Friday, April 18, 2008

discussing the profane

A friend recently mentioned this blog as being one-track. He's got a point. I seem to be perpetually obsessed with things Jewish. This perception is interesting. However it's my opinion that this blog is actually about something else altogether. There's a far more elegant definition that neatly incorporates all the other disparate pieces I write (which inexplicably fail to mention Jews).

This blog is about hypocrisy. It's about the gap between truth and representation. In a discussion of the sacred and the profane, which is to say that which must be said and that which mustn't, I merely ask why might a subject be profane, and says who? If one's prepared to concede that certain topics are profane it stands to reason that a mere discussion of the why and wherefore of that designation, is, in and of itself, profane. Proscriptions of profanity wouldn't last very long if everybody sat around discussing them all day.

Why are certain subjects so defined? Why may they not be discussed? Says I, we may not discuss certain subjects because were we to do so their false nature, the gap between their actuality and misrepresentation, would be laid bare. This is the only reason a subject is profane.

Who has the power to declare a subject profane? The answer is in the question, ha ha - it's the powerful obviously. Things are declared profane to protect a power structure. No subject will be classified profane to protect the weak or the innocent or those subject to the powerful. Not in this world.

Where were we? Oh yes, this blog is one-track and obsessed with things Jewish. The comment is itself an acknowledgement that one really oughtn't to be talking about such things. Which is to say, the subject is profane. Hmm... interesting no?

Try this easy experiment - discuss Jews at a social situation in something other than platitudes. Actually, don't - it's social death. Instead discuss any other group of people. Discuss Muslims. Discuss Roman Catholics. Discuss Buddhists. Discuss Chinese. Discuss Italians. Discuss gays. Discuss stamp collectors. Discuss the Country Women's Association. Say any goddamn thing about any goddamn people - except Jews. This is the profane subject non-pareil.

Somehow, miraculously, the obvious function of what is and isn't profane is turned on its head. Somehow we hold the absurd belief that we may not discuss things Jewish because the Jewish are the weakest, the most innocent, the most subject to the powerful.

Let's get real. What is and isn't profane is defined by the media. Control of the media grants one the power to define the profane. And we may not discuss things Jewish because the Jewish media has declared the topic thus. The power structure that is being protected is Jewish banking, the single most powerful structure in the world.

Wonder at the breadth and depth of the effort that has gone into this designation of profanity. The media, all of it, must sing from the same song-sheet. The other forums of discourse - educational establishments and houses of government - must also obey the rules. The staggering size of this effort is undeniable evidence of the fear of the power structure of public exposure. By their own actions they're telling us that truth and fearlessness can bring the edifice down.

Of course this blog is profane. If it was anything else I'd view it as intellectually dishonest, and chickenshit with it, ha ha. Not here. Not me. And not you either. The weapon to bring down those who would keep you enslaved is right there, waiting for you to grasp it. The weapon is truth. Only fear stays your hand. But it's their fear, not yours. It's been implanted in your head as a pre-emptive shield. In truth, it doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination, a delusion. To merely see it for what it is, is to cast it off. Between darkness and daylight; truth and delusion; fear and fearlessness, you don't need me to tell you anything. The answer is obvious and undeniable, and you knew it then and you know it now. A blink of the eye and you're there.


kikz said...

nice one noby>:)

annemarie said...

ahh, the not-so-secret (ha,ha) taboo.


Tis no secret that wHorewood's [good one kikz, btw] been demonizing everyone non-jewish from the beginning. But like Brando said on the Larry King show and got in trouble for it: You'll see chinks, japs, wogs, wops, niggers, white trash, evil arabs, evil Romans and Christians too, spiks, and every god-awful stereotype you can think of, but you will NEVER see a "kike" in a wHorewood flick. Brando told the truth and was vilified for doing so.

Also notice how charming even their (Jewish) mobsters are portrayed. Think of Warren Beatty doing Benjamin Bugsy Siegel, how handsome, how romantic, how almost-innocent; also of Meyer Lansky in that flick, they had him portrayed as a wise and honourable man!! and by "Ghandi" Ben Kingsley no less! ha,ha It's always the same with wHorewood.

btw, am not able to find that youtube video of that particular interview now. anybody? nobody?

ta for being profane mite ;)

nobody said...

My two favourite chicks,

Sorry annemarie, I have never laid eyes on that actual interview. When I wrote, 'Brando sticks to his guns' a while back, I did it via a transcript I found on the dreaded wikipedia.

Did you guys see that priest on youtube who wouldn't take any shit from that reporter that wrh linked to today? It was a cracker. Not quite as good as George Galloway eating that Sky reporter alive but good nonetheless.

kikz said...

hi and w/b annE M :)

hmmm... brando... think that was a larry king interview... (headscratch...

speakin of profane....

don't know if y'all are old enuff to remb MAD mag...? they did an issue once (mid 70's)on all racial stereotypes..listing every racial ephitet/slur known to man.
it was hilarious :) frm the drunk irish, to the cokebottle eyeglasses jap.. the heb... raghead arab...replete w/commentary of negative cultural affectations of course taken to MAD exponential extreme :) classic to say the least :)

here, apparently are some late additions to the cultural lexicon..

Anonymous said...

Got your blog by way of Les and I got you pegged on my laptop.I did see thet priest at wrh strange how everything has to be twisted to the anti-semite slur is it not?
I spent last year in K.L.where I saw the Galloway sky reporter skit that was priceless the 'bitch, didnt know what hit her.
You certainly are coming into your own keep it up.

nobody said...

Hey CJ,

Too kind by half, mate. KL? Kuala Lumpur? I love that town.

Actually that priest is stuck in my head. For mine, good though he was, he failed to make a crucial point. I'm one of those guys who watches interviews and, depending, yells at the TV the obvious question that the interviewer fails to ask, or the obvious answer the interviewee fails to give.

That's why I re-imagined brando's interview. And I might do the same for the priest. Without wishing him any disrespect, of course. Tomorrow.

Hey kikz, Mad magazine? Do I remember it? Ha ha ha ha. Holy shit, I hung off every word. There are movies from that I era that I don't remember nearly as well as the panels from the Mad magazine piss-take. Looking back now however, I view it as a pernicious influence. You make the point perfectly. I don't know if Mad still exists since I no longer frequent news agents anymore. But who needs it? Mad's job is now precisely replicated by the Zucker Brothers, the Scary Movie fanchise, and anything starring Leslie Nielsen. I watch them, sure, but they're perfect vehicles for sowing dissent and racial disharmony. Hmm... I feel a cinema blog piece forming in my head.

Anonymous said...

I saw Back To The Future yesterday, with the infamous scene where libyan terrorists shoot the mad scientist. Spielberg shoehorned in that particular piece of anti-arab propaganda into a children's film. These people are shameless, and their propaganda is everywhere.

I enjoy making Jewish jokes just to see the reaction. You can joke about just about anything, but mention the Jews and an awkward silence falls. The holocaust industry continues to shield the Ashkhenazis from inquiry, and to justify any amount of atrocity n the middle east in the public mind.

nobody said...

Hey Suraci,

I gotta be honest with you mate. I never make racist jokes in any way, shape or form. You might want to ponder your actions and ask what are you trying to achieve with them and what might the actual result be.

If I give the finger to a driver who cuts me off, not that there are any thoughts in my head beyond an idiot rage, but I vaguely imagine something along the lines of 'That'll show him!'. Which is to say I demonstrate my unhappiness and make him think twice about his behaviour. But of course that doesn't happen. He merely thinks I'm an arsehole and gives me the finger back. So what did I achieve?

So, if you crack a Jewish joke amongst people who are shocked ask yourself if you woke them up from their delusion or merely reinforced it? A chap wrote a comment about the Protocols in the Amalekites thing and I made a not dissimilar point. See what you think.

Also I just saw my reply to kikz immediately above yours. I expect it's why you commented. The racist caricatures in Jewish farces (and Mad magazine) aren't a solution to racism. Nor are they wrong merely because they omit Jews. I see them as gasoline on a fire that no one needs. Best we just stop the flow of gas, clear the smoke and find out where the source of the fire is and deal with it like clear-eyed grown-ups. Frankly the world would be a better place without witless Jewish farces.

But yeah, otherwise they are shameless and their propaganda is everywhere. Have you checked out the cinema blog? I think 'vicious' would be a fair description of me on the subject of Hollywood movies. The link's on the front page if you haven't been there already. Ciao.