic necessities of its citizens. many people prefer
three meals a day in prison than the possibilty of no meals as a free
man. with the fall of communism, liberated eastern europeans should
have energetically tried to exploit the new freedoms and grow their
economies. but, they'd gotten so used to entitlementality that they
just acted scared.  many folks preferred security thru inertia than
success thru initiative.

in many ways, america was different.  it innovated, changed, and
evolved from old economies to new ones faster than other nations.
americans have been more adaptable, and willing to shed old jobs for
new ones and to abandon old technologies for new ones.  or, to move
from one region to another for a new life.  we speak of immigration to
america, but there is much intra-migration within america where
adventurous people go from east to west, north to south, southwest to
northeast, etc and etc.   reagan wisely didn't protect old industries
and opened up the economy to come up with the new.  one of the reasons
for american dominance in the high tech age is the american economy
redirected its capital investment in the future than in holding onto
old industries.
american business and scientific elite are the best in the world--most
innovative, adventurous, risk-taking, and etc.  and, this could also
be said for many american workers.

but, there is a segment of blue collar american workers who've been
unable to keep up. it's often said by people on both the unionist left
and protectionist right that blue collar american workers have been
left behind.  there is substantial truth to this when we consider the
number of low-skilled jobs ****pped south of the border or overseas to
places like china. but, this is only half the story.  the other story
is that the blue collar american folks have not kept up with the
times. worse, they didn't push their kids to prepare for a changing
world.  there is something wrong in american blue collar mentality,
perhaps best exemplified by the motorbike harley davidson.
instead of choosing innovation and challenges of competition, harley
davidson stuck to its outdated models and symbolism of nostalgia. this
is no way for a technological industry to survive.  today, harley
davidson is essentially a relic for cultists--often for middle class
folks who don working class outfits--like some foreign tourists in the
american west like to play cowboys and indians.
though working class politics and union movements are linked with
progressivism/left, all three are about maintaining the status quo.
they are phobic about changes wroght by capitalist innovation and
competition.   some leftists can only tolerate change that can be
controlled or guided by big government. and many blue collar types
don't want any change at all in their industries.  in this sense, they
are like henry ford who insisted on only making and selling the model-
t--before he got smarter and faced up to reality.
it's natural that people want security in their lives, but the price
of freedom is that nothing is forever in our economy.  new
technologies arrive and old ones go, new regions rise while others
decline. consider the many western towns that were flush with gold-
miners and then vanished. rust-belt areas must iron out a new future
instead of holding onto old industries.  mccain is right in this
regard when he told michigan workers that they should not wait for old
jobs to return. they should try to create new jobs in new industries
or migrate to other areas.
sadly, much of blue collar american mentality is like soviet
mentality.  for 70 yrs, soviet man got so used to social certainties
that it didn't know what to do in the post-communist era.  they were
not only unable but unwilling to adapt.   in the post-war era, blue
collar workers in the US enjoyed decades of prosperity and security
and began to regard such as god-given rights.  they began to think
that cor****ations were obligated to 'take care' of them.  people
forgot that while cor****ations have the responsibility to share
profits accordingly and provide safe working conditions, they are not
welfare institutions.
now, a powerful argument can be made against industries setting up
factories in mexico and china where rule of law is weak and the system
is autocratic--and where workers are often exploited.  it could be
argued that even the most sober and adaptable american worker simply
cannot compete with semi-slave labor.
but, it's also true that many blue collar workers have fallen into
slacker mode.  some slack off on the jobs, but more im****tantly they
slack off when it comes to preparing for the future.  indeed, many
blue collar workers in the US are hard workers. they respect their
jobs and take it seriously. but, they raise their kids to expect more
of the same for the indefinite future.  the responsible role for any
parent is to push his kids to prepare for  the future.  in other
words, it would have made more sense for a railway worker in early
20th century to encourage his kids to learn about automobiles and
aeronautics than expect to work in the railroad industry like their
pa. and, in the 50s, someone in the radio industry would have been
smarter to goad his kids to go into television or computer technology
than try to become a radio person like their pa. but, there is too
much 'land where time stood still' mentality in blue collar
communities. there is a lack of willingness to adapt and change.  like
springteen's song The River says, kids are 'brought up to as my daddy
done'.  this is a form of  iconography that, while moving and crudely
noble-sounding, isn't very helpful for the future.   it's akin to the
iconography of the 'greatest generation', but the celebration of WWII
generation is okay because it's about remembering the past.  it's a
story that needed to be told and remembered.  though the idea of
'greatest generation' simplifies, ennobles, and mythifies, it's not
about shaping the future.
for the sake of the future, we need to deal with hard facts. we need
to see people as people, not as heroes, saints, salt-of-the-earth,
etc.   if the idiocy of libertarian capitalism is the notion of CEO or
businessman as god-like promethean hero--akin to characters in ayn
rand novels--, the idiocy of blue collar leftism is the notion of the
noble working class saint.  yes, we are all familiar with the
iconography of those stark b/w photos of proles in working class
caps.  or, the story told in the Grapes of Wrath where displaced
farmers morph into proto-proles. or, the songs of woody guthrie where
workers are saints and bosses are tyrants.  this is a myth and leads
to bad politics of the populist/demagogic kind.

in old westerns, white settlers were noble pioneers while injuns were
nasty savages. in revisionist westerns like 'little big man' or
'dances with wolves', indians can do no wrong while most white folks
suck. injuns are sooo wonderful.  kevin costner did with indians what
bruce springsteen does with the working class.  they ****tray people as
idealized icons than as realistic folks.  this usually leads to
collective narcissism or collective vilification.   if cowboys were
all so good, injuns must have been all bad. or, if indians were all so
good, cowboys must have been all bad.  if rich people are all good,
poor people must be all bad(like social darwinists argued). if working
class people are all good, rich bosses must be all bad. this is
foolish. but, we have too much of this from everyone--not least from
the hollywood superrich who feed demagogic anti-rich stories to the
m***** all the while growing ever richer from box office receipts.
for ayn rand, the leaders/makers of the new world are masterful/
wonderful/noble while any sympathy for the m***** is bogus; it's a
form of nietzschean capitalism. for guthrie, springsteen, and pat
buchanan, the american worker can do no wrong.  it's entirely the
fault of GREEDY american capitalists who no longer care for the
American Worker. this is an idea of nobility based on class, like on
race.  there are blacks who think they are noble simply because their
ancestors were slaves--by the way, does being a slave automatically
make a person noble?   we can sympathize with the oppressed,
exploited, or the poor but none of those conditions makes a people
noble.   if we need reform and change, it must be based on real facts
than bogus iconic assumptions.
this social--and even spiritual--sanctimony based on race or class is
a pain in the arse.  it can be powerful in an aesthetic sense, but
it's a false representation of reality.   of course, this mindset is
rooted in religion as religion has been in the business of sanctimony.
so, jews sanctified themselves as god's chosen people. christians
sanctified themselves as god's ordained children.  muslims sanctified
themselves as the followers of the the greatest and the final prophet
of the one and only god.
if pagan peoples sanctified The Great King or the Great Hero, judeo-
christian-islamic religions tend to sanctify entire peoples.  in the
secular era, this tendency has morphed into sanctifying entire races,
nationalities, or cl*****. or, ***es. 'sisterhood is beautiful'.  or
***ual orientation--'gays are pure angels'.  or, age.  we are told
that obama is the best candidate because young people--so pure and
idealistic--like him most.
enough with this.  while some degree of feel-good identity-based flag
waving is understandable, it's gotten out of hand.  we need a
hardnosed look at people as people.  there is good and bad in all
groups.  CEOs are not gods, and blue collar are not saints.  blacks
are not soulful salt-of-the-earth, jews are not the totally innocent
victims of history, and american indians are not cosmic nature
children.  in the 60s, many young people were into the wisdom of the
East and fell for a whole host of bull**** hindu mystical nonsense.
the REAL india--brilliantly shown in louis malle's Phantom
India(though the narration was quasi-marxist crap)--was something
quite different.  it's one thing to look out for the interests of the
american worker, but let's not romantizice Him.

in the 1992 GOP convention, buchanan spoke for the american worker.
it was something that needed to be said, especially in the republican
party which had ignored the blue collar community for so long--except
on social issues.  BUT, buchanan idealized the american worker--more
precisely, the white american worker--as some kind of noble saint.  if
we may forgive such simplification within the context of political
campaigns, buchanan repeated his iconography in the role of author and
commentator in years to come.   we wonder whether buchanan is really
so simple-minded OR has found in the (white)blue collar worker the
perfect symbol to promote his vision of a (white)america-first
nationalism. after all, rich businessmen seem to be more
internationalist than your average worker.  a rich businessmen trots
all over the globe to sign new deals and find new markets whereas the
blue collar worker is rooted or 'loyal' to his own community.  the
modern businessman is like mercury, zipping around everywhere and
constantly adapting to new realities. they have the skills and the
means.  the blue collar worker is limited to making a living by
working at a stable job in his community.   so, for people like
buchanan, the blue collar worker is representative of american
patriotism.  but, is this really so?   despite the widespread
political wrapping of blue collar american worker in the american
flag--by both left(springsteen) and the right(buchanan)--, aren't blue
collar workers no less self-interested?  if blue collar workers are
really into america-first, why were they so eager to buy goods made
overseas than goods made in the US?  why not buy the more expensive
american product instead of the cheaper products made overseas?   the
blue collar workers buy cheaper goods for the same reason globalist
businessmen invest overseas.  for self-interest.  it's not so much
patriotic blue collar folks rooted to community vs traitorous global
businessmen types. the only real difference is the latter has more
skills and means to take more advantage of rising globalism.  if the
limited skills of the blue collar worker limit him to seeking
employment in a fixed community, the highly educated and intelligent
globalist enterpriser--dispro****tionately jewish--has the adaptability
necessary to gain new advantages in the new world order.   also,
notice that american unions are no less self-interested and 'cynical'
than globalists.  many unions are happy to include illegal alien
workers just to increase their numbers and clout.  also, many small
businessmen--patriotic, god-fearing, gun-loving republican types--are
more than happy to hire illegal alien workers.   these are not anti-
americans but businessmen looking for the best bang for the buck. and,
it also happens that many of these red-blooded conservative types
often prefer the manners and workman****p of illegal mexican workers to
the sloppy and slackerish attitudes of poor white trash and idiot
negroes.  indeed, many conservative white small businessmen find
mexican illegal aliens to be more conservative in many ways--family
oriented, godfearing, disciplined, etc--than many americans at the
lower end of the economic scale.  also, can we really speak of a white
blue collar culture anymore? sure, there's guns, god, and nascar, but
many of today's kids of blue collar white families grew up watching
and listening to tv, movies, and music dominated by ugly black
attitudes and liberal-jewish-cynicism.  reverence is not a part of
blue collar american culture. it's all jerry springer, howard stern,
hiphop, and other trash. even country music today is mostly funky
jiveass noise with a little twang.

to be sure, there is still a dignified blue collar culture centered
around family, faith, community, country, and such. but, there is the
growing power of hedonistic and mindless blue collar culture which
espouses the philosophy of get-paid-get-laid, get-a-tattoo-on-yer-ass,
jerry springer and other talkshows, howard stern and garbage radio,
hideous video games, ugly goth music, meth addiction, having children
galore out of wedlock, etc.
of course, we should not romanticize the blue collar world of the past
as some eden it never was.  archie and edith bunker were not adam and
eve before the fall. it was a world of with many negatives, such as
abusive drunken husbands, ethnic prejudice, know-nothing boorishness,
brutality, and ralph kramdenisms.  but, there was still the sense of a
man's main duty being providing for his family, the woman's main duty
being taking care of her family, and children growing up to achieve
something more than their parents did.  there was some degree of
dignity and meaningful hierarchy.
today, much of blue collar culture is just as atomized as the yuppie
culture and just as mindless as the underclass culture.  blue collar
culture is like upper middle class-ism in that americans of all
background emulate the so-called cosmopolitan, alienated, self-
centered, and snotty lifestyles of fa****onable yuppies we see on TV--
such as Desperate Housewives.  so, even blue collar girls model their
behavior on the highly educated, privileged, and narcissistic women in
stuff like *** and The City.  but, another part of blue collarism is
putrid, skanky, lowdown, and ugly as the elements of the
(negro)underclass because much of our s****ts and popular culture is
saturated with the image of the *****ass ho and the badass nigga
mofo.
there used to be a time when blue collarism, at its best, represented
the solid middle between the overly educated,  pompous,  take-morality-
for-granted conceit of the affluent class and the value-free,
barbaric, criminal, hedonistic, and out-of-control attitude among the
chronic underclass.   even ralph kramden and archie bunker believed in
god, country, family, and work.   but, what p***** for a blue collar
patriarch is bundy on 'married with children' and homer on 'the
simpsons'.  of course, there is some dignity in the guy in 'king of
the hill'.  now, it's awful simplistic to base our understanding of
social history/reality on tv shows, but to the extent that our popular
culture reflects our values--what we favor, what we consider
permissible, normal, healthy, sane, etc--, the ****ft in our popular
culture says volumes about social changes.  blue collar america was no
paradise in the past, but it still stood for certain solid virtues.
this is why archie bunker, as pigheaded as he is, sometimes makes more
sense and has better grasp of reality than the highly educated
meathead. archie bunker is ignorant and an hypocrite, but he still has
certain rock solid values.  but, can we say that the prevailing mores
among today's blue collar americans resemble anything like traditional
morality?  this is not a problem only in the US but also in UK.
the class system in britain used to be rigid and repressive, but the
idea of respect permeated the working class consciousness. even if the
old form of class-based respect was stifling, the centrality of
respect also meant love of country, family, god, queen, social
decency, and etc.   there were many pathologies among the poor in UK
in the past, but the im****tance of social form and respect restrained
some of the dangers of belonging to the underclass.  in both UK and
US--especially in regard to blacks--, social change threw the baby out
with the bathwater.   because certain aspects of social hierarchy were
unjust in both countries, social progressives undermined all forms of
respect and attacked all forms of hierarchy.  the struggle against The
Man--white man or the upper class--turned into a war against ALL forms
of social stability, continuity, control, and hierarchy.  so, working
class kids were not only tra****ng the class system but the family
system, moral values, and social manners.  and, poor blacks not only
turned against the white man but against black elders, black
bourgeoisie, traditional black values, etc.    worse in both cased,
the privileged and overly educated members of society egged the
underclass on to smash everything in the name of 'social revolution'.
the idiotic overly educated progressives failed to see that there was
nothing  ideological or revolutionary about the rising violence among
the underclass youths.  blacks were burning down cities simply to loot
and to have fun.  but, many white radicals--among whom jews were
prominent--argued that black underclass violence was a form of
revolutionary violence. so, many radical lawyer types defended black
criminals and thugs as though the latter were gandhi and martin luther
king.  of course, black thugs who were released with the help of white
radical lawyers went on to commit more heinous crimes.  also, the
radicalizing spirit of the 60s turned educated folks into destructive
rabble rousers than constructive role models. many of the most
educated blacks--despite their own examples of success--told m***** of
blacks that there was no hope in this society. intoxicated with power,
they mobilized the collective black consciousness into a monolithic
movement of hate and rage. of course, it didn't help that many
educated blacks went into social and political sciences which tend to
be divorced from reality.  a business graduate has to work in the real
world of real economics. an engineer has to work with real problems.
a social scientist-as-theoretician can read data any way he wants thru
his entire career, and a social scientist-as-policy-designer can just
call for more taxes to fund more programs.  one needs to understand
and deal with reality in order make a business work, whereas one needs
to just spout idealistic platitudes in order to increase spending and
raise taxes.  it's easier to call for universal healthcare than build
an economy where people can afford healthcare.
things got ugly in UK too.  the anger at the class system was
understandable in postwar Britain, but it turned more and more
leftist, pathological, and destructive.  if the angry-young-man
kitchen sink dramas of the 50s and early 60s were half-way
understandable, the rise of punkism and soccer hooliganism in the 70s
and 80s was insane and repulsive.   it was no longer about changing
the old order into a better order but doing away with all forms of
order.  punk music was just ugly and hideous, hateful and murderous.
and the foul-mouthed, ill-mannered, thuggish and abusive youth culture
of hooliganism that wracked entire urban landscapes were not only
destructive to britain but was ex****ted to other advanced nations.
this vile and disgusting turn of events were romanticized, adulated,
justified, and celebrated by some of the leading 'intellects' of
popular culture--and disseminated and promoted by greedy unscrupulous
capitalists who wanted to make a fast buck from expanding youth
culture(their mentality was no different than drug dealers'. also, the
even the 'conservative' educated and successful folks went from moral
and creative order to hedonistic and puerile disorder.  notice the
conservatives who think The Ramones are cool!   culturally,
libertarianism took over the hearts/minds of many educated
conservatism. they became southparkers and defined conservatism purely
as wor****p of mammon).  so, respected 'thinkers' like greil marcus
and  other rock critics--the most influential critical/intellectual
voice among young folks--would have us believe that stuff like punk
music was culturally meaningful and even noble.   impressionable wanna-
be intellectual kids who grew up in the 70s and 80s sucked all this
up.  for all their professed independence of thought and rebellious
individuality, most kids are clones of jerks like marcus, marsh, and
christgau.  movie critics--another batch of 'intellectuals' with the
greatest impact on youth--weren't much different though preferable to
rock critics since cinema included more than popular youth
entertainment. (cinema encomp***** hollywood, foreign film, indie
film, do***entary films, etc whereas rock music is 99% about the
latest stupid hit for teens or fountain-of-youth nostalgia acts for
boomers.  if movie criticism operated by rules of rock criticism, it
would only cover movies made for young americans. notice that there is
zero interest in different forms of music or music of other countries--
unless it's afro-this or afro-that--in the world of rock music
criticism.)   though rock critics and their ilk expended much of their
energy championing and promoting the cultural products and attitudes
of crazy blacks and insane whites of underclass or working class
backgrounds,  the impact of their 'intellectualism' was greatest on
the middle class and privileged members of white and jewish
community.  the fact is most crazy blacks and working/welfare class
britons were not into reading cultural criticism. they were too busy
fighting, puking, farting, growling, getting teen girls pregnant,
joining gangs, and using drugs.   it was rather the disaffected kids
of affluent background and the dorky kids of lower middle to middle
class background who were most receptive to and appreciative of marcus-
ism.  the disaffected affluent wanted cultural and even revolutionary
excitement in their lives. they wanted to be bohemians or radicals.
so, many kids of affluent families went to college, majored in
cultural studies, and learned to talk/think in a way that combined
both high faluting intellectualism and radical egalitarianism.  how
cute to champion stuff like rap and punk by using the latest
sociological jargon. as for the dorky among the less affluent, marcus-
ism was conducive to both dorkery and rebelliousness.   the lower
cl***** have always been tougher, more macho, brutish, etc, but not
all kids of lower cl***** are tough and rough. some are quite
sensitive and goo-goo. they'd rather read books than hang with the big
boys.  as sensitivity is out of the question in this social milieu,
the ONLY way to be both sensitive/bookwormish
and tough-ish is by espousing something like marcus-ism.  marcus was a
dorky intellectual who wrote about the big, brash, loud, and proud
mofos of rock music.  he was a fuddy duddy intellectual type who
immersed himself in the anarchic ideology of punkism.
anyway, in this environment where both intellectualism and working
class-ism were corrupted by social changes, the blue collar community
no longer offered the solid meat-and-potatoes middle between high
faluting pomposity of the radical intellectual class and the mindless
moronosity of the underclass.  as time wore on, more and more working
class kids either aspired to be a jerk like marcus or a fool like an
inner city negro or british soccer hooligan.  and, as stated above,
capitalism appropriated this craziness totally and so even the
'bourgeois' order became a disseminator of corrosive garbage for the
m*****.  stuff that used to be 'subversive', 'underground', 'cultish',
'anti-social', 'anti-elitist', and 'anti-bourgeois' are now embraced
by both the elite and the m*****. we have 'radical' professor types
writing doctoral thesis on The Simpsons, and we have the m*****
cackling and guffawing to Jerry Springer and David Chappelle.

if greil marcus championed hideous punkism with no constructive moral
or social values whatsoever, guys like dave marsh--one of the most
influential rock critics--championed bruce springsteen. of course,
marsh was also a fan of much of the punk movement and other idiocies,
but he especially extolled bruce springsteen as the patron-saint of
all that is noble about working class america and blue collar
spiritual alliance--rather fatuous--with negroes.  the iconic image of
springsteen would have believe that there is a noble salt-of-the-earth
america made up of honest, decent, hardworking blue collar americans
that stands opposed to everything that is capitalist, affluent,
republican, and so on.  this was essentially a fantasy.
for starters, there has been much more social and cultural solidarity
between affluent whites and working class whites than between the
latter and poor blacks. even if they sat on the opposing sides at
union meetings, there was a sense of those-who-work-for-a-living vs
those-who-live-on-welfare.  in the minds of many blue collar whites,
blackness was associated with welfare-ism or affirmative action that
took jobs from more deserving whites.  also, many working class folks
wanted their kids to rise up the class ranks than do like their daddy
done--though, in many cases, working class whites, due to cultural
reasons(unlike most jews, blue collar white goyim generally don't have
an intellectual culture)were limited in their knowledge of directing
their children toward social elevation.    so, there wasn't much
solidarity between whites and blacks in the blue collar community.
indeed, even in the welfare community, there is a division between the
whites and blacks.  this is largely due to physico-***ual reasons.
white males fear integration because tougher black males will take
white females, especially since the liberal jewish dominatd media have
been promoting interracial relation****p--which, in US, means
overwhelmingly black male/white female--as the national ideal. indeed,
the success of obama's campaign has much to do with the fact that he's
the child of a black african father and white american mother.
blackness has been promoted as spiritually and morally higher than
whiteness.  also, black males have been promoted as more studly than
faggoty ass white boys.  so, what seems more natural than black male/
white female unions?  and, liberal jews have been promoting this as a
kind of revenge against aryanism.  recall that nazis glorified 'aryan'
blonde-and-blue-eyed beauty as the ideal  in contrast to the curly
haired, hook-nosed jewish ugliness.  anyone who reads ****tnoy's
Complaint becomes aware of jewish ***ual consciousness; it is hellbent
on conquering white 'aryan' *****. so, it excites liberal and leftist
jews when black males take white females from white males.  liberal
jews enjoy watching white males become pussified and metro***ualized
into a bunch of ken burns-es.   of course, interracism--essentially
black male/white female--has become more accepted among the younger
blue collar whites.  because they grow up wor****pping black athletes--
main heroes of blue collar folks--and listening to hiphop/rap music,
many white blue collar kids have come to believe that blackness is
where it's all at.  so, even blue collar white males try to act black
and see themselves as 'whiggers'.  so, when they see a black guy with
a white girl, they wish that they were black guys getting white
girls.  indeed, some of the white blue collar antipathy toward
hispanics has to do with white/black identification.  even as many
whites are wary of blacks--due to crime and such--, they are
wor****pful of everything black in terms of style, attitude, athletics,
music, etc.   so, there are some whites who see hispanics usurping the
role as the biggest minority in the US an an affront to americanness.
most blue collar folks have a very limited sense of the past, hisotry,
and heritage. the only social reality and memory they know is what
they grew up watching on TV and hearing on the boombox. and, it's all
very black.  so, when all these beaners come to US with mariachi
music, many blue collar folks find that un-american.  somehow, some
jiveass mofo in the innercity singing about killing cops is deemed
cooler and  more american than some beaners at a picnic playing some
pleasant music that celebrates family life and communal values.
still, there has been much animosity between blacks and whites.  the
reason why springsteen has been useful for leftist 'intellectuals'
like dave marsh is that brucie represents everything noble and
promising about blue collar america.  there is the image of the
hardworking honest laborer who does real work as opposed to the
parasitic owners who keep their hands clean. there is also the hopeful
promise of noble honest white laborers and noble poor blacks realizing
that they are on the same boat against the common enemy--the white
capitalist/cor****ate class. there was some of this in Matewan by john
sayles.
springsteen has sung about the agony of race relations in songs like
"my hometown" but notice how ultimately soothing the sentiments are.
despite all the problems and tensions, it's 'my wonderful hometown
with noble whites and noble blacks who just need to realize how they
noble they are all and get along together like ebony and ivory and
blah blah blah'.  it's as phony as springteen's stage act where a
brucie the white guy--huck finn--got along famously and so
harmoniously with a giant negro with a sax--jim. it's a fantasy, an
ideal.  its fraudulence is evident in the crowd. despite springsteen's
imitation of blackness, his paeans to negro nobility, and his well-
paid saxophone player--and his anti-apartheid stance in the 80s--,
almost no blacks ever listened, bought, or cared for his music. it was
lame slow white boy stuff as far as the negroes were concerned.
(negroes have about as much respect for white rock music as white
americans have for j-pop or japanese rock music.  pale faggoty
imitation by dorks!)   indeed, springsteenism was a white liberal
middle class fantasy about both the blue collar world, the black
world, and the relations between the two.  even most whites at
springteen concerts tended to be more middle class than working class--
who prefered stuff like Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and other crud.
the real blue collar whites had far fewer happy illusions about life;
many of them found springteen's moral sermonizing grating and
annoying. this has especially been true since springsteen has turned
more toward folk-ish music.  white blue collar folks don't give a crap
about stuff like 'tom joad's ghost'. and blacks would puke listening
to that *****.   and, though that cd supposedly sympathizes with
illegal aliens, i doubt if any hispanic ever bought that boring crap.
indeed, such precious moral sermons were only bought and apprciated by
affluent liberal whites who have very silly, naive, rosy, and high
faluting notions about social reality.  indeed, i'll bet more affluent
leftwing jews bought 'tom joad's ghost' than all the blacks,
hispanics, and working class whites put together.  but, springsteen
enclosed himself so tightly in a community of wor****ppers, yes-men,
and manipulative ideologues that he came to believe in his own myth.
even though his stuff wasn't selling anymore among the working class
m***** and meant nothing to no one--except leftwing jews at The Nation
magazine--, he kept on posturing, strutting, and gesturing as the
spokesman for the honest working man.  like so many 'progressives',
his mentality was stuck in the 1930s.  so, you have this guy who's
worth 100s of millions of dollars, owns several mansions, and flies
around in private jets; the ticket prices for his concerts are so high
that most underprivileged people cannot afford them.  none of that
registers on brucie's consciousness.  brucie still thinks he's the
boss of all that is humble, noble, and salt-of-the-earth.  like
tolstoy in his later yrs, brucie sees himself a kind of guru, savior,
prophet, messiah.   if oprah is the billionaire mammy, brucie is the
billionaire prole. as long he appears publicly with faded jeans and
garbles words like rocky balboa, he's supposed to be the patron saint
of all that is regular, ordinary, and working class.  this is where
elvis, for all his craziness, was more honest than brucie.  elvis knew
he came from humble beginnings and knew that he wanted to be rich and
enjoyed his riches.  springsteen has become many times richer than
elvis but still puts on the train hopping hobo act.

this is doubly phony because the working class community brucie grew
up in was enjoying good times. the working class world of the late 50s
and 60s was not that of the 20s and 30s. american workers of the
postwar era never had it so good. after the devastation of much of the
world in WWII, US was the only industrial power standing--and greatly
expanded.  demand for US goods was at an all-time high around the
world.  there was near full employment, high wages, generous benefits,
and the sense that good times were here to stay forever and ever.  so,
brucie's actual working class experience was happy and fun.  as a
young lad, he had a lot of freedom to listen to records, go on dates,
ride around in motorcycles, and so on.  he never knew hunger.  as with
bob dylan, the woody guthrie-lonesome hobo schtick was something they
picked up from folkie movement than from actual experience. dylan too
had a pretty good life as a kid . dylan wasn't properly appreciative
of the good times america was experiencing in the 50s and 60s;
instead, he wanted to have fun as a radical/rebel who spoke truth to
power or lived a boho life.  springsteen was more appreciative of the
good times of his working class youth than dylan was of his middle
class youth,  but when bruce turned to professional music he wanted to
be more than an entertainer. he wanted to be a 'truth-teller', the
poet of the ordinary man, the chronicler of noble suffering, etc.
so, he too modeled himself on guthrie-ism, but ironically in a world
where the working man never had it so good.
many people love feeling holier-than-thou and acting like noble
victims or speaking out for victims even when they themselves are not
victims or don't know any victims in real life.  this is why the left
keeps inventing victims of this-ism, that-ism(racism, institutional
racism, subconscious racism, environmental racism, ***ism,
environmental ***ism, cultural ***ism, athletic ***ism, etc, etc.  and
'poverty' is defined in a such a manner that 25% of americans are
consider poor even though their living standards based on material
advantages are still better than that of 70% of japanese. and, if
there are no actual victims of genocide in america as of this moment,
we are told of genocide-via-beer-ads in black neighborhoods by the
likes of michael pfleger.)  notice how affluent blacks still put on
the 'noble victim' act.  there is true this among conservatives too,
which explains the popularity of mel gibson's disingenuous The Passion
of the Christ and the exaggerated notion that all americans were
sitting ducks helpless against evil saddam hussein hatching a plan to
blow us up real good--until bush saved us. and, just look at those
superrich, powerful, and privileged jews still acting like they're
helpless jews trapped in the warsaw ghetto. norman podheritz would
have us believe that if we don't agree with his ideas and proposals,
we must all be closet nazi 'anti-semites' who wanna see jews die.

anyway, brucie's working class experience was pretty happy and
bountiful.  there was nothing guthriesque about it. indeed, even in
the 30s and 40s most american working class folks didn't care for the
likes of guthrie.  american blue collar folks wanted higher wages and
expanded benefits but essentially believed in The Man, the system, god
and country. they saw thru the likes of guthrie and seeger for what
they really were--commie subversives trying to drive a wedge between
the cl***** for the purpose of bringing on marxist revolution.
with the coming of WWII, US finally came out of the Depression.
factories were rolling out products again.  wages for working man was
higher than ever. US also emerged more industrialized than ever
before. giant US cor****ations were working overtime.
so, it was blue collar eden while it lasted. but, it didn't and
couldn't last indefinitely for all people of blue collar background.
it began to fade in the 70s and fade more in the 80s and 90s.  there
were very complex reasons for this change in economic reality, but the
likes of brucie prefer simple myths. and, those surrounding and
schmoozing him filled his head with very leftwing notions of what went
wrong in america.  this is when guthrie began to matter more to
springsteen than elvis presley. presley represented an america where a
truckdriver could become a superstar millionaire and was proud of and
grateful to his country. guthrie ****trayed an america that was deeply
flawed and sinful until a new radical order could be realized.

why did springsteen who lived the preslian dream turn toward
guthrism?  it was partly due to a natural stupidity akin to tom
cruise's obsession with scientology.  it was partly because he saw his
beloved blue collar community fall by the wayside as yrs went on. it
was partly because springsteen came to be surrounded by leftist
ideologues and activists who schmoozed him as the champion of the
downtrodden common man; so many manipulative jerks patted his back for
his 'compassion and nobility' that he felt obligated to carry on with
this schtick.  but, it was also a way of responding to his loss of
muse which left him after the very great album Born in the USA.
bruce's three great albums--born to run, the river, and born in the
usa--constitute some of the best american music of the 20th century.
'Born in the USA' was especially a giant hit, competing neck and neck
with michael jackson's monster smash Thriller and prince's Purple
Rain.   in 1985, people thought bruce was capable of everything.  but,
he lost it.  he suddenly lost his ability to make great music. burnt
out and exhausted, brucie began to refa****on his persona along the
lines of a plain truth muttering okie.  he became like stallone
churning out tiresome rocky sequels.

what's most pernicious about springsteen's worldview is the notion
that blue collar america is entitled to an eternal eden of working
class security.  the notion is especially ridiculous when it's not
even very appreciative of living/working in america.  the song 'the
river' starts out by suggesting that kids born to working class
families are raised to do like 'my father done'. in other words, there
is no escape from the world of toil.  working in a factory is dreary
and a form of exploition by owners, managers, and big cor****ate
shareholders--and even middle class shareholders.  it's a world of hot
iron, grease, coal dust, muscle aching labor, and so on.  if
springteen views this socio-economic reality so unfavorably, why
romanticize the working class?  there isn't much love for work in any
of his songs. there is much yammering about the nobility of workers
but not much about the nobility of work itself. so, springsteenism
even goes against the marxist idea of the nobility of the work.
marxist films showed us the excitment, thrill, and even wonderfulness
of workers at work.  marxism opposed capitalism's 'exploitation' of
workers but believed in the sanctity of work for work's sake.  in
contrast, there is no love of work in springsteen's music.  there is
only the sanctification of the worker who MUST work to feed his family
or, better yet,  to pick up the pay check to put a downpayment on a
motorcycle or practice the weekly ritual of get-paid-get-laid.  for,
springsteen, work is a necessary evil.  at best, it ennobles the
worker as a victim of capitalist society where bosses make most of the
money. (incidentally, i wonder what the profit ratio is between
springsteen and his sup****t crew. does brucie share his bounty
equally? if he signs a 20 million dollar contract, does he share it
equally with his road crew and housemaid?  if not, he should STFU.)
work is only useful or good in springsteen's universe because wages
allow blue collar folks to afford a consumerist lifestyle.   now, i
don't agree with the marxist view on anything.  the truth is work
isn't much fun, and the notion of proles-as-saints-doing-honest-work
was a big sham in communist societies. while workers and farmers were
forced to put in long hours, they were treated like prisoners or
slaves while most of the bounty of the communist economy went to
sup****t the privileged lifestyles of the bureaucratic class.
theoretically, a communist state was owned by the workers, and
government leaders were humble servants of the m*****; in reality,
workers and farmers were prisoners of a totalist system where all the
power and real wealth was hogged by the oligarchy and their
bureaucratic lackeys.
indeed, workers under communism soon grew cynical, lazy, demoralized,
dishonest, and dependent. they were cynical because they could see how
most of the benefit of communism went to the bureaucrasie which was
far worse than the bourgeoisie. they became lazy because what was the
point of working hard when there were no rewards for extra work?  they
grew demoralized because there was no way they could resist the
system. they grew dishonest because you had to cheat to get any
favors. and they grew dependent because everything--even if not much--
was provided for them by massive big government.

anyway, work isn't much fun. it's necessary to be sure and must be
appreciated. and, there was appreciation for work among springsteen's
father's and grandfather's generation.  prior to the generation of the
postwar era, it was work, work, and work.  few got to enjoy prolonged
youth or higher education.  if you were lucky to finish highschool,
you were soon expected to find work, appreciate having a job--
especially during the Depression--, getting married, and being good
citizens. but, all of that changed in the post war boom years.  even
working class kids could put off the future.  they had all sorts of
gadgets--tvs, stereos, electric guitars, motorcycles, lots of cheap
food, drink, and drugs--to keep them busy with fun and games.  also,
up until the 70s, there were plenty of jobs, and most blue collar kids
thought, 'even if i mess up in my younger days, there will be always
be a good blue collar waiting for me when i finally decide to grow
up'.  so, even work wasn't appreciated as it once had been by earlier
generations(and immigrants).   if earlier generations were eager for
any kind of work, post war generations felt there were endless jobs to
go around.  so, bruce springsteen's generation took a lot of things
for granted.
as a result, what bruce springsteen appreciated about blue collarism
wasn't so much the work it performed but its symbolic value--honest
folks working with their hands(as if working with brains wasn't work
at all)--and the wages could afford hedonistic consumerism putting off
maturity indefinitely.   despite his short-lived family values schtick
in the mid 80s, springsteen's music have been more about rebels,
rockers, romantics, rabble rousers, loners, and the like. and, his
songs on these themes were truly powerful and awesome.  why shouldn't
an artist celebrate the wild side of human nature? art--elitist or
popular--is about expressing all aspects of human experience and
imagination.   there is something to be said for the thrill of roaring
down the highway on a motorcycle-as-a-suicide-machine with your girl
in the backseat.  such may be stupid in reality but artistic
imagination is often about the Id out of control.  just as we like to
guys with big guns blowing people away in movies, we like loud brash
crazy songs.  such cultural expressions may not be morally
constructive and may even be dangerous and corrosive, but there is
more to life and the human spirit than being moral and responsible all
the time.
the problem with springsteen is he insisted he was presenting a moral
vision of society, humanity, and so on thru his crazy songs. he
insisted that he was more than the poet of youthful hormones and
rocker entertainer extraordinaire; he was a social critic, the
conscience of his generation and the spokesman of blue collar folks.
this is where the whole thing gets stale and phony.  so, all those
songs about acting wild, crazy, barbaric, out-of-control, and even
nutty were all about the nobility of the honest, hard working working
class who were betrayed by evil rich folks of america?
so, all those sentiments and attitudes that called for living-for-the-
moment and driving-into-some-james-dean-hollywood-sunset was about
social responsibility, sobriety, and working class morals?  now, i got
nothing against expression of rebellion, even mindless rebellion, IF
it's honest about what it is. but, the idea that springsteen's songs
express the nobility of the working man is about as phony as i-can't-
believe-it's-not-butter.  it's like the makers of 'SCARFACE' telling
us that it's meant as an anti-drug message movie.  or, it's like over-
***ed idiots wiggling their booties and fla****ng their legs on some
MTV music video in the name of ***ual responsibility.  if ***ual
responsibility is the main theme, why are they acting like ***** out-
of-control skanks and ****s in front of a camera?   springsteen's
posturing as the spokeman of the working class makes about as much
sense as cheech-and-chong claiming to represent the virtues of
responsible parenting.
the fact is springsteen never celebrated the virtues of work or
discipline or diligence so essential to work.  at best, he expressed
blowing off steam after work.  there's nothing with blowing off
steam,  except that for springsteen blowing off steam became more
central to blue collar identity than the work itself.  indeed, in his
universe an ideal blue collar guy should expend more energy on being
crazy than being responsible.  a blue collar guy should work only to
the extent that he can spend long hours fantasizing about the perfect
girl, riding a motorcycle as fast as possible, and being eager to have
one's brains dashed all over the highway.  song after song, it's a
celebration of anarchic and even nihilistic lunacy, which makes his
songs so fun and listenable. but, does he really expect us to learn
social or moral lesssons from this?

the song 'the river' is one of the greatest american ballads ever.
it's hauntingly beautiful and moving. but, if you listen closely its
moral presumptions are flawed.  one is the strained fatalism that
****trays the american blue collar worker as a kind of noble martyr-
saint who's a prisoner of cir***stances. there is nothing for him
except 'doing like my daddy done'.  we are supposed to take this on
faith. now, there may be some socio-psychological truth to this as
many kids take after their parents and base their reality on the adult
reality all around them. but surely, america is filled with countless
examples of people who didn't do as 'my daddy done'.  indeed, that was
especially true of the 60s generation of which springsteen was a part.
they rebelled against everything the older generation stood for. so,
it's disingenuous for someone like springsteen, whose generation gave
the middle finger to older america, to whine and complain that
american workers have no choice but to do 'like my daddy done'.(to be
fair, one could argue that springteen was expressing a psychological
than a social truth. fatalism is a state of mind than state of
reality.)   we should also ask... why didn't jewish kids do what their
daddy done?  why not also grow up as peddlers or tailors?  just how
did successive generations of jews become lawyers, doctors,
scientists, professors, etc?   and, there are countless examples of
kids of working class backgrounds rising above the social stations of
their fathers.  the movie RUDY is a necessary counter-message to
springsteen's bogus fatalism.  if you want real fatalism, examine any
communist system where most people really are brought up do no more
than what their daddy done.  social mobility is not one of the
prominent features of communist cuba or north korea.
also, the narrator in the song 'the river' said he got mary pregnant
when she was 19. now, whose fault was that?  maybe, they should have
had protected *** or should have waited til they got married? but no,
springsteen's class-based fatalism suggests that it was unavoidable
and even Romantic-Tragic--iron-belt tristan and isolde?
besides, springsteen has never expressed moral disapproval of people
acting on their animal urges anyway.   so, the guy in 'the river' is
never held accountable for anything. he just bellows and whines--
though hauntingly and beautifully--about how life didn't turn out
well.  poor baby had no choice but to do like his daddy done.  never
mind he never spent his highschool yrs studying to be anything better
than what his daddy done.  in springsteen's universe, nothing is more
im****tant to a kid than spending his youthful yrs thinking about
little else than rock music, motorcycles, girls, fun, and more fun.
well, good luck AFTER highschool!   because the kid wasted his school
yrs learning nothing in 'the river', we are told that he was fatally
brought up to 'what my daddy done'.  well, his post-school attitude
and activity were certainly no better than in highschool since he 'got
mary pregnant' though he couldn't even afford to raise a family.  poor
baby.  the song drones on and on, and finally we're told that he's
having troubles with his wife and life aint good 'because of the
economy'.   now, economic downturn in any community can be hurtful and
devastating. but, is this guy really such a noble victim?  did he make
right choices in his life? and, we should also ask, how did he raise
his own kids?  'like my daddy done?'

one of the realities--for better and worse but mostly better--of a
capitalist economy is that things change and even change fast.
adapting to new realities is the heart and soul of capitalism and
democracy.   and indeed, americans had to adjust to new realities all
through its dynamic history. new farm machines reduced the number of
farm workers who had to find jobs in the industrial sector.  new
machines made certain labor obsolete, and people had to adjust to new
jobs.  the railroad industry employed many more people before the
advent of the automobile.  before the rise of computer technology,
there were far more people in bookkeeping and paper-based data
work(consider the demise of library card catalogues with the coming of
the computer. should firms that specialized in the production of old
card catalogue demand that their jobs remain in the new economy?). and
now, the internet is changing the nature of journalism. in all these
cases, people had, have, and will have to adapt. the problem of
springsteenism and buchananism is the idea that certain jobs should
remain permanently for blue collar american workers. it was this kind
of mentality that stifled the british economy in the post war era.
while other nations were changing to new industries and technologies,
the all-powerful unions in britain made it impossible for british
companies to close down failing sectors and modernize other sectors or
build new industries. to be sure, buchananism isn't as pernicious as
springsteenism. at the very least, buchanan's jeremiad blames the
american people as well the as the increasingly multi-national
cor****ations. buchanan criticizes the attitudes, lifestyles, and lax
morals of many americans of all cl*****. springsteen, on the other
hand, would have us believe that blue collar workers are blameless
simply because of their class status. also, springsteen glorifies the
aspects of blue collar culture that have been most damaging to the
working class.   in this sense, springsteen is more regressive than
progressive. he's looking back to his youth when US was the undisputed
#1 in everything, a time when the jobs were so plentiful that even an
highschool dropout without much skills could find a well paying job in
a steel factory and believe that such would last forever.  also, he's
thinking back to a time when the prospect of economic security made
many people--like his youthful self--believe that they could put off
the future indefinitely and have fun forever.  the fact is not only
the US but the world has changed.  eventually, europe rose from the
ashes, asian economies expanded, and there was increased global
competition.  in many ways, this new reality opened up tremendous new
op****tunities for everyone, but the new economy demanded higher skills
in the advanced world than those of the traditional blue collar
worker. indeed, except for the simplest service jobs, many jobs today
require computer skills and an adaptable mindset.  so, there has been
a vast expansion of great new jobs in the US economy, but they require
new skills and sufficient education.  even an highschool dropout could
work at a concrete, steel factory, or auto factory in the past.
today, many new jobs require higher skills.   the problem among many
blue collar americans is that they were eased and even corrupted into
laxity by the good times after WWII. for a time, they could believe
that well-paying blue collars were forever, every family could have a
steak bbq every weekend, and everyone would retire with fat pensions.
the smart and responsible among the working class knew better and
pushed their kids to take school seriously and learn new skills and
find jobs of the future. but, the regressive blue collar mentality
expected things to remain as it was in the post-war good times.
instead of trying to adapt to the new economy, they wanted the entire
economy to accomodate to their expectations.  this was as if railroad
workers demanded that their jobs remain for themselves and their kids
even with the rise of the auto industry.  and, this is why
springsteenism is so offensive.   if 'the river' was only a song about
a dufus who didn't make the right decisions in his life, messed up,
faced family and economic problems, and looked back to simpler times
of his youth, it would make sense. but, as a form of social protest,
it's pure nonsense.  we can sympathize with anyone who faces economic
challenges and hard times, but it's hard for us to feel much sympathy
when confronted with a fatalistic, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous,
and confused worldview.  if such were presented ONLY as the view of
the narrator of the song, it would make sense; but we suspect it is
the view of springsteen. it's a beautiful, powerful, and haunting
song, but what the song ennobles is undeserving .  the character of
the song--as any messed up human being--is certainly worthy of our
understanding and sympathy but Ennoblement is a tall order.  there is
a kind of reverse class snobbery based on dubious moralism in many of
springsteen's songs.  too often, springsteen thinks being a member of
the working class automatically bestows nobility on the person.  and,
it doesn't matter how rich he becomes as long as he's of working class
background and makes a big deal out of it endlessly;  springsteen
feels it's his privilege to posture as a blue-collar jesus despite the
fact that he's a billionaire.  of course, there are black people who
feel the same way about race. no matter how rich, privileged, and
powerful they become, just the fact of being black makes them the
eternal noble victims of history.  so, never mind that obama's black
lineage is purely african and doesn't have a drop of lineage in
america.  he still goes around like he's the spiritual heir of selma--
when, in fact, his african ancestors were slave owners of african
slaves.  it's a repulsive kind of narcissism that automatically
sanctifies an entire group of people based on race or class--or ***.

according to such logic, the working class can do no wrong even when
it does wrong. it's never their fault. they're the salt-of-the-earth,
and if they're imperfect it's someone else's fault or because of some
larger historical forces beyond the control of the working class.  for
example, we know that anti-black sentiment was rife among blue collar
whites, but what does springteen tell us about racial tensions in 'my
hometown'.  he says, 'there was nothing you could do'. so, even when
blue collar whites are bigoted, they should be forgiven because they
are, well, working class folks.  besides, it's hinted that the Bigger
Evil Forces made the noble white working class do nasty stuff if
indeed they did nasty stuff. so, problem of racial divisions was the
dirty doings of the upper cl***** which forced working class whites
and poor blacks to fight eachother over the same pie. or, the evil
government made the noble white working class to go over to vietnam
and kill the yellow man. keep this up, and i suppose all those white
settlers who killed indians were also merely pawns of the Powerful
Evil Forces or maybe the-vast-rightwing-conspiracy. this is where
springsteenism is truly putrid.  though springsteen celebrates
individualism when it comes to having fun--riding motorcycles, getting
girls, rebelling, rabble rousing, etc--, he turns into a kneejerk
collectivist when it comes to moral accountabilty for members of the
working class.  so, a kind of schizophrenia is afoot in springsteen's
universe.  the working class rebels who appear to be free, wild, and
confident suddenly mope, whine, and rationalize about 'there was
nothing you could do' or 'do like my daddy done'.   so, if a working
class hero skips school and rides his motorcycle, he's wild and free--
and cool and hip!  but, if he yells to a black person, 'hey ni**er, i
don't want you in my neighborhood', then there-was-nothing-he-could-
do.
this is similar to the black complaint. blacks in the past complained
that they didn't have the freedom to do what they wanted and needed to
do. so, the civil rights movement gave them freedom.  but, they used
that freedom to act destructively and crazy and bring ruination to
many of their lives. so, do they take some of the blame for their own
problems?  no, they say they have misused their freedom because
they've been conditioned by the white man to fail.   now, what kind of
moral logic is this?  they demanded freedom because they insisted that
they had the right and the ability to use freedom smartly and
responsibly.  once they got total freedom, they abused it on drugs,
loose ***, crime, and other idiocies;  but then, they say it's not
their fault because society/history conditioned them toward craziness
and irresponsibility.  blacks want total freedom but zero
responsibility for their freely chosen actions. and, there is some of
this kind of logic in springsteenism.  he celebrates the wild and even
brutish freedoms of blue collar folks but doesn't address or take into
account the consequences of those free choices on longterm individual
life, family life, and one's children's economic status in an
increasingly modernizing and competitive world economy.

though it may sound churlish to judge springsteen's music based on
socio-moral standards of responsiblity and social obligation, it's
springsteen who invites it because of his posturing as not just a
voice but the conscience of blue collar america. it's one thing to
exclaim, 'this is how we feel' but quite another to say, 'how we feel
is oh-so-noble and we are entitled to good life forever because of our
class status and our feelings'.  similarly, it would be one thing for
sly stone or jimi hendrix to convey the message that they represent
the wild jiveass negro spirit that be about fun, *****ing, and ****,
but it would be quite another for them to say that their are moral
leaders because they are black and because their music is crazy.
following this logic, why not go all the way?  why not argue that
middle class suburban america is noble simply for being what it is and
that its hedonistic cultural expressions are what is most positive
about it.  for example, many suburban white kids were crazy about
talking heads, david bowie, frank zappa, pink floyd, the who, and
such.  some of these musical acts were genuinely talented and even
came close to genius, but it must be said that their values were not
of the responsible or sensible kind. they were indulgent, extreme,
self-absorbed, narcissistic, and even downright crazy.   that art can
be and even should be dangerous is something most of us agree with.
but, to define the best and noblest character of a community thru its
craziest--albeit brilliant and entertaining--expressions or obsessions
and then to suggest that a certain group monopolizes a kind of dignity
simply because of its class or racial status is idiotic.  it's bad
enough to say a certain race or class is automatically nobler than
others, but it's worse when their alleged moral superiority is defined
in the worst way.  when blackness was associated with martin luther
king and rosa parks it was halfway believable, but when we are
supposed to keep believing that blackness is nobler because it's all
about rap and hiphop and reverend wright, it's downright odious. it's
something only a stupid masochistic pansyass guilt-ridden liberal can
buy.  similarly, the idea of working class nobility in the past was
more convincing--if still dubious--because the working class was
associated with family values, hard work, simple virtues, etc. but,
when blue collar culture has become synonymous with ass-tattoo, body
piercings, ****, howard stern fandom, larry-the-cable-guy-dom,
****rking work and roaring down the highway on a 'suicide machine',
getting paid and getting laid, and other forms of hedonsitic
boorishess--as celebrated in the songs of springsteen--, just how are
we to swallow the notion of the noble working class?   what is so
noble about it anymore?

now, it must repeated endlessly that the idea of collective
nobility(or guilt) of any people is dubious. nobility is really an
individual quality. some individuals have it while most folks do not.
it's not something that can be bought or gained by belonging to a
community or group. but, most people can still be good and decent if
not noble, and that should be enough; but even the sense of goodness
and decency has eroded in many communities regardless of race or
class. of course, the notion that working class folks in the past were
all that good or decent is a myth.  life was always nasty, and all
communities had their warts.  and, it's certainly true that there was
far more ethnic, racial, religious, and other forms of bigotry among
people of all races and cl***** in the past. (today, there is almost
no bigotry among white folks whereas bigotry is rife in the black
community. the likes of reverend wright are not an anomaly. and, even
well-educated blacks who knew the truth closed racial ranks and
pretended that OJ simpson was innocent.)   but, there were certain
values and principles that were more rock solid among working class
folks OF THE PAST.  the reasons for these virtues--if they may be
called that--may have been suspect. perhaps, it was the harshness of
their upbringing that made them more respectful of authority. perhaps,
it was the lack of op****tunity for women and the male-dominated social
mores that pressured or conditioned women to be wives/mothers.
perhaps,  it was animosity toward blacks which kept white community
relatively uncontaminated by the worst aspects of jiveass negro-ism
which entered the white community in a big way with the rise of 'white
nigger' elvis.  perhaps, it was white racial unity and hostility which
made blacks seek a more peaceful and civilized solution to racial
problems in the 50s and early 60s.  perhaps, it was economic hard****p
which made all workers prize their jobs more than people do now with
all manner of social safetynets.  maybe, it was the lower level of
education among the working class which didn't fill their minds with
funny anti-social or countercultural ideas.  perhaps, it was the
chauvanistic nature of the media and other institutions which filled
the hearts and minds of americans with national confidence and moral
righteousness.  after all, those who grew up on 'sand of iwo jima'
were more likely to feel patriotic than those who were weaned on
'platoon'. and, those who saw john wayne movies are likely to feel
more proud of white man's america than those who were introduced to
western history thru stuff like 'little big man' and 'dances with
wolves'. whatever the reasons and no matter how morally suspect those
reasons were, the working class in this country used have more solid
and sure values than beginning in the 60s.
partly, this was due to the rise of counter-culture and youth-culture
and the growing domination of liberal and leftwing jews in the most
im****tant institutions and media networks.  but, it was also due to
the working class starting to rest on their laurels during the good
times following WWII.  instead of seeing good times as the result of
american economic competitiveness, they came to see good times as some
kind of god-given right.

in the 1992 GOP convention,  pat buchanan spoke of how he met workers
who begged him to 'save our jobs'. it was a very touching moment, and
it was about time republicans talked about the ordinary working man.
but, buchanan simplified this issue in the following years by putting
nearly all the moral burden on the business class than on the working
class.  in too many cases, american workers who want their jobs saved
have not saved or preserved the work-ethic values of their
forefathers.  also, the mindset is fundamentally flawed. the role of
capitalism is not to save jobs but to create jobs, or create new jobs
for new industries.  american workers should (1) want our economy to
create new jobs and (2) prepare/train themselves for those new jobs.
saving old industry jobs wouldn't make much sense even without the
competition of cheaper foreign labor. the simple fact is technology
changes the nature of work and the workplace.  if we really wanna save
old jobs, we ought to smash all the machinery and go back to
agricultural labor.
the truth is many new jobs have been created in america and not just
low-paying service jobs.  the problem is the children of working class
folks did not prepare themselves for these jobs.  many companies
across the US are desperately screaming for skilled people to come
work for them. but, the fact is MANY kids of white working class,
black folks, and hispanic folks are not prepared to take on those
jobs. why? they don't appreciate education, have little or no respect
for authority, following orders, discipline, responsibility, a sense
of duty and obligation.  the hedonistic heavy metal/goth/punk/rap
culture they grew up with taught them to think of 'my fist, my hunger,
my lust, my power, etc'.  there was always an element of this american
culture and history as US was a wide open frontier until the late 19th
century. so, western gunslingers were folk heroes as were gangsters in
the early 20th century.  but, this sense of freedom and individuality
made more sense and was given deeper meaning in the distant past
because there was much open territory and the necessity of self-
reliance.  if you wanted to venture west and claim a territory for
yourself, you had to do backbreaking work from sunrise to sunset.
today, we are all free in an highly complex and interconnected urban
society. we cannot just break free and do our thing like pioneers of
the past.  also, due to safetynets and such, freedom is not put to the
test as in yrs past.   a man who settled on his own plot of land in
the 19th century couldn't waste his freedom with *****-and-suck; he had
no choice but to work and work.  but today, the freedom of idiots are
not counter-balanced by any responsibility since many people can spend
all their lives on welfare watching tv or make money by selling drugs
on the streets.
of course, there are many hard workers who want their jobs saved, and
we should try to do more for them. we should come up with ways to
train workers for new jobs.  but, the problem among many working class
and underclass is their entitlement attitude.  they fail to understand
that the main business of business is to make a profit in a
competitive world.  just as businesses compete with one another,
workers must compete amongst one another and with workers in other
countries.  also, workers should prepare their kids to work for the
new economy.  no kid should be told that his dad's job is gonna be
around for him. this mindset leads to laxity.

this is all tied to the notion of maturity.  while it's true that men
have always been boys to some extent--all men will be boys on some
level from cradle to grave--, there was still the ideal of maturity
prior to the rise of 60s culture.  though archie bunker and ralph
kramden can be childish in many ways, they still accept and try to
practice the ideal of being mature adults--though they often suck at
it.  but, even that very ideal has died off.   so, we have springsteen
approaching 60 still acting like a ***** teenager looking for hot
*****.  so, we still have the rolling stones acting like hot stuff.
we have boomers who are in their 60s still acting like they are at
some 1960s love-fest.  and, we have culture critics lauding this
mentality as wonderful and noble and so on.  it's pathetic. and, if
it's financially rewarding to the rolling stones, it's often
devastating to real ordinary people. any grown-up who still thinks,
feels, and acts like he's a teenager will make a mess of his life.  we
may not realize this because celebrities who 'stay young' as they grow
older still seem to be doing great. but, we must keep in mind that
celebs make money off their stupid act. suppose mick jagger and keith
richards were not rock stars but just ordinary guys. they would be
pathetic as workers, husbands, fathers, and the whole lot.

to an extent, the white working class in america is especially worried
for racial reasons.  in an all-white nation, being working class,
poor, or unemployeed means economic disadvantages; it doesn't
necessarily mean fearing for one's life or safety.  but, in the US,
being poor often means ending up living close to blacks who are
crazier, agressive, and physically tougher.  it's may not be fun being
poor and white under any cir***stances, but it's downright terrifying
to be poor and white among crazy negroes.  similarly, being locked up
isn't so terrible as being locked up with a negro with huge muscles
and a big fat dick; it can be a real pain in the ass.  so, many
american working class whites are downright terrified of losing jobs
and economic security. this fear of the negro has made the white
working class turn politically right or left at different times. when
economic times were good and there was faith in the economy, white
blue collar types favored the right because they felt secure in the
workings of the marketplace. but, when economic times got worse, the
white working class turned leftward because capitalism no longer
offered them the kind of job security necessary to keep them above and
away from the negroes. (also, many white working class folks had been
pro-Democratic in the 40s, 50s, and 60s  because, prior to the Civil
Rights Movement, 'liberal' blue collar politics/culture openly favored
whites over blacks, or at least offered no special favors to blacks
over whites. Democratic Party had once been economically liberal but
racially pro-white.)    today, many blue collar folks in america are
leaning leftward not out of racial tolerance but to protect their job
security in order to stay away and above negroes. this has been what
pat buchanan has played on.  but, buchanan's white-centric national-
social-capitalism may not make much sense in a world where the working
class, for the most part, doesn't share his values.  buchanan's vision
of blue collar values is closer to the National Socialist ideal.
national socialism honored and respected the german working man in the
understanding that the german working man was expected to live
according to the values and principles of social responsibility,
obligation, and duty.  tragically, loyalty under national socialism
was also tied to the cult of personality of hitler. it wasn't enough
to be loyal to country and heritage but one was compelled to be
totally obedient to hitler.  that's what brought ruination to germany,
but there are many tenets of National Socialism which made perfect
sense--namely, a nation must care for its workers but the workers must
also care about their duty to society.

but, today's working class values are too idiotic, puerile, infantile,
ass-tattoo-ish, and howard sternized. when 'the simpsons' and 'the
family guy' pass for entertainment--and even an half-honest and
celebratory ****trait--of the average american family, we are in
trouble.   if working class men of the Great Depression and WWII
generation regarded working, saving to buy a home, raising a family,
and such stuff as the main purpose of life, their children starting in
the 60s began to see the main meaning of life as self-centered
hedonism and consumerism. but, the so-called Greatest Generation must
bear part of the blame. for starters, they were not necessarily
inherently nobler but forced to be noble by tough cir***stances--
economic hard****p and the burden of war.  also, in the good times
following WWII, they tried to cocoon their kids from the realities of
life. instead of openly sharing the problems of the Depression and the
war, they raised their kids to be happy, happy, happy. partly, this
was protective generosity on the part of the parents who wanted their
kids to have the advantages and the fun that eluded them during the
Depression yrs and war.  but, what happend was the mildred-pierce-
syndrome. remember that joan crawford movie where the noble mother/
wife works and toils to make life happy for her daughter, but the
daughter grows up all spoiled, pampered, self-centered? this is what
happened to many kids of the 60s.  this was made all the worse
because, even as the parents were willing to be tolerant and generous,
the cultural changes took place overnight.  suddenly, american youths
were into flag burning, drug use, orgies, radical politics, and other
idiocies. worse, the liberal/leftist dominated media gave positive
coverage of this lunacy which made these pathologies spread like a
wildfire.  but, the most im****tant force was popular music which had a
powerful, dionysiac effect on the entire generation. whether they knew
it or not, the leading rockers were the pied pipers in the new
movement.  in many cases, even the rockers were taken aback. they
wondered, 'are we really THAT im****tant?'   were they reall the
spokesman of their generation? this was one of the reason dylan hid
from the public which saw him as the messiah. and this is why paul
mccartney had to explain to the media that the beatles were just a pop
band and not much should made of it. and, this is why lennon got to
thinking that he was indeed the messiah of radical politics  in the
late 60s and early 70s, until he realized how foolish all of that was
and hid away in his mansion in NY.  but, many people did not forget.
chapman killed lennon for having betrayed what lennon claimed to stand
for. and, the outpouring of grief following the killing showed that
the sickness wasn't chapman's alone.  not all sicknesses are
murderous, but sickness is sickness.  the only real difference between
chapman who shot lennon and those who reacted as though their messiah
had been crucified was in the manner of their sickness, but they
shared the same sickness of taking someone too seriously.   while
lennon's musical talent deserved serious admiration and
appreciation(and analysis), he was a pop artist, not a guru prophet
wiseman.  it is this mindless wor****p of the ephemeral and the
frivolous that has confused the values of our age.  this is one of the
reasons why some of the most idiotic, amoral/immoral clods have become
the 'heroes' of our age.  this is why oprah is seen as a kind of
messiah by many. this is why obama--essentially a celebrity politician
and op****tunist--is seen as The One. symbolism has greater meaning
than substance. the packaging  matters more that what's inside the
package. this is why springsteenism is so odious as a social,
political, and moral message.  that springsteen is one of the great
american musical artists of the 20th century is indisputable. that he
has given powerful and exciting voice to the passions of blue collar
americans, youth, love and lust, reckless abandon, and such is all
very true.  that such expressions are tremendously fun is also true.
and, it's also true that art need not always be moral; art is often
about pu****ng the envelope on conventional values. but, we should
never mistake art with reality/morality, and we should always be wary
of those who use art or entertainment to depict a dubious version of
reality/morality.   springsteen's songs conveniently do for the
working class what The Godfather does for the mafia. they ennoble,
mythify, and simplify their subject.  at the very least, The Godfather
shows us the ugliness at the core of mafia enterprise, but
springsteenism never shows what's wrong with the corrosion of values
in blue collar america.  springsteen mindlessly celebrates get-paid-
get-laidism prevalent among the working class since the 60s--depicting
the working class as hedonistic, irresponsible, immoderate, and even
crazy--but then expects us to honor the working class as the noblest,
most thoughtful, most sober, and most moral among all people.(it's
kinda like the movie Platoon which is schizo in showing the ugly
things that US soldiers do and then gushes about how these men--mostly
of working class background--are the best of the best, noblest of the
noblest. huh?)   so, on the one hand, springsteen loves working class
culture for its lunacy, but on the other hand, honors it for its
nonexistent--at least in his universe--sobriety.  when will he make up
his mind?   also, keep in mind that springsteen isn't saying that hard
work should be rewarded with fun, which is perfectly sensible.  the
emotional content of his songs indicate that work is boring and dull
and something you gotta do as little as possible because the main goal
of life is to roar down the highway on a suicide machine and dash your
brains all over the road.   pete seeger was no artist, and his songs
sucked, BUT there is genuine respect for work in his songs.  seeger's
songs are pro-worker and also pro-work. springsteen's songs are pro-
worker but anti-work.  so, the meaning of 'worker' in springsteen's
universe is dubious because it's more a social label than a job
description.  what matters is not so much that you work but you belong
to the so-called 'working-class'.
of course, not all of springsteen's songs are mindless--and even his
mindless songs are poetically insightful about the mindless
mind('thunderroad' is an obnoxiously beautiful evocation of the tawdry
half-baked working class dreams of love and success, a true classic
among classics)--, but even his sober songs dodge im****tant and
complex moral issues of family breakdown, social violence, racial
tensions, and so on.  when it comes to the affluent vs the poor/the
working class, there is a simple manicheanism operating that says
affluent folks are all bad.  and, when it's about tensions between the
working class and the poor, or between working class whites and
working class blacks, there's only moral shrugging and dopey sighs of
grief.  'my hometown' is a wonderful song as a piece of nostalgia but
ludicrous as social commentary. when confronted with white working
class bigotry against blacks and vice versa, all springsteen can tell
us is 'there was nothing you could do'.
and, springsteen could be downright soap-opera-ish and sappy at
times.  one of his worst songs is 'right between the eyes' in the
otherwise great album The River.  for someone who has projected an
image of living on the edge, taking risks, and choosing danger as his
life's motto, there is something so childishly innocent about his
vision of america.  'right between the eyes' would have us believe
that purity, truth, love, innocence, and beauty were extinguished when
that poor angelic girl was shot in the head. it's a sickening kind of
catholic iconography for an incident, that no matter how sad, is not
the end of the world.  of course, subjective reality is not objective
reality.  certain incidents can seem like the end of the world to some
people, but the problem of 'right between the eye' is it indicts all
of america while hyping the incident with spiritual significance.
dylan did something similar with 'lonesome death of hattie carroll'
but at least he did it with some irony and thoughtfulness. 'right
between the eyes', like the much later song 'NYPD shot a poor,
helpless, wonderful, saintly, and noble negro 4500 times', is too
dopey and too much. it's icky.

this is where john ford was a very different kind of artist than
springsteen. a ford film like The Searchers is very admiring of the
white pioneers of america but also shows us the dark side of that
history. the character of ethan--played by john wayne--in The
Searchers is both courageous and dangerous.  even as ford gave us a
loving ****trait of america, there was much that was hateful. same was
true of his depiction of irish politics and society. but, springsteen
cannot see anything bad about white working class life--except the
work of course.  and, he doesn't see any need for the working class to
prepare for a future shaped by new economy.   his message to kids is
'skip homework, don't go to school, have wild ***, love your
motorcycle more than book learning, and pretend that 50s/60s economic
boom times for blue collar folks will be around forever'.   while
chinese dogeaters and indian rat wor****ppers are studying the new
technologies and coming to US to take new jobs in new industries,
springsteen's vision of blue collar america is they should spend their
youth skipping school and live out the rest of their lives in get-paid-
get-laid mindset.  we wonder how respectful, confident, and proud of
the working class springsteen really is.  IF the working class is as
noble and sensible as springsteen tells us, shouldn't its members be
adapting to new realities? shouldn't they be soberly and diligently
trying to stay one step ahead of the rest of the world? shouldn't
there be love of education, respect for knowledge, and an intense
effort to learn the skills that prepare people for the new jobs of the
future?  this would be so if we really had confidence in the american
working class, but the truth is many people do not.  for all their
professed egalitarianism, many liberals and leftists see working class
folks as too mentally slow, too stupid, and too duhhhh to be able to
do anything beyond manual labor.  at best, they can assemble cars or
work on repetitive machinery, but we should never expect them to learn
any skill that requires some degree of advanced math or scientific
knowledge.  besides, our mindless popular culture demeans anyone who
works with his brains as a lowly geek--though, in truth, your average
computer engineer is hardly geekier than your average auto worker.

though springsteen didn't like being associated with such 80s icons as
rambo, they both had something in common.  rambo's mindless rightwing-
ism bestows nobility on a people simply for the uniform they wore--and
their service in the vietnam war. such people are depicted as perfect
noble warriors who were stabbed in the back by uncaring liberal
politicians back home. springsteenism is just a leftist version of
rambo-ism.  in rambo movies, the issue of whether US soldiers served
honorably in vietnam is irrelevant; if you wear the uniform of the US
army, you are automatically good. while the 60s leftist ****trayal of
US militarymen was simplistic, hateful, and demented, it was true that
many US servicemen in vietnam were lacking in idealism, purpose, and
morals. many indulged in *** and treated vietnamese women as whores,
many used drugs,  many committed atrocities.  and, this cannot simply
be blamed on the politicians who sent them to war.  some US servicemen
were simply not good people though we must keep in mind that war often
turns even good people into not-so-good people.
similarly, the bogusness of springsteenism is the notion that one is
noble simply because one belongs to the working class. this is just a
leftwing version of rambo-ism.  never mind that many blue collar folks
have been lazy, unfocused, selfish, indulgent in the good times of the
postwar era, and poorly prepared their children for a changing
future.   never mind that too many blue collar types smoked too much,
ate too much, wasted too much time on frivolous pursuits, and were not
good spouses, parents, or children.   the song 'born in the USA' is
bitter about the vietnam experience, but it's just a leftwing version
of the rambo sentiment.  if ramboism blames it all on powerful liberal
politicians who didn't let american soldiers win the war, springsteen
blames it all on powerful conservative politicians who sent all these
noble wonderful working class to go kill the gooks and die.  the song
is meant to be both ironic and earnest.  though it exclaims the pride
of being an american, it recounts the bitterness of working class
experience.  powerful guys send  you to kill in another country; upon
returning, there is no job for you. a working class fella is always a
victim of cir***stances.  but, he's truly noble because despite all
the wrongs done to him by his country, he's still proud to be an
american.  it's a powerful song and as a mere expression of the
confused, angry, and bitter proud of blue collar americans, it could
be considered a masterpiece. but, springsteen really wants us to take
it seriously as social commentary than as subjective outcry.   actual
social reality was never so simple.   just to give one example, we are
told that the veteran couldn't find a job at the refinery. well, one
of the reasons why refineries have been shut down or not been allowed
to be built is because of liberal environmental pressures.  surely,
springsteen knows that the policies of his buddies on the left are
harmful to the jobs of blue collar americans.  i'm not knocking
environmental laws and policies, because environment needs to be
protected, but there is an economic price to be paid for those
policies, one of which is fewer refineries and smoke stack industries
which hire blue collar workers.   anyway, the point is there is no
simple good guy vs bad guy.
also, another reason for blue collar job loss is globalism, but who
are some of the biggest proponents of globalism?  the rich liberal and
leftist class.  this is why obama says one thing to blue collar folks
in ohio and pennsylvania and quite another to rich millionaire/
billionarie liberals in san francisco.  the rich powerful liberals
who've invested tons of money to obama's campaign made their fortunes
thru globalism.   hightech sector in computes is heavily liberal and
jewish dominated, and it owes much of its success to working on the
global scale thru a system stretching from israel to india to china to
taiwan to silicon valley across whole of US. much of the technology
that makes globalism possible were developed by liberals and leftists--
many of them, jews.  the internet was essentially the brainchild of
liberal geniuses. and just look at google.  hightech internet industry
is wiping out many retail businesses--like local bookstores--and print
journalism.  blue collar workers are not the ONLY ones to feel the
pinch.  for all its liberal politics, just consider all the businesses
that google drove out of business. for all its liberal politics,
consider all the mom-and-pop coffee houses driven out of business by
starbucks. for all their liberal politics, consider all the so-called
'cultural genocides' around the globe due to preeminence of globalist
hollywood and mtv.  so, what are print journalist facing the axe
supposed to do?  sing the blues about how they were 'raised to do what
my daddy done' and mope and grope about the economy and so on?   we
should never minimize the anxiety felt by many people in a fast
changing world, but changes bring new op****tunities.  the problem
among a good number of americans is they don't have the mindset or
ability that makes them go after those new op****tunities. of course,
many americans know exactly what should be done.  many do well in
school, prepare for college or vocational school after highschool, and
know what it's all about. also, many americans know that solid values,
family structure, culture of responsiblity, and such are the best
defense against social instability and hard times.  a family that is
responsible and sticks together has a better chance of getting thru
hard times than an ass-tattoo slobby family where the guy is a moron,
a woman is an idiot, and kids are all brats. even worse are single-
mother families where the kids are offsprings of various boyfriends
who are criminal oriented morons.  yet, liberals keep giving us this
picture of wonderful, noble, helpless poor who are neglected and 'left
behind' by americans. so, what are successful americans do?  mess up
and not succeed lest they leave other people behind?  so, someone who
gets straight A's in class ought to be ashamed of himself because he's
leaving behind those who get F's?   also, liberals never seem to
understand that many people try to succeed because they are tired of
being mistreated by morons. suppose there is a decent black family in
some community; they wanna live in peace but people in the
neighborhood vandalize their property and thugs make lot of ugly noise
in the streets; their kids are pushed around in school. why shouldn't
this decent black family not work extra hard to get out of the
community and away from the worthless morons--'leave the others
behind'? yet, our stupid cult of egalitarianism blames the people who
succeed and sanctifies those who 'are left behind'.

to be sure, most of working class america isn't stupid and retarded
like welfare class america. also, many working class works are good
people and give 100% at work.  they take pride in what they do and are
good family men. and, they keep the spheres of work and fun separate--
unlike in the springsteenian universe where it's cool to skip school,
show up late to work, and etc.  even so, all working class americans
must prepare their kids for the new economy that requires different
kinds of skills. and people like buchanan should try to have faith
that working class white americans aren't too dumb to learn those
skills. there is an element of condescension in buchanan's blue collar
sympathies.  it's as though factory jobs are the ONLY thing people of
blue collar background would be good at.
now, there is some truth to this.  for example, the IQ of some 'white
trash' folks are pretty low.  the white dimwits in the wonderful
do***entary "Country Boys" wouldn't be good for anything except
factory work or floor sweeping.  not everyone is as smart as an
ashkenazi jew or even an hindu.  we can't expect everyone to excel as
doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, global finance, academia,
etc.   just as most mexicans don't have a chance of succeeding in
professional s****ts, most white gentile folks--especially of hillbilly
variety--will not be as successful, brilliant, adaptable, and quick-
witted like the ashkenazi jews.   still, most hightech and skill-
oriented jobs do not require very high IQ.  more crucial to succeed in
the changing order is willingness to work, dedication, discipline,
diligence, and all the basic values. this is why the fascist mode of
social culture is preferable for the future. we're not talking of
political but cultural fascism.   politically, US should be a
democracy, but culturally, we need organizations, institutions, and
movements that wake the people up with the values that are good,
healthy, and hardy.
jews need hardy values less than we do because they are smart.  even a
value-free jew can succeed in life because of his high IQ.  even a
lazy jew can be better at problem-solving jobs than industrious
dimwitted goyim.  it's like the story of the hare and the tortoise.
the hare, because of its speed, doesn't need to be as rigid with his
schedule and regimen.  of course, if the hare is totally lazy, it will
lose to the tortoise as in the story; it's like the mighty mike tyson
lost to buster douglas because tyson took victory for granted and
didn't train properly. but, discipline and diligence are generally
less im****tant to the naturally gifted than to the naturally
ungifted.  of course, if one is naturally gifted and also highly
diligent, then sky's the limit. indeed, the most successful people in
the world are jews with both natural smarts and high level of
discipline.  but, we must be mindful that most people are dimwit
goyim.  if dimwit goyim adopted the often-value-free jewish way,
they'd all fail.  because jews are smart, even a value-free jew can,
thru his wits, stay away from trouble and slip thru obstacles in his
path. notice that even when jews act trashy, they remain aloof and
profit from tra****ness--howard stern, sarah silverman, jerry springer,
hollywood, etc.   because of his high intelligence, a jew who rejects
old values is still equipped with a radar device that helps him
navigate thru the minefield of  life. he's much less likely to step
into the pitfalls; and even if he does, he's more likely to make a
comeback.  suppose some smart jew acts stupid and uses crack.  he's
more likely to come to his  senses, clean up his act, ask his parents
for a loan to go to college, and become a lawyer. indeed, look at the
crazy jews of the 60s. they were into drugs, bomb making, cussing,
spitting hatred, and acting looney. but, when the smoke cleared, they
cleaned up their acts, sobered up, and became successful in many
professions and businesses. jews have not only been adaptable thru
history but adaptable thru life.  indeed, look at the success of newly
arrived jews from russia. even with their limited knowledge of english
and american society, they are soon doing better than most
americans.   how is it that newly arrived jewish immigrants with
obvious disadvantages are better able to take advantage of america's
changing economic realities than blacks and working class goy whites
are?   though we should all try to learn from the jewsters, we cannot
all be like them because we are dumb.  because most goyim are less
adept at taking advantages of individual freedom in a value-free
society, it's more crucial for them to stick to solid moral/social/
cultural/spiritual principles.   a single mother jewess, due to her
wits, tenacious personality, clever manipulativeness, intelligence,
and knowledge is likely to be much better off than a single mother
goyess.  eleanor clift is an hideous leftwing jewess but she can
survive thru anything and anywhere because she has (1) high
intelligence,  (2) chutzpah, and (3) devious ruthlessness.  this is
beyond the ability of most goyesses.  so, the best insurance policy
for goyim are strong fascistic set of values.  indeed, the reason why
modern society has suffered so much is due to our wishful thinking
that we could all be jewishy. what works for the jew doesn't work for
us. what works for woody allen or howard stern doesn't work for
butthead or crackhead bob.  allen has been a confused value-free jerk
all his life, but he's a smart funny jew, so he could make tons of
money using his wits. but, suppose allen had been a value-free dimwit
goy; he'd been totally *****ed-up.  this is why dimwits need powerful
values. this is what National Socialsm understood, and this is why
germans sup****ted hitler and his goons against the jews.  germans were
lunkheads, at least relative to the smarter jews.  in an anarchic
value-free order, the wits can outwit the dimwits. just look at any
marx brothers movie where the jewish quartet run circles around stupid
lunkhead dimwit goyim as things fall apart all around them.  dimwit
goyim need order because they don't have the wits to stay afloat in a
world of disorder.  now, jews don't necessarily favor disorder over
order, but jews often find the concept of social order stifling or
even oppressive--especially if it's goy-dominated and discriminatory
toward jews.   for jews to succeed as a minority, there needs to be
some social fluidity and flexibility. and, this is why jews found
paradise in the US, a nation of order but social fluidity and
flexibility. but in the 60s, leftwing and even liberal jews lost their
heads and waged war on the very concept of order itself.   the
greatest impact was on culture and social morality.  while smart-jews-
with-wits-about-them navigated thru the new (dis)order relatively
unscathed, the disorderly freedom ruined the lives of many dimwit
goyim.  even as they championed the disorder, jews were weasely
cautious and monkeyishly clever in their manuevers, but many dimwit
goyim--especially white trash, negroes, and hispanics--charged
headfirst toward the cliff of moral abyss.  a jewish single mother is
likely a lawyer, professor, or at worst, a secretary. a black single
mother be some fatass ho who be havin 8 kids and livin on welfare.  a
white single mother be some crackwhore whose boyfriend be some trashy
meth snorting moron with a tattoo on his ass.    indeed, just look at
rap culture. there have been jewish rappers but they are clever
parodists of rap than hardcore practitioners of mindless stupidity.
indeed, how many east coast jewish rappers got gunned down by west
coast jewish rappers?   jews enjoy the anarchy of rap but have fun
with it whereas stupid negroes really live the life of rap and end up
stupid.

it's been said einstein was not a good student in the conventional
sense and an oddball, but non-conformism or anti-authoritarianism for
einstein translated into intellectual curiosity, freedom, originality,
and exploration. for most young people of dimwit goy kind, youthful
freedom means ending up white trash or negro trash. they simply don't
know how to use freedom constructively; freedom crushes them as they
have no sense of direction in life. notice that even someone as trashy
as howard stern had enough sense and smarts to succeed in the art of
tra****ness.  indeed, hollywood is full of creative jewish ne'er-do-
wells.  even jewish good-for-nothings are good for something because
they have wits, originality, adaptability, and brilliance. but, when
goyim are good-for-nothing, they really are good for nothing. this is
why even in an industry such as ****, jews make tons of money while
dimwit bimbos are traded and sold like so much meat.  even in tawdry
businesses, jews know how to maintain control and reap great profit.
this is even true in gangsterism. jewish gangsters were the most
creative, smart, and effective.  they had to play second fiddle to
italians only because the dagos outnumbered them--besides, jews
figured they could make more money by mastering the law than playing
the outlaw--, but pound for pound, a tough jewster was more impressive
than a dumbass brutish greaseball.  jews were so smart and quick that
even the dagos hired them to run brainy operations in las vegas and
the like.  when it was dagos vs micks, it was muscle vs muscle. but,
when it was dagos vs jewsters, it was muscle vs brain. though in the
thuggish world of gangsterism muscle power won out, many jews knew
that dagos still needed their smarts to run certain operations.  this
was also true in the soviet union. stalin tried to remove many top
jews but still had to keep a whole bunch of jews in government because
a jewish commie was worth a 1000 goy commies. it's like the rich woman
tells jeremy irons in REVERSAL OF FORTUNE, 'get the jew!'   of course,
jews eventually beat out the dagos by taking over legitimate business
and the law.  so, by the 80s, the lunkhead dagos were driven out, and
las vegas was bought out by jewish finance capitalists and bigtime jew
lawyers who turned it into disneyland for adults. as don corleone said
in The Godfather, a man with a suitcase can steal 1000x more than a
man with a gun.   in a society with respect for rule of law such as
the US, the jewish brain beat out the dago braun.  only in the mafia
fantasies of writers like mario puzo did the dagos beat out the jews
by sticking a dead horse under a bed or shooting a jew in the eye. The
Last Don is even more hilarious.  but, it must also be said that jews
generally regarded US more as a nation of lawyers than a nation of
laws.  overall, jewish influence has undermined our respect for the
law, authority, society, and such.  part of this is cultural--lenny
bruce and howard stern--, part of its political--radicalism calling
for the overthrow of The Man--, and part of its legal--jewish lawyers
on tv encouraging americans to sue the pants out of one another(like
jerry springer loves to pit goy against goy).  even as jews have taken
over the legal system, academia, media, etc, etc, they still posture
as freedom fighters going against The Man--though they are now The
Man.

anyway, the jewish cultural and social model is not good for most
americans.  value-free jewishness is not the same as value-free
goyishness.  a value-free jew feels liberated and open to all kinds of
possibilities in a society unmoored to any value system.  a value-free
goy feels the whole purpose of life is to pig out, ***** anything with
a hole, fail in school, act thuggish, and guzzle beer. a value-free
jew is someone like bill maher who, though trashy in terms of taste
and cultural inclinations, is smart enough to keep his head above the
fray.  a value free goy is like the idiots on jerry springer show who
beat up one another to the merriment/amusement of jerry who makes
millions off that stuff.   we must not project jewishness onto goy
folks. that would be like projecting french love of wine on american
indians.  we know the french could handle their wine whereas stupid
savage indians went crazy with alcohol.  what works for cats don't
work for dogs.  if you let a cat outdoors, it's cautious, sensible,
and knows when/how to come back home.  but, if you let a dog outside
without a leash, it runs around crazily, is liable to get lost, is
liable to bite someone, is liable to run after cars and get run over
by a car.   value-free jews are like cats whereas value-free goyim are
like unleashed dogs.  so, the idea of jewi****stic freedom is not good
for goyim.  as we live in a free society, we must be free folks in the
legal and political sense. but, in the cultural sense, goy folks must
be leashed to a set of strong values. this is why a cultural fascist
movement is so im****tant for the future of goy man.

you may ask, 'why not a socialist movement?'   for starters, fascism
incor****ates elements of socialism. but, more im****tantly, socialist
emphasis on equality is harmful to folks.  modern society is about
excellence, not equality.  the reason why we uphold political and
legal equality and stuff like public education is not to create an
equal society but a proper excellent society.  under the old pre-
democratic order, hierarchy was based on lineage or brutish might. the
best often did not rise to the top. but, in a modern democratic order,
the natural best can reach the top.  the best minds can become the top
professors, scientists, businessmen, etc.   this is why jews are so
unequal compared to the rest of us. notice they are much richer than
us. they hold many prominent positions in many crucial institutions in
dispro****tional terms to their overall population.  do jews feel
ashamed that 40% of nobel prizes in sciences and math has gone to jews?
(a great example of inequality of outcome.)  of course not.  so,
people who wonder why america is unequal are missing the point. the
whole point of equality-under-the-law is precisely to give the best
and the brightest the least unfettered access to the top.  the goal of
equality-under-the-law is not to create equality of outcome.  the only
way to do that is to create a prison system--like communism--where
everyone(except the bureaucrasie)is forced to be equal.
now, one could argue that socialism--as in social democracy or 'social
justice'--isn't the same as communism. but, it's still a pernicious
and corrosive idea because it's anti-excellence. it tells the m*****
that there's something wrong with excellence, success, moving ahead of
the pack, gaining power and privilege, and so on. it's also
hypocritical because so many liberals and leftists who yammer all
night and day about equality want to succeed--gain power or wealth--as
much as possible.  all those hollywood jews who yammer about social
equality or social justice wanna make billions more. all those
internet jewsters who yammer about social justice are superduper
billionaires.  harvard, yale, princeton, stanford, etc are all super
elitist schools which only take the cream of the crop who graduate to
make millions and billions or gain powerful/influential positions, yet
they are yammering about 'social justice'.
now, there's nothing wrong with success, but when people who succeed
the MOST and rise high above us preach about the virtue of equality,
what the hell is that?  i don't mind some jew going to harvard and
making millions later in life. i figure he deserved it.  but, when
that jew tells us that our society is evil because it's unequal, he's
bogus.  if he's so into equality, why did he go to harvard? why did he
decide to succeed in life thru gaining more money, power, or influence
than other folks?  now, rich and/or powerful people who abuse their
wealth and influence ought to be prosecuted and brought down.  but,
successful people would serve society much better if they preached the
doctrine of excellence than equality.  there should be equality under
the law and basic equal start for all americans thru public education
and basic needs for even the poorest american child. but, what a
person gains in life must be the product of his own effort and
struggle. but, the idea of 'social justice' makes it seem as though
people who have less are automatically the victims of those who have
more. this is especially bogus in an america where so many people fail
due to personal idiocies--encouraged by jewish-owned media and
entertainment industry(liberal jews corrupt our souls, we mess up as a
result, and then liberal jews say we need to give them great political
power to fix our problems. liberal jews ruin our souls and promise to
fix our bodies; that is the nature of welfare socialist mentality).
suppose there are two kids in a working class neighborhood. one kid
prepares for the future and becomes a well paid engineer whereas the
other bums around thru school yrs and becomes a meth addict. so, is
the meth addict idiot a social victim of the engineer?  the concept of
'social justice' if valid in a society where political and legal
rights are not granted to all, but it's meaningless in a democratic
society.  injustice entails a person being done wrong by another; the
concept of 'social justice' suggests that the mere act of succeeding
in life is to commit a wrong against those who are 'left behind'. in
the black community, females are much more likely to succeed than
males, so are black females commiting social injustice against black
males.  in the US, jewish americans are far more successful than
mexican-americans or polish-americans, so are jewish americans
committing social injustice against beaners and polacks?
if jews are truly committing a wrong in the US, it's by disseminating
the culture of corruption/perversion thru the media they control and
by spreading radical hatred whereby 'people of color' are being
brainwashed to virulently and rabidly hate white america. and, of
course, there are some finance capitalist jews who really don't do
anything for the economy but make fat profits by flu****ng money around
all over the globe--like what george soros does. (in the recent issue
of Foreign Affairs, an article on the Danish system highlighted
european cultural/moral  disdain for american style finance capitalism
based on equities which make no longterm investments but just trot
around the world by stripping and selling the assets of  companies
around the world.)   but, most people who succeed deserved to succeed,
and we should respect their accomplishments. also, they have most to
offer the m***** thru their success.  a successful businessmen
provides more and/or cheaper goods and services and creates jobs and
op****tunities. so, there is no reason for a successful person to feel
guilty. so, the m***** would gain much more by trying to emulate the
successful. the problem is the m***** are not taught the very values
that make the successful successful.  to be sure, intelligence is
something the m***** cannot learn. high intelligence is something one
is born with or without.  still, anyone can still be smart and
sensible with his limited intelligence.  but, this requires values to
keep him focused on the proper path.  in the story of the hare and the
tortoise, the latter had very limited speed but still managed to
finish the race because he had the value of tenacity and diligence.
but, the jewish media and entertainment folks have filled the m*****
with lax morals, idiot values, and moronic stupidity. also, the social
revolutions--radical feminism, jiveass jiggerishness, welfare
warehousing of the poor(a form of zookeeping carried out on humans),
hedonistic youth culture, etc--have destroyed the social institutions
such as family and authority of teachers which had once played a
crucial role in passing down basic values down to the next
generation.  today, many teen girls spread their legs to every dingbat
stud and feel NO shame; indeed, 'good girls' are the ones who are
often ostracized in underclass neighborhoods.  today, many fathers
don't even stick around. and, even when they stick around, their idea
of father/son experience is taking your son to have his ass tattooed
like pa's.

one of the reasons for the stability of europe after WWII was the much
reduced presence of jews.  though democratic, all the european nations
had been largely de-jewified. they became goyim social orders.  this
is why social democracy worked in western europe, more or less. it was
easier for goy elite to work well with goy m***** minus the jews who
had either functioned as finance capitalists or radical subversives--
extremes.  with fewer jews, europe had national capitalists and
national m*****. sweden and denmark, for instance.  also, rulers at
the top and the m***** both were invested in the concept of social
order and national unity.  when jews rule at the top with goy m*****
at the bottom, the m***** become distrustful of the jew elite; and the
jew elite, fearful of goy m*****, try to undermine goy unity by
perverting and loosening their morals.  after WWII liberal jews have
been doing just that in the US, and to fend off any criticism they've
ceaselessly and shamelessly used the holocaust card. so, if anyone's
critical of jewish influence or power, he's blacklisted and ruined as
a nazi-sympathizer.

and, same happend in russia with putin's handling of jews.  jews
thrived in the disorder of revolution in 1917 and also in the disorder
of yeltsin years. under putin, russian politics/economy has been
reorganized as a union of goy elite and goy m***** with fewer jews to
play marx brothers in between.
jews have always been a mixed blessing, and we can see that in both
the USSR and US where they became very powerful, influential, and
prominent. because of their high intelligence, cultural level, and
economic skills, jews could contribute a great deal to the national
wealth, scientific discovery, and progress.  many of the brightest
minds in soviet science, math, chess, music, and management were
jews.  and, in the realm of american freedom, jews contributed even
more.  and, jews once contributed a great deal to nations like spain
and hungary. but, jews are dangerous for several reasons.   they tend
to have an abrasive and mocking racial personality; there are too many
alan dershawitzes and noam chomskys among the jews. when such
abrasiveness is mixed with high intelligence, it turns into supreme
arrogance and even megalomania.  as jews are generally not physically
very imposing nor impressive, their narcissism has generally been
intellectual than stylistic or physical--as in the case of negroes.
with guys like cornel west and michael dyson, we know that style
matters more than content.  in contrast, many jews have been heavy
thinkers and major intellectuals.  so, chomsky's megalomania is a cult
of ideality than a cult of personality.

anyway, jews have been minorities in many countries, and given freedom
they rose to the top.  this always caused problems.  most people being
goyim, they wanted to live in a nation ruled by their own kind.  all
people may feel some degree of resentment toward people who are richer
and stronger, but there is a degree of identification if the elite is
made up of their own kind. but, jews weren't seen as 'my people' by
the goyim.  they were seen as strangers and usurpers, yet they gained
so much power in nations like hungary, germany, and france.   no
people like this.  suppose hindus made up only 5% of chinese
population but made up 50% of all doctors, 50% of all lawyers, 50% of
all professors, 50% of all wealth in china, and had a big hold on
government?   both the members of chinese elite and m***** would be
upset.  the chinese elite would feel humiliated that they don't have
control over their own country. and the chinese m***** would feel as
though ruled by foreigners.  the indians didn't like being ruled by
the small elite of british imperialists, and many europeans prior to
WWII felt as though they were living under jewish imperialism. of
course, jews didn't own vast armies and use battle****ps, but their
power was formidable thru economic prowess, intellectual know-how,
cultural talent, media control, and etc(controlling the eyes, ears,
heart, and mind can be more effective than control the arms and legs;
just as jewish physicists sought the deepest nature/source of reality,
jewish social figures sought to control the deepest core of the
national nervous system; it's the brain that controls the body, not
vice versa.  indeed, even though US police and military are dominated
by conseratives, they take orders from liberal institutions controlled
by jews. also, the vast numbers of americans think according to
liberal jewish dictates programmed into our hearts/minds thru media
and academia)--just as chinese people in southeast asian countries
have a distinct cultural/economic advantage over the natives or as
indians had advantage over blacks in uganda before idi amin threw them
out(ugandans saw indian businessmen in their country as underlings of
the british imperialists in the way that christian spaniards once
regarded spanish jews as having collaborated with muslim
occupiers).    in a way, jews were blameless for their success. after
all, they were just smarter, more industrious, and so on.  but, jews
were not entirely blameless either, for jews often operated with bad
faith.  many jews were arrogant, abrasive, contemptuous, hateful,
vile, and disgusting--like jerry springer, howard stern, and alan
dershawitz today.  some were like karl marx, a lowlife asswipe. some
were like heinrich heine, whose hatred of germans was far worse than
hatred of jews by many anti-semites.  T. S. Eliot's writings on jews
are nothing compared to heine's vile remarks about germans and german
culture. and, many jews were radicals who tried to overthrow the goy
order and establish a radical order.  they succeeded in russia and
created a system that killed tens of millions of people, and even to
this day, 99.9% of jews will not take any responsibility for it--
unlike the germans who've expressed profound remorse for their crimes,
and even the japanese have done much more than jews in facing their
past evils.  today, jews are among the most morally narcissitic p