Planet of the Apes and Its Implications.

[The Iron Boot]

Planet of the Apes has always been one of my favorite films. I loved
it as a kid though the first viewing freaked me out; I had screaming
fits and turned it off after the first 30 min–I must have been 5 yrs
old. So, I really saw the entire film when I was around nine. I loved
every minute of it, and I like it even today. Of course, reasons for
liking it changed over time.


I saw Planet of the Apes again some months ago and couldn’t help
noticing certain parallels with the 10 Commandments, not least because
Charlton Heston played both Moses and Taylor. I’m not sure if the
makers of POTA consciously thought of 10 Commandments, but the two
films make for interesting comparisons. Both are stories of alien
minorities, oppression, liberation, and uncertainty. But, if Ten
Commandments reflected the moral certitudes of the Cold War 50s, POTA
reflects the anarchic skepticism of the late 60s. Moses leads his
people out of bondage to an uncertain but promised land. There will be
many obstacles and tragedies, but God is on their side. Taylor flees
Apeland toward freedom, but he’s practically alone, with only a horse
and mute bimbo. He rides toward the future only to re-discover
humanity as a past-tense. Triumphant miracles aid the Hebrews on
their path to freedom; tragic catastrophe awaits Taylor on his
journey. Moses condemns the Golden Calf worshipers and saves the good
members of his flock. Taylor condemns all of mankind, but deep down
realizes and knows that he too is part of cursed humanity.


Another movie that comes to mind in relation to POTA is Bridge on the
River Kwai, hardly surprising since both stories were written by the
French author Pierre Boulle. I haven’t read Bridge on the River Kwai
and don’t know what changes were made for David Lean’s film, but both
stories share common themes. When the books were written, France still
had an empire stretching all over Asia and Africa. For a couple of
centuries, the French, along with the British, assumed that the
dominance of white man would practically be permanent. The West was
great and powerful; white man was advanced and well-organized. Whether
one called it the white man’s burden or white man’s destiny, it seemed
like the world was meant to be ruled by white people.
The first crack in this assumption happened with the rapid rise of
Japan. An isolated feudal-state, Japan catapulted to world power
status in a few decades after its gates were crashed open by Brits and
Americans. In 1905, the Japanese, deemed a newcomer to world power
politics, defeated the Russian Bear. Japanese power grew in Asia to
the point where it became the premier imperialist player in northern
China. But, that was not enough for Japan. Japan wanted dominance over
all of Asia. This brought Japan face to face with European powers in
Southeast Asia. Japan’s victory over British, French, and Dutch forces
in Southeast Asia was shocking to both Westerners and Asians. It was
as if the world was turned upside down. This was something new. Yes,
Japan had defeated Russia in 1905 but that didn’t lead to rule over
white folks. Yes, Japan had competed with Western powers in China and
elsewhere, but Japan didn’t gain dominance over white-ruled areas.
This all changed in 1941 when Japan charged into Western Imperialist
holdings in Asia. This was all the more shocking because Japanese
victory was so swift and resounding. There were deeper implications in
this victory for all Asians–most living under colonialism–could now
see that white folks could be defeated by non-whites. Though most
Asians resented and hated Japanese imperialism–even more than Western
Imperialism–, Japan’s victory inspired anti-Western-Imperialist
movements(both Rightist and Leftist)all over Asia, Middle East, and
elsewhere.
Of course, Japan was finally defeated by white powers. US smashed
Japan in the seas and from the sky. Russians charged into northern
China and totally whupped Japanese ass. But, the West–especially
Europe–never recovered from the shock of defeat at the hands of Japan
in Southeast Asia. (And, Russians later came to fear the 800 million
Chinese communists that turned into enemies.) Indeed, when the
Europeans returned to take control of Southeast Asia, it was
hopeless. Even Southeast Asians who hated the Japanese took
inspiration from the Japanese example and fought against the re-
imposition of Western imperialism. Dutch had to abandon Indonesia.
French gave up Indochina. British realized its days were numbered in
Malaysia. Americans, though not an imperialist power, inherited the
French mess, tried to make the best of it(create an anti-communist
South Vietnam), but was eventually pushed out by crazed communist
Vietnamese in the North.
Of course, victory over the white race by non-whites is nothing new if
we look at all of history. The ancient Huns whupped the Europeans over
a long period. The Mongol armies reached as far as Paris at one time,
and the heirs of the great Khans ruled over Russia for centuries.

But, since the time of Western advances in science, technology, and
industry, it seemed to Western Europeans and Americans that there was
nothing to turn the tide of history; white folks would rule and rule
for good. Of course, many white folks saw this as a good thing since
they were supposedly good Christians bringing the light of progress to
all those crazy, backward, poor, and benighted darkies. There was some
truth to this as much of the world was ruled by oppressive tyrants or
systems, steeped in superstition and idiotic customs, and such. The
concept of universal human rights, modern medicine, democracy, and
other good stuff all originated and came from the West. The West ended
slavery all over the world. Japan and Turkey gained much by opening up
to Western powers(or being forcibly opened up by them). But, there was
also an element of arrogance and high-falutin-ness on the part of many
Westerners. Some white folks just couldn’t resist going around
calling colored folks ‘niggers’, ‘ragheads’, ‘dotheads’, ‘chinks’,
‘injuns’, and the like. And, many white folks came to rest on their
laurels. And, there was also an assumption among non-whites(who were
steeped in superstitious thinking)that white folks were god-like, all-
powerful, invincible, magical, and such. This was one of the reason
why small numbers of white folks could rule over so many darkie folks.
After shooting a bunch of people with their terrifyingly loud guns
and cannons, the locals and natives thought white man was not to mess
around with but to respect and worship. (Darkies had a might-is-right
moral system and willingly submitted to white power... before the
concept of Western universal human rights influenced the minds of
European-educated darkie elites and intellectuals.) Also, many
natives didn’t mind having white folks rule over them in many cases
because whites were, in many cases, preferable to the far crueler and
more exploitative local chieftains. But, once the magic of white
invincibility wore off, white folks were in deep doo doo all over
Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The world was turning upside down. The
white man was forced to consider a scenario that had seemed utterly
ludicrous in the past: the idea that non-whites would gain dominance
over the whites.


In the novel of POTA, two space apes come upon a message written by a
human(which forms the bulk of the story). Never mind the story
itself; the space apes are besides themselves in laughter over the
notion of a human being able to write anything, let alone a long
complex story such as the one they came upon; they finally conclude it
must some practical joke written by a clever ape. Similarly, the idea
of Western dominance crumbling overnight and non-white rising in the
world have seemed pretty outlandish to most white folks prior to the
end of WWII. There is some of this feeling even today as much of the
non-white world is still pretty backward and depressing. Africa is
worse off now than during the Age of Imperialism. Much of the Middle
East is pitiful and piss poor. Latin America, where most people are
non-white, is still mired in poverty. Though Latin American whites are
losing power in relative terms, there’s no indication that Latin
America will be world-leaders in the 21st century.


But, Asia is another story. In the latter half of the 20th century,
the rise of Asia meant Japan and the so-called tigers(S. Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc). As impressive as this has been,
those nations could pose no real threat to the Western dominated world
order(though there was much anxiety over Japan). For starters, most of
them were military colonial posts for American power. But, China and
India, politically and militarily sovereign powers, entered the
picture in a major way since the 1990s, and these two giants(with
combined population of 2.3 billion) are making a real difference in
the world. Personally, I think the Indians are too messy and divisive
and the Chinese are too unoriginal and corrupt to become dominant
world players, but the future is always uncertain.


Anyway, China and India have many people worried. Russians are worried
that they may lose Siberia to the Chinese who are entering legally and
illegally in huge numbers to cut down trees and work in(and take over)
various industries. The biggest problem for the West is not so much
the rise of the non-West but the legal and illegal massive entry of
non-white folks into EU and US. For EU, Muslims pose a cultural
threat while black Africans pose a physical threat. US, already in big
trouble with its 40 million blacks, is being invaded by more and more
illegal poor Mexicans who want to reconquer the entire SW territory.
Also, the arrival of more immigrants from Africa, Carribean, and other
places means more crazy blacks in America to mess things up. Non-
white folks have little chance of taking control of the brain centers
of the Western World as they don’t happen to be the brightest nor
economically most successful people. But, neither are the brain
centers in white hands due to the fact that Jews are smarter than
(gentile)white folks. So, rich and intellectual Jews have gained
control of the brain centers of the West. Even goy whites come under
the influence of these Jews–Karl Max, Eric Hobsbawm, Noam Chomsky,
Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman. Right or
Left, the Jew is out to destroy white power. Whether it’s diversity-
obsessed multi-culturalist collectivism or individual-obsessed
libertarianism, Jewish influence wages war on the concept of white
identity, white unity, white pride, and white survival.


Anyway, the world appeared to be turning upside down in the mid
century of the 20th century. Europeans, who had enjoyed dominance
around the world for a couple of centuries, not only seemed to be
losing their empire but in the process of being taken over by the
barbarians or alien civilizations(or ideologies). Japan posed the
first real threat but was soundly defeated by 1945. But, the Third
World was rumbling. Chinese communists triumphed by 1949. Communism
was a special case because it was both European and anti-Western. It
was essentially a radical Jewish ideology that had taken hold of
Russians, whose European-ness(cultural or racial) was doubted by many
in the West and even by Russians themselves(as many Russians took
national/cultural pride in their distinctness). In time, a major
branch of communism came to be associated with the Third World, as an
empowering ideology and weapon of non-white folks. Communism inspired
Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, Arabs, etc. Many feared that
communism would sweep across the world, one of the reasons why the
Vietnam War was deemed crucial to both US and the communist bloc. Both
sides saw it as the crucial piece of domino. When US pulled out of
Vietnam, many people in the West were convinced that other dominoes
would fall... and people in China and Russia were eagerly rubbing
their hands in glee at the prospect of world revolution. Of course, it
didn’t happen that way which goes to show how worthless and unpopular
communism is in the long run.


Anyway, it wasn’t just the rise of USSR, Red China, and communist
movements which upset Western European assumptions of the dominance of
the White Man. It was also the rise of the Americans(despite America’s
status as a Western power). This may seem strange given the fact that
the majority of Americans have always been white. Even so, Europeans
saw American culture, manners, assumptions, values, and ideology as a
threat to the European World Order. America was seen as an upstart
nation, a culture-less civilization, society lacking in soul and
manners, and such. Americans were seen as immature barbarians. Many
Europeans saw America as the continent where all their undesirables
emigrated to(though, to be sure, many Europeans had great admiration
for America as well); in contrast, of course, and despite what Emma
Lazarus wrote, Americans saw themselves as people with enough brains
to have left the stinking Old World. At any rate, even though America
had, by the end of WWI, become the mightiest nation on Earth, most
Europeans held onto the view that they, not Americans, were the true
masters of the world, with Brits and French leading the way. Of
course, Germans were pissed at the notion of being left out of the
world order. Regarding themselves as a great people, Germans wondered
why they had to be hemmed in by the British Navy and by the armies of
France and Russia. In a way, the rise of Fascism and Nazism are
strange developments in Europe for both were, at once, as European as
red wine and as alien as a Martian’s teat. On the one hand, Fascism
and National Socialism claimed to protect and preserve the best of
Europe; on the other hand, they were radical futurist ideologies which
aimed to replace the genteel bourgeois order with a militant
corporatist order. It was almost as if Europe had to be radically
altered to be saved; it had to lose itself to find itself.


So, Bridge on the River Kwai has multiple meanings and implications.
It can be read as white vs yellow, Anglo vs. America, traditionalism
vs fascism, upper class vs. lower class, idealism vs humanism, etc.
There are many levels of hierarchy, varying degrees of opposing
dynamics. William Holden is the practical and individualistic
American who wants to look out for #1, himself. Yet, as he becomes
involved in the mission, he gradually becomes more heroic and self-
sacrificing than others. The Japanese are the new overlords, but their
authority–regarding both natives and white prisoners–is unceertain.
Anglos are there to help the natives overthrow the Japanese occupiers,
but Anglos themselves are imperialists. Though Holden is supposedly a
member of a civilization that safeguards freedom and liberty(The
West), he is deviously coerced to join the mission. The most complex
figure in the movie is, of course, Alec Guinness’s character. He’s an
odd blend of heroism, toughness, patriotic duty, and honor... which
perversely and unwittingly turns him into the biggest fool in the
movie. He’s the best and the worst. He cares about his men, his
national honor, and such and such. But, he becomes so wrapped up in
ideals and high falutin notions and rationalizations that he fails to
see his betrayal.


In a way, the Guinness character stands for the hubris of virtue,
honor, and noble cause. People built empires with big ideas about
spreading civilization and the true faith. Communists killed millions
in the name of progress. So in love with the Idea of Progress, they
became blind to of millions of victims. Hitler thought he would save
Western Civilization, yet his obsession with the highest achievements
of the West led him to commit horrible acts. We can go on and on.
Man is a beast without ideas and ideals, without virtues such as
honor, nobility, heroism, and dignity. But, such ideas and values can
also make man intolerant of peoples and things that fall short of the
higher or nobler ideals; man can be barbaric in the fight against
barbarism–even true of Allies in WWII with the firebombing of Dresden
and Tokyo. To be sure, context does matter. The bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, though horrible, were still different than Nazi killing
of the Jews. In actual deed, both involved mass slaughter, but
Americans wanted to end the war and bring freedom to the Japanese
while the Nazis wanted to kill most Jews. Though it makes hypocrites
out of all of us, context and agenda do matter. For this reason, Alec
Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai is not an evil nor treacherous
man; he’s a man whose best qualities oddly enough lead him to the
worst judgment of his life. If he has one major failing, it is hubris
and class snobbery which leads him to think he knows what’s best for
his men and that’s that(and most of his men go along because they too
were raised in a class-based society where blokes are supposed to do
as the gentleman says; in this regard, William Holden is a bigger
threat to Alec Guinness(European values) in some way than the Japanese
are. Japanese may challenge the British Empire, but both civilizations
believe in hierarchy and form(and proper place for each individual).
William Holden represents the free, self-centered, and self-willed
individual; he’s like the Charlton Heston character in POTA.


Anyway, let’s discuss POTA, its meaning, and its significance. In
retrospect, it seems less impressive today as we’ve been bombarded
with out-of-this-world special effects and CGI for the past 30 yrs.
Film tricks and techniques have advanced far beyond anything even
dreamt possible back in 1968. But, this doesn’t necessarily make POTA
worse; the original POTA relied more on story, character, and script
than most of today’s sci-fi or action movies which are all about
speed, explosions, and such.

And, there was a certain advantage in the fact that the director
Franklin Schaffner was a workman-like director than an auteur. While I
have no doubt that Orson Welles or Stanley Kubrick could have made a
more interesting version of POTA, an unpretentious skilled director is
preferable to some pain-in-the-ass auteur wanna-be who turns promising
material into self-deluded aesthetic gimcrackery–just think of the
crimes of Ken Russell or Tim Burton. Schaffner did no more and no less
than what he was hired to do. POTA is not great filmmaking but is
solid filmmaking. And, because Schaffner’s directorship doesn’t
intrude upon other aspects of the movie and hog all the attention, we
can enjoy all of POTA’s parts.


POTA is less sci-fi than satire. Though a film can have trappings of
both satire and sci-fi, there’s a key difference. Satire uses
technological or scientific themes to make a point about humanity
whereas conventional science fiction is primarily interested in the
speculative technology itself. Considered from a scientific angle,
POTA makes no sense and has no plausibility whatsoever. But, it works
wonderfully as satire, as a consideration of our world through a
warped looking glass. POTA is, after all, not about the future or the
dangers/promises of science/technology but about us here and now. It
should be regarded as something like Animal Farm, and indeed could
well have been called Ape House. The pigs in Orwell’s story
represented communists in the Soviet Union, and the apes in POTA are
us today(or at least in the 60s). So, people who complain about POTA’s
bad science are nincompoops.


So, what does POTA say about us, humanity, or whatever? First, we have
to distinguish the book from the novel. The original novel was in
French and the iconic image at the end of the film is not the Statue
of Liberty but the Eiffel Tower. From the French or Old European
perspective, Planet of the Apes is an allegory about Empire and
domination. For two centuries, white Europeans had dominated the
world; they had been the masters where ever they went. But, when the
book was written, much had changed. The shoe was on the other foot.
So, the novel could be interpreted as white man experiencing
imperialist domination–getting a taste of his own medicine–, or as a
white man’s fear(and fascination) of a new order where non-whites rule
the world. 10 yrs prior to the book’s release French got whupped by
monkey-like Vietnamese in Dien Bien Phu, and at the time of its
release French were about to lose in Algeria. So, the themes of POTA
the novel is much like the themes in Bridge on the River Kwai. It’s
about role reversal of the races. The apes could represent the
Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabs, Africans, Muslims, etc.
Interestingly enough, the apes of the novel are far more advanced than
those in the movie(perhaps for budget reasons?). Apes in the novel
have even mastered space travel; indeed, the story begins with two
astronaut apes out in space.
The movie is considerably different. The first movie isn’t really
about role reversal of the races. The element of race enters in parts
2, 4, and 5(Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of
the Apes, and Battle of the Planet of the Apes; Escape of the Planet
of the Apes is like the second half of the novel except that the apes
are celebrities on Earth instead of the human being a celebrity on the
Ape Planet).


The first Planet of the Apes movie is essentially a liberal film on
the dangers of conservatism and reaction. There is no indication that
the apes are supposed to be ‘niggers’, little suggestion of ‘this is
what it would be like if the blacks took over.’ Actually, Tim Burton’s
remake was much along those lines as the apes in that movie did act
black-ish and their world was ugabuga jungle-ish. The ape world in the
original POTA is actually very orderly, and the apes are very
civilized and disciplined, not ugabuga-ish. To be sure, one could
argue that the three different species of apes in the movie represent
different races, with chimpanzees representing the rational Western
whites, orangutans representing the spiritual Eastern Orientals, and
gorillas representing the big and powerful Negroes. But, maybe not.
Though the gorillas in the movie are the blackest and limited to
menial jobs or military duties, they don’t seem to be jive-ass-ish in
any way. Indeed, they seem to be very much the law-and-order types,
kinda like the Roman or Prussian guards. They could be seen as the
fascist defenders of the Ape Order. The orangutans are oriental-ish in
some way but also could be seen as representing Western spiritual
conservatism as well. They would be the Robert Borks, C. S. Lewises,
the Jerry Falwells, or the Thomas Flemings of our society. They are
distrustful of ideas or change that might upset the sacred order of
things. They are like Moses in 10 Commandments holding up the
tabernacle and saying, ‘you better believe this stuff or get your ass
whupped’.
The chimpanzees can be seen as rationalists, scientists, progressives,
liberals, or do-gooders. One may say it was bigoted for the movie
makers to designate spiritual and cultural qualities according to
racial or species differences among the apes, but it has to be seen as
satire–just like different animals in Animal Farm represent different
social groups and their abilities.


Of course, it could be argued that original POTA the movie is indeed
about race because, even though the apes don’t represent blacks-on-
top, Heston plays a kind of a ‘white-nigger-ish’ role. He’s treated as
less-than-human(or less-than-ape as the case may be), and the ape-
supremacist orangutans insist on the inferiority of humans. So, the
white audience might have wondered, ‘how would it have been like if we
were treated like blacks–shipped across the oceans and sold as
slaves?). But, POTA works as a better critique of how humans treat
animals than how humans treat humans of other races. After all, humans
in POTA are not captured to be used as slaves or second class
citizens. They are either killed right away as pests, locked up in
zoos, or used for biological research. Indeed, before Taylor came
along and demonstrated his superior intelligence, even the
‘progressive’ chimps felt no hesitation about using humans for all
sorts of scientific–presumably grisly–experiments. And indeed, this is
how we treat animals today. As long as we believe that dogs, pigs,
apes, and monkeys are less intelligent than us, we think it’s okay to
kill them by the bushel for food or experimentation. Despite PETA,
most of us treat animals like in POTA.



Anyway, the main moral conflict in POTA is between the liberal,
progressive, and rational chimps and the conservative, reactionary,
and religious orangutans. Gorillas don’t enter into the equation until
Beneath the Planet of Apes where they start acting kinda ugabuga-ish
(black-ish) or nazi-esque, or a bit of both. The chimps are like
Clarence Darrow and orangutans are like William Jennings Bryan in the
Scopes Monkey-Ass Trial. Chimps are for open-mindedness, rational
research, and factual understanding. The orangutans are for moral
order even if society must rely on the Noble Lie. Because we humans
identify with Charlton Heston as Taylor, we cheer for the chimps and
howl at the Orangutans. But, what makes POTA interesting is that
Taylor isn’t really a saint. Though not an evil person, he is brash,
arrogant, swaggering, and self-centered. Indeed, it doesn’t seem to
bother him that he left his family and friends behind for his space
trip. He’s always searching for the New, the Undiscovered Territory,
for the Next Adventure. He’s All-American but not necessarily in the
best way. He has a heroic pioneering spirit but also a steely heart.
And, we are not really sure if he’s searching for new lands for the
sake of humanity or running from humanity(in which case he got his
ultimate wish). He’s libertarian. Taylor is restless, like Odysseus.
The difference is Odysseus, for all his wanderlust, wanted to go back
to wife and sonny boy. Taylor just seems to want to travel to new
worlds forever and ever(like some men in America in the 19th century
just wanted to keep going Westward instead of settling and building).
He doesn’t seem to have much feeling for man or nation. He laughs when
one of his mates plants a miniature US flag in the soil of the ‘new’
planet. And, when Taylor comes upon primitive human folks, he looks
forward to ruling over them. Taylor is like a futuristic cowboy
Nietzschean.


He becomes a victim of the apes, but he’s not a saint by any measure.
We identify with him because he’s human like us and because he’s
Charlton Heston(tall, handsome movie star). We sympathize with him
because he’s brutalized by the apes. But, Taylor is the kind of person
who would not hesitate to shoot animals for food or for sport. He’s
not a man of great conscience. One could say he’s even a narcissist.
And, this is what makes the film more interesting than if Taylor had
been merely a good guy victim(like Mark Wahlberg in Burton’s remake).
He’s kinda like a bad guy victim. The chimps sympathize with him out
of pity and decency, but would Taylor have cared if the shoe had been
other foot?


So, even though POTA is essentially a liberal film, it has enough
ambiguity and irony to be auto-subversive. At the end, we can’t help
but agree, to some extent, that maybe the orangutan is partly right
and not the complete villain he seemed earlier. Dr. Zaius the
orangutan is a virulent anti-humanite, but what if what Zaius says
about humans is true? What if there is something about humans or
something in human nature which predisposes man to war, mayhem, and
self-destruction(and making films like Jeanne Dielmann)? This is
where the relative technological underdevelopment of ape society in
the movie as opposed to advanced ape world in the book becomes
significant. In the books, apes are technological masters who rule
Earth and space, but the movie has a kind of environmental message.
The apes, though civilized, seem to live in a certain harmony with
nature. They have houses, towns, places of worship, agriculture, ride
horses, and have guns, but they don’t seem to be dominant over Earth
like we humans are today. It’s as though the apes still in their
Garden of Eden; they have not eaten the forbidden banana. Indeed,
primitive humans seem a bigger threat to the natural order than the
apes. Though the apes first appear goonish and horrifying as they
descend on humans in the cornfield, we later see that humans on this
planet are indeed a rather lowly, grubby, ugly, and wretched lot.


Zaius has a stone heart when it comes to humans and a nasty vitriolic
contempt for chimpanzee rationalism and skepticism, but he’s not
completely inhuman or un-simian as the case may be. He has a profound
love of ape society and its values, sacred symbols, and moral order.
He really wants what is best for ape society. He’s not out to become
dictator or become the richest ape in town or some such. He wants to
preserve the sacred values that safeguard the apes from the temptation
of ‘progress’. Zaius, who turns out to know more about humans that he
lets on, came to the conclusion that humans are innately unstable and
that mankind destroyed itself through hubris, arrogance, and
aggression. Of course, he also fears humans because, whether humans
are good or bad, there’s a possibility that the existence of more
humans like Taylor–via offsprings or from other parts of the planet–
may lead to apes being ruled under a human order(like non-whites came
to be ruled by white imperialists). (Suppose alien beings from another
planet came here, and they had IQ of 1,000. Suppose they keep coming
and coming and having lots of offsprings. Would we be ready to accept
the dominance of the new species? Whether these alien newcomers are
good or bad, we wouldn’t want a different species to rule over us.)
Anyway, the ending leaves us with skepticism, and we are not so sure
about the liberal pieties dominant throughout the film. The
implications are as conservative as liberal, or neither–just plain
nihilist and despairing. The ruins of Statue of Liberty can be read in
many ways. It can be a cautionary warning about science and technology
or about man’s tribal or ideological tendency toward aggression, war,
and (self)destruction–especially alarming in a world with nuclear
weapons. If the ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ hubris for Truth leads to
such, isn’t it better to cling to the Noble Lie? POTA isn’t sure and
neither are we.


Some may argue that Heston-as-Taylor stands for the Jewish-and-or-
Negro threat on the white order. Gentile folks have long feared the
Jews and the Negroes. The Egyptians killed the sons of Hebrews because
of the fear of smart cunning Jews taking over Egypt. In the Demille’s
Ten Commandments, baby Moses is saved by a sympathetic and childless
Egyptian niece of the Pharaoh. Moses grows up an Egyptian but
discovers his Jewish roots and brings mayhem and destruction to the
Egyptians. Europeans have long feared the Jews. In the 19th century,
Jews were emancipated and used their superior intellect to take over
much of European society. The intellectual hubris of Karl Marx led to
the deaths of tens of millions of Europeans. Jews also came to
America, and though no more than 2% of the population, took over most
institutions of power and wealth in record time, and today, USA is
JewSA.
As for the Negroes, Arabs looked upon them as a bunch of wild savages.
Arab travelers and writers in Africa felt mostly contempt for the
‘ugabuga’ half-naked blacks with big muscles shaking their butts and
chucking their spears. And, even though whites folks saw blacks as
intellectual and spiritual inferiors, they could readily see that
blacks were tougher, stronger, and wilder. In a way, Taylor
represents both the Jewishy and Negro-ish threat to the civilized apes
in the POTA. Taylor is relatively strong(possibly stronger than even
gorillas), and it takes a whole bunch of apes to capture and quell him
when he runs loose. Also, Taylor is comparatively strong willed,
impulsive, and such when compared to the apes who are restrained,
disciplined, and cautious. Taylor is full of self-assurance and
cockiness, like Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali in a society of ‘faggoty-
ass’ white boys. Why were white boys, especially Jews, were more
likely take up radical or leftwing politics than negroes were?
Perhaps, Negroes didn’t need no high-faluting ideology to feel tough,
proud, and confident. White intellectuals, on the other hand, were
physically a bunch of dorks compared to the Negroes, so they could
only be tough with an aggressiveideology. Even in the arts, Negroes
tended toward music, a direct and expressive form, whereas white boys,
lacking the same kind of intense energy, hid behind intellectual-ish
avant garde-ism and the like. This is why blacks would never sit
through something as lame as Jeanne Dielmann, Cook Thief Wife’s Lover,
or Salo. Since dweeby white intellectuals cannot stake their manhood
or toughness on charisma and natural masterfulness, they must seek
their special radical-rebel status through cutting edge or high
concepts. This was one of the themes of the movie “Dear Wendy” where a
white guy wraps himself with ideas, symbols, and values to maintain
his authority in relation to the Naturally badass black guy. Of
course, another way white boys try to attain toughness and respect is
by slavishly worshiping everything black, hoping that some black
coolness will rub off on lame white boyness. This explains the pants
wetting faggotyness of white boys who think blues singers are gods and
that Barack Obama is their main god-homey. What a bunch of faggotyass
dorks.
These white boys are even more despicable than Nazis. Nazis were evil
but had a sense of their own culture, pride, heritage, and power.
White liberal and leftist boys are a bunch of gimpass dweebs hiding
behind bogus intellectualist ideologies or sucking up to blacks.
Among whites, Jews actually get something big out of intellectualism
because they are smarter, make more money, set the agenda, and control
our minds(by ownership of expensive media), even those of Negroes.
But, gentile white boys have been relegated to kissing the Jew’s ass
and sucking the Negro’s dick. Though white liberal and leftist boys
know that they are losing their land, their women, and their pride, it
doesn’t bother them because they’ve been raised from cradle to worship
Martin Luther King and worship Jewish power. White liberal and leftist
boys take sick pleasure in the demise of their own people. Though
Jews killed millions through communism and though Negroes practiced
slavery much worse than white men ever did, the Liberal/Leftist Jews
who control the academia and media have brainwashed white gentile boys
to carry the burden of all the evils of the world. What a bunch of
faggotyass white boys. Of course, conservative white boys are no
better for they think their asses can be saved by reading the greed-is-
good fantasy novels of Ayn Rand the odious Jewess.


Dr. Zaius pontificates Biblically about the man’s tendency toward
destruction and/or subversion, and certainly the Jew and the Negro
represent, respectively the most subversive and destructive
tendencies of man. The Jew, at least the modern Jew, embodies the
hubris of intellect, science, technology, and ideology. The Negro
exemplifies wildness, anarchy, jiveassness, and craziness. Look at
what Jewish intellect wrought in the 20th century. Marx’s so-called
science of history and economics led to the deaths of maybe 100
million people. Wherever Negroes have been allowed to run wild and
free, societies ended up like Detroit, Haiti, Jamaica, Watts, Chicago
South Side, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Congo, and South Africa after
apartheid. Jews represent the arrogance of brains-out-of-control and
Negroes represent the dangers of booties-out-of-control. Jews,
brimming with intellectual arrogance, think their genius and
brilliance can fix all problem. It was not just Karl Marx but Jewish
finance capitalists who have wreaked so much havoc. Study the recent
financial crisis, and guess who came up with all those fanciful
financial tools for the New Economy? The Jews. Look at the global New
World Order, and guess who control its brains and heart? The Jews.
Look at the rise of turdboy Obama, and guess who engineered it? The
Jews. (Of course, I’m talking of key Jews in power, not all Jews, most
of whom are decent folks.) Of course, it’s doubtful that the Jews who
wrote the screenplay and directed POTA had these ideas in mind, but
implications are there nevertheless.


Taylor has both positives and negatives. His counterpart in Bridge on
the River Kwai is the William Holden character. I haven’t read the
novel of the Bridge, so I don’t know how faithful David Lean’s movie
is to the source. I don’t know if the novel had an American character.
Maybe Lean’s movie took liberties with the book just as POTA the movie
did with its source novel. But, both movies could be seen as praise
and condemnation of the American spirit. Holden in Bridge on River
Kwai is the most likable character. He looks out for #1, isn’t an
ideologue, isn’t dogmatic, and has a free spirit. That’s all good.
But, he’s also cynical, self-interested, and hustling. Same could be
said for Taylor in POTA. His independent spirit is admirable but often
prickly–even asshole-ish–at times.
During the Cold War, there was liberal/leftist and European fear of
the American cowboy spirit, most hilariously illustrated by Sergeant
Kong missile rodeo at the end of Dr. Strangelove. There was a liberal
and progressive Keynesian/Galbraithian conviction that the modern
world was too complex to be left up to the wiles of unruly
individuals. (The film Right Stuff is interesting for exploring how
rugged American individualism was both utilized and tamed by modern
corporatism.)
The age of collectivism or the welfare state had arrived. Whether in
business or government, whether liberal or conservative, a new
corporate spirit had taken hold, and the ‘organizational man’ was the
new ideal. Goldwater, the champion of cowboy values, lost by a
landslide in 1964, and movies like Dr. Strangelove, Seven Days in May,
and Fail Safe warned us the dangers posed by individuals unwilling to
be cogs in the machine; mavericks in high places were seen as the
greatest threat to mankind. The system was favored over individuals,
and it was imperative that people within the system be team-players
than individualists with personal agendas. (This perhaps explains the
central tension in liberalism/leftism there & then, and even here &
now. On the one hand, liberalism stood for the collective system where
the Best and Brightest ‘organizational men’ devised the ideas, imposed
them from the top, and expected the lower members of the welfare or
bureaucratic state to implement them accordingly. There was a sense
that liberal intellectual ideas were the best, the most scientific,
the most just, the most effective, the most rational, and most
effective. These ideas would be shaped into policies which would then
be carried out by a vast state apparatus and through a corporate
capitalist system allied with the government. Individuals and
mavericks were not supposed to ‘do their own thing’ or disobey orders–
like the crazy military mavericks in the paranoid doomsday movies of
the 60s. But, there was another brand of liberalism/leftism founded on
youth culture, rebellion, counter-culture, rock music, drugs, and
radicalism that rejected the notion of the mega-corporate state as
envisioned by men like John Kenneth Galbraith. The social tensions–
especially related to race–and the Vietnam War made many people lose
faith in Liberal Utopia. The very liberals who had warned people of
crazy rightwing Cold War mavericks got mired in the Vietnam War.
Liberal Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey got tagged with the
maverick warmonger label. Worse, some people assumed that the mega-
modern-liberal state was just another form of corporate state fascism.
The organizational liberal men found themselves at odds with
disorganizational leftist kids who were ideologically more
totalitarian–far left– yet behaviorally downright anarchist and looney
tunes. Today, Obama is trying to synthesize elements of both liberal
corporate statism founded on Ivy League Organizational Man-ism and
maverick leftism founded on radical neo-Marxist ideology or brash
anarchism. He’s trying to be everything to everybody–fellow egghead
intellectual to Best & Brightest Ivy Leaguers and fellow revolutionary
to clueless, naive, or downright stupid idiots who get their ideas
from Chomsky or Emma Goldman. Since the two sides cannot be
intellectually harmonized, Obama relies on pomp, imagery, ritualism,
ceremony, and hype to pave over the differences. Needless to say, the
leftist maverick was different from the rightist maverick. The
rightist maverick believed in law and order and embraced tradition and
honor; what he did want was know-it-all eggheads pushing big
government and social engineering down his throat and up his ass.
Leftist mavericks, in contrast, challenged the order of Organizational
Man and Bureautopia to destroy the entire fabric of traditional
society; they were utopian in their politics and grubby in everything
they did. Patton was a different kind of maverick than Charles
Manson.)


In Dr. Strangelove, General Ripper is a cowboy maverick with his own
agenda. In Seven Days in May, Burt Lancaster acts like a triggerhappy
rancher in a Western. Europeans greatly feared Maverick Americans–and
this fear has been echoed with the presidency of George W. Bush,
perceived to be a crazy out-of-control cowboy(though, in fact, he’s
been nothing than a robot of the Neocons and Big Business).
Anyway, the 60s was a strange time because the counter-culture, though
ostensibly of the Left, was at war with not only the Right but with
much of the Left and Liberalism(of Old School kind). The leftism that
grew out of the 30s was of the collectivist communist kind; Peter
Seeger couldn’t stand mavericks like Dylan-gone-electric and Negroes
acting all uppity. Seeger wanted Negroes to be like Paul Robeson
singing the Internationale in dignified way. And, the liberalism that
grew out of FDR’s New Deal was corporatist, bureaucratic, and to a
certain extent, even hierarchical. Counter-culture of the 60s waged a
war not only on Goldwater conservatism but on the ideal of the
Affluent Society as posited by Kenneth Galbraith. The rise of Nixon
would not have been possible without this great schism within the
liberal/leftist ranks. Just as Dylan’s fan base split into pro-
acoustic folkies and pro-electric rockers, liberalism/leftism split
into the New Deal/Great Society supporters and the radical/anarchic/
maverick/nutty forces. Some of the young radicals were Third World
totalitarians worshiping Castro, Mao, Che, and Ho, others were
Identity Politics folks–Black Panthers, Red Power, etc–, others were
perverts and degenerates, others were hippies and junkies, and etc.
The rabble that made the counter-culture was so varied, contradictory,
and nutty that the coalition couldn’t be held together. The crazy
quilt of liberalism and leftism was in tatters, and the conservative
coalition–also diverse and varied but less outlandish and more polite
with one another–grew to prominence. Anyway, that’s the not the issue
that concern us. The issue is how Americanism was perceived by
Europeans and many on the Left. It was both admired and despised, both
looked up to as the postwar ideal(since Europeans had proven their own
destructiveness, cowardice, and craziness in both WWI and WWII) and
feared as the arrival of uncouth/uncultured barbarism. The American
was both attractive and ‘ugly’. (Things have gotten much worse since
the first decades after WWII. The American cowboy or Ugly American of
yesteryear could be unruly and aggressive but also imbued with certain
values and code of honor. Since then, the new American cultural icon
has become the Negro Thug Gangsta Rapper, especially since blacks
whupped the white boy so convincingly in sports, music, and in the
bedroom. This is why the American Right should not be offended by
Europeans, Asians, and Arabs despising much of American culture. We
should share their loathing of ‘American’ culture now dominated by
disgustingly wild & savage blacks and cunning & devious Jews who
market that garbage all over the world.)


Of course, released in 1968, POTA couldn’t help but attract the young
crowd. Many young people probably identified with Charlton Heston for
his cynicism and anti-authoritarianism. Young people may have seen
Taylor in the same way as Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate. We often
see Taylor half-naked(back to nature child), with the girl(free love),
and with a gun(radical revolution). If more traditional liberals may
have identified most with Zera and Cornelius, the two conscientious
chimps, young people probably identified with the resourceful and
independent Taylor. (Of course, conservatives and right wingers
probably saw Taylor as the All-American rugged cowboy.) Not that
Taylor was some kind of peacenik hippie but within story’s context, he
was a rebel and outsider. This kind of fascination was common within
the liberal-left coalition of the 60s. Rich white liberals were into
radical chic, rubbing shoulders with violent and dangerous mavericks
of The Revolution. Liberal lawyers formed alliances and relationships
with black criminals or radicals in jail. Consider the story of Fay
Stender and other white liberals who championed the causes of
‘revolutionaries’–often black–in prison. White liberals were naive
because they grew up in safe privilege, had only seen the world
through the prism of books, and had been conditioned to feel white
guilt. Do-gooders may mean well, but their naivete can be deadly to
the community as a whole; do-gooders are the types to allow the Trojan
Horse through the gates. They are easily manipulated and used by
radicals and ideologues. This coalition of radicals and naive liberal
do-gooders uses its power in the media and academia to brainwash and
browbeat those who disagree into acquiescence.


Anyway, there was nothing blatant about race relations or race
dynamics in POTA the movie. But, this cannot be said for most of the
sequels. The exception is Escape from the Planet of the Apes, which is
kinda like POTA reversed. Instead of man in a world of apes, it’s
about apes in a world of men. Actually, much of what happens in EFPOTA
is taken from the original novel, where, at one point, the human
character becomes a famous celebrity in the ape world. In the POTA
novel, it dawns on the apes that the human they’ve come to embrace may
breed with other humans and create an intelligent race of man who
shall inherit the world. In EFPOTA, humans at first greet the amazing,
intelligent, and talking apes. But, it dawns on the humans that if
they allow the apes to live and breed freely, the future will be like
the one where the apes came from–a world where apes rule over man.


One could argue that there is a theme of racial fear in this plot, and
we hear such warnings from people like Le Pen and Pat Buchanan today.
Demography Is Destiny, and those who outbreed other groups shall
inherit the Earth. This is true enough, but it’s the sort of truth we
are not comfortable with because we’ve been raised with Christian
morality and have been castrated by the liberal and left-wing Jews
from cradle. It’s okay for Jews or non-whites to worry about their
own survival, but white folks are supposed to face their doom by
beating their own heads with pangs of guilt. Supposedly, the only way
whites can redeem themselves is by white men turning into faggotyass
liberal white boys kissing Obama’s ass and traitorous/treacherous
white bitches turning into slutty ho’s of black men. So, there is an
element of race fear in EFPOTA. But, it’s not blatantly about whites
and blacks. Indeed, in some ways, Zera and Cornelius are like escaped
Nazi doctors. They are medical professionals and decent enough apes,
but they plied their expertise on humans deemed less-than-ape. Zera
and Cornelius didn’t think they were doing anything evil since apekind
considered humans as animals or animal-like. Similarly, many Nazi
scientists and doctors were not evil in the conventional sense. In
their belief that certain races were less-than-human, they didn’t
feel moral pangs in carrying out experiments. One can say that the
ideologies governing the worlds of Zera/Cornelius and Nazi doctors
were evil, but it doesn’t follow that they were evil as individuals.
One can be part of an evil ideology and system but still believe in
morality and goodness. We only need to look at Gorbachev, a man born
and raised in an evil system; even so, there was something
fundamentally decent within him that tried to humanize the system as
much as possible(even if Gorbachev never quite realized that the
system itself was evil). Until Taylor arrived, Zera and Cornelius
weren’t too bothered by experimenting on humans because, as far as
they were taught and could see with their own eyes, humans were mere
animals or animal-like. Similarly, horrible experiments are carried
out on animals today, but most of us look the other way because we
figure, ‘well, they are merely animals’ This why the hogocaust–mass
murder of pigs–continues to this day all over the world and why the
dogocaust goes on in China, Korea, and Vietnam.
In POTA, we sympathize with Taylor and the chimps against the
conservative/reactionary orangutans, and in EFPOTA, we sympathize with
Zera, Cornelius, and her liberal human friends against alarmist humans
who fear an ape-dominated future. But, both films are thoughtful
enough to make us wonder if the ‘bad guys’ have been right all along.
They may be cold and ruthless, but they have no illusions. Dr. Zaius
in POTA is cold-blooded toward humans, but he’s trying to save
civilization for the apes; and the man who shoots Zera and her baby is
a killer but also a defender of human civilization. And, precisely
because we saw POTA, we too fear what will become of man if Zera’s
baby is not killed. For its irony and complexity, POTA and EFPOTA are
the two best films in the ape series. Their main focus is on ideas
surrounding civilization and barbarism, time as an element in history,
the conflict between tradition and progress, the sacred and the
scientific.


Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of Apes, and
Battle of the Planet of the Apes, in contrast, are blatantly about
racial tensions. Beneath the Planet of the Apes continues the story
of POTA, but the main conflict is between mole-like human survivors
who worship the nuclear bomb–a parody of Dr. Strangelove?–the ape
order which has become overrun by angry and aggressive gorillas. The
war between underground humans and the apes in the film isn’t
necessarily racial in nature; indeed, it could be seen as a childish,
simple-minded, and perverse allegory of Cold War mentality. The real
racial element in BTPOTA is found in the rise of the gorillas vis-a-
vis chimpanzees and orangutans. In POTA, the gorillas were not
particularly black-ish in the way they talked, walked, or acted. They
were more like Roman centurions or the Prussian Guard. In BTPOTA, the
gorillas are somewhat more jiveass-like. We see one gorilla giving a
demagogic speech which stirs up a whole bunch of other gorillas. It’s
like Idi Amin or the Black Panthers coming to power. The gorillas
seizure of power can be seen as the rise of fascism, but there is a
black element here because the gorillas seem to be so unruly and wild–
unlike in POTA where they dutifully submitted to the superior
intellect and knowledge of chimpanzees and orangutans. In BTPOTA, both
chimps and orangutans are increasingly threatened by gorilla power.
There is a sense that reason and spirituality are losing out to wild
passion, mob mentality, and jiveassness. In a way, BTPOTA reflects
the disillusionment of liberals in the late 60s and early 70s. White
liberals thought that whites and blacks would have a future together
like in Lilies of the Field or Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner. But,
blacks got wilder and crazier in the 60s and 70s. White liberals
thought blacks could easily be accommodated and socially engineered in
the new progressive order. Blacks saw things differently and made it
clear that they were not interested in listening to or following the
advice of do-goody ‘progressive’ liberal whites. Some white radicals
joined with crazy blacks to start revolution, but both whites and
blacks expended most of their energy on drugs, orgies, internecine
battles, ego trips, moronic ideological fantasies, and self-
destructiveness. The coalition of white liberal do-gooders, the
progressive religious community, and blacks was broken. Just as the
chimps and orangutans are shunted aside in the new gorilla dominated
order in BTPOTA, white liberals were left confused and puzzled by the
late 60s and early 70s. How did things go so wrong with blacks and
unruly young people? The rise of the gorilla order in BTPOTA is
prescient in the rise of black order in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Even South African Jews who did so much to help blacks end apartheid
are now wondering what went wrong. The blacks who took over South
Africa have been acting more and more like gorillas in BTPOTA. Of
course, no amount of sobering data will convince pussified liberal
white boys and dumb white girls trained to kiss Jewish ass and suck
black dick even when their own future is doomed; indeed, white
liberals think it is evil to even insist on the idea of a white race,
white tradition and identity, white power, or the right of whites to
survive as a people. Pussified white liberal/leftist boys think their
main role in life is to wank off to black males taking white girls,
and idiot white liberal/leftist girls think no virtue is greater than
having sex with Negroes and giving birth to their own Obama-babies.
The liberal and leftist Jews, through control of media and academia,
have played an essential role in creating and implanting this kind of
suicidal mind set among white folks.


BTPOTA presents two camps as equally dangerous. On the one hand, there
is the ‘racist’ human survivors who worship the bomb, no doubt
representing right-wing Cold Warriors of the white right in America.
On the other side, you have the gorillas who represent rise of fascism/
militarism or far leftist communism, black panthers, or street mobs.
In between are the few good chimps–liberals–and a couple of humans(who
arrived from the past via spaceships). BTPOTA is a vision of the
future where extremists on both sides take over and bring apocalypse
upon all of humanity.


Conquest of the Planet of the Apes can only be read as the rise of
blacks or the Third World against the white, western, colonialist, or
imperialist order. It is prescient because what we are now seeing in
Europe and America is along the lines presented in the film. Humans
naively think they can peacefully coexist with chimpanzees trained to
play secondary roles and serve humanity–like how European expected non-
white immigrants to come and do all the dirty work and not complain OR
like how Americans expected Mexican Illegals to cut the grass, work in
restaurants, and not make too much fuss–or like South African whites
thought blacks would forever accept apartheid or like Israelis think
Arabs in Israel and West Bank/Gaza could forever be pacified.
Violence is breaking out all over Europe, and we’ve seen massive
Illegal rallies in America. But, this already happened on a larger
scale with grave consequences with the importation of black slaves in
North and South America. Whites thought they could use black slaves
indefinitely as a servile caste. But, blacks were eventually freed.
Then, whites thought blacks would be happy with second class status.
But, that too was challenged. Then, whites thought blacks would be
happy and grateful to be given equal chance in society. But, many
blacks went crazy and violent(especially as they came to regard whites
as pussy and faggoty and began to smell the blood), and we are facing
huge problems related to the black race. Many blacks have become like
the apes in COTPOTA. They say demography and iron will are destiny,
and the apes in COTPOTA have the numbers and the will. They take over
society just like North Vietnamese eventually took over the South,
like the communist guerillas prevailed in Cuba, like blacks took over
many major cities–only to drive them into the ground of course.



Battle of the Planet of the Apes presents a world where the apes now
rule. It is like freaking South Africa after the end of apartheid.
Humans have been allowed to survive but must serve the apes. But,
there is division among the apes. There are the relatively broad-
minded and conciliatory light-skinned chimpanzees and the blacker,
uglier, and more violent gorillas. The fate of both apes and humanity
rests on which side shall gain dominance–the light-skinned chimps or
the black-faced gorillas.
Finally, there is a big battle between the apes and remnants of
humans, and the apes triumph. Apes gain total power to do as they
please. Will the future turn out like in the original POTA, with apes
running everything and humans relegated to animal status and banished
into the wilderness? BOTPOTA defies the iron law of determinism.
Future is what we make of it through free will. So, Caesar the noble
chimp–like Tom Cruise at the crucial point in Minority Report–chooses
to establish a society where apes and humans co-exist equally.
(Actually, I wouldn’t mind a society where humans and intelligent apes
co-exist as equals. At least, there won’t be any ‘interracial’ mating
between the two groups. The problem with white-black integration is
black males take white females while white males are reduced to
becoming pussyboy beta-males sucking up to black males and fooling
themselves that their pitiful submission to black dominance is a kind
of ‘progressive’ attitude when, in fact, it is just the natural result
of the weaker pussy boy bowing down before the tougher male.)


Anyway, BOTPOTA is also prescient due to the rise of Obama. Many
whites are afraid of blacks and worried about the racial future of
this country. Most whites don’t hate blacks but fear them. Most whites
are well-intentioned when it comes to blacks but feel helpless to do
anything about it because white good will is distrusted,
unreciprocated, exploited, and mocked by many blacks. Most black
leaders have been like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan,
Marion Barry, David Dinkins, and worse. White liberals–many of them
Jewish–are allied with such men but feel frustrated and privately
bitter. It’s like dealing with ugly, stupid, brutish, black-faced
gorillas in BOTPOTA. So, white liberals and even some conservatives
look upon Barack Obama as a Caesar-like figure(in BOTPOTA). Caesar is
an angry ape–for what the humans had done to his fellow apes–, but
he’s also a forgiving ape, an intellectual and smart ape, a reasonably
humane ape, etc. Whites look upon Obama like South African whites
looked upon Nelson Mandela. Whites are too guilt-ridden or afraid to
honestly expound on what they hate about the black community, so they
can only make indirect criticism by profusely overpraising what they
deem as the virtues of black society. Whites are too afraid or guilt-
ridden to say, ‘many of you black women are obnoxious, trashy,
hideous, and monstrous’ so, instead, they take someone like Oprah and
praise her to heaven. That’s supposed to serve as an indirect or muted
criticism of the kind of stuff that whites don’t like in the black
community.
By profusely rewarding ‘good blacks’, whites hope to subtly punish bad
blacks. The white message is, ‘look at all the goodies and riches that
will come your way if you act nice like Oprah; if you act trashy,
you’ll end up with nothing’. Problem is too many white people do
reward crazy blacks as well. Just consider the amount of money made by
rappers and other jiveass artists. Mixed signals are sent all the
time. Anyway, there is this hope that by overpraising Bill Cosby,
Oprah, and Obama, the gorillian blacks will take the cue from the
smarter, saner, and more reasonable chimpish blacks. So, Barack Obama
is useful and valuable to whites in the way that Caesar–the son of
Zera and Cornelius–is beneficial to humans in BOTPOTA. In a world
where whites are going to lose power regardless vis-a-vis the ‘people
of color’, it’s better to elevate the saner than the insaner among the
colored kind. But, look at where South Africa is going, and it’s not
working, is it? Chimpish black Mandela was purely symoblic and Mbeki
failed to connect with the masses of gorillian blacks. So, the end
result is the rise of the gorillian and disgusting Jacob Zuma. Only
hard truths are useful in history in the long run, not soft-headed
liberal fantasies. Only fascists dare know and speak the truth.


Anyway, that’s my summation of the Planet of the Apes and thoughts on
whatever it may mean to the world of politics and social reality.