Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: Tarantino’s Triumph of the Spectacle
There is something of the glimmer of Hollywood in ‘Tarantino,’ there is something of the schlock of Tarantino in ‘Hollywood.’ He has become a legend in his own time. The dream-like trajectory of a video-jockey whose obsession with film leads him to become the most iconic director of his era – “written and directed by Quentin Tarantino” – the cinema of cool. His latest, featuring two of Hollywood’s longest glowing marquee lights in Pitt and DiCaprio, is a homage to itself, to Tinseltown’s magic, the magic that made Tarantino, well, Tarantino. Reviews discuss the alternative historical ending as the most salient feature of the perambulating script; Tarantino’s re-imagining of the Manson family murders. Tate doesn’t die. The Hollywood dream doesn’t die and in fact isn’t even tainted. There is no dark side to “lights, camera, action,” only swanky pool parties in the Hollywood hills. There is only stimulation and enjoyment, there are no relations of domination only atomized ‘projects’ that one would be lucky to be a part of. The Counter-Culture is killed rather than kills – Show Biz wins a flawless victory. Noel Coward alone asks “Why must the show go on?”
Ice Cube answers: “What it is Show Biz.”
“The lights must never go out, The music must always play… Lest we should see where we are, Lost in a haunted wood, Children afraid of the night, Who have never been happy or good.”
The dazzling Spectacle, the shadows on the wall – never mind the Big Picture, look at it phenomenologically – these are people’s triumphs – that’s Marilyn Monroe saying she’ll never have to suck another Jewish cock again![i] – That’s American Idol. That’s Quentin Tarantino.
His reimagining of history in Inglorious Bastards “handed its ahistorical revenge to Jewish characters”[ii] while his reimagining of history in “Once Upon a Time…” hands it’s ahistorical revenge to Hollywood, which really means Jews. In Tarantino Hollywood prevails, Jews prevail and the Spectacle prevails. What Tarantino is saying is that his temple will not burn. Streaming and online platforms may kill the medium, the movie-going experience, as we move further away from communal forms of entertainment into more individual and private ones. Shannon Tate goes to the cinema to see herself.
“‘Once Upon a Time…’ is ideally suited to the fake-news era. Quentin makes the trashing of history look hip. And though the notion that Sharon Tate ‘lives’ is supposed to send us out on a feel-good cloud (when, in fact, it’s arguably a trivialization of her memory), the upshot of the film’s defeat of Charles Manson is that Rick, the fading TV star, gets invited up to Sharon’s pad to hobnob with the Polanski circle. ‘Once Upon a Time…’ immerses us in the mystery and the burbling pop excitement of 1969, but by the end it is every inch a movie of 2019, where even a fantasy as world-altering as the decimation of the Manson family is treated as nothing so much as a rockin’ career move.”[iii]
Tarantino recently married an Israeli, Daniela Pick, making some fine kosher cuts and some excellent career moves.[iv]
“…it must be said that the Jews are the ‘most jealously racist nation in the world and they have even claimed to be more intelligent than the others.’ In a big majority of cases Jews have been capitalist types. The struggle against capitalism must therefore be strongly identified with the struggle against the Jews. A mass campaign against the Jews must be initiated. ‘Hitler is right and we are wrong.’”[i] – Bruno Rizzi, Italian Communist
I have followed Joe Rogan from before the first ‘big incident’ leading to his current status as pop cultural guru and icon. I am thinking of his ‘leaked’ onstage confrontation with fellow comedian Carlos Mencia way back in 2007.[ii] Shortly after this Rogan began his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE first streamed on December 24, 2009), serving as the vehicle to catapult Rogan to the upper-spheres of our pop cultural heights (one guest described Rogan as the “Johnny Carson” of our time).[iii] Although, perhaps Rogan is bigger and more influential than Carson and limiting his influence on the culture to ‘host’ and ‘personality,’ as is my understanding of Carson’s legacy, is an injustice to Rogan’s reach – this despite the fact that in Carson’s time media was more monolithic and concentrated.[iv] In fact the initial impetus for JRE was to remove the middle-man and the old “talk-show” format from interviews. But Rogan loves MONEY and advertisers have infiltrated the Podcast to the point wherein it no longer functions in an antagonistic manner to outmoded media, but is the new format.[v]
Concurrent with Rogan’s meteoric rise to the upper echelons of the Cultural Industry’s[vi] obscurantist edifice, the AltRight became a household term during Trump-Clinton Presidential debates. I heard words I had written come out of Richard Spencer’s mouth as he became the focal point and mouthpiece of ‘the Movement,’ which for tactile reasons I fully endorsed.[vii]
Now to be fair Rogan’s career has always been buttered and buttressed by Jewish agents and management. Rogan’s talent agent The Gersh Agency (TGA) was founded in 1949 by Phil Gersh of Russian Jewish immigrants Ida and Louis Gershowitz. Following Rogan’s on-stage and online-leaked trouncing of fellow Gersh client Carlos “the fake Mexican” Mencia, the Gersh Agency dropped Rogan as a client. As Mencia, a star of Comedy Central’s Mind of Mencia, was a more prized asset than the presumably washed-up former Fear Factor host (despite Rogan calling Mencia out for joke stealing).[viii] Did Rogan learn anything about the Tribe from this incident? Such that shekels> loyalty > truth? Phil Gersh’s sister, Mildred Gersh married Sam Jaffe, another Russian Jewish Hollywood insider whose family connections in ‘the Industry’ attest to the sort of close-knit incestuous tribal cronyism of the Rothschilds.
Figure 1 It’s a small Jewish club and you’re not in it!
This “Neo Nepotism” runs deep; it is in fact part and parcel of Jewish identity which is exclusivist racist tribalism. There is nothing “neo” about Jewish Nepotism, it forms the basis of their identity as a unique tribe which proposes a Deuteronomic Double Standard.[ix] As Adam Bellow, son of Jewish author Saul Bellow, puts it:
“This is America as Adam Bellow sees it, a land where blood loyalty runs deep and the once frowned-upon practice of dynastic succession is no longer the exception but the rule. From politics and business to movies, literature and sports, Mr. Bellow argues in his new book, ‘In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History,’ to be published by Doubleday next month, clannishness increasingly prevails. The United States, he says, is undergoing a vast revival of what he calls ‘the hereditary principle,’ or, more bluntly, nepotism…
It’s a phenomenon in which, as a son of the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow, he says he has some first-hand expertise. ‘I too am an example of the New Nepotism and am thoroughly familiar with the peculiar strains of 21st-century heirship,’ he writes.”[x]
“Elitism” is essentially Jewish entryism and tribalism. If anyone finds it curious that “blood loyalty runs deep” for the Jews, but is vehemently denounced as a practice when Whites engage in it, that’s Wrongthink. Tribalism for (((We))) but not for thee – a position sabbos goy Rogan uncritically upholds.
During the turbulent days of the AltRight’s overnight notoriety Rogan went on a crusade denouncing “tribalism.” Rogan’s oft-repeated talking point for denouncing “white identity politics” is calling out “toxic tribalism.”[xi] But Rogan will never touch Jewish tribalism or Bellow’s “Neo-Nepotism” with a ten-foot-pole. Like his “conspiracy theorizing,” Rogan is hands off Jewish issues: Big Foot; sure, inter-dimensional space elves; OK, did six million really die? Nazi! Does Joe Rogan really question everything?[xii]
Rogan is the Jordan Peterson of knuckle-dragging meatheads, although to be fair Jordan Peterson is the Jordan Peterson of knuckle-dragging meatheads. So watching Rogan time and again denounce tribalism using specious argument after appeal to emotion and sentimental “American values” etc. and then have Roseanne Barr come onto his podcast and claim she is a tribalist because she is Jewish followed by about four and a half seconds of dead air and have Rogan not respond negatively to her is deafening.[xiii] Tribalism for (((We))) but not for thee, Rogan understands the rules, he accepts them and obfuscates the issues by avoiding the JQ adding to the cacophony of mindless chatter diverting consciousness away from reality, distorting power.
After being dropped by his talent agency Rogan next signed with William Morris (WM). WM was founded in 1898 by Zelman Moses, who changed his name to the eponymous Wasp-sounding William Morris. Two years after scoping up Rogan WM merged with Endeavor Talent Agency to become William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC (WME or WME-IMG). Endeavor was founded by four Jews: Ari Emanuel, Rick Rosen, Tom Strickler, and David Greenblatt. If you’re wondering how all these wiz-kid’s managed to start a talent agency look no further than Tom Strickler:
“His first job was a mailroom position at the Creative Artists Agency (CAA) then headed by Mike Ovitz. Strickler found the company to be ‘dynamic’ and ‘lots of fun,’ despite the at-times menial and dull nature of his job. ‘There’s no shortcut’ past mailroom work, he explained to a listener interested in a Hollywood career. But Strickler enjoyed his job, and celebrated the fact that ‘your friends in the mailroom will go on to have interesting careers.’ Strickler was promoted to agent just two years after he began his mailroom position.”[xiv]
Ever been stuck in a dead end job? Do you wear a little hat? Well you can soon be like Rick Rosen fast tracked from mailroom to boardroom with a fluff piece in Variety500 bragging about flipping your newly built Encino Mansion.[xv] According to Jordan Peterson Jews are just smarter than the average goy[xvi] not that even George Soros’ first gig was the result of Jewish tribal nepotism: “Finally, he found work at the London-based merchant bank Singer and Friedlander because, he stated in a rare moment of self-deprecation, the managing director was a fellow Hungarian.”[xvii] (((fellow Hungarian))). Like billionaire pedophile Mossad agent blackmailer Jeffery Epstien, “Epstein, who caught a lucky break tutoring the son of Bear Stearns chairman Alan Greenberg before joining the firm, left the investment bank in 1981 to set up his own financial firm.” (((Lucky break))).[xviii]
WME’s co-CEO’s are two jews Ari Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell. Emanuel is brother to neoliberal former Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel[xix] and was immortalized by Jeremy Piven’s obnoxious Jewish agent Ari Gold in HBO’s cultural sewage tour de force Entourage. In 2016 WME bought Zuffa the parent entity of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) for the price of $4.025 billion. Making Emanuel and Whitesell not only Rogan’s agent, but his boss as well (Rogan has worked as an interviewer and color commentator for the UFC since 1997). The UFC’s story of success, of three gentile friends, two Italian brothers and their childhood Irish friend, investing in something they loved and creating a profitable brand with vision and tenacity only to be bought out by some rich Jewish conglomerate becomes another avenue for the Jewish Establishment.
I came to Rogan through a kind of circuitous path of similarities of interest and natural inclinations. I was a fan of Jan Irvin and his Gnostic Media Podcast (now Logos Media). I was into psychedelics and the counter-culture. I read DMT: The Spirit Molecule and tripped on Ayahuasca in Peru. I was also interested in martial arts and studying Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Lastly, I even tried my hand at standup comedy. All things Joe Rogan. And there was the fact we are both east coast Italians. Holy shit this is my guy. I used to lurk on the Joe Rogan Forums prior to all this, back in the halcyon days when Rogan was a 9/11 and moon landing truther and clips of the “Joe Show” included pornstars spoofing Fear Factor challenges by competing in obstacle courses with dildos in their orifices. When I was a Joe Rogan fan, the Boston-born comedian, was a D-list absurdist on the periphery; shitting on Hollywood and earning his black belt ‘choking dudes out.’
Then I began getting ‘redpilled,’ or rather, the nascent seeds of my growing awareness began to sprout. There were personal dealings with Jews, there was finishing my degree in the humanities and noticing a certain “Jewish taint” to theory and a certain uncritical assumption of values and worldviews. There was the celebrated and public ridiculing of all things; Christian, European and Male. There was Holocaust™ revisionism and the twisting and bending of the legal system to squash dissention. There was reading about the Federal Reserve and the history of Jewish usury and banking, there was discovering Kevin MacDonald’s work and Counter-Currents. There was studying the Jewish Question and our history with the tribe as a nation within a nation. When I began writing it was no longer with the crude perverted reductionist lens of the comedian, what interested me now was in the vein of serious sociological investigation. My first articles were published on Counter-Currents and I began prodding far down the rabbit hole. During this time the JRE took off and I and millions of others watched Rogan morph from outspoken sideliner to shabbas-goy gatekeeper. At some point I launched my own short-lived podcast The Fascist Pigs and of the fifteen or so episodes E Michael Jones became the most recurrent guest and one of the most influential people on the Far-Right and in the culture wars.
I write all this to illustrate that I am an acute observer of the cultural phenomenon of Joe Rogan whose name is now synonymous with a veritable cocktail of associations which can be classified under three primary headings: 1) Counter-Cultural (Drugs, Conspiracy, “the intellectual dark web”), 2) Maleness (Hunting, bow shooting, fitness lifestyle, video games) and 3) “Show Biz” (Podcast, Hosting, Comedy, UFC).There is also a kind of miscellanea of other interests; Egyptology, zoology, among them, etc that add further dimensionality to Rogan’s persona. In the land of the typecast, pigeon-holed and branded, Rogan is seen as a kind of hybrid or chimera, a kind of post-modern renaissance man to whom the fledging masses of confused young men could find a false prophet to assuage real concerns of social and economic dispossession with empty banter about chimps raping frogs, or something a cut below frequent JRE guest and fellow ‘intellectual dark web’ teammate Jordan Peterson’s self-help room cleaning service. When Rogan has “serious” discussions it is usually with the coterie of “intellectual dark web” personalities who are either Jewish or refuse to discuss the JQ like Peterson.[xx]
What critics of the rise of identity politics (specifically of the AltRight variety like Peterson and Rogan) often fail to understand or address is what Francis Fukuyama labelled “prestige battles” in an era of depreciating returns. Globalization has meant off-shoring of production to places where it is cheaper and labour is more subservient and pliable. This has in turn weakened the white working class who are often forced into unsteady, low-paying, service industry McJobs that no longer service primary or tertiary sectors of the economy. Factoring in a hostile elite who control the media and carefully monitor for political dissent, the escapism of the opioid and pornography industries (Drugs, Sex and Rock’n’Roll) and you have a complex matrix of world fuckery sapping the lifeblood out of young men while a parasitic over-class of stock, shareholders and landlords specter over university graduates working two jobs unable to make inflated rents in the cities their ancestors built due to foreign invasions of parvenu races. While cultural products like Crazy Rich Asians make light of the dominance of ascendant races. Simply put this is the recrudescence of the pre-revolution aristocracy on a global scale. Steve Bannon understood the grim reality in a manner that exposed Neo-Cohen David Frum during their Munk Debate: “The millennials are like 18th century Russian serfs. They’re not going to own anything, they live in the gig economy, no pension plans or careers. But they’re better fed and in better health. The millennials will see the logic of the populist movement.”[xxi]
The Munk debate between Bannon and Frum should go down as a key moment in the culture war. Bannon argued on principles deriving from facts; the bailouts the elites gave themselves revealed the crooked rules of the game: “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.”[xxii] Bannon uses the word “Elites” but as Rizzi discovered we know who the elites are. Frum shifts uneasily in the background during Bannon’s opening remarks, his beady eyes probing for anti-semitism. Bannon states a litany of facts, a four trillion dollar deficit, “50% of American families can’t put their hands on $400 cash,” at that point a banner is unveiled by the audience that reads “NO TO HATE,” and at this point it should become clear – “hate” is a word and a mental-prison flung about to distort a weighing of reality and of facts.[xxiii] Soros funds progressive movements for their utility in obscuring parasitism. Frum’s opening statements conform to this tactic, puffed up in his little suit like a show poodle; he begins with a cheap talk-show-host-like-joke delegitimizing and subverting Bannon’s somber and honest invocation of facts and narrative. Satisfied with the home audience’s reaction, Frum goes on… “I want to speak to those of you who see Trump’s politics for what it is and…” now with the hammy overacting of a Jewish thespian, “who resist it.” Frum pulls his hand towards his chest in a theatrical gesture of solidarity, “I know how worried you are, I know the fear that many feel…” And here it comes, “we are nearing the eighth anniversary of Kristallnacht.” Hath not a Jew eyes… Doth not a Jew bleed? Pandering, peddling.
Figure 3 when reality is a Der Sturmer caricature
Bannon is pointing to what Italo-German Sociologist Robert Michel’s referred to as the Iron Law of Oligarchy – globalized. One must add dimensionality to Rizzi, Michels, Burnham and Orwell’s critique of the tendency towards oligarchic collectivism; it is not merely that all large-scale democratic processes are undermined by the problems posed by specialization, monopoly and organization but as Guy Debord put it:
“The totalitarian bureaucracy was not ‘the last owning class in history’ in Bruno Rizzi’s sense; it was merely a substitute ruling class for the commodity economy.” What this means Debord has trouble articulating because his analysis is primarily Marxist – for the commodity economy to be a ruling class means that nebulously manipulated desire rules – libido dominandi. It means liberal-democratic capitalism “the commodity economy,” reduces citizens to consumers.
To Michels’ notion of the bureaucratic “leadership class” – we should add a sub-category namely “the celebrity class.” Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump straddle the line between leadership and celebrity class and reveal the intersection and relation between them – “all the world’s a stage.” As the leadership class performs a function, so does the “Celebrity Class,” the function of the Celebrity Class is to produce Debord’s society of the Spectacle and to promote the narrative of Show Biz of which it is intimately interwoven. Show Biz, narrowly controlled, promotes the values of its mechanism, of capitalism and the Jewish worldview of its studio executives. This Jewish worldview is “liberal universalism” applied through a tribalist particularism. Compare and contrast – non-Jewish ‘intellectual rock-star’ Slavoj Zizek; “Liberal universalism is an illusion, a mask concealing its own particularity which it imposes onto others as universal.”[xxiv] Jewish intellectual Michael Walzer; “Liberal emancipation, liberal universalism; this is the particularism of the Jews.”[xxv]
Your primary job as celebrity is to maintain celebrity and that means maintaining Show Biz. And that means relevancy. The Celebrity Class functions in the political economy of libido in so far as celebrity is fulfilled desire – to ascend to the glamorous world of stardom. People like Rogan, the talking head participants of the ‘all singing, all dancing crap of the world,’ as Tyler Durden put it, cannot help but turn into ‘self-help gurus’ for the politically-socially-economically disenfranchised. As Rogan says to Wiz Kalifa discussing entry into the celebrity class: “not everyone is going to make it, but you can!” Essentially expressing a Spectacle reworking of the class consciousness of the famous Steinbeck quote, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
“’Spectacle’ is a complex term which ‘unifies and explains a great diversity of apparent phenomena’ (#10). In one sense, it refers to a media and consumer society, organized around the consumption of images, commodities, and spectacles, but the concept also refers to the vast institutional and technical apparatus of contemporary capitalism, to all the means and methods power employs, outside of direct force, to relegate subjects passive to societal manipulation and to obscure the nature and effects of capitalism’s power and deprivations.”[xxvi]
This is the crux of the issue and the main reason for Spectacle; the obscuring of power. The basic archetype for laissez-faire is the negligent parent, (“the Boomer”) who has taken the child’s inheritable wealth to “the Woodstocks” of Sex, Drugs[xxvii] and Rock’n’Roll, each roughly equivalent to Rogan’s three basic categorizations and each a selling point of Spectacle with considerable overlap. Broadly speaking each category can be divided into one of two ‘outlooks’ which I dub “Openness” and “Criticality.” This is my preferred dichotomy rather than that of Jewish sociologist Karl Popper’s use of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ societies. My general critique of Popper’s “open society” is that such an orientation leads to the degeneration of the powers of discernment, rather than the opposite argument made by progressives.
Jewish usurer George Soros’ affinity for Popper’s “open society” as Soros himself maintains, “I could choose my tutor, and I chose Karl Popper, the Viennese-born philosopher whose book The Open Society and Its Enemies had made a profound impression on me.” Soros’ The Open Society Foundation, finances and spearheads progressive agendas around the world. The fact that usury and progressive politics march hand-in-hand should give rise to some questions and analysis. However, the most Rogan can muster is having bumbling moron Alex Jones explain that he does not like Soros because Soros was a Nazi and something about human pig hybrids.[xxviii] Alex Jones cannot articulate why George Soros is bad. There is a failure to appreciate the bigger picture. Adolf Hitler joined the German Worker’s Party precisely after listening to a lecture by economist Gottfried Feder in which Feder discerned the difference between parasitic and industrial capital:
“Hitler was instantly fascinated by Feder’s ideas, which he had heard of prior to joining the German Workers Party, as Feder clarified the meaning of the struggle. Hitler attended Feder’s lectures and was taught the difference between loan and industrial capital of which he had been previously unaware. After the first lecture, in which he first heard about stock-exchange and loan capital, he recalled: “I had now found a way to one of the most essential pre-requisites for the founding of a new party.”
Feder with Hitler and Anton Drexler wrote the 25 point programme of the NSDAP in 1920, hence the points on banking stating:
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Soros obscures the reality of his mission by being disingenuous: “That is how I came to write my ﬁrst major essay, ‘The Burden of Consciousness.’ It was an attempt to model Popper’s framework of open and closed societies. It linked organic society with a traditional mode of thinking, closed society with a dogmatic mode, and open society with a critical mode.”[xxx]
Criticality then functions beyond Tonnies’ dichotomy of Community (Gemeinschaft), and Society (Gesellschaft).
Open societies lack the criticality necessary for discernment; they lack the basic mental controls to repeal bad or harmful ideas because the central cultural operating system is geared towards O. Both Openness and Closeness have positive and negative attributes, but O operates in the extremity of excess and C in the extremity of deficiency, while a balance between them achieves a golden mean. As an illustrative example an immigration policy and a country that is open to everyone, without regard to the elective affinities that create natural bonds between people which can move towards Tonnies “community” rather than “society” is operating under an O paradigm that is excessive and whose primary goals are to create confusion for usurers like Soros to continue to profit through parasitic practices. O means a general shift towards both an Eastern mindset of passive reciprocity to “the Reality Principle” and towards usury. But in a globalized McWorld of the free market; the free movement of people, products and capital necessarily engenders a kind of de facto acceptance of the O paradigm – diversity, inclusion and openness are accepted values and modes of being beyond the pale of scrutiny. What replace criticality are empty platitudes designed to warn off thought and reinforce O – “good vibes only.” The height of Spectacle democratized may be a peer-to-peer image-centric platform like Instagram.
When everything is a spectrum you move away from binary thinking, nothing is good or bad, male or female, black or white; the undifferentiated swamp consumes distinctions and blurs lines.
What do I mean by Openness? It is a strange phenomenon that the idiom; “keep an open mind” or someone saying that “they are open-minded,” is understood as a euphemism for holding progressive values. Now, generally the problem with having an “open mind” is that your brain might fall out or at least people will try to fill it with such nonsense that you have lost the critical capacity to effectively evaluate. True “open mindedness” comes from a critical evaluation of what is being presented, but in Plebville certain values override such processes “I don’t want to hear it,” “that’s negative,” “chill.” Progressive values, like the idea that gender is a spectrum, fly in the face of the critical values of taxonomy. “LGBTQ+” is the most visually representative of this trend with the “+,” rather than symbolizing a host of other signifiers (“QIP2SAA”), instead signifies the never-ending, open-ended verities of the spectrum itself, or the signifier signifies the process of self-creation, which is a fundamental axiom of modernity, or the signifier merely signifies the signifier itself which like quantum theory suggests that nothing is in a solid state. Thus, the “plus” stands for a functional definition of something in flux, and the definition is understood as merely a problem of linguistics – the thing is begrudging named. This brings us to the crux of Marx’s conservative critique of Capital in the famous “All that’s solid melts.” O values are solipsistic and subjective – there is talk of “one’s own truth.” All this hinges on the autonomous and alienated subject – Kant’s categorical imperative.
“Love is love” is another progressive slogan that revels in its self-referential solipsism. To define a word as signifier for an emotional-cognitive state by the word itself is to fall back into incoherence. Imagine trying to describe a “ship” by the word “ship” or “the large hadron collider” with “the large hadron collider.” “Love is love” is stupid and open to O; which means a slippery-slope to absolute degradation.
E Michael Jones demonstrated that ‘sexual revolution’ is political control and this is certainly the case but the real control is not in releasing libidinal energy but rather to trap the mind in a mental construction whereby O values are ceaselessly and endlessly reiterated. This mental construction is an undifferentiated mass rather than a prison cell, too narrow a picture, as much concentrated work can be accomplished therein, rather an open sky with infinite possibilities and no anchor or reference point, since everything stands alone – everything only refers back to itself “love is love.”
Both drugs, especially psychedelics, and “Show Biz” function almost exclusively within O. For Show Biz novelty sells, inclusion means a bigger market, more reach, more advertisers, it is best not to be against anything but for everything etc. When Rogan was D-List he flung stones or rather pebbles; at actors, other comedians, questioning official narratives, with people whose convictions he disagreed with, but as his wealth and reach has widened as his Show Biz Capital has increased he has policed his antics, towing a more PC line. The Podcast has become increasingly milquetoast as it has expanded into the realm of being merely another celebrity circle-jerk. Rogan has argued in the past that actors are really fake people because the industry is controlled by so few that they are forced to adopt liberal values and wear social masks. As the Podcast has increased in influence Rogan has come under the same sorts of behaviour-modifying self-regulation that he once bemoaned. The interesting thing is the feedback loop that Rogan is generating self-propels this hypocrisy: as Rogan exhibits more O his bank account produces more $ therefore R rewards O. Therefore we should all be more O. R = the Reality Principle or “the Universe” or “Retard Receptiveness” in the vernacular of new age think.
R thinking has to do with an overemphasis on individual attitudes towards worldly happiness and success. PlebTalk insistently makes reference to “the universe,” as though it were a mechanism responding to the graduations and incremental changes of individual subjectivity like a mood ring forecasting the temperamental fortunes on a hippy. This incremental Taoism is inherently solipsistic and functions on an atomized notion of “self-care,” atomizied selfish solipsism, before responsibility to others. The buzz words of O and R receptiveness include variants of: “the universe,” “journey,” “good vibes only,” “love,” “love is love,” “positive,” “positive thinking,” “the Secret,” “positive vibes,” “energy,” etc.
Celebrities are major proponents of such doctrines in a way that almost divinizes them as super-human. Take for example an exchange between Wiz Kalifa and Rogan during a mutual circle-jerk of O values, “Wiz” at one point says that he is spiritually superior to his peers. The conflation of worldly success and spiritual election, a self-propelling Calvinism – a kind of Judaic materialism, maintains in Show Biz and celebrity culture a convincing hold. After all Oprah Winfred was a major proponent of The Secret. Instead of seeing themselves as the lucky beneficiaries of the Cultural Industry’s “all singing and dancing crap of the world,” they imagine that they are “stars” because they are more luminous than the average person, spiritually or otherwise. Everything is based upon some underlining principles, be they actively understood or subconsciously and vaguely presupposed. The conscious awareness of the underlining principle allows one to dictate action.
Rogan has exhibited R Think, which is a kind of superstitious karmic mental prison, by berating Anthony Cuma for carrying a gun. “Anthony always has a gun on him, he carries a gun everywhere, like he has a concealed carry permit and shit, and I said to him, I said, do you ever worry that maybe you’re putting out this energy and you’re manifesting something, like some sort of attack on you because you’re constantly dwelling on it and you always have this gun.”[xxxi]
But Rogan justifies carrying a knife while jogging because of mountain lions. “It’s not likely, it’s not likely, people are like oh my god you’re paranoid, two people were killed by mountain lions last year… If two people got killed by werewolves would you go out when the moon was full?”[xxxii]
Which is more statistically likely getting “jacked” by a mountain lion or getting “jacked” by a socio-economically disadvantaged minority in an urban setting?
The intellectual dark web
Incidentally, within each overarching categorization there are elements of both “O” and “C,” even within each thing-in-itself. Hence, “Conspiracy” as a subcategory of counter-cultural might contain O in the idea that to entertain a notion that is unpopular, counter-cultural or fringe, one must exhibit a degree of Openness, however, that quality of O is contained within a greater circumference of C, in this sense O exists like a vestibule within a C manor or that spot of ying within the yang. However, due to Rogan’s cowardice, his counter-cultural elements are always kosher hence it is the one category that is both O and C.
Now with both Maleness and Show Biz I’ve simplified their categorization because there is less overlap and ambiguity. Following works like Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personne and Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men, maleness in an age of feminine openness, is conceived as existing on the Apollonian end of the spectrum, that is creating boundaries and distinctions as in the function of critical inquiry and the Aristotelian system of classifications. While Show Biz, following the logic of the market and the merchant, fundamentally stands for the Openness of McWorld’s metanarrative.
Rogan has a bit in his 2007 comedy special Shiny Happy Jihad, in which he discusses “Big Dick Pills” he goes on to say “that’s a ripoff I can get behind, anybody dumb enough to think that the ads for big dick pills would be some weird secret on the backpage of Hustler, fuck that guy, take his shit.” Enter Rogan’s stake in Onnit and specifically it’s “nootropic,” a marketing neologism, product Alpha Brain. Well not claiming to enhance the little head, Alpha Brain is essentially a “big brain pill” claiming to increase neurological functioning in the brain – “that’s a ripoff I can get behind.” The company and its fraudulent scientific claims are well documented in Alpha Brain: A Joe Rogan Documentary. Quoting from it seems to encapsulate Rogan’s opportunism: “the larger his base the safer his positions seem to be, slowly but surely Joe will walk back conspiracy after conspiracy.”[xxxiii] Anyone who has spent any decent amount of time learning anything complex knows there is no royal road to knowledge.
Rogan’s consistent failure to address the JQ has resulted in the critical capacity of his “counter-cultural” dimension to drift further towards O. Rogan has gone into ‘interviewer mode,’ he is the Oprah Winfred of unripe boys and immature men.
With a reach of millions of young impressionable minds Rogan’s gatekeeping and callous false rebel persona are incredibly powerful tools for the Jewish establishment.
Figure 4 “… and I want to be rich, someone important, like an actor…”
[i] Bruno Rizzi quoted by James M. Fenwick. The Mysterious Bruno R.
[v] The JRE is now allegedly no longer live streaming. “For both, the electronic media were a new stage in abstraction where interpersonal relations become technologically mediated. Both saw the media as one-way modes of transmission that reduced audiences to passive spectators;  both were concerned with authentic communication and a more vivid and immediate social reality apart from the functional requirements of a rationalized society. For Baudrillard, this entailed a destruction of all media, for their function is precisely to mediate, to prevent genuine communication, which, in a strangely Rousseauian metaphysics of presence, he conceived to be symbolic and direct, non-mediated.”
[vi] I burrow the term “the cultural industry” from Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment; (1944).
“The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.”
There is a curious cultural conservative parallel with Richard Wagner’s essay Art and Revolution (1849):
“This is Art, as it now fills the entire civilized world! Its true essence is Industry;
its ethical aim, the gaining of gold; its aesthetic purpose, the entertainment of
those whose time hangs heavily on their hands. From the heart of our modern
society, from the golden calf of wholesale Speculation, stalled at the meeting of
its cross-roads, our art sucks forth its life-juice, borrows a hollow grace from the
lifeless relics of the chivalric conventions of mediaeval times, and—blushing not
to fleece the poor, for all its professions of Christianity—descends to the depths of
the proletariate, enervating, demoralising, and dehumanising everything on which
They described how the “culture industry” defused critical consciousness, providing a key means of distraction and stupefaction, and they developed the first neo-Marxist theories of the media and consumer society (see Kellner 1989a). Debord and the Situationists can thus be interpreted as an attempt to renew the Marxian project under historically specific conditions.
Politically, Debord and the Situationists were deeply influenced by the council communism promoted by the early Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci, and a tradition taken up in France by both the Socialism or Barbarism and _Arguments_ groups.
Also influenced by Gramsci (1971), the Situationists saw the current forms of social control as based on consensus rather than force, as a cultural hegemony attained through the metamorphoses of the consumer and media society into the “society of the spectacle.” In this society, individuals consume a world fabricated by others rather than producing one of their own.
For Debord, the spectacle is a tool of pacification and depoliticization; it is a “permanent opium war” (#44) which stupefies social subjects and distracts them from the most urgent task of real life — recovering the full range of their human powers through revolutionary change.
Parallel to the Frankfurt School conception of a “totally administered” or “one dimensional” society (Adorno and Horkheimer 1972; Marcuse 1964), Debord states that “The spectacle is the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life” (#42). Here exploitation is raised to a psychological level; basic physical privation is augmented by “enriched privation” of pseudo-needs; alienation is generalized, made comfortable, and alienated consumption becomes “a duty supplementary to alienated production” (#42).
The shift to a “bureaucratic society of controlled consumption” (Lefebvre 1971 and 1991) organized around the production of spectacles can be seen as the exploitation of use value and needs as a means of advancing profit and gaining ideological control over individuals. Unlike early capitalism, where the structural exigencies lay in the forceful exploitation of labor and nature, and in defining the worker strictly as a producer, the society of the spectacle defines the worker as a consumer and attempts to constitute the worker’s desires and needs, first creating then exploiting them
The spectacle not only expands the profits and power of the capitalist class, but also helps to resolve a legitimation crisis of capitalism. Rather then vent anger against exploitation and injustice, the working class is distracted and mollified by new cultural productions, social services, and wage increases. In consumer capitalism, the working classes abandon the union hall for the shopping mall and celebrate the system that fuels the desires that it ultimately cannot satisfy. But the advanced abstraction of the spectacle brings in its wake a new stage of deprivation. Marx spoke of the degradation of being into having, where creative praxis is reduced to the mere possession of an object, rather than its imaginative transformation, and where need for the other is reduced to greed of the self. Debord speaks of a further reduction, the transformation of having into appearing, where the material object gives way to its semiotic representation and draws “its immediate prestige and ultimate function” (#17) as image — in which look, style, and possession function as signs of social prestige. The production of objects simpliciter gives way to “a growing multitude of image-objects” (#15) whose immediate reality is their symbolic function as image. Within this abstract system, it is the appearance of the commodity that is more decisive than its actual “use value” and the symbolic packaging of commodities — be they cars or presidents — generates an image industry and new commodity aesthetics (see Haug 1986).
As Walter Benjamin argued (1973, discussed in Buck-Morss 1989), the commodity-phantasmagoria of the spectacle began in the Paris Arcades in the 19th century which put on display all the radiant commodities of the day. Department stores soon appeared in Paris and elsewhere which exhibited commodities as a spectacle and soon became coveted temples of consumption.
For Baudrillard, we leave behind the society of the commodity and its stable supports; we transcend the society of the spectacle and its dissembling masks; and we bid farewell to modernity and its regime of production, and enter the postmodern society of the simulacrum, an abstract non-society devoid of cohesive relations, shared meaning, and political struggle.
Until _The Mirror of Production_ (1975), Baudrillard could be described, like Debord, as a neo-Marxist whose project was to retain the basic theoretical framework of Marxism, organized around class and production, while supplementing it to account for the changes in the nature of domination effected by the shift to a society based on mass media, consumption, and what Baudrillard called a “political economy of the sign.”
Debord and Baudrillard were doing sociological studies of the new consumer society and everyday life in France simultaneously in the 1960s; both worked with Henri Lefebvre and were part of a similar political and intellectual milieu at the time. Just as Baudrillard was aware of the work of the Situationists, there is evidence they were aware of his, since in one text they denounced him as a “decrepit modernist-institutionalist”
Yet he soon rejected the Situationist analysis as itself bound to an obsolete modernist framework based on notions like history, reality, and interpretation, and he jumped into a postmodern orbit that declared the death of all modern values and referents under conditions of simulation, implosion, and hyperreality.
Baudrillard’s argument against Debord is that during the phase of political economy theorized by the Situationists in terms of the society of media, consumption, and spectacle, a generalization and complexification of the sign form extended throughout the entire culture and environment leading to a hegemony of sign value in which commodities are produced, distributed, and consumed for their conspicuous social meaning. The object is converted into a mere sign of its use, now abstract and divorced from physical needs. The whole cycle of production, distribution, and consumption, Baudrillard claims, is transformed into a semiotic system of abstract signifiers with no relation to an objective world. In the imaginary world of sign value, one consumes power or prestige through driving a certain type of car or wearing designer clothes.  This is a new stage of abstraction, a dematerialization of the world through semiological (re)processing in which images and signs take on a life of their own and provide new principles of social organization.
Simulation for Baudrillard thus describes a process of replacing “real” with “virtual” or simulated events, as when electronic or digitized images, signs, or spectacles replace “real life” and objects in the real world. Simulation models generate simulacra, representations of the real, that are so omnipresent that it is henceforth impossible to distinguish the real from simulacra. The world of similacra for Baudrillard is precisely a postmodern world of signs without depth, origins, or referent.
There is herein also a parallel with two other notions which criticize “cultural products” in this manner – the first is the Marxist elongation of class consciousness’ submissive awestruck dumbfoundedness in the face of Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle.
[viii] TGA also dropped conservative actor James Woods.
[ix] See my CHURCHILL: SHABBOS GOY PAR EXCELLENCE “The principal concept that must be imparted and understood with regard to the consciousness of Jews and their gentile apologists is the concept of a Jewish double standard, in effect giving them special status above the law. The concept of a Jewish double standard, found in the Torah, (Leviticus 25:37), corresponds to what Benjamin Nelson has labelled the Deuteronomic Double Standard. This allows Jews, specifically in relation to usury, to treat fellow Jews better than non-Jews. This is analogous to the distinction of brother vs. other, or, as Carl Schmitt put it, a well-defined “friend/ enemy” distinction.”
See Also, The Idea of Usury, from Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood
By Benjamin N. Nelson. “Deuteronomy formed a cornerstone of the blood brotherhood morality of the Hebrew tribesmen. It assumed the solidarity of the mishpaha (clan) and the exclusion of the nokri (the foreigner, as contrasted with the ger, the protected sojourner, or the toshab, the resident stranger) from the privileges and obligations of the fraternity.”
“Shakespeare confirmed the Deuteronomic Double Standard not only in the conflicts of moneylending activities but also in the clash between morality and economic interest. According to Yaron Book, usury was regarded as economic immorality because it “takes of something for nothing” and as social immorality as well since usury is “unjust, exploitative against biblical law, selfish….” However, if usury is analyzed based on Jewish interpretation of the Deuteronomic Double Standard, it is neither economically nor socially immoral. Jews lend money with interest only to others those are not descents of Jacob——Christian citizens in Venice—— and thus they follow the law of Deuteronomic brotherhood.”
Barr begins down this road by stating that she believes that (1:07:00) Facebook and Twitter “manufacture consent” Rogan asks what she means by that to which Barr responds with this bit of half digested tautology: “it’s a place where like Noam Chomsky says the press manufactures consent, the consent of the governed. So that’s what they’re doing they’re manufacturing the consent of the governed.” Defining the meaning of your words by endlessly reiterating the words themselves, then Barr speculates that social media also manufactures ‘dissent’ “they control the opposition too. Rogan asks if she thinks there is some sort of grand plan to get people to argue with each other? Barr says she thinks it is a social experiment to turn one group against another, which you know it’s smart, because it’s divide and conquer. And you know there’s all these people getting robbed, all these taxpayers getting robbed sitting there pointing to other taxpayers that are getting robbed and blaming them. But everybody needs to look upward of our government and ask for an audit of our taxes and actually take responsibility for the things our country does, we’re getting judged for it anyway.
Rogan: there’s certain people who are capitalizing on it.
Rosanne Barr: Well we allow it.
Rogan: There are certainly people who are capitalizing on all this chaos and all this and all this conflict but I don’t think it’s manufactured and I don’t think it’s engineered. I just think it’s happening. Because this is a new thing. This ability to interact with each other.
Rosanne Barr: You think it just has a mind of its own?
Rogan: I think people have a mind of their own and people are inherently tribal. There’s almost no way to stop them from being tribal. And they switch tribes.
Barr: Well I like that people are tribal
Rogan: well the problem with tribalism is that you sometimes have enemies that are unnecessary. So you develop this idea that your part of a group…
Barr: Or you can have, or you can have allies on common ground.
Rogan: Yes that would be nice if we all looked at ourselves as a tribal world.
Barr: That how I do look at the world and why I didn’t want Hilary Clinton because her party is very much for corporate law and the Republican Party is very much for tribal law, and I am a tribal person and I think tribal people should you know have their land.
Rogan: Tribal in what way? How are you tribal?
Barr: Well I’m Jewish.
Followed by about four and a half seconds of dead air. Barr scrambles to qualify about going over to Israel and learning from her teachers and then a circuitously non-sequitur steering back towards the common ground of her unceremonious firing. Leaving her admission unacknowledged.
“He may have bought it less than a year ago, via blind trust, for $5.7 million but multiple sources have told this property gossip that William Morris Endeavor partner and board member Rick Rosen already has his newly built mansion in Encino, Calif., back on the open market with an asking price of $5.795 million. Set behind gates on a slight rise in the rich and leafy Royal Oaks neighborhood, the multi-gabled, Colonial-esque mansion measures in, according to current listing…”
“Epstein also built his wealth with Steven J. Hoffenberg and Leslie H. Wexner, the former of whom was convicted of running a giant Ponzi scheme, and the latter a clothing magnate.” Both members of the tribe.
Rahm Immanuel former Obama Chief of Staff and just stepping down after eight years as Mayor of Chicago, has just taken a new position as contributing editor to the Atlantic. This announcement coincided with Emanuel’s debut story for his new job, “It’s Time to Hold American Elites Accountable for Their Abuses.” If Rahm Emanuel; White House insider, former usurer-multimillionaire, brother of billionaire mogul, is not one of America’s Elites, who is?
“After all, it was Emanuel who, while serving in the Clinton administration, helped write NAFTA, the trade agreement which fueled offshoring of jobs, wage stagnation, upward redistribution of income and the collapse of the US manufacturing sector. He similarly helped push through welfare reform, legislation that spiked extreme poverty and cut off a lifeline for millions of working-class Americans, as well as the 1994 crime bill which incited the mass incarceration crisis.
After leaving the White House in 1998, Emanuel entered the world of investment banking where, over the course of four years, he made a staggering $16 million — more than ten times what an average American will earn over their entire lifetime.
Feudal, Militaristic, Bureaucratic, established state power
Orthodox social scientists — Conservatism
(academic insiders: Gierke, Schmoller, Wagner)
New Upper Middle class property owners,
Social Democrats — “Jewish-Socialism”
bankers and professionals, Jews and Lutherans
(Ferdinand Lassalle, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht)
Old Middle Class of artisans, shopkeepers
Volkish Ideologists — Volk-Socialism
and free peasants, ethnic Germans, Catholics and proto-neopagans
(Lagarde, Meyer, Stocker)
Walzer states bluntly the inherent self-interest of Jewish liberalism:
“In other words, Jews were only able to remain free and make their way in a liberal state and a liberal society. Otherwise, they would be emancipated from orthodoxy only to be victimized by anti-Semitism, which must often have seemed to be the orthodoxy of the gentiles. Jews are liberals, then, from self-interest, but to say this is not to denigrate our commitment. Self-interest is a powerful root from which all sorts of idealisms can grow.”
[xxvii] Jan Irvin was the first person to introduce Rogan to drugs and the lectures of psychedelic cultural gurus like Terrence Mckenna. Irvin was an enthusiastic supporter, researcher and Johnny on the spot of psychedelic culture. As his research into the backgrounds of the big names, the Leary, Watson, Huxley, etc. uncovered CIA connections Irvin became skeptical. According to gurus like Timothy Leary in his book High Priest, which I read when I was an enthusiastic teenager, the drug experience is defined by three criteria; the drug, the setting (the environment), and the set (your mindset). To illustrate as I’ve previously mentioned, I’ve done psychedelics in the past. Doing ayahuasca in Peru taught me a lesson in what Jan calls “suggestibility.” Prior to the trip I had been informed of pachamama, the indigenous earth goddess, while I was experiencing a harrowing descent into Aldous Huxley’s doors of perception, I was handed a bundle of rosemary and told to rub it between my hands and inhale, doing so brought forth kaleidoscopic images of the Virgin Mary and as I stared at this pure being of wondrous compassion and love I was overwhelmed. Afterwards I became a kind of esoteric mariologist for a time. It was only later that I understood that my trip had been “seeded,” Pachamama was Mary, the rosemary triggered Mary, in the state of suggestible psychosis my mind made the appropriate connections – I was now conceived of the awesome power of archetypes. Now it is my contention that this ‘suggestibility’ of psychedelics amounts to a adopting a corresponding O mindset. Drugs, especially psychedelics, create a mental state of psychosis in which the mind seeks refuge in positive thoughts – something that Rogan infers in a joke about calming the Middle East down by gassing them with marijuana and dropping magic mushrooms from his Shiny Happy Jihad special. Incidentally both Drugs and Show Biz operate in a feedback loop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfNCj-UOiE