Nomadland and the Golden Age of Hollywood Propaganda

Once upon a time, viewers went to the movies to be transported and inspired, not just entertained. Moviegoers, especially young moviegoers, wanted heroes and heroines who offered some direction in how to live one’s life. During the sixties and seventies avant-garde foreign films were all the rage among young people. But inspiring ideas are needed for such movies. That’s why Hollywood propaganda movies, which focus on human failure in the way Zola’s novels do, cannot inspire. They either become medical case studies or Marxist diatribes. The film Nomadland (an Oscar winner) is both at once. A film by Communist China’s cinematic ambassador to America Chloé Zhao. It is an anti-America cinematic diatribe that criticizes America as a nation that is cruelly exploitative of workers and indifferent to their fate once they become old and useless to corporate America. 

America’s Poor Versus Communist China’s Poor

“About 10% of China population in the country lives on $1 USD a day” (World Population Review, online). Though a big improvement since 35 years ago, numerically, that’s about 1/3 of America’s population. In terms of individual purchasing power China ranks 36 and the U.S. ranks 3 from the top, which is occupied by Switzerland (“Purchasing Power Index by Country 2020,” NUMBEO, online). According to Worldometer the GDP (PPP) and the GDP (nominal) per capita for the U.S. is $59,928 & $59,939, for China $16,842 & $8,612 (“GDP per Capita,” online). In other words, China ranks 79 and the U.S. ranks 13. (“GDP per Capita,” Worldometer, online). Of course, America has poverty. The poverty rate for 2018 was 11.8% of the population. However, for a family of three the poverty threshold in U.S. $19,985; for a family of eight it’s $43,602. That’s a lot more than a dollar a day. And the motorized proletariat in the movie are certainly living on more than a dollar a day, especially driving gas-guzzling RVs. However, money isn’t the only value in life. According to World Population Review‘s Quality of Life Index, the U.S. ranks 15 and China ranks 63 “Standard Of Living By Country 2021,” World Population Review). Finally, according to the human freedom index the U.S. ranks 17 tied with Great Britain and China ranks 129. 

Canada, a Humanitarian Superpower LOL!

Leftist U.S. News ranks United States 24 (2021) for its human rights, down six places down from its 2020 because the police’s brutal treatment of rioters robbing and burning America’s Main Streets. And because the U.S. incarcerates thousands of illegal immigrants each year in “abusive” detention centers. No matter “Federal officials have logged more than 1.1 million apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border this fiscal year” (“U.S.-Mexico border apprehensions for the fiscal year surpassed 1 million in June,” The Texas Tribune, online) and that the invaders refuse to willing return to where they came from.

Farida Deif, the Canada Director at Human Rights Watch (Oh! Then it's no surprise that Canada took first place in the U.S. News “Care about Human rights” rating) couldn’t care less that the U.S. is being overrun by illegal immigrants and as a result is experiencing a demographic shift similar to a climatic shift that’s causing societal deterioration. Would Canada be willing to help out by taking a few hundred thousand of those immigrants?  Apparently not. Hispanics make up only 2% of Canada’s population, and most of those are probably from Spain. It’s easy to be a humanitarian superpower when others are protecting your border. The U.S. serves as Canada’s liver, absorbing the poisons that arriving from south of the America border—such as gang members, drug cartels, human traffickers, you know the people who love to watch dog and rooster fights. “Crime is one of the most urgent concerns facing Mexico [thus America], as Mexican drug trafficking rings play a major role in the flow of cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin, and marijuana transiting between Latin America and the United States.... In 2017, Mexico witnessed a record number of murders with 29,158 homicides recorded.... Mexico is Latin America's most dangerous country for journalists.” Sex trafficking and slavery also occur in Mexico. “As of 2014, Mexico has the 16th highest rate of homicides committed against women in the world” (“Crime in Mexico,” Wikipedia). How cruel of Americans not wanting to welcome that into their society.

Let’s take a look at a U.S. state and city where the welcome mat has been laid out for Hispanic immigrants in order to see America’s future: New Mexico and Albuquerque are America’s future. Here are questions and facts: Why does Albuquerque rank among the top ten for crime in the U.S.? Of the 111 Albuquerque gangs, 61 are Hispanic, 31 black, and 19 white. Hispanics makes up 46.7% of Albuquerque’s population, Anglos about 38%, blacks 15%. Latinos control every aspect of government. Democrats are in complete control. So why the high crime rate and the low education performance? Why is Albuquerque the car-theft capital of the U.S. Why is New Mexico ranked 49th for crime? Why is New Mexico ranked 44 among all states in education (6 from the bottom)? Why? Why? Why? Open borders and criminalized cultures are why. Why are the safest states in the U.S. predominately white?

She wants to be one of the good guys without risk. Won’t find her on the streets fighting gang crime. It’s safer for her to become beloved by criminals by defending them while being protected by the very society being threatened by the criminals she defends. It’s a win-win, no risk situation. “264 police officers were killed in the line of duty in 2020 representing a 96% increase compared to the previous year,” (“264 LEOs killed in the line of duty in 2020,” Police 1, online) yet they are the abusive bad guys and Farida Deif is the true, wonderful defender of humanity. Eighteen of those cops were women. They are real heroines, not you, Deif. “On average, each officer left behind two children.” Deif says, “My boldest move to date was… leaving a coveted job at the United Nations straight out of graduate school to become a researcher at Human Rights Watch” (“Meet Farida Deif: Canada’s Director of Human Rights Watch, Women of Influence, online). So bold! So brave! Deif, why don’t you become a true humanitarian warrior and move to Mexico, ranked by Business Insider 14th among the top 20 most dangerous countries in the world: “In 2017, The Economist estimated over 24,000 Mexicans were murdered.” And “Police stand guard near the site where dozens of mass graves were found in Veracruz, Mexico. At least 170 human skulls were found at the site in September 2018” (“These are the world's 20 most dangerous countries, and photos showing what life is like there,” online). That’s where you need to be. Take the fight to the enemy as those brave Mexican journalists do. I know. Too dangerous. Safer to remain in your office in the Canadian womb protect by the nation south of your border. Getting back to China, U.S. News ranks China 78 and among the 10 countries seen as caring the least about human rights. So I guess 24 isn’t so bad after all given America is now fighting for its life even while protecting Canada. Europe has Switzerland. America has Canada, nuff said. 

America’s Dark Past Versus Mao Zedong

America has had its evil periods such as slavery. But during that time not all states were slave states: before the Civil War (1861–65) there were 19 free states and 15 slave states. And only about 40% of the farmers of slave state had slaves. And a half-million Americans died to end that institution. And yes there was the killing of Native Americans throughout much of its history. I get it. But the vast majority of America’s pioneers were not Indian killers. They were afraid of Indians because people fear what they don’t understand. And then again, the Indians were pagans—the hated ones in the Bible. In a sense, the European invaders had been Biblically brainwashed to hate the Indians and black Africans. And most of the awful stuff that went on and continues to go on in the U.S. is caused by the political movers and shakers of the nation, not by the ordinary Americans who don’t complain but each day go to work to support their family and raise their children.

Then there is Mao (1893 – 1976). It’s ironic that Zhao arrives from a nation created by a mass murderer and then complains about the U.S. About Mao, Andrew Marr says in his A History of the World, “Mao's policies had already made him the greatest killer in human history” (540). And unlike Ghangis Khan, the people Mao killed were his own. Ilya Somin asks, “Who was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world?” Then says, “Most people probably assume that the answer is Adolf Hitler, architect of the Holocaust. Others might guess Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who may indeed have managed to kill even more innocent people than Hitler did, many of them as part of a terror famine that likely took more lives than the Holocaust. But both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people—easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded” (“Who was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world?” The Washington Post).

The Communists Stalin and Mao together killed far more people than Hitler did. In addition, Mao’s ambition was to control the world. He said China “would control the pacific with a huge new navy, and then eventually the world” (Marr 538). That is what China is presently doing, threatening Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and other nations in the region. This is the nation that stole Tibet and supports the nightmare nation North Korea. China created COVID-19 in a lab and then allowed it to escape to kill so over 4 million people. China is one of the two nations that are the greatest threat to America that could potentially trigger World War III, Russia being the other. And America is the Great Satan (according to the movie)? Any repudiation by Zhao of Mao, Communism, or China’s behavior? Not that I know of. She came to America to play the Hollywood game of getting rich and famous by making a movie that condemns America. 

Zhao the Cinematic Manipulator

Zhao is good. She knows how to manipulate an American audience, as did former communist Carl Foreman with his anti-American film High Noon. “He was a member of the Communist Party from 1938 to 1942.” (“Carl Foreman,” Wikipedia). Her movie is very slick propaganda. Of course, we sympathize with the sick and homeless Americans, war veterans, and the elderly. But our sympathy doesn’t mean we have to hate the country these people live in—our homeland. The sick and dying are cared for in hospitals and hospices. The movie says as much. No, America hasn’t found a cure for old age and death. Zhao shows work in America as dirty, hard, and mechanized. Yeah, work is work. Most Americans have always known that. Only the left wants universal welfare. There are scenes of the mechanized workplace of Amazon, but at least America is not like China, a national version of Amazon where workers can’t just quit their jobs and hit the road to become motorized nomads. 

The Wildlands of America

She lectures Americans on nature by showing us vista after vista of nature’s wonders as if being Chinese she has some profound insight into nature that Americans lack. She’ll teach us to appreciate nature. However, when it comes to destruction of nature, China has been one of the worst nations. Communism has been the most anti-nature ideology: “When communist governments took control of Eastern European nations in 1949, they embraced the Marxist ideology on natural resources –that natural resources have no intrinsic value; their sole purpose is to serve humans. At the same time, the governments promoted heavy industry to feed their military apparatus. The combination was devastating to the environment” (“Communism and the environment,” OSTI.GOV, online). The communists ignored the nature-loving Romantic Movements in Great Britain, America, and France.

In “World's most polluted countries 2020” online, China ranks 14 (number 1 being the worst), the U.S. ranks 84 between Netherlands and Denmark. The U.S. achieved the World Health Organization’s best category for the past three years, whereas China failed. No nation in the world has produced as many artists and writers who are naturalists and who celebrate nature—beginning with Thoreau and Emerson. Though America has not always been kind to nature (as Fenimore Cooper illustrates in his 1823 novel The Pioneers), it has tried to become a better caretaker of its natural environments. Republican (hard to believe today) Roosevelt established the United States Forest Service, signed into law the creation of five National Parks, and... proclaimed 18 new U.S. National Monuments, Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument being one. He also established the first 51 bird reserves, four game preserves, and 150 National Forests. The area of the United States that he placed under public protection totals approximately 230 million acres” (“Theodore Roosevelt,” Wikipedia). The National Park Service was founded by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson. And the natural places visited in the film are national monuments or state parks or reserves.

Americans learned from their mistakes. That is why you can visit the wonders of nature in the U.S. The environment movement began with two English speaking nations, Great Britain and the U.S., not with China. And yes, I know about Chinese Landscape Painting. One of my books is The Tao of Chinese Landscape Painting by Wucius Wong. Another is Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen: An Introduction to Their Meaning and their Arts by Nancy Wilson Ross. So you see American conservatives, including me though don’t confuse me with the Republican Party, don’t need you in order to appreciate the beauty and significance of nature. And the great Chinese landscape painters were inspired by Taoism and Zen Buddhism, not by Mao’s Communism. And I’ve studied the writings and poetry of the nature-loving poet Matsuo Bashō. Oh shoot! He’s Japanese so wouldn’t be a big favorite in Japan-hating China. Right?

And let’s not forget this: “When household spending in China goes up, so does the number of elephants lost to poaching, according to statistical analysis by CITES – the organization founded by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species. It examined Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, but only the Chinese market was "strongly related" to elephant poaching. Tens of thousands of elephants are estimated to be illegally killed every year for ivory tusks and China is the largest market” (“Seven deadly sins: the rare animals the Chinese middle class love to eat,” Daniel Flitton online). And this: “The Lychee and Dog Meat Festival (or Yulin Dog Meat Festival) is an annual festival held in Yulin, Guangxi, China, during the summer solstice in which festival goers eat dog meat and lychees. The festival began in 2009 and spans about ten days during which thousands of dogs are reportedly consumed.” (“Lychee and Dog Meat Festival,” Wikipedia).

I don’t believe a person representing a nation that kills elephants and eats dogs should be lecturing Americans on the wonders of nature. Besides, every vista you offer in the movie is through the eyes of a depressed woman and accompanied by depressing music. I recommend movies that celebrate nature rather than present nature as a hideaway for the depressed and disgruntled. I will recommend Into the Wild; Disney’s 2007 nature documentary Earth; Grizzly Man, a movie about a man who loved bears so much that he died for them; Koyaanisqatsi, which actually says something important about nature; The Last of the Mohicans; Bambi; Legends of the Fall; Gorillas in the Mist; and endless western movies that celebrate nature such as Heaven’s Gate; Dances with Wolves; and The Searchers. Gee, they’re all American movies. How could an awful, cruel nation produce great movies that actually say something important about nature that is not depressing? I mean Fern’s chronically depressed face (a person can win an Oscar just by making faces!) is how you see America, but you are still living here making movies and getting richer. Such a fucking hypocrite!

Nomadland relates the lives of America’s motorized proletariat who have taken to the road, as hobos did during the Great Depression, but rather by choice rather than necessity. It’s about death, job loss, shitty jobs, hard times, disease, old age, and more death. The movie is a diatribe against capitalism and a plea to help the struggling underclass. It is a movie that could be watch in a socialist discussion group examining reasons to hate America, fucking America, or by social workers. In fact, there is a Marxist guru in the movie. 

Bob Wells’ Quartzsite, AZ, Marxist Roundup

In the movie there is never a positive view of America’s settled bourgeoisie. They are just suckers trapped in debt for life, working themselves to death for the man, only to be cast off in the end like worn-out tools. Marxist guru Bob feels the same way. He didn’t want to end up like his father, slaving at a Safeway store all his life only to die a couple years after he retired. He wanted freedom from restraint. He “underwent an acrimonious divorce involving two children.” Six years later he remarried. But he found “the stress of marriage and living in a house to be a challenge. He subsequently divorced again and moved into a truck camper... He identifies politically with the far-left, and sees vandwelling as a rejection of modern society's norms” (“Bob Wells,” Wikipedia). Rejecting the values of traditional America by cutting loose and living as a rolling stone. That’s fine, though better to hit the road before getting married and having children. Big question: What about mom and the kids?

In The Dharma Bums (essentially a memoir) Jack Kerouac uses a truck driver to express a similar philosophy of life: “’And you know I say funny [about Ray’s/Kerouac unattached nomadic way of life] but there’s sumpthin so durned sensible about em. Here I am killin myself drivin this rig back and forth from Ohio to L.A. and I make more money than you ever had in your whole life as a hobo, but you’re the one who enjoys life and not only that but you do it without working or a whole lot of money. Now who’s smart, you or me?’ And he had a nice home in Ohio with a wife, daughter, Christmas tree, two cars, garage, lawn lawnmower, but he couldn’t enjoy any of it because he really wasn’t free. It was sadly true.” 

Aesop's Fable of the Grasshopper and the Ants

Actually, most Americans enjoy working and prefer to live like the ants than like the grasshopper in Aesop's fable. The ants are taking food to their nest, i.e., the home and village of their people. Like Kerouac, the grasshopper is only interested in having fun. All during the summer the grasshopper did nothing but eat, sleep, and play. That’s Kerouac philosophy of life, which he justifies as a spiritual quest. Of course what the truck driver says isn’t his view but Kerouac’s. Kerouac cheats here by having a hard-working truck driver express Kerouac’s philosophy of freedom.  However, the truck driver’s raison d'être is working and supporting his family. The conventional lesson of Aesop’s fable is “work today (summer) for what you’ll need tomorrow (winter).” But there is a higher moral lesson which is working to benefit one’s family and community. The grasshopper lives selfishly; the ants live altruistically.

 

Living Parasitically

And being a truck driver is hardly an unfree life. It was necessary for Kerouac to mock the settled life to justify his lack of commitment as a husband and father. It’s relevant here that it is the working truck driver who gives him a ride across country to Ohio and even buys steaks and I assume the “lot of good meals” in “various favorite truck stops.” Later on in the story he benefits in a similar fashion from a truck driver named Ray Breton who not only gives him a ride but buys him a “fabulous dinner” then a “breakfast of pancakes and eggs.” Once in North Carolina he moves in with his mother, sister, and brother-in-law “where,” in his words, “I would spend all that winter and spring meditating under the trees and finding out by myself of all things. I was very happy.” He says, “I was living the happy life of childhood again.” Except he was an adult in his thirties and had already gone through two wives. And it’s not surprising that his brother-in-law “was getting a little sick and tired of my hanging around not working.” Kerouac once told his him “about how one grows through suffering.” The son-in-law responds, “I oughta be as big as the side of the house.” Kerouac’s suffering came from the overuse of drugs and alcohol. His sister and brother-in-law would go back to work after Christmas. Kerouac would hit the road “After that whole winter and early spring of incredible peace sleeping on my porch and resting in my woods [neither was his]. 

The American Majority

My long dead mother lived on a farm during the dust bowl era and Great Depression, and worked for Douglas Aircraft as a wilder during World War II. She married twice to somewhat damaged W.W.II vets. Like guru Bob and Kerouac, the first took off, leaving mom with two sons seven and four. Like Kerouac, alcohol made the second husband difficult to live with, though he was a committed substitute father. She tended to three alcoholic brothers, one spent most of the war in a Japanese prison camp and the other served in World War II and the Korean War. He was a gentle soul. Both men committed suicide. War has a dislocating effect on men and families. She knew about suffering. She had a hard life but never complained about America. None of her people did. My uncles never did. My point here is that contrary to Kerouac’s selfish search for enlightenment, which he in fact never achieved, or the self-centeredness of the motorized nomads of Nomadland, the family has been the bedrock of American society—or should be—not the government. Twice Fern is offered new families to replace the loss of the one she had, but she rejects the offer. Also, she has no children. When offered to care for a homeless dog, she refuses. She has cut herself off from family and community. Like Kerouac she embraced aloneness as a way of life. And like Kerouac she had her small group fellow travelers, comrades according to guru Bob.

Here is a view of two open-road travelers, TJ & Bri, who celebrates America rather than condemn it, who celebrates life rather than whine and complain about it by focusing on the hardships and ignoring the good fortune of just existing in world and in a place that is not like China or North Korea. Their video offers a different experience of Quartzsite, AZ, and the people who visit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAeEiOCzFDg 

The Existentialist’s Alternative

What is needed here is not Marxist complaint or Kerouac’s Buddhist escapism, but existentialism’s emphasis on personal responsibility. In a free society, people must take responsibility for their lives and accept the consequences of their choices, that is, of how they’ve used or misuse their freedom. Being free requires living wisely and carefully. The philosophical inconsistency of Nomadland is that it celebrates freedom but complains about the consequences of living free, of cutting oneself off from family and community. There are millions of Americans who misused their freedom and are now living on the streets of cities like San Francisco and L.A., many by choice, as conservative YouTuber Tim Pool explains. Blaming the nation for individuals making bad choices is what the left does. It wants the State to make those choices for the individual, as is the case in China and is becoming the case in the U.S.

Black Lives Matters does the same thing. The plight of blacks is the fault of America, not the result of making bad choices, of not living wisely. In his books Kerouac expressed affection for black Americans. Yet, after being evicted from a bar “frequented by ‘Negro soul-brothers.’” “Several black men took turns beating him, breaking his ribs. As usual, Kerouac did not fight back” (Kerouac, The Definitive Biography, Paul Maher 472). Kerouac was a gentle soul. Along with his appreciation of life and devotion to friends, that was one of his most likeable virtues. As a result of the beating he died a painful death. It is usually said that he died of cirrhosis of the liver. That might have been the case had he not taken a beating. There were no Beatnik Lives Matter demonstrations. 

Freedom Comes with a Price

Nomadland pretends to celebrate freedom, which is part of its artifice, but blames the nation when the misuse of freedom result in in personal misfortune, though it’s not really misfortune (bad luck) but poor choices that result in ending up poor, unhappy, and alone. Another aspect of its ideological artifice is to celebrate freedom, which Americans would agree with, but then characterize those who have embraced freedom as castaways. “Freedom's just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” The song Me and Bobby McGee celebrates freedom, but if one gives up everything to be free, then one shouldn’t complain when he or she ends up with nothing left to lose. What makes Kerouac appealing in spite of his many faults, which he presents in his books clear as day, is his honesty. He celebrates freedom from the restraints of conventional society but doesn’t blame America when his pursuit of unbridled freedom results in emotional and physical suffering. He certainly wouldn’t join Bob Wells’ campfire of complainers, which is more like an outdoors version of a group therapy meeting, like those attended by alcoholics and drug addicts (unfortunately, Kerouac was both). 

I’m Not against Government Programs that Actually Benefit Americans

You’re thinking I’m an anti-socialist Trump voter. I’m not. Out of a sense of futility, I stopped voting long ago. Voting makes a difference only when one has a choice. My complaint here is that the film’s propaganda unfairly condemns America and fails to inspire except fellow comrades. Perhaps that is why “With 5.5 million worldwide, Nomadland become the lowest grossing film to win Oscar for Best Picture in over 50 years” (Reddit, online). Why do I find inspiring both the novel and the movie The Grapes of Wrath but cannot relate to Comrade Zhao's Nomadland? One reason is that Steinbeck’s story is heart wrenching but inspiring, and like the old western movies it’s mythic and its values ancient and very American. It is about saving the family, not hitting the road like proletariat tourists. Sadly, Steinbeck “joined the League of American Writers, a Communist organization, in 1935.... In 1939, he signed a letter with some other writers in support of the Soviet invasion of Finland and the Soviet-established puppet government” (“John Steinbeck,” Wikipedia). That’s where communism leads: revolution, conquest, and oppression. A terrific ideology! Again let’s not forget that Marxism gave birth to two of history’s greatest mass murders and have triggered the third (See below).

As with Hemingway, it’s necessary to separate the book from the man who wrote it. In part, my mother’s personal history influenced how I read The Grapes of Wrath. Living on a farm in Texas she and her family lived through the dust bowl and the Great Depression. These events inspired the problem centered socialism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He knew how to use socialist solutions without becoming a Marxist or Communist. In The Grapes of Wrath the family comes to what is essentially a government run urgent care center. Steinbeck probably used the facility as a metaphor for his Marxist utopian vision for America. F.D.R., on the other hand, “knew the ideological threats of communism and of fascism were real, and were overtaking democracy in European countries. An etched-in-stone commitment to the status quo would be an invitation to extremists everywhere. By fulfilling the government’s obligation to assist its people, he was instilling confidence in the American system. He was vindicating the Founding Fathers... In Roosevelt’s experience, ideology was something to be feared, not embraced” (“What FDR Understood about Socialism That Today’s Democrats Don’t,” Peter Canellos, POLITICO, online).

So patriots can reject Steinbeck’s no-so-utopian vision and interpret government help in F.D.R.’s fashion—problem-focus socialism rather than Marxist revolutionary socialism which seeks to transform a nation by cleansing its old culture (which the current Biden-Harris administration is doing) and replacing it with one based on Marxist ideology so it can become a happy utopia like the old Soviet Union or today’s China and North Korea. 

What about Christianity?

Another Jewish ideology! I reject it because it was, and still is, I suppose, a revolutionary ideology that centuries ago did what Communism has done in the 20^th century: overthrew culturally superior societies in order to Judaize them in the name of Christ (actually Apostle Paul’s version of Jesus’ more humane Judaism). Catherine Nixey’s book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World describes how the Christian monster immediately got to work to destroy our true heritage, Greco-Roman civilization, and replace it with a myth-based civilization. The revolution would bring about the totalitarian Dark Ages established by the Catholic Church, the oppression of women, the burning of heretics, drowning of witches, the inquisitions, the perversion of priests, and other endless horrors. Ditto that for that other Jewish religious ideology Islam. Nancy Ross says that invading India Muslims “made ruthless attacks on Buddhist schools, monasteries, shrines and works of art.” They burned Nalanda library, one of the greatest libraries in the world. And finally, “The richness of the many jewel-bedecked golden images... further roused the image–hating—and probably also covetous—Muslims to heights of destructive vandalism” (Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen 129]

Europeans and Americans used their Christian ideology to justifying the theft of Native Americans homelands, the destruction or relocation of Native American tribes, and the cultural cleansing of Native Americans and reprogramming them as Christians. Another disagreeable element of Christianity is Jesus’ abandonment of his family and community because they wouldn’t get on his ideological bandwagon:*

“Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you. ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:31-35). Actually, it is God’s will as interpreted by Jesus, as it was by Abraham and Moses and all the other prophets. In Islam Muhammad would be the interpreter of God’s will.

And this. “Then Peter spoke up, ‘We have left everything to follow you!’” Jesus answers: “Truly I tell you... no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age” (Mark 10:28-30). One must ask what about the family, friends, and community who have been abandoned?

*However, there is good reason for believing that this was never Jesus’ attitude but a ploy on the part of the Gospel writers to chastise traditional Jews for refusing to convert to Christianity, which was, in any case, Paul’s invention. The first religiously motivated anti-Semites were the Gospel writers, perhaps best expressed in Matthew’s description of Jesus’ arrest, his Sanhedrin trial, and his trial before Pontius Pilate. What Matthew does is demonize traditional Jews. Thus, the relevance of the descriptions of Jesus’ rejecting his own family. This is the Gospel writers’ way of telling traditional Jews what they must do: reject the old Jewish tribe and join the new Christian tribe. The traditional Jews refuse and are thus guilty of deicide. 

On the topic of abandoning one’s family and community is where we can learn a great deal from the Native Americans of the past. The tribe was everything, something historical, natural, and organic. The tribe was worldly and an integral part of nature. The tribe gave every member a profound role to play. The Jesus of the Gospels offers a new tribe to replace the old, essentially a cult consisting of priests and followers based on a religious ideology or belief system of questionable merit. This condemnation of people who didn’t want to join the new ideology-based tribe was passed on to Islam and Marxism.

Such intolerance was contrary to the pre-Christian civilization of the ancient Greeks who valued above all one’s people (tribe), homeland, and culture. The gods had roles to play but they were secondary.  In her book The Greek Way Edith Hamilton says that in Greece there was no dominating church or creed. She said religious persecution was so slight in Greece that it would not have been considered had Socrates not been its last victim (175 & 181). And those who wanted Socrates eliminated were not priests but politicians. The important word here is “creed,” which is really an older word for ideology. It really comes down to a blueprint created by priests, prophets, or ideologues for how everyone else should live. And the people who don’t want to live according the dictates of the high and mighty big thinkers are condemned as dissidents, unbelievers, heretics, reactionaries, and deplorables. This is the direction Judaism took religion in.

Its intolerant monotheism was totally inconsistent with tolerant polytheism. The Judaisms were essentially ideologies that gave rise to totalitarian societies, in which an idea would control the lives of a population, transforming the people in ideologically programmed clones. The Catholic Church which dominated Western civilization for centuries was Western civilization’s first totalitarian institution, inspired by the intolerant roots of Judaism. Interestingly enough this is not Jesus’ religious philosophy. If one pays attention to the parable of the rich man one sees that Jesus allows the rich man to choose—basically between giving up his wealth to go to Heaven or keeping his wealth and not going to Heaven. It’s a matter of choice. The rich man follows wisdom of the proverb that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, meaning that it's better to hold onto something you have rather than take the risk of getting something better which may come to nothing.

It was only a matter of time before totalitarian religious ideologies morphed into secular totalitarian ideologies. It’s ironic that Hitler turned against the Jews because he believed Jewish communists sought to foment a Communist revolution in Germany.  Andrew Marr says, “It is likely, however, that Hitler’s loathing of the Jews really began shortly after Germany’s defeat in 1918, when he returned with his regiment, as a highly decorated corporal, to Munich.... Over the winter and early spring of 1918-19, anarchists and Communists established a revolutionary ‘Red Republic’ in Bavaria mimicking the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia.... Many of its leaders had been Jewish.” (477). Wow! Had there been no Marx then there would have been no Hitler, Holocaust, Stalin, or Mao. There’s no better proof that ideologies are as deadly as plagues, which they are in their own way.

Getting back to Christianity, pioneer and small-town Americans created small town Christianity. The local churches became hubs for serving members of the community who were in need for some reason—barn building, sickness, home destroyed by a tornado, injury on the job, a death in the family, and so on. Having lived in a small Texas town I witnessed the parishioners of the local churches helping community members in need. As a non-believer I often wondered what could replace the role of the church in small-town communities if Christianity were rejected. Certainly, traditional Americans don’t want big brother taking over their communities as is the case in communist societies. The answer is to keep small town Christianity but don’t allow Christianity to become politicized and serve as a wing of state and federal government. When that happens it becomes just another ideology seeking to control the lives of citizens. Forget about Jesus’ global ambitions, which weren’t really his but were inserted into his religious philosophy of care by the Old Testament Christians Apostle Paul and the other writers of the New Testament. The bad old Christianity—that destroyed Greco-Roman civilization, implemented the totalitarian Catholic Church, and unleashed havoc upon the world—is anti-Jesus.

Jesus’ religious philosophy can be reduced to two worthwhile components. The first expressed in the parable of the Good Samaritan—altruism. The importance of this parable is it rejects the hating-the-other mindset of traditional Judaism. Jews hated the Samaritans as “dogs,” or “half-breeds” because they intermarried with hated pagans. In the parable a Jewish priest comes across a beaten man lying in the road. When he sees the man he passes by on the other side of the road. A Levite does the same when he encounters the man. But when a Samaritan comes upon the man, he goes to him and bandages his wounds (Luke 10: 25-37). Nothing like this is found in the Old Testament. The book is too full of hate and meanness. Jesus’ religious philosophy rejects the Jewish hatred of others. Unfortunately, Old Testament Christianity corrupted his religion of benevolence so that Christian Jews would end up hating non-Christian Jews and Christianized pagans would end up hating both pagans and Jews.

The second is the spiritual life, which has nothing to do with spiritual stuff like souls, which is nonsensical (literally) make-believe, along with angels and all the other supernatural stuff. Jesus’ spirituality is found more in his actions than in his words—which might or might not have been his. Living a spiritual life has to do with not allowing sensualism, materialism, and egoism to take control of one’s life. Socrates said as much. The spiritual life seeks the good that that transcends sensuality and materiality. It has nothing to do with God and everything to do with how one lives in the world, especially how one treats others. The two ethical principles seen in Jesus’ behavior rather than his (if they are in fact his) words are altruism and the Kantian principle of non-interference (Kant’s principle of autonomy).

Also keep in mind that the New Testament’s emphasis on life after death and bodily resurrection came from the Pharisee Apostle Paul, not the existential Jesus who was all about how to live in this life. Resurrection was Paul’s appeal to selfishness. It was a cure all for everything—poverty, failure, disease, and most of all death.  Everyone wants to live forever, and he offered a way of overcoming that bogeyman the Grim Reaper. And that theological quick fix was inserted into Jesus’ spiritual yet worldly philosophy. Jesus’ demands for living a spiritual life were rather severe. Most Christians fail to meet them. Nietzsche said there was only one Christian and he died on the cross. And how many Christians (or Muslims) would there be without the promise of life eternal? It’s not surprising that traditional Jews feared the new religion that offered eternal life to all—even the worst of sinners.

Revenge against the pagans was Paul’s mission, not salvation. That’s not surprising given Old Testament Jews’ hatred of pagans. Paul was no different. He appealed to the selfish desire to live forever that was emerging among the pagans of the Roman Empire as well as among Jews. Both groups were imagining different modes of post-mortem existence. And if it can be imagined it must be true. With the growing awareness of the self as an absolute value, the importance of traditional tribal identity, which required subordination of the self to the tribe, was receding. Paul’s warm-and-fuzzy Christianity appealed to self-interest, but only in scripture. The real-world state and Catholic Church would be no less oppressive of the individual as was the traditional Judaism of the Old Testament.

Such oppression is illustrated by the Golden Calf incident described in Exodus (32:1-35). Thousands of the celebrants would be murdered by Jewish Levite priests and by the Lord’s plague. Why? For being a “stiff-necked people” according to God. But in reality they were punished for acting freely as individuals unwilling to totally surrender their lives to a single religious ideology. The incident was an expression of freedom that harmed no one. But the landed tribes were required to give a tenth of their produce to the Levites. Ditto that for the Catholic Church, which became one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth. So it’s not surprising that free thinking was severely punished. However, Paul’s secret agenda was not salvation of the pagans but their destruction via Judaization, just as converting to Christianity cleansed Native Americans of their cultural identity.

Jesus, on the other hand, was not interested in the saving pagans but in benefiting his own people. He tells his disciples, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6). If idiotic U.S. politicians had followed this advice, there would have been no Vietnam War and no wars in the Middle East. Instead of protecting Israel and saving the endless hordes south of the border, they should have done what Jesus tells his disciple to do: serve your own people. And what does Jesus do? He heals the sick, feeds the hungry, and defends women against the old timey Jews who have them stone to death. His actions tell us all we need to know about Jesus, not his words, since many of his words are not his own. 

The Proletariat Whiners of Today’s America

The hardships suffered by today’s American proletariat do not compare to the hardships endured by American pioneers or the Americans of the Great Depression. Then, there were no urgent care centers or emergency rooms or work at Amazon, drugstores, or sugar beet processing plants. Yet, those people were inspiring in part because they never lost hope. They never participated in Marxist fireside chats. They were not whiners. They were the giants of the earth (a title of a novel about pioneers). Great movies should not be just about failure and hardship; they should inspire. The element of friendship seems to be the dominant good in Nomadland, but it’s a weird form of friendship in which the friends are all solitary travelers. It’s not surprising that a sense of hopelessness runs through the story. And America is to blame. No matter that Chloé Zhao can come to America and make an Oscar winning movie and become rich and famous. America still sucks.

Other than being about motorized proletariat nomads, the movie doesn’t offer much when it comes to the purpose of life. Not surprising given the movie is primarily devoted to complaining about America, shitty jobs, getting old, disease, and death. The film’s protagonist Fern rejects the settled way of life of the American bourgeoisie. But thank god that such people exist because they become doctors and nurses, the mechanics who repair RVs, and the job creators. Fern gives a guy a cigarette and later a sandwich and a little advice. That’s her role as a Good Samaritan. That kind of altruism is easy. Acquiring the skills and education necessary to really help people requires dedication and hard work, not spending all of one’s time on the road driving from one campsite to next. 

Nomadland’s Purpose Isn’t to Inspire but to Criticize

The movie doesn’t celebrate the nomadic life, an American literary theme that goes all the way back to mountain men, Thoreau, Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales, and even Kerouac’s vagabond stories. Its purpose is to criticize America via motorized hobos and a chronically depressed woman. Zhao’s movie politicizes depression, uses depression to hit back at America. By presenting America through the eyes and experience of a depressed woman, America becomes a depressing place, which is exactly how Hollywood sees it. There is no joy, only lamentation.

It is a sophisticated, sinister form of anti-America propaganda. It uses people Americans like and sympathize with—fellow Americans—to turn the audience against America. America becomes a nation that cares nothing about elderly Americans who must fine refuge among themselves. “America doesn’t care about us but we care about us” shouts the film. So the audience’s sympathy for the elderly castoffs becomes hatred for the hard-hearted nation that has turned its back on the elderly. Most of the motorized elderly proletariat have to work dismal part-time jobs to get by. One elderly woman complains that she worked all her life and now lives off about $500 a month Social Security.  We see poor Fern shoveling sugar beets and working in the mechanized hell of an Amazon warehouse. We know other elderly work at Walmart as greeters to make ends meet. Of course, they can’t make too much or else they will lose their Social Security check. It’s all true. Yet, “the [Biden] administration is spending $86 million on hotel rooms to house migrants near the border” (“Biden is spending $86 million on hotel rooms for migrants...,” Business Insider, online). And “Biden administration spending $60 million per week to shelter unaccompanied minors” (Texas Tribune). That much just for the kiddies!

Though the film suggests that certain characters are mechanized nomads by choice, it makes clear that there isn’t much alternative for many elderly. The cunning of the film presents the characters as aged Kerouacs who have chosen to be on the road, but also presents them as victims of a cold-hearted society, unlike warm and cuddly Communist China and its doctrine “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The American left believes that every citizen should receive a living wage whether or not he or she has ever worked or is even an American citizen. The thing about ideologies is that they make utopias look easy on paper. But someone has to pick up the bill. 

Nomadland’s Themes

America uses people and then throws them away when they’re no longer useful.

America the ugly: Nature is beautiful, a foil used to highlight America’s ugliness.

The proletariat work all their lives and then they are abandoned with $500 Social Security check.

The settled life of the bourgeoisie is rejected as materially abundant but spiritually empty. Life’s true meaning is found on the road, an old American theme, but in the movie no one is happy.

Reveals to the public the plight of the motorized proletariat, even though the characters in the film make clear that they seek to live lives out of the public view. Not all Americans want to be fucking celebrities.

Woe are we; woe is America. 

Who Really Are the Motorized Proletariat?

The motorized proletariat don’t pursue anything other than personal experience and simply to exist in a state of constant motion. They are America’s version of gypsies (though gypsies are joyful rather than gloomy, just watch your purse or wallet). However, when they are in need of medical attention or repair for a vehicle or a little work or money to borrow, they turn to the settled people, the detested bourgeoisie. However, the motorized proletariat are not the RV caravaners like TJ & Bri who spend weeks and months on the road exploring and celebrating America national heritage and wonders. They love America and are glad they live in America and not China, North Korea, or some other Marxist run shithole. And there are RV caravaners who instead of whining and complaining hit the road like Good Samaritans. One example: RV Care-A-Vanners Program | Habitat for Humanity. 

Speaking of Shit Holes

The real problem of homelessness, which the motorized proletariat aren’t, is found in cities such as Portland, San Francisco, L.A., and New York. Actually, the motorized proletariat in the movie represent a small group of America’s down-and-outers. On the other hand, the homeless who occupy those urban wonders of decay are legion.  The hordes are found everywhere in streets, alleys, and parks, and they call out to be investigated by a sensitive film maker such as Chloé Zhao: “Come and see our plight.” Yet, for her to make movie about the proletariat occupying those cities would be intolerable to Hollywood. Why? you ask. Because the failure of those cities can’t be blamed on America or on corporate America or on capitalism. The cities are one and all managed by Marxist Democrats. To call into question their success and methods would be to call into question their ideological God: Karl Marx. That would heresy.

But fearless YouTube conservative Paul Joseph Watson did just that with his American sh*thole series that investigates the failure of the cities mentioned above: Portland is a Sh*thole, San Francisco is a Sh*thole, Los Angeles is a Sh*thole, and New York City is a Sh*thole. Here is the link to the last: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVDWbQtbN7U

What is the difference between Watson’s investigation and Zhao’s. Both are depressing. Yes, they are. But Watson’s investigations are not intended to please Hollywood, to be lauded by CNN and MSNBC and all the leftist political pundit comedians such as Bill Maher, John Oliver, and Stephen Colbert, or to win an Oscar and become rich and famous. Unlike Zhao Watson seeks the truth rather than manufacturing a distorted semblance of truth. And Watson’s criticism of the mismanagement of once great American cities by Marxist Democrats puts the blame where the blame belongs—not on America, not on corporate America, but on leftist political ideology. Like Zhao, Watson isn’t an American, but unlike Zhao he loves America and laments the destruction of America (and Great Britain) by left ideology. The days that filmmakers can love America and win an Oscar are over. 

The Hard lives not lived by the Film’s Creators: Getting Rich in the Country they Hate

Chloé Zhao

She has to be a communist since she is a citizen of a communist nation and hasn’t, as far as I know, rejected the ideology or the mass murderer who imposed it upon the Chinese people-- Mao Zedong. Thus, as a communist she logically has to hate America or at the very least see it as an evil nation that exploits and neglects its citizens. Her being a product of communist China it’s not surprising that the film she created would present America as an inhumane nation, no matter that her father was a capitalist and she grew up in wealth and later was sent to America to be educated and where she eventually became a successful filmmaker. In spite of having benefited from America, America is still a dismal and cruel society filled will lost, suffering souls, who are nonetheless the nation’s best element because they are the motorized proletariat. Her sensibilities are purely Marxist. She is reminiscent of the Marxist Jews who migrated to America to get away from oppression in Europe and to become successful in America all the while complaining that capitalist America exploits and destroys lives and thus must be transformed into a Marxist paradise via revolution.  Her view of America is that of Mao Zedong and her film is most likely applauded by the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party. Hollywood loves aliens who make movies about how America is dismal, inhumane society.

Am I committing the fallacy of division by claiming she must be a communist because she is Chinese, not Chinese-American? Perhaps. But then she commits the fallacy of composition by using a small number of motorize proletariat to represent America as a cruel, inhumane nation filled with cruel, inhumane corporations. 

Frances McDormand

Frances McDormand who plays the leading role of Fern in the film was educated at Bethany College and Yale University and became a successful actress in America and won an Oscar for her role in the film, one of her four Academy Awards. Not bad for a woman in America!

David Russell Strathairn

David Russell Strathairn is the son of a doctor, graduated from Williams College, He studied clowning at the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College in Venice, Florida. These people have nothing in common with the nomads of the story. They are pretend people, fake people who portray hardship but have never experienced it but feel qualified to lecture Americans on America’s dark side. 

The Nomads or Motorized Proletariat

The nomads are wanderers who have reject mainstream society. There is nothing inherently wrong with doing this. They are not to be criticized. I’ve driven and camped in many of the states west of the Mississippi with a tear-drop trailer, VW van, and a Chevy station wagon. Often thought buying a camper for such trips would be really cool, but they are way out of my price range. However, the makers and promoters of Nomadland use this motorized hobos to criticize America are hypocrites and no friends to America, its society, its culture, its economic system, its history. Like Democrats, which most likely they are, they hate America. Unlike the nomads, they exist in a cultural space that is anti-America and anti-Americans. The nomads, vagrants, lonesome travelers, wanderers, or hobos can live freely because they live in America. The makers and promoters of the movie are parasites that not only use the elderly down-and-out nomads to get rich but also to promote their Marxist, anti-American ideology.

Yet, let’s not forget that the nomads are motorized hobos by choice. Technology makes their way of life comfortable enough. To many Americans the nomads’ way of life looks like a poor man’s or woman’s vacation. Fern’s sister tells Fern that her lifestyle is like that of the pioneers. That is not true. America’s pioneers had a destination, which was essentially home, family, community, and work, for which they endured hardship. They were not vagabonds who wandered about for the joy of being free and detached from commitments, responsibilities, and obligation. Freedom was not an end itself but means to achieving more profound that sightseeing and cookouts. Perusing personal freedom for itself is selfishness. The film presents the dropouts as wonderful people, saintly really, but that is a skewed view of the underclass. Try living  one the streets with the hobos in L.A., Portland, San Francisco or New York. They are not all wonderful people. Many are drug addicts, alcoholics, dropouts by choice, or just plain crazy from living the crazy life. 

Nature as an Escape from Civilization

Getting back to nature has been a prominent theme of Romanticism and even before that movement in America. Nathaniel "Natty" Bumppo of Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales is perhaps the most famous literary character for wanting to keep space between himself and society. He felt most at home in nature, not surprising given the environment of the first centuries of the American experience was nature. And Natty, Cooper’s spokesman, knew the people truly at one with nature were the Native Americans, whose company he preferred most of all. The motorized proletariat love nature, but the film twists that love as an escape not from the city but from dystopian America. The creators of the film would have us believe that the coolest thing about nature is that it offers places where Americans and America are scarce. 

The Nomadland’s National Anthem*

I remember when I was little

and the streets and town were burning

stores were being looted

and fire bombs being ignited.

I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up

In his arms and raced through the flames and violence

And I stood there shivering in my pajamas

And watched the whole world go up in flames

And when it was all over I said to myself

Is that all there is to a fire?

Is that all there is, is that all there is?

If so, break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is.

 

He took me to the car where the family was waiting to escape.

As we drove I saw beautiful, spacious skies

And amber waves of grain

And purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain

Still I had the feeling that something was missing

I don't know what, but when it was over I said to myself

Is this all there is?

If so, break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is.

 

Then I fell in love

With the most wonderful person in the world

We'd take long walks by the river or

Just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes

We were so very much in love

Then one day went away and I thought I'd die, but I didn't

And when I didn't I said to myself

Is that all there is to love?

Is that all there is, is that all there is?

If that's all there is, my friends, then let's keep on driving

Because no destination is our destination

If that's all there is.

 

I know what you must be saying to yourselves.

If that's the way I feel I might as well just end it all.

Oh, no, not me, I'm not ready for that final disappointment.

But when it comes, I’ll be saying to myself,

So that’s all there is, that all there is.

If so, break out the booze and have a ball

Because life is just one big fucking disappointment.

I’m hitting the road, Jack, and won’t be looking back. 

*This is a desecration of the song Is that All There Is? written by American songwriting team Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller recorded in 1969. The evil Vietnam War had been going on for fourteen years and would continue for six more. A harmful fallacy is to equate America and the American people with the idiocies of their politicians. Unfortunately, those idiots and their idiocies are still with us. However, a people and their nation can be corrupted by politicians in the way a healthy body can be corrupted by cancer. 

The Misguided American Bourgeoisie

The misguided bourgeoisie are the people the proletariat nomads turn too when they encounter problems more serious than a flat tire, such as when they require medical attention or their motorized home breaks down. The misguided bourgeoisie have skills and money and can offer respite when the hardships of life on the road become overwhelming. (Nomad Kerouac’s two places of refuge were nature and home.) Fern (a flowerless plant), the story’s protagonist visits her sister to borrow a large sum of money to get her camper repaired. During visit she criticizes a realtor and family friend for putting people in debt by selling them a home. How hypocritical given she’s there to borrow money that she promises to repay so she can get her mobile home repaired. She’s a hypocrite who doesn’t understand not all Americans are worth $30 million, as is the actress who portrays her. Yet, I’m sure that wealthy actors still have to borrow money to pay for their mansions. Or have fathers who amassed “significant personal wealth,” as in the case of Chloé Zhao. 

Bob Wells’ Roundup

There is never a positive view of America’s settled bourgeoisie. They are just suckers in debt for life, working themselves to death for the man, only to be cast off in the end like worn-out tools. Marxist guru Bob Wells feels the same way. He didn’t want to end up like his father, slaving at a Safeway store all his life only to die a couple years after he retired. He wanted freedom from restraint. He “underwent an acrimonious divorce involving two children.” Six years later he remarried. But he found “the stress of marriage and living in a house to be a challenge. He subsequently divorced again and moved into a truck camper... He identifies politically with the far-left, and sees vandwelling as a rejection of modern society's norms” (“Bob Wells,” Wikipedia). A rejecting of the values of traditional America by cutting loose and living as an outsider.

Bob’s campfire roundup turns out to be a the forlorn motorized proletariat gathered around Bob who’s look a lot like Karl Marx, and looks aren’t the only thing they have in common. Instead of taking about being free out in nature, Bob offers a Marxist diatribe:

“We not only accept the tyranny of the dollar, the tyranny of the marketplace [yes he is referring to capitalism], we embrace it.” He goes on to compare the workers to workhorses willing to work themselves to death and then be put out to pasture, saying that happens to so many of us. “If society was throwing us away, and sending us, the workhorse, out to pasture, we workhorses had to gather together and take care of each other.” Pasture is being used as a euphemism for scrapheap. The worker is used then abandoned to succeed on his or her own. The big question is “Aren’t people supposed to prepare for retirement years?” Apparently not. They should be getting a big check from the government. Thus, we workhorses must care for each other because callous America won’t, unlike in the proletariat utopias Communist China or North Korea.

Guru Bob says, “The way I see it is that the Titanic is sinking [think America] and economic times are changing. So my goal [as your leader] is to get lifeboats out and get as many people into the lifeboats as I can.” Because fucking America ain’t going to help you. I can’t help but think of the American pioneers, which the motorize proletariat are compared to, whining about working and being put out to pasture. They were self-reliant and didn’t abandon home, family, and community because they felt reined in. The working life is supposed to be preparation for the time when one can no longer work. And the working life, not retirement, was what early, pre-Marxist Americans celebrated. Freedom didn’t mean abandoning responsibilities. Freedom meant being self-reliant.

The Marxist lecture is followed by a communal meal for both meat eaters and vegans. The scene is very dismal, not surprising given the crowd is made up of abandoned proletariat. Some then gather around a fire to share sad stories. The first is a Vietnam veteran suffering from post‐traumatic stress syndrome. Next, a story from a black woman about her parents dying from cancer just a week apart. And then a woman tells her story about her and her friend Bill working for corporate America (not just a corporation) for twenty years. Bill died from liver failure a week before his retirement. Are we supposed to blame corporate America for Bill suffering liver failure? America’s life expectancy 79 years, not bad compared to 39.4 years in 1860, but not as good as Hong Kong and Japan (the top two). Let’s face it, the eating and drinking habits of Americans aren’t the most healthful. Who’s to blame, McDonald's or the people who choose to eat at McDonald’s?

Bill “missed out on everything,” as if one’s working life in capitalistic America is meaningless slavery. Then appears the face of the black woman to remind us of that awful period in America’s history. Fern’s depressed expression ends the chat, hardly on a happy note. As if there is no happiness in America. Now the desert comes into view with a cactus, birds, and a coyotes call and fellow proletariat. The night ends with Fern confessing to guru Bob, in his words about her loss of a husband, whole town and friends and village. All because of that damn corporate America. Of course, life is so much better in China. All America needs is a revolution, and apparently it’s getting one with Biden-Harris leading the charge. With open borders Titanic America will be sinking in a sea of post-America immigrants. Then traditional America will become nomads heading out of the cities to the countryside. And according to President Biden that will be a good, a source of America’s strength:

Joe Biden: “ Whites will be an ABSOLUTE minority in America - that’s a source of our strength." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgrliuQW_-Q

Then Bob’s business will really take off: “Wells organizes a yearly gathering in January in Quartzsite, Arizona called the Rubber Tramp Rendezvous (RTR) for people he calls "The Tribe"—fellow vandwellers.” Bob is also a big YouTuber: “In 2015, Wells started a YouTube channel called CheapRVliving. He used the channel to offer how-to videos, interviews with other vandwellers, and philosophical videos utilizing inspirational quotes by noted authors and thinkers. In May 2019, the channel was approaching 50 million views.” The old workhorse is still working and doing quite well as a small-time capitalist in good ole America. 

America

Trump! How I hate that name. An egotistical, swaggering conman, a political simple-minded, klutzy fumbling showman.  Yet, void of intelligence, youth, and humanity the Republican Party can’t let go of him. When I step in a pile of shit, I clean my shoe. Not the Republican Party no matter how bad the stink. Still, he believed America was great, unlike the hate-America Democrats who believe America is an evil nation created by the devil spawn—inherently racist white Americans (it’s in the their DNA) and corporate America inherently (better to work for the government than for a capitalistic corporation, even though government jobs are financially supported by capitalistic enterprises and their workhorses). Americans who believed in their homeland and wanted to believe in themselves couldn’t very well vote for the party that considered them a basket of deplorables. They had no choice, and after dredging its swamp Trump was the best that the truly deplorable Republican Party could offer. He was a disaster who was/is in many ways unAmerican, but at least he didn’t hate the country that made him rich and provided him with Stormy Daniels to complement his alien his sex kitten wife. It came down to a choice between decadence and disloyalty.

The old America is so passé like Laura Ingalls Wilder silly "Little House" books that celebrate a pioneer family on the road not in an RV but in a covered wagon, seeking a place to build a house for the family, eventually a school and community, dad making a barn and cabin, fireplace, chairs, a table, beds, and digging a well, all accomplished by the parents and children and a neighbor working together without the help of the government. These pioneers began their lives in the wilderness and survived, if they did survive, many didn’t, by working hard and living wisely. Fern finds herself depressingly alone in the world because she and her husband had no children. Children provide continuity in a person’s life, so one need not feel abandoned and alone in old age. Of course, children require commitment, hard work, and devotion that require giving up some freedom. 

Dystopian America

Remember the parking-lot scene where Fern tries to park her RV and a security guard shows up and bangs her vehicles and says “Private property, move on.” Oh, the inhospitality of capitalism. In China you can park your bicycle anywhere you like. America’s left—Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Hollywood, Democratic Party, and the Biden-Harris Politburo— are so wise to see the evil in America, but they will rescue America from itself with Marxist-Maoist ideology, a big blueprint that will transform America into a multicultural, wokish, utopia where, most importantly, everyone will think the same and act accordingly. There will no longer be private property. Every home and business will have a door mat that says “Proletariat Welcome.” Already I hear the masters’ words: “Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.”

“By the spring of 1957, Mao had announced that criticism was ‘preferred’ and had begun to mount pressure on those who did not turn in healthy criticism on policy to the Central Government. The reception was immediate with intellectuals, who began voicing concerns without any taboo. In the period from 1 May to 7 June that year, millions of letters were pouring into the Premier's Office and other authorities.” Just as conservative American patriots have been doing on Twitter and YouTube.

“People spoke out by putting up posters around campuses, rallying in the streets, holding meetings for CPC members, and publishing magazine articles. For example, students at Peking University created a "Democratic Wall" on which they criticized the CPC [Chinese Communist Party] with posters and letters” (“Hundred Flowers Campaign,” Wikipedia). They protested CPC [think Democrats] control over intellectuals, the harshness of previous mass campaigns such as that against counter-revolutionaries [think conservatives]. But conservative critics better watch what they say if they don’t want to get cancelled. 

Mao’s Plan for a Utopian China

“The collectivization plan wasn’t concerned only with farming. Mao [think Democratic Party in the U.S.] wanted to eradicate all traces of any pre-existing culture and have his people embrace the new communist doctrine. He banished all religious and spiritual gatherings and expressions, put restrictions in inter-state travel by re-instating internal passports, and worked to end many old traditions and rituals across the country. He wanted everyone unified under one identity.... What followed the “Hundred Flowers” campaign was the historic “Anti-Rightist” [Republicans and conservative in the U.S.] movement in China targeting enemies of the party. Intellectuals, dissidents, students, and artists were persecuted, detained, sent to forced labor camps, and sometimes executed.... Mao not only rejected the act of criticism but completely denied the merit of what his critics were saying. Just one year after the short-lived ‘Hundred Flowers’ campaign, Mao launched the Great Leap Forward: an aggressive collective industrialization program that ended up killing 30 to 55 million people” (“‘Hundred Flowers’ Campaign: Communist China’s Deadly Flirtation with Free Speech,” History of Yesterday, Martina Petkova,” online). 

Mao’s Followers Will Make America Great Again

Whereas capitalist America had a Great Depression throwing millions of American workhorses out of work, utopian China had a liberating revolution that bought the good life to all the Chinese people. With the help of Hollywood and films like Nomadland and the revolutionary leadership of the Democratic Party and the Biden-Harris politburo, America will soon be liberated from its nasty old self and be replaced with a Marxist multicolored paradise (white is not a color). Already the music of harmony can be heard in every city. And high-tech corporations like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube will no longer be exploiters and oppressors of the people but will become the leaders of the revolution, under the guidance of the post-American Democratic Party, of course.