the Left fears nothing more than the Cright--the creative right.

an advantage the left has had over the right was imagination and
boldness of vision. this has been true in arts and politics.  in many
struggles between right and left, the right held onto power thru force
and tired old symbols--which usually appealed to the stodgiest members
of the elite and the most dimwitted among the masses. in contrast, the
left stood for new ideas and visions which captivated the hearts and
minds of many people. we saw this in the French Revolution and later
in the Russian Revolution. whether bolsheviks were lowlife scum isn't
so much the issue as the fact that the majority of russians--for
awhile anyway--were won over to the leftist call for a new just
order.  people like the idea of freedom, justice, and righteousness.
in fighting for either freedom--individual liberty--or social justice--
collective security--, the left has had the upperhand in winning
hearts and minds of people.  today, conservatives claim to be for
economic freedom--free enterprise, free markets, aka capitalism--as
opposed to big government control-freaks. but, liberal big
governmentism is appealing because it still promises/guarantees social
freedoms.  liberalism says you can lead a hedonistic and even
destructive lifestyle--as often romanticized in the arts and
entertainment and media--, but not to worry since the government will
always be there to take care of you.  conservative economic freedom is
linked with the concept of responsibility; you're free to make your
own decisions but must accept the consequences.  liberals say you're
free to do whatever but if you mess up, there is collective security--
made available by government--to take care of you. indeed, much of the
appeal of big government exists among not only among poor people but
working people who wanna live a ultra-free fast-and-easy lifestyle and
want safety nets when they've messed up by wasting all their money,
saving nothing, and making really stupid lifestyle decisions.
conservative idea of economic freedoms isn't appealing to many people
because it's about working hard for what you earn/have and being
responsible with--essentially limiting--your own freedoms. working is
not something people look forward to and responsiblity sounds 'lame',
'square', 'boring', and 'old-fa****oned'.

so, liberals and leftists, whether academic/intellectual or populist/
cultural know they have the upperhand in winning over the hearts and
minds of many people. Rolling Stone magazine and Village Voice are
where intellectual left meets populist liberalism.  the message of
both is do-whatever-you-feel-like(unless it's politically incorrect)
and be free; but, if you mess up and need help, there is the
collective security blanket to take care of you.  so, it's like being
a teenager forever--neither a child nor an adult.
this explains why most teenagers and young people tend to be liberal
or leftist.  leftism, to be sure, unlike liberalism, can be repressive
and demanding but there is still a sense of excitement in overturning
the social order and blowing things up.  so, bill ayers is still
respected as a troublemaker out to destroy the Man.
there is a sense of excitement, adventure, thrill, and daring on the
part of the left and liberals.  in contrast, conservatives come across
as either affluent philistines, dilbertish dorks, or bible thumping
cranks.  of course, there is the idea of the cowboy, the gun lover,
nascar fan, serving in the military, and so on.   but, while those are
exciting, they are not associated with a daring or  exciting idea.  a
gun nut just loves guns and shooting stuff but has no special sights.
a revolutionary shoots a gun to 'create a better world'.  a rightwing
gun nut shoots his guns to kill a deer or protect his property.  now,
protecting one's property is a good idea but not an exciting idea.
it's about keeping what you already have than trying to imagine/create
a new world.   in the end, the pen is mightier than the sword--or the
gun.  there is action on the right but little in the way of ideas.  in
the recent book 'The Russian Civil War', we learn that one of the main
reasons why the Whites lost was they failed to win the hearts and
minds of the majority of russians--illiterate peasants. the bolshevik
call for 'bread, land, justice, and peace' had wide appeal among the
people. in contrast, the whites ruled over their areas without any
uniting idea except tired symbols such as the tsar and god and
country--rather unappealing considering those things brought russia to
ruin in WWI. in many cases, the whites' message was they should rule
because they had done so in the past and had the military upperhand(we
get a similar sense from the left/right struggle in the movie Salvador
by oliver stone).  there was nothing to inspire the people and unify
them against the communists.  this would play out again in the chinese
and then vietnamese civil war.  in material terms, commies didn't
offer much. what mattered were their ruthless organizational skills
and their simple but powerful message of a better world.  of course,
in time, once they gained power, their mantras became tiresome as
their new order was oppressive and failed to deliver on the promises.
but, they had still succeeded in overthrowing the old order.

in the 19th century, the left felt growing confidence. they stood for
the new, the exciting, the creative, the daring, the adventurous, the
scientific, the progressive, the bold, the original, the rebellious,
and such.  in their way stood the right which stood for god, country,
aristocracy, rigid hierarchy, and such.  between the two extremes was
the bourgeosie which economically created the new but culturally
emulated the aristocratic class, though many bourgeoisie sponsored the
new and daring. and, many bourgeoisie did both, emulating aristocratic
manners while patronizing modernist artists and even radical causes.
the left and right had appeal to both the elite/educated and masses/
ignorant for different reasons.  leftism's appeal to the elite was the
idea of scientific intellectualism explaining and fixing the world; in
this movement, the highly educated radical intellectual vanguard would
hold most of the power and lead the progress into the future.
leftism's appeal to the masses was its promise of bread, higher wages,
and/or redistribution of land. also, in a world where religion was
growing weaker, leftist certitudes had a certain quasi-spiritual
appeal to the many undereducated.
rightism's appeal to the elite was the idea of privilege and keeping
power/wealth in their own hands.  rightism's appeal to the masses was
the idea of social, moral, and spiritual stability/certainty. leftists
charged religion as the opiate employed by the elite to control the
masses, and the fact is many poor people had been brought up to
believe in god. as such, many were suspicious of the new and unwilling
to make a clean break with the past. also, masses had been raised to
respect and honor their king and country. even if the existing order
was repressive and undemocratic, many people identified with the king
as the 'father of the nation' and spiritual guide.  today, even most
conservatives would agree more with the left than the right of the pre-
WWI period.
all of these tensions came to a head in WWI where the rightists
employed and manipulated their cherished political and cultural
symbols to maximize their power and to achieve everlasting validation
in the eyes of their subjects. instead, the long horrible war led to
the fall of both the tsar and the kaisar. russia fell to commies--the
far left--, and germany fell to social democrats--liberals and
moderate left.   in the new order, the liberal and leftist forces felt
more powerful than ever.  even though there were powerful remnants of
the right in many countries--except in russia where they were rubbed
out in the civil war--, there was a sense of End of History.  history
now belonged to the left, whether democratic or totalitarian. for many
people, the right had proved its craziness and moral worthlessness in
WWI.  the ruthless manipulation of hollow and empty symbols and the
destruction that ensued exposed the right as the emperor without any
clothes.  as it turned out, it would have been better for the left in
the long run if the bolsheviks never took power. had both russia and
germany fallen into the hands of social-democrats after WWI, it's very
possible that the bourgeoisie and moderate conservatives forces would
have cooperated with the new order and accept the changes as
inevitable and even necessary. but, the rise of bolshevism in russia
panicked many powerful people in central and western europe.  even
many moderate conservatives and center-rightists began to suspect that
social democrats and the far left were in the same boat.  the
communist threat led to extreme reactions on the part of the
bourgeoisie in italy, germany, and spain.  as more people on the
right--even center right--began to see liberals and radical leftists
as one and the same, there was less possibility of social peace and
political cooperation in interwar europe.  this was mainly due to the
existence and the utter ruthlessness of communist russia. when people
heard of the excesses and madness taking place in communist ruled
russia--and also in increasingly communist-dominated spain under the
republican banner--, they naturally rejected the idea of making long
term peace with liberals.
but, the old order has been crushed in WWI.  there was no way that the
masses could be mobilized to sup****t god, king, and country in the old
sense.  so, the only way to combat the creative left was to come up
with the creative right.  italian fascists were neo-pagan futurists.
german national socialism would create an ultra-modern--if not
modernist--1000 yr reich based on science, technology, and a fusion of
capitalism and socialism. national socialism would open its doors to
all germans of all classes--except non-aryan minorities and reject the
traditional idea of class privilege. any german could rise to the top--
as indeed, many nazi leaders had risen from the bottom.
also, as they rejected or sidelined stodgy traditionalism, god, and
monarchy, the forces of the creative right could be free to explore
new ways, possibilities, expressions, etc.    this was more so in nazi
germany than in fascist italy where mussolini was highly respectful to
traditioanl forces--monarchy and the church. as for franco's spain, it
was more ultra-conservative catholic than fascist--largely due to the
fact that spain had been far less developed than germany and even
italy.  of course, fascist rule smothered the dreams and true
possibilities of the cright--creative right--because dictator****ps
couldn't resist wielding the iron hammer of censor****p and 'official
artistic philosophy'--just as leftist dictator****p in the USSR did
much the same against the creative left.(in many cases, the artists
were not entirely guiltless.  initially, many allied themselves with
the new government and rejoiced in the artistic repression of their
ideological enemies... until, finally, the hammer fell on themselves
as well.  actually,  it's interesting that much of best of modern art
was created by leftists in the capitalist environment.  leftist rule
has not been hospitable to leftist creativity.  similarly,
secularization had often been a greater boon to religious creativity
than theocratic rule.  the more liberalized and humanized atmosphere
of the renaissance produced greater christian art than during the
religion-dominated order of the middle ages.)

anyway, the fact is there was the creative right that frustrated and
even panicked the creative left--at least prior to disaster of WWII.
in the modern era, the left thought everything new and creative was
part of their domain. this was only natural as the right was
supposedly about the old, tired, and exhausted symbols of god,
country, king, etc.  but, the creative right that derived from its
inspiration and power from the likes of  nietzsche and wagner offered
great new possibilities.  the creative right wasn't slavish to old
truisms and symbols.  it could even reject god and accept freedom to
envision a new world. (many cright figures rejected the stable
linearity of judeo-christian historicism and favored the organic
cyclical vision of history which greeted the end as the beginning of
the new in an never ending cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.  this
is where the idea of the 1000 yr reich is counter to the cright idea
and owes more to the jewish ideal of longevity and continuity. for all
its neopaganism, nazism fossilized what should have been organic.)  in
many cases, some of the most talented artists gravitated to the
creative right than the creative left because the former seemed more
daring.  even the fatalistic pessimism of the cright could be closer
to the spirit of freedom since it rejected the idea of historical
destination leading to the final end of history; this may explain why
some of the key figures of early existentialism were men of the cright
such as heidegger.  the creative left could be overly moralistic and
do-goody for many artistic folks.  there was too much about 'social
justice', bread and peace, little people, and so on.  such socio-moral
notions often stood in the way of creative freedom and uncompromised
individualism.  many creative people saw leftism as stiflingly
collectivist and enslaved to the idea of rationalist/materialist
science.  people like dali and celine wanted freedom to explore
everything. as such, they upset the traditional right but proved that
the creative right could be more daring, free, and even outrageously
original and personal than the creative left.  also, many members of
the cright were honest about the nature of art and creativity; they
understood that only a few people were born with special artistic or
creative talent. as such, true creativity was necessarily and
permanently elitist. this attitude made it easier for the cright to
tolerate and even champion aspects of traditional rightism.  since
most people were untalented, uncreative simpletons, they were better
off with basic values and generic truths based on tradition and
commuity than on the idea of egalitarian freedom or progress.  even as
crightists embraced freedom and individualism for themselves, they
were pessimistic about the cult of freedom and progress among the
masses. they felt that leftists who mobilized the masses were merely
manipulating simple minds with new symobolisms and truisms which, upon
inspection, were no better than old symbolisms.  whether you call it
christian or secular, capitalist or socialist, hierarchy was the law
of nature and mankind.  so, all systems ended up, more or less, the
same, with people at the top, middle, and bottom. the leftist notion
of total equality for all people was no less a sham than the christian
idea of 'meek shall inherit the earth'.  so, crightists felt that the
masses were better off with pre-existing traditional truisms since the
bloody and traumatic revolution for a new order wasn't worth the
bother as the end result would fundamentally be the same. great social
revolutionary violence wasn't worth it if only led from traditional
tsarism to communist tsarism. traditional tsarism was preferable to
communist tsarism if only because it was already there and didn't
require the spilling of massive amount of blood. tremendous bloodshed
might be worth it if indeed a wholly better world could be created.
but, members of the cright were deeply skeptical about the changing
the fundamental nature of man, the dynamics of history, and rules of
social relations thru some fool-proof formula.   the paradox of
leftism was it was devised by intellectual heavyweights who
simplemindedly believed that the world could be entirely changed thru
a few set of ideas. marxism was a fairytale written by a genius--
indeed, only could be written by a genius--only geniuses could devise
an ideological fairytale so tantalizing that it va****ized all their
doubts.  crightists believed that if real freedom is to grow and
expand among people, it must happen gradually thru organic, rather
than synthetic, forces of history.  this is why crightists could be
artistically more free and daring than creative leftits.  creative
leftists were beholden to the marxist notion of progress, obligation,
and revolution.   in contrast, crightists were beholden to nothing but
their idea of individual freedom or mythic/visionary imagination. even
when crightists were allied with the forces of the traditional
rightism, it was mercenary and op****tunistic than idealistic or
dogmatic. similarly, american conservative sup****t for third world
rightwing dictator****ps was based far more on realpolitik whereas
american liberal sup****t of third world leftwing dictator****ps tended
towards idealpolitik.  american conservatives had no illusions about
pinochet but saw him a necessary bulwark or 'evil' against communism,
whereas many liberals were genuinely gaga about mao and castro as
torchbearers of The Revolution.

though most modern artists were on the left, there were many creative
people on the right during the interwar years.  also, as WWII and
holocaust had not yet happened, there was no taboo in the cright's
criticism of jewish power--especially since most jews were on the
left; indeed, the radical jewish left was a bigger threat to europe
back then than radical islamists today.  the jewish left spread
subversion and violence and operated in conspiratorial mode.  many
were agents of moscow and other far left forces. they were not only
violent and ruthless but often rich and intellectual.  if today's
radical muslims in europe have fanaticism and bombs as their weapons,
leftwing jews had those plus lots of money, lots of influence,
infiltration into various institutions, owner****ps of media in many
nations, etc.   indeed, much of what we now call 'anti-semitism' of
the interwar yrs was warranted and valid.  while some rightist figures
really had a pathological hatred of jews, many criticized jewish power
as we criticize chinese, arab, muslim, catholic, etc power today.
the ONLY reason why all criticism of jews became taboo was because of
the holocaust. after that great tragedy, everyone who had earlier
criticized or condemned jewish influence was labeled a virulent hater
and so on.  so, we're told that T. S. Eliot was a closet nazi.
meanwhile, the holocaust has given jews the license to say ***** about
anyone.  today, jews can criticize, attack, and condemn any national
group or influence with impunity--as New Republic often blasts german
mentality and influence, arab mentality and influence, chinese
mentality or power, japanese mentality or power, christian mentality
and power, etc.   but, if anyone dares to speak of jewish mentality or
power, he's labeled an 'anti-semite'--a closet nazi.    EVERY
criticism of jews is seen thru the prism of the holocaust. this is
retarded, of course.
suppose some demagogic nut takes power in france and regards muslims
as an 'inferior race'. being an utter muslim-hater, suppose he
mobilizes the french to commit an holocaust against all muslims in his
country.  now, that would be horrible crime. but, does that mean
everyone who had  criticized  muslims or islamic power in europe prior
to the anti-islamic holocaust  was a rabid, virulent, pathological,
and murderous anti-islamite whose views had presaged and anticipated
the great horror?  of course not.
it's true that there has been some deranged expressions of hatred
against muslims in the West, but much of our criticism and even
condemnation of many aspects of islamic culture, politics, values, and
influence has been valid, justifiable, and responsible.   no people,
influence, culture, or tradition is perfect.  there is the good and
the bad. it's necessary for us to call attention to the bad,
especially if the group in question is involved in lots of radical or
subversive activity.  the fact of assimilative difficulty and radical
acts of terror make it necessary for us to honestly examine and
criticize what is nasty, dangerous, and even evil about islam.  just
because muslims of bosnia and kosovo suffered terribly at the hands
of  croatian and serbian bigots doesn't mean that any criticism of
muslims amounts to 'anti-islamitism'.   so, much of the interwar
criticism of jews and jewish influence from the creative right was
fair game--no less than the criticism and attack on christians and
christian influence from the left.  bunuel's films are often
devastatingly vicious against the catholic church and the
bourgeoisie.  so, should we condemn all of bunuel's movies as
practicing class hatred and religious bigotry?   indeed, if we took an
average article in any american magazine--mostly owned, operated, and
written by jews--and replaced 'muslim', 'chinese', 'arab', or some
such with 'jew', the article would be accused of 'anti-semitism'.
many american jewish writers present very generalized accounts of the
mentality, attitudes, and interests of other peoples.  in many cases,
they draw upon ancient history to explain why certain people still act
crazy and nasty.  so, 'american spectator' or 'commentary' will say
today's muslims are nuts because there's been a history of nuttery
thru islamic history.  or, it will say chinese are acting nasty and
crazy because of the chinese mentality that has been forged for 1000s
of yrs.  now, imagine someone critically explaining why jews act the
way they do within the context of jewish history, interests,
influence, and mentality.  why, that person would be condemned as an
'anti-semite'.  how dare he suggest that there is a dark side to
jewish culture or power? how dare he generalize about jews?  but, jews
do this all the time about other people.

it could be that the western world became allergic to anti-semitism
because nazis killed all jews--even rightwing patriotic pro-german
jews.  nazi hatred was so extreme and the crime so ghastly that it has
made many people irrationally afraid to say anything critical of
jews.  this is unhealthy because great power must be criticized; and,
which group is the most powerful in the world?  today, the most
powerful groupin the world--the jewsters--cannot be criticized at all
in the most influential parts of the world--US, canada, western
europe, etc.
also, nazis came to rule over other nations, and many creative right
intellectuals collaborated with the occupiers.  this had led to the
idea that all people on the creative right shared the same hatred held
by the nazis. but in truth, many collaborated for the same reason that
even many liberals and social-democratic types collaborated with
communists when soviets occupied parts of central europe in WWII.  so,
should any liberal who felt compelled to collaborate with soviet
occupiers be labled a stalinist or be compared with the mass murderers
who wiped out the kulaks? of course, all those who collaborate are
stained and compromised, but it still doesn't mean they are one and
the same with the occupiers.

anyway, the left really feared the rise of the creative right in the
interwar period.  not only was the creative right clever and brilliant
in incor****ating elements of socialism into its ideology, it was not
afraid to explore and find new ways of expression and thinking.  the
creative right understood that the core of creative genius is
essentially organic and paganistic, intellectual and psychological,
visionary and adventurous.  one may well have asked, 'how could
someone or something open to The New be on the right?'  because the
creative right understood that hierarchy is the natural order of
things even if the rules of hierarchization were to change from the
aristocratic to meritocratic.  some animals are more powerful.  some
things are more beautiful.  some people are smarter.  some ideas are
greater.  indeed, the cright's argument against the left was that the
left was just same old warmed-over christian moralisms in secular
packaging. for all of left's bold claim of newness, its objective was
to turn the world into a conformist utopia where everyone thought,
dressed, ate, worked, and lived alike thru coercion.   the idea of
'justice' can often stand in the way of beauty and vision.  the idea
of 'correctness' can stand in the way of truth and freedom.  the idea
of 'fairness' can stand in the way of genius and talent.   too bad if
all painters can't be a michelangelo or da vinci.  too bad if every
actor cannot act. too bad if everyone cannot dunk a basketball.  too
bad if every pianist cannot be vladimir horowitz.  egalitarianism
stands in the way of creative excellence.
this is why almost all great leftist artists who talk the talk of
egalitarianism actually walk the walk of elitism.  picasso spouted
communist pieties but lived as towering genius who had to have
everything his way.  to be a creative genius is to think like god and
act like a king.

with the end of WWII, the left did everything possible to discredit
and wipe out all vestiges of the creative right. the left understood
that the creative right was far more dangerous and challenging to the
left than the moneymaking right and the spiritual right. moneymaking
right had little interest in culture, and the spiritual right stuck to
worn orthodoxies turning staler with each passing year--especially in
a world where fun and thrills via popular entertainment were a big
part of one's emotional experience. as the years wore on, the cultural
hegemony would entirely belong to liberals and the left.  the left, in
time, even appropriated forces of the creative right.  sartre and
foucault absorbed nietzsche, and the counterculture movement of the
60s adopted carl jung and hermann hesse. (hesse, though essentially
apolitical and even liberal in some ways,  still owed his peculiar
creativity to neo-pagan irrationalism than neo-judean marxist
materialism.)

so, when we speak of the culture war and why the left is winning, we
need to look at how the right lost the culture war as a result of
WWII. actually, it didn't so much lose the culture war as become
associated with the evil political forces that lost the actual war.
when political fascism and nazism fell, everyone on the creative right
was suspected as a kind of closet-nazi.  such people were shunned,
marginalized, and intimidated.  if someone like jean cocteau had no
problem rubbing shoulders with both creative right and creative left
in the interwar period, it became taboo for respectable creative
people to be associated with anyone on the creative right.
also, the defeat of nazis pressed the world's attention on the corpses
in deathcamps whereas something very different might have happend had
the nazis won--the world would have seen corpses produced by soviet
communism. but, for awhile at least, the left was credited with
defeating the evil nazis; as a result, even the stalinist far left was
seen as having more moral validity than anyone on the creative right--
even if such people had never sup****ted nazis.  it was  the moral
spoils of war.
and, by the time communism finally fell, its atrocities had long been
forgotten--more a matter of statistical research than here-and-now
footage.  also, the influential free world had experienced occupation
under nazism than under communism.  french intellectuals and artists
were among the most influential folks in the postwar era, and they'd
been shaped by the experience of nazi occupation. due to their
particular historical experience, western leftist intellectuals gained
ascendancy in the postwar period wheres rightwing intellectuals were
either executed, jailed, or disgraced/marginalized for life--unless
they stuck to a very bland and 'inoffensive' kind of conservatism--"no
sartres or abbie hoffmans of the right".   had france come under
soviet/communist occuapation than nazi occupation, the postwar culture
of france would certainly have been very different--indeed, very
likely, dominated by the creative/intellectual right.  a france
occupied under stalinism would have seen 100,000s or even millions
executed or sent to slave labor camps. also, the collaborators would
have been french leftists among whom jews figured prominently. so,
many french jews would have collaboratred with soviet occupiers to
persecute, jail, or kill countless frenchmen--as many polish jews
happily collaborated with soviet occupiers in 1939 when stalin took
the eastern half of poland.

in many cases, the creative right was more fascinating than the
creative left.  since the enlightenment, leftist thinking had been
anchored to a near slavish devotion to rationalism, materialism, and
equality.  for this reason, much of 19th century romanticism had been
a reaction to the left as to the right. indeed, romanticism was, in
many ways, a form of creative rightism, especially in the case of
wagner. the creative left felt compelled to stick to some iron-proof
rationalist formula.  many on the left condemned overly creative and
personal art-for-art's-sake and called for art to be in tune with
science and social progress.  this is something soviet constructivism
and italian futurism--adopted by leftwing faction within the italian
fascist movement--shared, and as such, neither was very interesting.
it saw art as a kind of avant-garde leggo set of the future. there was
something childish--innocence parading as intelligence--in both.  in
terms of personal art and expression, the creative right generally had
depth lacking on the creative left.  the left could be bold,
inventive, brilliant, original, satiric, irreverent, but not much
depth.  though thomas mann drifted to the left--due to tragedy of WWI
and rise of nazism--,  his creative source was essentially creative-
rightish.
another fascinating thing about the creative right was a sense of
sadness at the passing of the old. even as they accepted that god is
dead and the new is inevitable, they grieved over the fading and lost
world. this is why TS eliot's stuff had such power.  it was innovative
and original yet mournful of the traditional and sacred.  to be sure,
there is in the idea of the creative right the hope that what's lost
shall be reborn one day--like when king arthur tells perceval that
excalibur may rise again one day in boorman's movie.   in contrast,
the left's easy rejection of the past and acceptance of the new order
seemed glib and shallow.

if the traditonal right suffered a mortal blow in WWI and if the
creative right suffered a mortal blow in WWII, american right suffered
a mortal blow in 1929 with the great depression.  due to its pragmatic
culture and philosophy, there hadn't been much of a creative right in
america.  america had been more about society, commerce, morals, and
politics than art and culture--which it mostly copied from europe well
into 20th century.  come to think of it, there wasn't much of a
creative left either until jewish immigrants arrived in huge numbers
in the early 20th century and spread ideas about marxism and
anarchism. but, there had been a confident economic and moral right up
until the economic disaster of 1929.  the stockmarket crash and the
ensuing hard****ps made people lose trust in free markets--and it got
worse when the depression spread worldwide--, and the moral right
seemed ineffective during this crisis. for one thing, the rise of
urban capitalism in the jazz age of the 20s had considerable loosend
morals so that old moral sermons no longer had the kind of impact as
in the past. also, with the arrival of many new immigrants from
southern and eastern europe, urban america was less united by shared
cultural/moral principles and symbols.   another problem was that all
this talk of moral order wasn't gonna put food on anyone's table or
create jobs for people.  as yrs went by, neither capitalism nor
moralism seemed to offer any hope for america. this is when america
turned leftward with FDR.  it would turn even more leftward with the
rise of nazi germany and militarist japan which forced US to ally
itself with the Soviet Union.
it could be still be argued that the greatest american novelist was of
the creative right.  william faulkner was politically liberal-ish but
his novels fused modernism with a deep nostalgia for the vani****ng
southern past.  and, in many ways, hemingway too was creative-rightish
despite his leftist politics. the themes energizing his stories often
alienated the left as too masculine and rough.
the filmmaker stanley kubrick was another politically liberal artist
whose work actually have more in common with the social and
psychological theories of the creative right.   not for nothing did
susan sontag argue that 2001 has elements of fascist aesthetics.  and,
one of the most influential and powerful american filmmakers of the
60s and 70s was sam peckinpah of the school of crazy creative
rightness. he voted for mcgovern to protest the vietnam war but he was
a very rightwing kind of guy--not always for the better.  when we
contrast the powerful creative rightishness of a peckinpah with
someone like robert redford or arthur penn, it's obvious why creative
rightishness at its most powerful blows away the wimpery or the
shrillness of the creative left.  peckinpah pounded with ugly and
disturbing truths--especially in Straw Dogs--whereas penn and redford
sermonized or admonished us with radical tripe or pat truisms.
but, even in the post war era--and surprisingly in soviet union
itself--, there were some great creative right artists.  think of
alexandr solzhenitsyn. and,  andrei tarkovsk is arguably the greatest
russian filmmaker--the only rival being sergei eisenstein.  if
eisenstein was a genius leftwing jew who embraced the new order,
tarkovsky was devoted to mystical, traditional russia. but, he was a
modern artist who not only completely mastered the modern artform of
filmmaking but innovated and expanded the language of cinema.
watching 'andrei rublev' is to experience a strange duality; it is, at
once, a totally medievalist vision AND a totally modern work of art.
tarkovsky was the unrivalled master of the most technological of
artforms and the most timeless of themes.

in any case, art and creativity requires a degree of ambiguity, irony,
and empathy as well as passion and faith.  but, conservatives are
generally too potato-head-ish to be artistic.  consider a film like
'the leopard', made by the marxist aristocrat luchino visconti.
everything about the story is reactionary, crusty, and old fa****oned.
you'd think everything in the movie would, therefore, disgust visconti
the marxist filmmaker.  but, despite his professed ideology, visconti
the artist appreciated and respected the artistic world--its
characters, values, principles, forms, etc--for what it was.
before we pass judgment, we must understand and see different segments
of reality thru their own peculiar lenses. empathy doesn't have to be
sympathy.   watching Downfall doesn't mean we have to feel sorry for
hitler. or, take a film like Taking Sides. the leftist hungarian
filmmaker istvan szabo had a big enough heart to understand wilhelm
furtwangler's side of the story instead of just passing easy
judgment.  this is why it was so disappointing when so many righttards
knee-jerkedly condemned clint eastwood's Million Dollar Baby for being
pro-euthanasia when, in fact, the whole purpose of art to make us see
reality from different angles.  the issue shouldn't have been whether
the movie was pro- or anti-euthanasia but why the act seemed
meaningful within the context of the story. even wrong things can seem
right under different circumstances. suppose you were in battle and
your buddy got wounded really badly and was in great pain and begged
you to put him out of his misery. in a generic moral sense, it would
be wrong but we would have to understand why someone might accede to
his fallen comrade's plea--even if we ultimately disagree with what he
did. but, such capacity for empathy is almost nonexistent among many
morally judgmental conservatives, and so there isn't much of a cright
in america.  not that most liberals are capable of much empathy
either. indeed, many of them prefer those simpleminded message movies
like 'good night good luck'.  but, there is still far more empathy
among the left than among the right.

in a way, this was the great thing about jesus where morality was
concerned.  he believed that understanding must come before judgment.
and seeing thru different perspectives makes it possible for us to see
our own faults.  even as liberals and leftists are  jerks, many of
them do have the power to see things from different angles and
appreciate other viewpoints.  take pauline kael's review of 'makioka
sisters' by the great japanese filmmaker kon ichikawa.  kael doesn't
agree with any of the privileged social values of conceits of the
film's characters but still appreciates the beauty and poetry that
sustains their perfumed and closeted mini-universe.
you'd think films like 'andrei rublev', 'the leopard', and 'makioka
sisters' would be part of the conservative cultural canon. (rather
embarassingly, two of those films were made by liberals which goes to
show that conservatives cannot even make their own movies.)  but, in
fact, those films are appreciated far more by liberals and even
leftists.   NPR is much more likely to discuss serious culture and art
than any conservative talk radio nut.  the exception is milt rosenberg
who hosts an excellent radio discussion program on various fascinating
topics, but he's not an household name among conservatives.  now, what
is the likelihood of weaning conservatives away from limbaugh to the
one-and-only milt rosenberg?  at any rate, milt ought to be hyped more
so that more people knows there's more to conservative philosophy than
limbaugh and hannity.
of course, there is the new crighterion or criterion, but what cons
need is a cultural journal--in print or online--that is more popular-
culture-oriented, accessible, and engaging to the regular reader.  the
left has both elitst journals--just about all of them--and stuff like
Film Comment and Rolling Stone.  the right has almost nothing. but,
this is where the REAL CULTURE WAR is being fought.

finally, the crucial question is not 'why there are so many leftists/
liberals in the arts?' but 'why do so many creative talents turn
leftward?'   part of the reason is due to the momentum of self-
perpetuation.  since leftists dominate in the arts and culture,
prospective would-be artists come under the influence of experts,
geniuses, and artists with certain ideological biases.  so, even if an
apolitical person enters the world of folk music, he or she comes
under the influence--political as well as artistic--of people like
pete seeger.  bruce springsteen didn't start out as a far left folkie
but as a solid blue collar rocker. but, the people he hung around
shaped what he ultimately became. and, it can be said that country
music has been mostly conservative because those who enter it come
under the influence of conservative family-values forces.
but, this is only part of the reason.   certain forms of art are just
more individualistic, idealistic, activist, and daring.  so, someone
who goes into abstract painting will more likely be of a dissident or
the disaffected mentality than someone who favors traditional
watercolors or oil painting.  notice that paul johnson is an art
connoissuer but has little love for modern art--unless it's
neoclassical. his tastes are closer to hitler's than to picasso's. so,
because of the nature of country music, it tends to attract those who
are conservative-leaning to begin with. country music is about
affirmation than confrontation or exploration.  it's also mostly about
resignation than rebellion.  folk music has been more appealing to
those of leftish or oppositional mindset because it's been defined as
the music of the little people against powerful forces. of course,
this is an idealized definition of folk music.  folk music can be
anything. it can be music about working class people and poor farmers
but also music romanticizing old values, slavery, gungho masculin
values, killing indians, and etc.  but, in the 20th century, it was
repackaged as essentially the music of opposition--a cultural weapon--
of good sincere simple little folk(though many of its practitioners
were intellectuals, ideologues, or urbanites who only pretended to be
simple folks.).   folk music is spiritually soothing to many people on
the left--ironically, more to the rich and powerful than weak and
poor.  most poor blue collar types would rather listen to heavymetal
and read gun magazines than listen to old woody guthrie and pete
seeger songs.  blue collar types love springteen's rock n roll stuff,
not his folkie stuff.  rather, it's springsteen, a multi-mega-
millionaire, who turned more heavily to folk music to sanctifiy his
high-faluting sense of self as the poet laureate of the little people.
but, the only people who really care for his folkie stuff are liberal
yuppies who make good money.  folk music is religion to rich liberals
like some churches catering to the rich and privileged.
it's an easy dose of humility for the powerful.

though leftist control of academia, arts, and culture accounts for the
continuance of leftist dominance, that can't be the only reason.
suppose those institutions were in the hands of conservatives today.
suppose 90% of professors are cons, 95% of artists and entertainers.
would it stay that way?   in the short term, new talents would come
under the influence of conservative values and ideas. but in the long
run, those institutions will turn more and more leftward. this is
simply because conservatism-as-it-exists isn't conducive to the
creative or artistic spirit.  of course, political correctness of
leftism isn't either, but there is still a room for individual
creativity and expression on the left.  art and culture are a main
passion among on the left whereas it's a matter of take-it-or-leave-it
or downright derision on the right.  when conservatives yammer on and
on about liberal 'elitism', what in the hell is going on? wasn't
buckley wall about elitism?
to be sure, not all elitisms are alike. there is the honest kind like
buckley's, and the dishonest liberal kind which seeks all the power,
wealth, and privilege but in the name of caring for the little guy.
it's always funny when harvard and yale graduates who make billions
preach to us about equality and 'social justice'.  also, there is a
earned privilege vs deserved privilege.  some people are rich and
privileged because they've earned their money, fame, respect, etc the
hard, honest way.   some people--like obama and clinton--think they
DESERVE power and privilege because they are supposedly morally and
intellectually superior to all of us.  al gore is such a prick who
thinks he deserves all the power and privilege in the world because
he's the only man who can 'save the planet'.  he thinks he's
superman.  if he's so great, why doesn't he fly around Earth several
times and blow all the CO2 gases into the outer galaxy?

the truth is nearly all artists and creative people are oddballs or
misfits of one sort or other.  most of them went thru highschool not
as jocks or cheerleaders or unimaginative geeks but as rebellious/
confrontational(if extroverted) or lone/withdrawn(if introverted).
due to their emotional makeup, they can't warm up to the idea of the
mainstream. conservatism is mainstreamism with requisite tolerance for
difference.  liberalism is mainstreamism professes to accept
differences.  leftism is anti-mainstream altogether. so, it's not hard
to understand why many artistic types feel closer on the political
left.   they may not agree with leftist ideology. they may know that
leftist rule is bad for artists. just look at castro's cuba.  they may
also know that capitalist system allows the greatest degree of
individual freedom. BUT, in a spiritual sense, artists feel close to
the left because of the oppositional stance toward the mainstream.
even when artists prosper under capitalism, they can't help being
controlled by moneymen and them and lowly market forces. so, even
artists who want to work under capitalism feel that leftism is a
useful ally against the all-powerful moneymen and their braindead
consumerist minions whose idea of culture is American Idol.  and so,
many artists feel the only way for them to pursue genuine artistic
projects is by exerting pressure on the moneymen.  it's not really
about artistic freedom since everyone has freedom to do whatever in
the US or western europe--especially if you're a leftist or non-white
artist. the real issue is artistic privilege, as in 'who will sponsor
my art work which will be profitless... unless, by odd luck,  some
fancy critic, curator, and collector collude to promote my reputation
and turn me into the next andy warhol or basquiat?'  artists demand
not freedom--which they have aplenty--but free money from foundations
and institutions so they can indulge their mostly stupid ideas.   as
it happens, there isn't much resistance from the powers-that-be since
most foundations and institutions are headed by liberals and
leftists.  the real conflict is between those who head the foundations
and those who fund those foundations. the heads of foundations and
institutions want to make ever greater funds available to artists
whereas the donors and patrons sometimes get skeptical about what's
being done with their money. but, rich folks like their names put on
plaques or inscribed in marble as having funded this or that project.
of course, given the nature of art these days, such may not be much of
an honor.  would a rich guy really want his name associated with the
works of some pathological sicko postmodern artist?

no artistic type was born a leftist or rightist. but, he will
gravitate to whichever that makes him feel  more-at-home.  today's
conservatism is about More Money and/or Musty Morals. to be sure, not
all of conservatism is mainstream.   gun wor****p and hunting are
traditional but not necessarily mainstream in today's urbanized
culture.  indeed, there are a host of conservative activities which
are far less popular and widespread than what goes under the label of
'alternative'.  for example, far more kids are into 'alternative rock'
than to christian pop.  anyway, even the non-mainstream elements of
the conservative movement tend not to promote or encourage
creativity.  the militia movement didn't have a single artistic soul.
neither do those crazy polygamous mormons in texas.
conservatives talk a lot about individualism but it's purely
economic--'i don't wanna pay taxes'.  not wanting to pay taxes is a
fine idea but not something that will win the hearts of the creative--
partly because creative endeavors depend a great deal on financing
independent of the free market.   of course, even free-market driven
arts and culture--tv, hollywood, and pop music--are controlled by the
left and liberals, which goes to show conservatives suck at all forms
of expression and communication except sitting on their fat asses and
spewing trash on talk radio.

part of the reason for the power of the left in art and culture is the
jewish factor.  jews are mostly leftist. among creative jews, the
imbalance between left and right is even more stark.  if 10% of jews
are conservative generally, perhaps only 1% of creative jews are
conservative.   since jews are smart, they've been able to gain
control over much of our media. also, smart jews took over much of
writing, filmmaking, music producing, songwriting, tv producing,
etc.   so, our popular culture is almost totally into the hands of the
liberal and leftwing jews--or at least, influenced by liberal jewish
sensibility.  it also didn't help conservatives that blacks have an
advantage when it comes to funky, ***ual music.  with every passing
year since the late 50s, blacks grabbed more and more of the popular
music pie.  up until the mid 80s, white pop stars--who cleverly
'stole' black styles and ideas--still held sway among the white
audience, but this began to change totally with the rise of hiphop.
just as im****tantly, many white intellectuals--many of them jewish--
who wrote about and taught courses on popular culture were completely
in love with everything black or negroishly soulful.  with the rise of
white liberal fetish for and wor****p of blackness, a kind of racial
favoritism developed.  being a good person came to be synonymous with
not only calling for racial equality but racial idolization of
blackness.  consider a film like "Strange Days" by kathyrn bigelow
which not only respects but reveres a 'strong black woman' as a kind
of messianic figure. she's sisterhood and sistahood rolled into one.
so, liberal idea of goodness was agreeing with and sup****ting
everything black.  ken burns's Unforgettable Blackness not only
presents but monumentalizes the story of jack johnson.  and, there has
been an endless of muhammad ali wor****p. it's funny how liberalism/
leftism is supposed to be about equality but is totally slavish to the
image of power, strength, domination, violence, and brutality.  of
course, the issues are confused because black violence and power have
always been framed in terms of black struggle for racial/social
justice. so, even a black bully and thug can, thru contexualization,
be ****trayed as a fighter for freedom and justice. but, this is a sin
also of the right, as reagan and his sup****ters simplemindedly
****trayed afghan mujahedeen--a bunch of unsavory people--as 'freedom
fighters'.   anyway, there is a liberal wor****p of blackness--
***uality, strength, charisma, music, etc.   dave marsh, the famed
rock critic--and a short white liberal dork--made a whole career of
expressing his disdain for white musicians in favor of blacks.   at
times, marsh wrote as though he was a bad negro motha hisself.  so,
much of our popular culture has come to winning approval from blacks.
(similarly, much of our slavish devotion to jews has much to do with
the rise of jewish creativity in arts and culture.  since many of the
artists we admire most are jewish, we naturally sympathize with jews
even on non-artistic matters.  in other words, non-jewish dylan fans
are more likely to sympathize with jews over palestinians because
their god-man, dylan, is jewish.)
 now, guess the nature of  black politics? it's allied with liberalism
if not exactly liberal in the genuine sense. (malcolm x and reverend
wright's black nationalism is ideologically rightwing as all
tribalisms tend to be. and farrakhan is a black hitler. but, all of
them were more closely allied with the white left than the white
right, if only for op****tunistic reasons.  if there rightist A and
leftist A and there is rightist B, rightist B will side with leftist
A.  both rightist A and rightist B, being tribal, are opposed to one
another.  leftist A, on the other hand, has delusions of A and B
living together in peace. rightist B takes advantage of such naivete
on the part of leftist A and uses leftist A to strike at rightist
A.)   so, whether it's elitist art or popular art, culture became
synonymous with the left.  the right has country music, but even this
has experienced a serious negro/leftist turn in recent decades.   much
of country music is now negro music with twang.  and, the rise of the
dixie chicks proves that country music has become kinda like lefty
folk music.  but, this isn't anything new as many leftist and liberals
turned to country music in the late 60s and early 70s. (The Eagles
started out as a country rock band.)
the liberal interest in country music starting in the late 60s shows
that liberals and leftists have a bigger heart, greater curiosity, and
even deeper appreciation of american culture than conservatives who
profess to defend/preserve it.   when bob dylan, the byrds, grateful
dead, CSN, the band, and neil young--among others--tapped into country
music for inspiration, they were acknowledging country music as part
of the rich american heritage--as a form of folk music.  they didn't
take a strictly ideological stance but broadened their knowledge of
american music to draw and learn from everything.  while most country
music people were afeared of drawing or learning from other sources,
liberal and leftist popular musical artists were not afraid to learn
from a musical form/tradition that was known for its conservatism.
of course, country music did change greatly in the coming yrs but this
was more due to generational ****ft and market forces than any
individualistic/creative effort on the part of country music people to
take on new ideas and forms.  to be sure, there were exceptions like
johnny cash and merle haggard. but, most country acts were only fated
to be spend their retirement days in Branson, missouri.

so, as long as the right doesn't embrace the spirit of creativity and
strangeness, it will not win over the most crucial talents in the
culture war.  this is dangerous because culture war defines who we see
the world. it affects our sense of history, society, values, economy,
etc.    so, kids who listen to bruce springteen's folkie tunes are
left with the impression that capitalism is evil.   far more people
know about the spanish civil war thru a stupid movie like Pan's
Labyrinth than thru  history books(though those too would have been
more likely written by liberals).   soon after the movie JFK came out,
most americans thought there had been a conspiracy.  all because of a
movie!  the reason why americans sympathize with jews and blacks more
than with anyone else is largely due to the cultural hegemony of the
left.  we've been told over and over about anne frank and emmit
till(the black equivalent of anne frank) thru the leftwing dominated
media and culture. there have been documentaries, books, movies, and
plays about those two.  yet, where is the book, play, movie,
documentary, etc on innocent whites who were raped, murdered, or
attacked by evil blacks?   unless such is monumentalized or
memorialized thru arts and culture, they become yesterday's news. not
only is there no conservative talent to memorialize such victims but
even if there were, conservative artists would be afraid of being
called 'racist'  and 'fear-mongering' if they did such.
spanish civil war came back to life and will haunt the minds of many
kids because they went to see Pan's Labyrinth.  it shows an innocent
girl being murdered by evil fascists.  but, where is the story of a
poor catholic nun who was raped and killed by spanish anarchists or
communists? and, where is the novel, play, or movie about a poor
innocent ukrainian girl whose entire family was wiped out or forced to
cannibalism by the brutal policies of communists among whom leftwing
jews were prominent?  suppose someone made a counter-pan's labyrinth
about victims of communism. or, a counter-schindler's list about
maoist or stalinist mass murders.  but, culture is in the hands of the
left.  most conservatives are moneymen or pundits, not creative
types.  as for creative types who are, as yet, apolitical, they will
most likely turn left as they pursue their artistic careers because
(1) the community is dominated by the left and (2) the leftist spirit
of opposition is more conducive to the modern artistic spirit than the
conservative upholding of mainstream values.   of course, even the
idea of conservative mainstream culture is ridiculous since popular
arts and entertainment, media, and public education determining what
we are as a nation have been taken over and defined by the left.  the
brilliance and genius of the left are its ability to both take
mainstream power/control AND maintain the facade of minority
oppositionalism.  it doesn't matter if harvard, yale, and all the top
universities are in the hands of the left. it doesn't matter that
hollywood is run by the left.  it doesn't matter most musical stars
and athletes are run by the left.
the left will always find some clever way to argue that it represents
the minority opposition.  if all-powerful stalin could always find
capitalists among communists and if super tyrant mao could always find
revisionists among his rank, the left will always find evil capitalist
forces--even among themselves. (similarly, even after they gained
total power, european christians still maintained the facade of
victimhood, always recounting stories of romans killing and burning
christians--even while christians were now burning pagans and heretics
all across europe!)
also, even with leftist/liberal near monopoly of the culture, purists
and true believers can still make a lot of noise against the impure
and compromised, thereby making it appear that the real forces of
opposition are still on the Left. so, leftist culture critic will
attack liberal hollywood for not being leftist enough. or, a leftist
critic will attack a liberal critic as too mainstream(like when the
far leftist film critic jonathan rosenbaum carped against arch
liberals david denby, janet maslin, or david thompson. so even anti-
liberalism is hogged more by the left than by the right. notice that
The Nation is nastier against the New Republic than National Review
is).  or, a liberal hollywood star will complain that he's not allowed
to do what he REALLY wants to do because studio execs care more about
money than art.  or, a billionaire like david geffen will complain
that no matter all his effort--huge donations to leftist and liberal
candidates--, much of america is still too conservative, christian,
etc.  if george soros can successfully posture as an oppositional
figure in american politics, anyone on the left can.    indeed, it's
often the liberal and leftists who are far harsher on hollywood than
conservatives are.  conservatives get angry with blatantly political
hollywood movies, but many liberals and leftists oppose the very
notion of art-for-profit's-sake.  this is mostly a matter of noise-
making as these complainers spend a lot of time enjoying popular
entertainment, but it still make them the idealistic and authentic
voice for truth and art.
american conservatives, in contrast, tend to consider culture as
mainly for mass entertainment and profit-making.   it's not a
conservative who came up with the sundance film festival which opens
its doors to independent filmmakers.  it's liberal robert redford.
indeed, even a conservative-leaning indie filmmaker is likely to ****ft
leftward. he will notice that most of his conservative friends have
zero interest in his creative endeavor; indeed, his liberal enemies
are likely to be more curious and even sup****tive.  also, he'll
realize that people who wanna help him succeed and give him
encouragement will tend to be liberal and leftist--even though he's a
conservative artist.  conservatives often complain of how powerful
leftists bar the door shut against conservative artists and
intellectuals, but a much greater problem is apathy, suspicion, and
even hostility on the part of the conservative community against
creative individuality.   in most cases, leftists are more friendly to
creative conservative than conservatives are.  robert redford may
allow a conservative film to be shown at his festival, but where is a
film festival hosted by a conservative?  there was one some yrs back
but it was totally partisan and stupid.  by the way, a film festival
shouldn't be promoted as either leftist or rightist but pro-creative.
this is why Sundance has succeeded. yes, most of the movies are
liberal, but it doesn't limit itself to liberalism.  if 90% of the
most promising films of the 2009 festival were by conservatives, the
festival would run those films.  leftists win the war of culture
because they think of creativity first and politics second.
conservatives fail to understand this because they think of politics
first and creativity second.  the creative left see politics as
serving or as secondary to art whereas conservatives see art as
serving or secondary to politics.  of course, there is a segment of
the intellectual left which is hostile to the notion of creativity and
genius, a growing fact that has driven an arch liberal like harold
bloom crazy.   whatever his politics, bloom admires talent and genius
and is opposed to the ideological 'school of resentment' which
politicizes art purely into ideological matters--so, a female
professor will teach bad female poets than great male poets, or
students will be made to read a second rate book simply because it was
written by a person-of-color.  so, there is a division between the
creative left and the creepy left.

if liberals and leftists took over the mainstream,  you might expect
conservatives to have over the role of the opposition--hoist the
banner of creative political incorrectness for the sake of art,
freedom, and creativity. but, conservatives oppose leftist political
correctness for their own version of correctness--cultural and moral
correctness.  let's face it.  prior to the rise of political
correctness, the main champions of freedom were not conservatives but
liberals like nat hentoff and alan dershawitz.  so, conservative
complaint against political correctness and censor****p is rather
disingenuous as many conservatives would be more than happy to impose
their own version of political, cultural, and moral correctness.   so,
conservatives don't relish the spirit of opposition but only prefer
their ideal of domination.  so, they wanna replace leftist cultural
domination with rightist cultural domination.  of course, there are
free libertarian spirits like trey parker and matt stone, but notice
they dislike the right nearly as much as they dislike the left.   but,
it must be said that southpark's--and howard stern's--form of
creativity(if it can be called that)is entirely corrosive, ugly,
putrid, infantile, and disgusting.  still, there needs to a spirit of
freedom, opposition, exile, and respect-for-difference on the right.
the image of the right must not only be reagan, romney, and mccain but
something different, weird, and strange.  notice that when we think of
the left, there is the image of kennedy and carter but also norman
mailer, philip roth, philip glass, neil young, etc, etc.    it ranges
from mainstream values to oddball weirdness.  but, the cultural or
iconic range on the right is very limited. we have political figures
like reagan, moral leaders like pat robertson, and cultural figures
like arnold schwarzenegger. all very mainstream, appealing to the
masses but not to the creative oddball types--who usually end up
coming up with the boldest cultural ideas.

of course, the left has one big advantage as mentioned earlier.  after
WWII, the right lost so much moral capital due to (1) hitler's
starting the war (2) holocaust (3) jap attack on pearl harbor (4)
soviet role in defeating nazism and (4) rise of third world liberation
movements coinciding with anti-racial-injustice movements in america
that conservatives were forced to stick to the narrow path of
respectability.  anyone suspected of oddballism, extremism,
eccentricism, and dangerous creativism was weeded out of the movement
as potentially dangerous and harmful to the revamped face of
conservatism.  buckley's purging of 'anti-semitic' elements of the
movement is very telling--though it must be said that john birchers
and its ilk were not of the creative variety.  so, conservatism became
a movement of moral squareness, humdrum consistency, and money making
babbitry.   the liberals faced a similar kind of pressure during the
heyday of HUAC and mccarthy.  with the spread of communist power after
WWII, many liberals and leftists became tainted with association with
radical subversives and foreign agents.  so, during the late 40s and
early 50s, many liberals too felt the urgent necessity of weeding out
oddball, eccentric, and extreme elements. but, mccarthy overplayed his
hand, and all the leftist extremists, oddballs, and eccentrics who'd
been marginalized made a powerful comeback in the 60s, and their power
only grew and grew ever since.   this is why obama can still lead the
presidential election though he's been associated with reverend wright
and those who admire che guevara.   there is far less stigma attached
to association with far left ideas or imagery than with far right
ideas and imagery.   so, an hollywood star would not be shunned or
booted out if he wore a che-guevara t-****rt or even a mao t-****rt.
but, if a movie star wore a mussolini or franco t-****rt, he's be in
big trouble. also, notice that Pan's Labyrinth romanticizes communists
as poor noble victims of the spanish civil war. suppose it had
romanticized spanish fascists and rightists as noble victims of
spanish communists, anarchist, and members of the so-called abraham
lincoln brigade--made up of  american leftwing commies.  such movie
would have been condemned, and its maker would have been effectively
blacklisted.   today, pete seeger is honored on PBS, given medals, and
celebrated everywhere despite his tawdry stalinist past. but, imagine
a musical artist of the past who've aided and abetted the likes of
hitler and mussolini.  would PBS run a glowing 'American Masters'
documentary on his career?
indeed, T. S. Eliot's mild anti-jewish sentiments--much less hateful
than anti-christian hatred spewed by many liberal and leftwing jews
year in and year out--are considered morally more dubious than the far-
left stalinist shenanigans of pete seeger and his ilk.    and now,
hollywood is making a film romanticizing che guevara, who wanted to
push the cuban missile crisis to the point where it would lead to
nuclear exchange between US and cuba.  che, a crazy argentinian, was
willing to sacrifice all cubans for the sake of his sense of
revolutionary vanity.  this nut--as dangerous as japaense militarists
who called for national suicide with 'honor' than surrender in WWII--
is being glorified by the left.  but, in a way, it makes sense.  che
was a rebel-tyrant, which many artists are in their hearts.  rebels
often want to remake the world according to their vision. stalin loved
poetry, so did mao.  hitler was an artist before he turned to politics
which he turned into a massive artform.  nazi rallies were, in some
ways, the biggest fa****on shows ever.  and, there was something
individualist-tyrannical about the philosophy of ayn rand.  and,
notice that many top architects today love taking on assigments in
china and russia because regimes in such nations provide total sup****t
and free reign to architects' vision.  inside every architect is the
dream of building his own Germania.  so, despite the fact that che was
a stalinist and an tyrannical jerk, artists are excited by the
romantic notion of a radical rebel whose attitude is 'i did it my
way'.  artists wouldn't want to live under a che guevara or a mao
zedong but such figures are exciting and mythic from afar.  similarly,
most conservatives who romantize war actually don't wanna be in one.
most boxing aficionados don't wanna enter the ring.   it's like being
thrilled by a sight of a tornado as long as it's far off.  for many
artists, che was an exciting tornado that ripped across the world and
uprooted many evil rightwing roots. of course, che did far more damage
to ordinary people than to rich capitalists but such 'minor' details
don't matter when you observe and romanticize the event from a safe,
far away distance.  also, artists feel partly purged of guilt thru
che guevara because they feel compromised with art and commerce.  as
western artists work under capitalism, they must be in accordance with
market forces or wishes of rich donors. but, art itself is a kind of
substitute for real action.  so, an artist who rebels against society
doesn't feel as courageous, committed, and bold as someone who
actually picks up a rifle and charges into battle. similarly, many
conservatives cling to jesus because they are unwilling or unable to
go all the way like jesus. jesus practiced what he preached. so, by
wor****pping jesus, conservatives feel cleansed of their guilt of
cowardice and hypocrisy. che guevara has a similar appeal to many
western leftists. for all their progressive politics, they like their
yuppie lifestyles, creative privilege, material abundance, and etc.
being aware of their own hypocrisies, buying hybrid cars or recycling
is not enough for many rich liberals or privileged leftists. they need
stronger secular religion, and that is supplied by the figure of che
who didn't just talk the talk but walked the walk.  were his ideas
wise or constructive?  for many of today's leftists, such questions
matter far less than the 'spiritual' fact that che sincerely acted on
his principles and paid the ultimate price.  yukio mi****ma has a
similar appeal among some japanese--not because they agree with
mi****ma's insane ideas but because they admire mi****ma's total
commitment to turning his principles to action. it's all about honor.
honor is generally a rightwing idea, and we can understand its appeal
to the japanese far right. but,  the idea of honor--though never
called that--is operative among the modern secular left as well.
'honor' is crucial to the che myth. much of what the man did in africa
and bolivia were clearly stupid, irrational, and even insane. but,
there is a sense that he did it due to his sense of latin manhood and
honor.  because much of modern leftism has been about dry ideas and
abstract concepts--especially in the advanced and highly
intellectualized west(especially northern europe and america)--it's
possible that western intellectuals secretly crave for more romantic
notions of adventure, reckless courage, honor, and machismo. this may
explain the great interest in the russian revolution, chinese
revolution, PLO movement, and latin american revolution which were
more primal, mythic, and dynamic in the old romantic sense than the
more intellectualist-driven movements in the advanced west.
similarly, the overly cerebral t. e. lawrence  relished abandoning his
intellectual/modern inhibitions and plunging into a legendary world of
timeless warriorhood.

anyway, the right needs to create some space for the creative.  by
making room for oddball eccentrics and rebellious types, it doesn't
mean the right must abandon its traditional moral principles or
ideas.  it is not a zero sum game where the right must choose between
mitt romney and a creative eccentric--who may actually offend some
traditionalists.  there are eccentrics on the left who clearly offend
mainstream liberals, but there is still room for them. norman mailer
and gore vidal, thru some of their outrageous remarks and writings,
have outraged many liberals but were not exiled or shunned from the
liberal/left community.

as paglia said, art and creativity have always been dangerous,
rebellious, strange, and etc.  even artists who glorified traditional
themes were often at odds with political or church authorities.
artistic talent of any worth is highly individualistic and upsets or
upturns the collective sense of correctness. this is why even leftist
artists in communist nations often found themselves in trouble. it
wasn't good enough that the artists were leftists; the authorities
demanded that artists toe the official line on what art should be and
must do.
artists are not saints nor necessarily freedom fighters. many have
tyrannical personalities and have been willing to aid and abet tyrants
for whatever reasons--ideological solidarity, spiritual sympathy,
op****tunism, and even hatred toward other artists.  many leftwing
artists were glad to see communist rulers crush rightwing artists, and
many rightwing artists felt likewise about fascist rulers crush
leftwing artists.  but, great art is always highly individualistic and
strange. this has been even more true in the modern era which favors
experimentation and innovation.  and, even if much of mainstream
popular entertainment is not avant garde, much of it is indirectly
influenced or inspired by developments in the intellectual arts.
music videos are ridiculous but their makers are aware of and aspire
to be avant garde artists like bunuel and maya deren.  also,
technology always change in popular art. if form is content, modern
entertainment is constantly in the mode of change.  so, the movement
or ideology that welcomes the idea of change has greater appeal to
creative people.
one may argue that conservatives are actually for more and faster
change because they are for capitalism, the most dynamic engine of
change in history.  in contrast, progressivism, with its reliance on
government interference, slows down change.  that may be actually
true, but words shape how we see the world. 'conservative' sounds old-
fa****oned, fearful, unimaginative, turtle-ish.  'progressive' sound
daring, adventurous, open-minded, etc.  of course, libertarianism
openly declares itself as sup****tive of the idea of change, but its
focus is entirely on money and guns. there is no creative
libertarianism--other than ludicrous ayn rand and the putrid
southpark.

anyway, just as we have separation between church and state, there
needs to be separation between morality and creativity on the
conservative side.  conservative moralism and generic mainstreamism
snuffs out creativity.  making a room for creativity in the
conservative movement doesn't mean that conservatives have to abandon
their values and adopt whatever 'values' put forth by artists. it
simply means that conservatives are sup****tive of and capable of
appreciating art and culture(of the new kind).   take films such
Olympia and Birth of a Nation.  one is pro-nazi and the other is anti-
black.  liberals dislike both films but there is still cultural space
within the liberal community that studies and appreciates those films
for their brilliance, genius, originality, and im****tance.  so, roger
ebert included both films in his Great Films list.  indeed, liberals
and leftist spend more time studying the art of the right than the
right does.   and, most of the films dearest to conservatives were
actually made by liberals.  it's because there's room for creativity
on the left that most creative people have gravitated toward the
left.
it's the case of a creative person turning left than leftist person
turning creative.  creativity, in most cases, is a natural gift some
people are born with.  non-creative people can learn and refine
artistic skills but generally lack the power to create highly
individualistic and original art that changes the direction of
cultural history.  though not everyone born with artistic talent
pursues art, those without natural talent who pursue art rarely
achieve much.  anyway, naturally creative people turn left because of
what the left stands for.  to many artists, the left seems to offer
the perfect balance that allows artistic freedom and social justice.
in contrast, the right offers economic freedom and cultural stasis.
under leftism, artists feel that they are given the sup****t to pursue
their dreams while capitalists and moneymen are penalized, controlled,
and restrained. under rightism, artists feel that capitalists/moneymen
are free to pursue their 'greedy' dreams while creative folks are
suppressed, controlled, and restrained by cultural/moral traditions.
of course, this is a great simplification but such mindset is
prevalent in the creative community.  even with the stifling weight of
political correctness and radical dogmatism in the artistic community,
the fact remains that culturally engaged and sup****tive people are
still on the left.  even if david mamet were to write and stage a
conservative-leaning play, the producers and audience will still be
mostly liberal to left. ironically, it's the free market that favors
the the creative left in the sphere of Serious Art.  since most
consumers of serious, innovative, and intellectual culture are of the
left, it only makes sense for artists to give the audience what they
want--leftish stuff.

as popular culture, as opposed to Serious Culture, includes everyone--
right, center, and left--, it has to cater to mass tastes.  so, many
big hollywood blockbusters tend not to be overly political lest they
alienate a huge segment of the audience.  but even so, many of these
films lean left, have coded leftist messages, or manipulate our
political values.  notice that many tv shows and movies have
sympathetic homo***ual characters. though this, in and of itself,
isn't political, the cumulative effect is to make us see homo***uality
as normal and american as apple pie.  indeed, this kind of underhanded
than blatant politicizing is generally more effective.   the audience
is more likely to guard itself against obvious propagandizing than
calm, unnoticeable, gradualist approach.  a pickpocket is more
effective than a purse snatcher.  because the abnormal or the anti-
normal is slipped under the cover of the seemingly normal, we
gradually become accustomed to it as part of the normal.  this was the
whole point of Brokeback Mountain. had it taken place in a gay
community, it would have been just a gay movie. but, it took place in
the American West. it made us get accustomed to the two men as all-
american types.  only after we were made to accept  them as normal
healthy males did the movie slowly get into the gay business.
the cumulative effect of such stuff is to make young people feel that
it's cool and normal to be pro-gay.  so, it's more 'popular', 'cool',
and 'hip' to be for gay marriage than to be 'homophobic', a bogus term
if there was ever was one.  as all honest people know, distaste for
homo***uality is natural and rational among people of normal and
healthy ***uality. indeed, if anyone's phobic, it's the elements of
the left and liberalism which insist on promoting abnormal behavior as
something healthy. they are normophobes.  normophobia is a social
disease which is largely rooted in jewish historical consciousness.
thru much of their history, jews were persecuted by goy majorities
with their cultural and political--and later racial--norms.  of
course, traditional jews too had a powerful sense of rigid normality
among themselves. in the modern era, as jewish religious consciousness
faded, jews lost their sense of normality and were left feeling
abnormal in an hostile normal goy community. so, many jews began to
see abnormality of every kind as a spiritual brethren to secularized
jewishness. so, gays, artists, eccentrics, weirdos, other minorities
such as gypsies and blacks, and others were all championed by jews.
this wasn't so much out of real sympathy for  other underdogs as for
the sake of jewish power and security. if goy society was a whole
became more accustomed to abnormalities of all kinds, jews would feel
safer since jews were regarded as abnormal by many goyim.  of course,
not all jews took this path.  communist jews were into creating a
better majority/normal order where jews could melt into the national
fabric as proles or leaders of proles. many hardline communist jews
had little tolerance for gays or cultural minorities. indeed, they saw
all cultures as superstitious and suspect.  anyway, western jews who
lived in pluralistic societies felt abnormal in communties where
normality was defined by the goy majority. so, once jews gained much
power in the media and academia, they went all out to destroy all
notion of normality. so, US was no longer a christian nation. so,
there was suddenly no difference between a legal citizen and an
illegal alien.  and, western values and ideas were said to be no more
advanced than the values and ideas of other cultures.  and,
hetero***uality is not normal as opposed to homo***uality. indeed
today, the media and popular culture generally present homos as more
well-adjusted, sane, likable, noble, rational, and even more normal
than hetero characters.  this is a concerted effort used by the
liberal jews to safeguard their power.   some yrs back, jada pinkett
was attacked by harvard ideologues for declaring her pride as a wife
and mother. she was criticized of hetero-normativism.  this is
normophobia stemming from the liberal/leftist jewish control over our
culture.  while rigid notions of normality are thick-skulled and
stultifying, the dogmatic notion that anything abnormal must be just
as good or even better than anything normal is a kind of sickness.
this is why many normophobic culture critics are more hostile to sane
white suburban reality than to crazy negro inner-city reality.
somehow, the inner-city reality is hyped as more authentic, real, and
noble than white bread reality.   while tolerance of and even
acceptance of certain forms of abnormality can be interesting and
productive--after all, aren't all great artists abnormal one way or
another?--, the kneejerk reflexivity that lionizes any form of
abnormality over normality is dangerous.  of course, it's fair game to
ask 'what is normal?'   isn't any form of normality a product of
social constructs, therefore artificial?   in aztec society, human
sacrifice was normal.  in roman times, gladiator s****ts were normal.
in china, women's feet were bound as a normal social practice. so,
what is normal?
first, we should distinguish between cultural normality and natural
normality.  because nature designed the ***ual organs for reproductive
activity, homo***uality--which inserts a reproductive organ up an
organ designed for excretion--cannot be normal. also, eating thru
one's mouth is normal whereas eating thru one's ears is not normal--
indeed, not even possible.  also, all people are born with natural
emotions ranging from love to hate, trust to fear, etc.  we must work
up from those basic realities.   also, all people have minds which can
rationally separate the true from the false though this is a
painstaking and never ending process. what science will tell us about
the universe 100 or 1000 yrs now is nobody's guess.  still, social
normality founded on rational science is preferable to social
normality founded upon aztec cosmology which called for sacrifice of
1000s of humans every year.  also, there are philosophical ideas and
spiritual principles more in tune with the more constructive than
destructive part of our nature.   anyway, just because there is no
perfect normality doesn't mean that we should dispense with the idea
of normality altogether.  social rules and laws that only protect the
right of the abnormals will eventually lead to anarchy.
it will lead to mormon polygamous communities, polygamous muslims in
canada collecting welfare payments for their many wives, asian-
americans demanding the right to eat dogs, and so on.
to stop this normophobic trend, we must be honest and courageous and
speak truth to liberal/leftist jewish power that is wrecking this
country. for their selfish reasons, liberal and leftist jews are using
the smokescreen of 'diversity', 'inclusive open borders', 'gay
marriage', etc to undermine the idea of normality based on white,
western, and christian heritage.    liberal jews especially love the
gay agenda because making gayness normal may turn proud hetero white
males into a bunch of pussified metro***ual faggotyass dorks like ken
burns.  when liberal jews see ken burns, they see a dog that will
fetch and when told to fetch, sit when told to sit, and roll over when
told to roll over.  liberal and leftwing jews wanna tame and castrate
hegewhales--hetero***ual gentile white males--into a bunch of sorryass
*****boys.  jews often ask, 'why were jews disliked by so many people
during the 20th century?'  judging by what liberal/leftwing jews have
done to the US, it's not hard to know why. indeed, it seems that much
of anti-jewish feelings and sentiments during the 20th century were
more than justified, just as much of our antipathy to violent muslims
and nasty/cruel chinese.

anyway, the main problem of the right is not so much that arts/culture/
media are controlled by the left.  even if leftist powers-that-be
tried to keep conservatives out, it wouldn't succeed in the long run
IF enough creative conservatives were tenacious, ambitious, and
devious enough.  after all, there is the art of dipsy-doo.  any
aspiring conservative can pretend to be liberalish or leftish on the
way to cultural power. once in power, he can dipsy-doo and change
course.  indeed, this is how many leftists and radicals entered
american institutions.  they did not declare themselves as
'communists', 'marxists', or such but as mere liberals or patriotic
americans.  just look at all those illegal aliens marching with
american flags to make us think that they are patriotic as the rest of
us.   just look at leftist obama and hillary fooling the american
public that they have mainstream values.  and even during the
blacklist, many hollywood leftists worked under cover.  nothing
stopped the left from taking over the FBI and the CIA.  so, the idea
that conservatives have failed in the culture war because of leftist
or liberal suppression of conservative voices is not very convincing.
while leftist domination and ideological favoritism is a factor, the
bigger problem is there is little room for creativity on the right.
if there were indeed many ambitious creative people on the right, they
would use whatever ruthless and devious means to enter and take over
culture.  they could pose as liberals, pretend to have leftist
sympathies, etc.   indeed, liberals and leftists do this all the
time.  this is how they enter, infiltrate, and rise in many
organizations and institutions before they ulimately take over and
make fundamental changes.
to be sure, we can't discount the jewish element in all this. most
jews are liberal or leftist. they are also the most talented. so, many
institutions and organizations were fated to end up in the hands of
liberal to leftist jews in a free meritocratic society such as the
US.    it is the dynamics of meritocratism that has also handed over
many im****tant sectors of conservatism to the jews though jewish
percentage of the overall conservative population is quite small.