I’m afraid this column will not be overly original today. Rather, I will point to the same phenomenon so many others throughout the blogosphere have been discussing: the ongoing dispossession of white men in this world of ours.
Visually, this is obvious at every turn, beginning with the coronation of America’s first black president. Just in case this is not visually arresting enough, the new United States Attorney General is also African America, replacing the Jewish Michael Mukasey, who in turn replaced the Hispanic Alberto Gonzales. For good measure, even the Republican Party elected its first black National Committee Chairman, former Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael Steele. (Vdare’s Patrick Cleburne says all you need to know about Steele.)
Eric Holder Michael Steele
How do we explain the fast-growing black presence in government, popular culture, and so on? While the fruits of the Civil Rights era account for some of this move toward center stage, the fact remains that in a socio-economic sense, blacks have yet to accumulate the resources needed to rise in American society. What then is behind their rise?
Likely, most readers of The Occidental Observer are familiar with the litany of names associated with rigorous accounts of lower black IQ and higher crime rates compared to whites. Jared Taylor and his crew do excellent work on this at American Renaissance. Scholars such as Richard Lynn (bio is here), Philippe Rushton (see his bio here), Michael Levin, and Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray have meticulously documented race differences in a variety of critical areas. The facts of highly elevated rates of black crime are documented in The Color of Crime.
My guess is that TOO readers are on page when it comes to race realism, so you will not be surprised by the consistent failure of blacks anywhere in the world to excel in intellectual tasks, let alone to build anything resembling a thriving black civilization. So again, how do we explain their recent success in America?
If you agree with my assertion that black intelligence does not account for their recent rise, you might assert that it’s political. With Obama’s victory, we can find political moves to improve the overall situation of blacks. Take, for example, this demand for a non-white Obama press office.
I belong to the school which argues that it is the century-long effort Jewish groups have made to promote blacks at the expense of whites that accounts for our current situation. This argument is hardly a new one, having been expounded at length by scholars such as Hasia Diner and David Levering Lewis. Both support the thesis that German Jews (the first large group of Jewish immigrants to America) fought anti-Semitism by supporting the black struggle against racism. In other words, they fought anti-Semitism “by proxy” in Diner’s words and “by remote control” in Lewis’s words.
In my view, this account is simplistic. While it does refute claims of totally altruistic motives for Jewish agitation on behalf of blacks, it fails to appreciate the larger goals of Jewish Americans. They were not merely interested in defeating anti-Semitism so that they could participate comfortably in American life. They were waging a massive war on Majority Americans, the results of which we see all around us today.
Let’s focus on how Jews have employed blacks as foot soldiers in one front of this war. Further, let’s focus on only on one segment of that front, leaving aside for now Jewish efforts on behalf of blacks in education, the law, etc. Let’s look at Hollywood, an empire Jews created and still dominate. By the end of the 1960s, the white Protestant elite and the large Catholic ethnic groups in America had lost the culture wars. Joe McCarthy and the other conservative forces that had kept Hollywood in check had disappeared, with the result that Jewish Hollywood was unleashed to embark on its campaign to displace white America.
Nowhere was this more obvious than with respect to the evolution of the black image in film.
An account of black images in film since the 1960s would be a book-length project, but the outlines are clear. Once we got to the 1990s, our book would have plump chapters on the rise of various African American stars joining the only previous black man of note in Hollywood, Sidney Poitier. The black stars are now household names: Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson, and so on. Young people today no doubt take black Hollywood stardom for granted, but the fact is it is a recent phenomenon.
To fit the confines of this short column, let me point to a timely and representative Eddie Murphy film, one that resonates with the rise to power of Barack Obama and nicely illuminates the battle lines of the Jewish war—by black proxy—on white America.
In the year Bill Clinton was first elected, 1992, Eddie Murphy appeared in a film called The Distinguished Gentleman. Murphy played a con man fortunate enough to share a name with the just-deceased U.S. Congressman, Jeff Johnson. Taking advantage of the value of name recognition, Thomas Jefferson Johnson (Murphy) shortens his name and runs for Congress. (Presciently, his entire campaign consists of a promise for “change” — a pledge we would hear repeatedly from a real African American politician in 2008.) Interested only in the easy perks of the job, Johnson is woefully ignorant of the election process and the workings of Washington. Fortunately, he is aided in the campaign by a Jewish retiree from New York and wins the election. (The two even banter in Yiddish at one point.)
On the whole, this film is structured as a “culture of critique” view of Majority American society, which means mainstream gentile society is subjected to withering criticism at all times. All whites in high-status positions are shown to be deeply flawed or hypocritical. This stance calls to mind the thesis of Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique in which he identified a “very deep antipathy to the entire gentile-dominated social order.” Jews on the left —like much of the Hollywood elite— were described as viewing this social order as “an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society.” The Distinguished Gentleman creates this image on screen.
For instance, the film opens with a reception for the original Congressman Johnson, surrounded by throngs of white supporters. Soon, however, the good Congressman is shown in flagrante delicto with his white secretary, an act which brings on his death by heart attack. (His long-suffering wife later propositions the new Congressman Johnson, trotting out the tired canard that Southern white women cannot resist black men.) Clearly, black political power means power over white women.
As the only black man in attendance at the reception, Murphy’s character Johnson is mistaken for a waiter, a sign of the pervasive racism of whites. In fact, Murphy is a con man, one who employs a fellow African American and a Hispanic to extort money from a philandering white company president. Once in Washington, Johnson quickly realizes that all the white congressman and lobbyists surrounding him are con men like himself—only the stakes are far higher. So Johnson sets out to enrich himself by playing the game.
The images of the white male legislators and lobbyists are predictable—they are corrupt, immoral, racist fools. Opposite these white frauds is a cast of aggrieved multicultural peoples—blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, Asians—the whole rainbow coalition.
At every turn, the image of the white is negative. Fat cat gun lovers are shown stupidly hunting ducks with semi-automatic rifles. A white taxi driver ogling street walkers rear-ends Johnson’s car and then shamelessly leaves the scene of the accident.
The moral center of the film, unsurprisingly, is a black man, a theme that was still original in 1992 but by now is de rigueur (and should be passé). The black man is a preacher intent on doing what is right. His idealism has rubbed off on his niece, an intelligent, incorruptible African American lawyer activist who becomes romantically involved with Johnson. (One of her fellow activists is Ira Schecter, a humble and unassuming Jewish do-gooder.)
Exposure to her and her preacher uncle forces Johnson to find conscience. While grappling with this new conscience, he backslides when the stakes get high, but then he risks losing his girlfriend. Finally, he decides on one last scam in the service of doing justice. In a Congressional hearing room, he exposes the white male chairman and greedy white lobbyists, humiliating them in the process.
Then, in the final scene, comes a dialogue I had missed when I saw the film a decade ago. About to be drummed out of Congress for the antics he employed, Johnson and his girlfriend are seen walking away from the Capitol. Lamenting his loss of power, the girlfriend asks what he’s going to do now that he cannot run again for Congress. Pondering his options, Johnson hits on an idea: “I’m gonna run for President!” Remember, this was 1992.
How do we tie this film in with Jewish activism?
First, as I have tried to show elsewhere, Hollywood is a thoroughly Jewish milieu, controlled today more than ever by Jews. No other group—most particularly blacks—has a fraction of the power Jews have to create celluloid imagery. Thus, we need to know what attitudes Jews have toward non-Jews to explain the images they create. As MacDonald again says in the preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique, the heavily Jewish media elite sees to it that Western culture “is presented as sick and evil compared to other cultures.”
Hollywood insider Ben Stein confirmed that argument, writing, “People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be.” He too pointed to the heavy representation of his fellow Jews in Hollywood and other media.
While that speaks to the general case of media distaste for mainstream American culture, the specific case of the black rise to stardom amidst the fall of corrupt majority culture is the story at hand. And here I argue that the recent spate of movies with blacks at the moral center is but part of the larger campaign Jews have waged against whites by using blacks.
MacDonald addressed this in his chapter “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” which appeared in Race and the American Prospect, writing, “The emotional intensity of Jewish involvement in the black-Jewish alliance is mirrored in Jewish involvement in altering U.S. immigration policy; both of these movements had strong overtones of hatred against the entire white, Christian culture of the U.S., which was viewed as anti-Jewish and profoundly immoral.”
This hatred of whites and their culture is routine in Hollywood fare. The Distinguished Gentleman was not the first time Murphy was tasked with playing the role of an underclass black man who exposes the alleged pervasive immorality of majority culture. In 1983, he did a similar job of humiliating elite white males and replacing them in Trading Places. In fact, the theme has become so common now that it is a genre unto itself. Watch, for instance, the 1988 Caddyshack II or the 1991 Addams Family Values. Or watch ninety-five percent of ALL of Denzel Washington’s films, from Crimson Tide (1995) to Remember the Titans (2000) to Déjà vu (2006).
As I wrote in my previous column, Richard Faussette claimed with respect to unchecked non-white immigration that “the system is not broken.” Similarly, I would argue, the Hollywood system is not broken. It produces the plethora of anti-white films that it does because Hollywood Jews are bent on massively critiquing white society . . . and working furiously to physically replace us. What we see on screen, then, is the template for what is actually taking place. Morgan Freeman was the President in Deep Impact; Barack Obama is now the real President.
Edgar Steele recently lamented that “We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the Black man.” Yes, and the Asian man (and woman), and Hispanic man (and woman), and at the top the Jewish man (and woman). Look at the people around Obama, from Rahm Israel Emanuel on down.
The case of heretofore underachieving African Americans suddenly springing to positions of power and prominence is about the hardest to explain on its own terms. As one reviewer of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique concluded, MacDonald’s insights were right because “It is very rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.”
It is ALL more than natural changes. Much of it has to do with vigorous Jewish activism to put blacks where whites once stood. This, as I’ve discussed above, is perhaps nowhere more common than in current Hollywood fare. After all, as one observer wrote, “The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.” Yes, Spielberg and Brooks and Mazursky and the Coen Brothers and a thousand others Jews making movies.