On Liam Neeson and the Philosophy of the White Vigilante

Jonathan Bowden once memorably argued that right wing ideas can be exiled from the political and social mainstream but never totally destroyed, being merely abstracted and displaced into other areas of culture. One such area, he argued, was film, and in certain filmic representations we can still see the semi-self-conscious acting out of the often violent, often suppressed tendencies and latent potentialities of Western man. Bowden cited as examples the number of movie posters depicting a lone White male, gun in hand, gazing into the distance. The movies these posters advertise invariably call upon the themes of a now much-maligned White masculinity. They feature males with singular and non-dialectical mentalities, possessing moral worldviews unclouded by compromise. In a blurring of stark individualism and concern for the group as a whole, these characters often live (and behave) at the margins of the society they go on to protect. They possess an open disdain for social permissiveness, bureaucracy, and procedure, and, finally, they are the spartan, right wing existentialist practitioners of a violent urban vigilantism. They are part of a genre described by one Marxist critic as “repugnantly fascist.”

Charles Bronson in Death Wish 3

The origins of the most modern incarnation of this style of film can probably be discerned in Death Wish (1974).[1] Starring Charles Bronson as mild-mannered architect Paul Kersey, the film charts the transformation of an everyman into violent angel of death following the rape of his daughter and the murder of his wife. The context of the film, which is crucial to the genre more generally, is that the urban environment is a dangerous wellspring of crime and degeneracy and, perhaps most crucial of all, that its chaotic nature lends it a frontier aspect. The frontier aspect of the modern city is necessarily and inescapably racial, but is also political, in the sense that just as all geographical paths to the city are porous, so are the social boundaries within it. Races blend in dangerous criminal cocktails, cops walk fine lines between justice and corruption, and morality is reduced to its most basic and primal form. The city is therefore somehow pre-modern as well as postmodern, representing, despite its technologically advanced facade, a regression to primitive moral states and therefore requiring pre-civilized methods of retributive justice. For Paul Kersey, this meant the summary execution of a series of criminals that the established police force manifestly failed to control and punish.

Kersey’s rampage tapped into a well of feeling in the viewing public, and it is extremely telling that the film was mostly panned by critics who were appalled by its message, while being wildly successful at the box office, making a profit of almost $100 million, adjusting for inflation. It resonated with an America appalled at urban crime, sensitive to cultural degeneration, and uneasy with demographic and racial changes. Because of the commercial success of the formula and its ability to act as a cathartic but ultimately harmless (and potentially titillating) diversion for the anxieties of White America, Jewish producers were keen to exploit the genre. The increasingly gratuitous Death Wish sequels were produced by the Israeli cousins Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, for whom, one reviewer states, “quick, dirty, and cheap exploitation came naturally.”

Bruce Willis as Paul Kersey in the 2018 remake of Death Wish

The formula also rather predictably spawned countless imitations, the most recent of which is the Taken trilogy (2008–2014) starring Liam Neeson as a father leaving a trail of death and destruction in his attempt to rescue his daughter from Albanian sex traffickers, along with numerous other films starring Neeson (heir apparent to Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, et al.) that are mere variations on the same theme of retributive vigilante justice. As part of the publicity effort for his most recent lone vigilante film, Cold Pursuit, Neeson gave a now-infamous interview for the Independent touching on issues of race and revenge that, I will argue, succinctly opens up the inner philosophical and social truths of the genre he has come personally to embody, while also exposing its exploitative and diversionary aspects.

During the course of the interview for Cold Pursuit, Neeson set about explaining how his latest character turns to anger: “There’s something primal — God forbid you’ve ever had a member of your family hurt under criminal conditions. … I’ll tell you a story. This is true.” Neeson then explained that many years previously he had returned from working overseas to find out that a loved one had been raped. “She handled the situation of the rape in the most extraordinary way,” Neeson says. “But my immediate reaction was … I asked, did she know who it was? No. What colour were they? She said it was a black person … I went up and down areas with a cosh, hoping I’d be approached by somebody — I’m ashamed to say that — and I did it for maybe a week, hoping some ‘black bastard’ would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? So that I could … kill him.”

These few sentences were sufficient to shock the interviewer, Clémence Michallon, as well as prompting his nearby co-star Tom Bateman to utter a stunned “Holy shit.” A media frenzy then ensued on publication. Unquestionably, the most controversial aspect of Neeson’s revelation was the racial element, especially his confession to asking almost immediately about the racial identity of the rapist. In 2017 I penned a piece on the Finsbury Park mosque attack in which I framed the incident as being an inadvertent and hamfisted rebellion against the idea that revenge couldn’t even be contemplated. The shock accompanying Neeson’s comments are broadly within the same framework — postmodern liberalism simply cannot conceive that Whites could perceive of themselves as having interests, as being victimized, and as potentially seeking revenge for that victimization. Revenge for being victimized by a Black person and potentially seeking race-based revenge for that victimization is even more beyond the pale.

Neeson’s line of questioning with his unfortunate female loved one is, in light of all available statistics, admirably logical and well-informed. As soon as he determined she had been raped by a stranger, the statistical probability that she had been raped by a Black increased exponentially. What I find most interesting in this fact is not whether or not this makes Neeson a racist, race realist, or any other title or label, but how he came to this knowledge, and in what form. This is what interests me, because it opens up the question of how many other Whites, of all social and cultural backgrounds, implicitly know and understand certain racial realities — knowledge and understanding that only presses itself to the surface when confronted by the tragic and all too real personal manifestations of these realities. The second, and perhaps even more crucial, part of Neeson’s account is that he, for a brief period, sought violent revenge within the context of ethnic conflict. Neeson, in seeking after the elusive ‘black bastard,’ implicitly defined himself as White, and planned to engage in violence within that racial dichotomy.

Overlooked amid the din of ‘racism’ accusations is the stark reality that sexual access to females, often in the context of rape, has been a perennial fons et origo for group conflict, and certainly for vigilantism. Historically, and for a number of cultural and biological reasons, women have been regarded as the vessels of familial, communal, and group honor, and much of the metaphysical speculation in this area has revolved more specifically around the sexual continence of the female (for more on this theme see my 2018 Radix Journal essay “Dante Versus Tinder.”) Conflict and vigilantism have often been predicated upon the notion that rape is not merely a physical attack on an individual, but an assault on the communal honor and integrity of every male within the family, community, or broader group. It is one of the bizarre contradictions of feminism that rape declined in social and cultural significance the more feminism ascended to cultural dominance. We thus inhabit a modern West saturated with anti-rape sloganeering, but which is nevertheless more culturally and philosophically rape-friendly than at any time in history. This is perhaps nowhere better typified than in the calls of veteran feminist Germaine Greer for punishment of rape to be reduced since the crime is often little more than “bad sex.” This latter statement is itself a consequence of the sexual revolution, which set out to eliminate all metaphysical speculations from sex, rendering it merely another transient physical act like eating or defecating, rather than as the sole means for perpetuating a people and civilization.

The shock of Michallon, Bateman, and the media manipulators therefore probably arose not just from Neeson’s racialized deductive reasoning, but also from the apparently stunning revelation that the Irishman would want to kill someone over some mere “bad sex.” And examples of tame Whites whose example Neeson should presumably follow are not in short supply. Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Bristol, Aylesbury, Peterborough, Newcastle, Banbury, Birmingham, Blackpool, Blackburn, Preston, Sheffield, Skipton, Oldham, Leicester, Manchester and Leeds, are just some of the towns were thousands of White British girls were raped by Pakistanis, and they are also towns in which not a single example of vigilante justice was carried out. The reasons are not a matter, as has been speculated in some quarters, of a putative English ‘cowardice’ or another symptom of the decline of “Cuck Island.” Many of these towns had their sense of community destroyed when their economic and industrial base was wiped out in the 1960s and 1970s, an attack on identity accelerated at the same time by the rapid transplant of large ethnic populations. Feminism provided a coup de grâce to any sense of communal honor and integrity, shattering working-class families into jagged shards of dysfunction, petty crime, and alcoholism. The young girls preyed on by ethnic aliens were thus the victims of multiple overlapping alienations from their own culture, stripped of all protections, adrift in a politically correct bureaucracy entirely incapable and unwilling to deal with the foreign threat.

In a cruel irony, of course, the invading cultures possess inverse perspectives, and vigilantism and mob violence are both prevalent and excessive in Muslim and other South Asian societies. In these societies, the metaphysical link between female sexual continence and familial, communal, and group honor remain strong, bolstered by the heightened control of females by male relatives. In fact, the only real examples of mob vigilantism provoked by sexual relations or sex crimes involving Muslims in multicultural Britain are carried out by Sikhs, including a 2013 mob attack on a Muslim restaurant in Leicester following the rape of a 16-year-old Sikh girl.

Whites are arguably locked into an excessive trust and belief in the established institutions of justice, which were carefully curated over centuries for their own group and are more or less unfit to manage the chaotic consequences of multiculturalism and mass migration. White trust in these institutions assumes that the established procedures are always equal and adequate to the threat. A problem arises when the institutions (police, courts etc.) are adequate for the apprehension and punishment of individuals criminals. You may well ask why it is problematic that the justice system is capable of arresting and incarcerating individual rapists, rather than letting them roam free for years on end. To which the reply is that it becomes problematic when people assume that the punishment of individual instances of crime is sufficient in itself for group security: a White woman is raped by a Black man, the Black is convicted and sentenced to x years, and everyone congratulates themselves that justice has been done and moves on. And the Black-on-White rape rate really is the best example of this problem at work. This rape rate is, by any metric, horrifically exorbitant, and this despite the high rate of successful prosecutions in such cases. The fact that the rate of perpetration remains astronomically high is indicative of the broader, systemic problem — that punishment of individual crime in this instance is not adequate in itself to address the overarching threat posed by one group to another.

Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that an attack from outside one’s own group typically causes a stronger emotional response among in-group members, assuming the in-group has an normal level of ethnocentrism. The Yale Law Journal has noted that “Mobs and vigilante groups, for example, drop their standard of evidence dramatically because they have an intense emotional need to punish someone for the commission of a crime.” The “intense emotional need to punish” is a problem that arises only rarely, and in quite specific instances, normally in relation to contexts rather than the crime itself (i.e. rape of a child, or rape of a White by a Black, rather than rape in and of itself).[2] For example, in the historic American South and rural South Africa, the answer to this problem was identical to that which came instinctively to Liam Neeson. White vigilantism, which, like the overwhelming majority of instances of vigilantism, is mob-based rather than individual in character. In its spontaneous and often terrifying aspects, it goes beyond legal limits in order to provide a deterrent sufficient to address attacks on the group that are rooted in the brute instinct of out-group perpetrators, thus addressing and rebalancing racial and social codes. In practical terms, the brutish lust of an offender is unlikely to be moved or moderated by thoughts of complex (to them), long-term legal repercussions. But their intentions may be moderated by fear — by the terrifying possibility of being at the mercy of a vengeful mob.

Whether or not this reasoning is legitimate, arguments have been made within the sphere of moral philosophy that vigilantism is justifiable “under the following circumstances: a breakdown of the legal system, protection of vulnerable individuals, proportional punishments, fair treatment, attempts to mend the larger social issues, and the advancement of justice. Depending on the particular circumstances, vigilantism can be morally justified, morally optimal, or unjustified.” Mob vigilantism is most frequent, and most legitimized, in frontier communities — communities at the interface of competing cultures or populations. They are therefore very likely to recur as we enter ever more heightened stages of multiculturalism. In the historic American West, the lynch mob was overwhelmingly a frontier phenomenon, and the historic American South could itself be seen as a frontier society of sorts, by virtue of its much more radical experience of race than in the north. Today, some of the most acute mob violence outside of Africa and the Middle East (where ethnic fault lines are many) can be found in areas of cultural or ethnic tension, such as among Jewish settlers in the Israeli-controlled West Bank, and in Liam Neeson’s own Northern Ireland, where contested political boundaries and a clash of religious identities has led to more than three centuries of sporadic vigilantism. Even the fictional Paul Kersey, in Death Wish, reminds his grieving son-in-law that “the pioneers would never have allowed things to come to this point and that it is perhaps time for Americans to become pioneers again.”[3] In the past, Whites forged and pushed their own frontiers, but today mass migration and multiculturalism mean that Whites are forced to become pioneers in their own locales. In the multicultural state, one is simultaneously at home and at the frontier.

On a deep level, many Whites probably do possess the required instincts for such an environment. In long-suffering Germany, there have been stirrings of vigilantism in the wake of serious police failures to curb the crime of migrants. Liam Neeson quite obviously possessed such instincts, even if he later apologized for having them, and prostituted his guilt to a baying media. Neeson’s greater crime, from my perspective, is that he is part of the broader problem, being part of a Hollywood industry that trades very heavily on the subliminal anxieties of White America while numbing their instinct for action and offering nothing but empty catharsis. The extraordinarily high Black-on-White rape rate is more or less an open secret, but its emotional resonance now dissolves in the acid of feminism and endless Hollywood depictions of pure fantasy. The real-life middle-aged White male, harboring deep-seated fears about the security of his city-dwelling daughters, can pay his $12 and go watch Liam Neeson destroy Paris in a series of bombastic fights and explosions. At the movie’s conclusion, he can feel a sense of relief as the on-screen hero gets justice against his (inevitably Eastern European) enemies, simultaneously entertained and relieved by the fantasy and acutely aware that he could never accomplish such feats himself. White wrath is rendered cartoonish, outlandish, and beyond reach.

One of the most appalling outcomes of such depictions is when they blend in the minds of those whose instincts (intense emotional response to group trauma) have not been dulled. Depictions of the fictional lone White vigilante are not entirely detached from the almost similarly fictional right-wing “Lone Wolf” we often hear about. Unfortunately, and in very rare cases, some disturbed individuals have in the past reacted to issues such as Black-on-White rape by engaging in misguided and misdirected acts of extreme violence that are more or less re-enactments of outrageous movie vengeance. These individuals, to a man, appear to imbibe the “lone hero” Kool-Aid offered by Hollywood, often regurgitating its platitudes in police interviews. In the aftermath of such events, one is caught between sympathy for the instinct (emotional response and desire for revenge) and horror at the grossly disordered physical response acted out.

All attempts by individual Whites to seek vigilante justice on behalf of the group are doomed to failure because the basic prerequisites for a productive White wrath are, first, that Whites perceive of themselves as a group, second, that they perceive themselves as having interests as an ethnic group, third, that they perceive themselves as being severely victimized as an ethnic group, and finally, that they then act as a group. In the absence of a generality of these perceptions, the impact of any such vigilantism is likely to last about as long as the running time on a Liam Neeson movie. The future leader of the multicultural “frontier” Western nation will therefore not be the man who plays the Lone Ranger, nor the man who stands in the street with a cosh, but rather the man who can rally and lead the posse.

[1] Films and tales of the moral necessity of violence are of course much older, stretching back to The Iliad and further.

[2] Group support for vigilante justice tends to be highest in instances of sex crime. Haas, N.E., de Keijser, J.W. & Bruinsma, G.J.N. Journal of Experimental Criminology (2012) 8: 387. See also Lindquist Dorr, Lisa White Women, Rape and the Power of Race in Virginia, 1900-1960 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 16.

[3] Cawelti, J.G. “Myths of Violence in American Popular Culture,” Critical Enquiry, Vol.1, No.3, 1975, 521-541, 529.

36 replies
  1. English far-right nationalist
    English far-right nationalist says:

    Liam Neeson destroyed any point he might have had by then claiming that Irish Catholics are also victims of racist violence, presumably from the Protestants they’ve been threatening with genocide for centuries. He is no white hero, he is just a typical left wing bigot playing up to the sort of vicious sectarianism that does nothing but divide white people and destroys any hope of real white nationalism.

    • crackleberry
      crackleberry says:

      ‘Irish Catholics are also victims of racist violence, presumably from the Protestants they’ve been threatening with genocide for centuries.’

      Yes those terrible catholics who made the protestants invade and steal thier land. Threatening with genocide? for three centuries? for most of those three centuries it was rather the reverse.

      They have to claim to be victims because they are responsible for attempted genocide, theft of land and massive deliberate sectarian violence. The architect of aparthied said he would give up all of his powers for one clause of the special powers act.Think about all of those Israeli flags fyling over Ulster? Does it remind you of another type of people who invaded and ethnically cleeansed people who had been on that land for millenia only to turn around and claim to be victims?

      The guilty man flee where no man pursueth

      This is a website to unite whites

      keep your psychopathology at home

      • monscarmeli
        monscarmeli says:

        Hear, hear!! Claiming Catholic persecution of Protestants in Ulster is like saying the French and Jeanne d’Arc were the aggressors against England….

    • Neil c
      Neil c says:

      Last time I visited Ireland 25 years back with my sister we had a joke; we had travelled through North and southern Ireland and finally, we saw a Blackman walking down the road, this is after 32 counties,, he looked back as if feeling being watched and he was… Irish! we Laughed we had not seen one Black in the whole of Ireland 96.
      The IRA fought the British and the Irish fought invaders all the way back to Strongbow 800 years ago. Anyway, without getting into arguments about loyalists welcoming Invaders and calling in the Orange one, I find it a shame how they fought each other with a vengeance only to join Europe and be overtaken without a squeak in just over 25 years. Now the place is full of farang.
      Going by Loyalist past behaviour we will have the Muslim Defence association and the Muslim Freedom Fighters instead of the UDA and UFF. And the loyalists will be wearing Turbans and beards falling over themselves to kiss the ass of the Invader-Everyone hates traitors. Vichy dogs.quislings.loyalists etc.

      • Neil c
        Neil c says:

        Here is something of interest;
        William of Orange – Jewish donkey and homosexual​

        William of Orange, known to his bum buddies as Billy the Pink, was a Dutch nobody who was picked up by the Amsterdam Jews with a very particular purpose in mind. The Jews had been run out of England by King Edward I in 1290 for their usury and several of their members being convicted of holding human sacrifices with Christian children as their victims. The Jews had found England a very profitable place indeed, and made many attempts to regain entry – including funding Oliver Cromwell, who toyed with the idea of giving Ireland to the Jews as a New Zion – once he had completed the extermination of the Irish people. In the end, Cromwell never did allow the Jews back into England – though he had taken their money.

      • Neil c
        Neil c says:

        The Jews had been the backroom boys of the Roman empire. They followed the Legions around Europe, buying conquered peoples as slaves – particularly blond haired Celtic and Germanic girls who fetched a high price in Southern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. They had also amassed a fortune by lending at interest to the Roman officers and soldiers – knowing that the Romans would simply rob what they needed to pay back the loans. The main reason that Julius Caesar conquered Gaul was because he was up to his neck in debt and his family was in danger of being declared bankrupt and their estates foreclosed. Caesar boasted that he murdered a million Gauls and enslaved another million – that’s a million Celtic people sold to the Jews as slaves. That was the worst Holocaust in European history – and all because one man was up to his neck in debt.
        I added this post script for those who wish to read the full article[search for william of orange] I have recently started to read about the black nobility-The Guelphs of Venice-interesting reading

        • Richard B
          Richard B says:

          “They had also amassed a fortune by lending at interest to the Roman officers and soldiers – knowing that the Romans would simply rob what they needed to pay back the loans.”

          If “the Romans would simply rob what they needed” why would they bother “to pay back the loans?”

          Did the Jews have a magical army to threaten the Romans with?

          Were the Romans overcome with a bad conscience for not paying back the loans? A conscience they didn’t have while robbing and murdering.

          Why bother to pay back the jews? Wny not just kill them?

  2. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    An often overlooked film with a vigilante theme is ‘Get Carter’, the 1971 version starring Michael Caine. There are no obvious racial undercurrents but worth viewing for excellent acting and gritty urban realism.

  3. Joe Lido
    Joe Lido says:

    The author seems to accept that rape is bad sex. Rape has major ramifications on a person regardless of race. The author also dismisses the impact on a person whose loved one is raped. Neeson thoughts on “Revenge” at the
    time some 40 years ago was terrible as he admitted and apologized,but his admission was intended to accent the issues in his movie. To compare vigilante
    to Neeson actions and thoughts for one week is a stretch. Introduction of rape in English cities by Pakistani without English becoming vigilantes reflects the bias you have. The issues in those cities are very complex, and individual racial actions have occurred. One can always take an incident and find ways to incite more violence and/or prejudice or onecan take this Neeson admittance and rejoice that he at least repented and knowingly that it was wrong. Shame on you.

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      At no point does the author argue that Germaine Greer’s dismissal of rape as “bad sex” is legitimate, quite the opposite. The whole point of quoting her was to show how little our politicians and justice systems seem to think of rape as a crime.

      While you wrongly accuse the author of downplaying the trauma of rape, you yourself have downplayed the enormous gap in interracial rape rates. Yes, “individual racial actions have occurred” as you put it, but Black-on-White sexual assault happens thousands of times for every White-on-black assault. I have read US FBI crime statistics that state there are, on average, around 30,000 black-on-White sexual assaults per year. The number of White-on-black sex assaults is so small it is statistically irrelevant (fewer than 100).

      Clearly the criminal punishment is no deterrent, which is why the author points to our justice system failing to address the issue of interracial crimes like rape, and why fantasies of revenge like Neeson’s are not uncommon (though often left unspoken).

  4. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Remember that all this Jewish media noise was generated by film promo. The ‘standard of evidence’ of the svent, or supposed event, presumably is low. Joyce is assuming that retributive justice is what some people call ‘universalist’, i.e. is supposed to apply to potential rivals. In fact of course revenge doesn’t need a feeling of justice.
    . . . Joyce is assuming race rivals are clearly defined, as in blacks in the USA raping whites. BUT Jews operate by crypsis, with members brought up with hosts, to be as indistinguishable as possible, such as Shatter in Ireland, and large numbers of similar specimens in almost any country – Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, France, Scotland, USA… Probably Jews like the genre because it shows rivals harming and killing each other. I doubt there’s ever been a film showing ‘Jews’ being killed — except of course in Jew holohoax war films.
    . . . It occurs to me that the British Parliament, with two nominally opposing groups, needs a third group, concerned to expose and oppose Jewish corruption.

  5. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    Neeson is a low talent, one dimensional actor. He’s incredibly boring to watch and could never sit through any of his weak performances without dozing off and then hitting the OFF button to end my misery. He thought he would be praised for claiming he overcame his RAYSIS brain. Instead it turned on him and he couldn’t squirm fast enough to get out of his stupidity.

    Neesom = JMO (Joo Modified Organism)

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Several hours ago I was thinking- we need a replacement for GMO- how about JMO?

      I first opened this site 7:00 PM PST.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        … much better than most Americans.

        No offense meant, Mr. Haller, but surely you’re setting the bar pretty darn low!

        Kidding aside, I agree with you about Neeson’s talent, but if in the past thirty years he’s made a film that properly exhibited or exploited that talent, it’s escaped my notice.

        May I offer an obiter dictum about the original “Death Wish,” which I first saw on television around 1990? The thing about it that most elevated my spirits was recognizing a very young Jeff Goldblum, who played one of the vicious scum in which the film abounded. What a pity that, having found his métier, he didn’t stick with it!

  6. neil c
    neil c says:

    A Girlfriend’s friend was drugged and literally carried out of a club by three Blacks, they took her to a ”pre-rented” room and gang-raped her in every orifice-possibly simultaneously( She was mercifully spared the memory only due to memory loss affected by the drug) They were so stupid or arrogant or unafraid of police, they left the used condoms, she woke up alone and discarded in a slummy room.
    How had security allowed three dubious characters past, propping up an obviously ”out of it ” white woman?
    The brothers knew the club via asking and wanted to exact revenge but she said No

    She has two half race kid’s and her dad is one of these idiot’s who thinks he is black and talks like a Jamaican(even though he is a cockney, A case of Transference it seems).{Dont pretend to be black to your daughters!}
    I, also in my travels around the UK have been robbed, beaten, attacked with knives twice and had a gun pointed in my face(for daring to stand up with my Austrian friend against a mob of blacks trying to attack us). 10 attacks in all by Black males, one of which went on to commit 3 killings.
    These were racially motivated. one team specifically attacked whites (Blacks were not targets).
    My old friend from school had a black ”mate” who was busy mugging and then progressed to knife robbery and finally rape. (his father came from Jamaica to start a new life as a Bookmakers punter-never worked and brought to the UK a familial crime wave).
    Oh, and another friend was tied to a motorbike and dragged around an estate (there was an international hoo-ha when three Americans did the same to a black-his head fell off)
    My friend also died on the Operating table and was brought back-he died in his sleep several months later–No connection to being dragged around at 40 MPH. No mention in the press!!?
    If the Black community were afraid of being confronted with thousands of whites hell-bent on delivering justice they may police their own. The white middle class, after the Riots, formed a huge Mob and ”swept up the mess” Admirable in some respects. I remember many white people the day after the Riots( after police shot a ”gunman”) we all nodded in silent acknowledgement of some silent understanding.
    I have not been robbed by a white man.
    As I read on this site when ST Stephen Lawrence was killed the whites handed in the collaborators.
    We have a knife epidemic here because the blacks will not co-operate, gang culture as well.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      It’s really that bad now in the UK? How many blacks and other nonwhites are there? I haven’t been since 1994, but I didn’t see that many outside of London.

      It’s a shame as well as inexplicable how Britain has ALLOWED itself to be colonized by savages, especially given all the handwringing about the British Empire and
      “colonialism”. Surely the British majority could have been made to understand at any point from 1968 to 2019 that government importation of millions of nonwhites was simply reverse colonialism – a government-abetted foreign invasion?

      • Neil c
        Neil c says:

        Leon Haller
        Most of the perps are young black males, at this point west Indians.
        Although many ”Home Boys” are saying that the violence has been upped by Somali’s and others who come from War Zones having been exposed to war levels of violence. They are bringing that ”experience” to the table.
        We are at 3% avg and out of that maybe 1% young black males.
        Violence on Transport has risen dramatically as essays on this blog have attested. New York has considered gang violence as a Virus/disease.
        In the UK access to Guns is still limited so the knife is the next best thing, The fear spreads and many young men carry knives( statistically you are more likely to be stabbed with your own weapon).
        When I was young(80s) it was very rare to hear of a stabbing-maybe the odd Stanley knife slashing-but still rare, you were more likely to be in a fist fight. or A medieval mob brawl.
        The old adage that we are becoming like America is never mentioned anymore.
        I think that it is too late for a political solution, deporting people is just not going to happen.

  7. Crackleberry
    Crackleberry says:

    ‘All attempts by individual Whites to seek vigilante justice on behalf of the group are doomed to failure because the basic prerequisites for a productive White wrath are, first, that Whites perceive of themselves as a group, second, that they perceive themselves as having interests as an ethnic group, third, that they perceive themselves as being severely victimized as an ethnic group, and finally, that they then act as a group. ‘

    Excellent article

  8. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    There’ve been several movie actors who’ve mouthed off more or less in this manner. Famous men, rich as hell, who could have just said “**** you” to all and sundry when instructed by their owners to apologize. They would have been kicked out of the industry and forced to leave town, yet still have lived a comfortable life. But no, they polished up their knee pads, went to work, shlork shlork, and kept on working in that den of vipers. That’s the kind of folks that Hollywood attracts.

  9. William Schnarr
    William Schnarr says:

    One field of art I have always thought has a large zone of very, very smart people on the subject of political and social philosophizing- so much that they would undoubtedly all become white nationalists if given the truthful reasons to do so- is music. Just read some of the lyrics of people like Matthew Bellamy, Thom Yorke, and even Laetitia Sadier…. there are more, but these folks have been some of the most on-the-nose lyricists in the art without breaking a line into non-neutral, specific name and party accusing. Of course, if I didn’t know any better, I would say they are purposely going RIGHT up to the edge of announcing the real enemy, then stopping, but I know that’s not who they are. Still, they are so often so incredibly thoughtful for indoctrinated liberals that they already almost break the ice without even meaning to do so…. consider Thom Yorke’s lyrics in “Myxomatosis….” it almost sounds like he is consciously thinking about the interracial question. Even if he’s not, at least the music is still thoughtful enough and coded enough from its actual intent to be perceived that way somewhere. And that’s why it’s good that those bands are actually popular (Muse and Radiohead, anyway); if their audience took the time to analyze their lyrics, they have a lot of potential towards perceiving the world in an entirely different light than they ever did before.

  10. bruno
    bruno says:

    Years ago that female mentioned in comments, with two nigglets, would have been run out of her community. She’s what’s called a “dreg” of society. Those elements should be residing in one of the official unofficial City States of the US. Whatever labels are utilized she’s no member of any part of EuroMan’s home…

  11. Les
    Les says:

    The rise of the almost geriatric action star. His films in this vein are unrealistic to say the least. I remember when Liam Neeson starred in the action movie Darkman and that was in 1990 almost thirty years ago. Maybe he thought he could get away with his comments on black rape because he starred in the Zionist propaganda movie Schindler’s List – https://codoh.com/library/document/2509/

    • Bob Matthews
      Bob Matthews says:

      To be fair Neeson has had a sizable number of “decent” films Michael Collins, Rob Roy, Darkman amongst others, although one of my favourites is the lesser known “Big Man” in which he plays a bare-knuckle fighter in Glasgow!

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        A tip of the hat to you, Mr. Matthews. I agree that Neeson was very fine as Michael Collins, in a film that also featured Alan Rickman brilliantly playing Dev as the weasel he was. Indeed, I doubt whether in the past fifty years I’ve seen another English-language film whose assumptions and prejudices so nearly coincided with my own!

        Also, a somewhat sheepish acknowledgment that your remarks force me to eat my words in a comment higher in the stack. Still, this may well be the only film of the past thirty years that has elicited a genuinely worthy performance from Neeson (i.e., I don’t share your regard for “Rob Roy”).

  12. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “The frontier aspect of the modern city is necessarily and inescapably racial, but is also political, in the sense that just as all geographical paths to the city are porous, so are the social boundaries within it. Races blend in dangerous criminal cocktails, cops walk fine lines between justice and corruption, and morality is reduced to its most basic and primal form. The city is therefore somehow pre-modern as well as postmodern, representing, despite its technologically advanced facade, a regression to primitive moral states and therefore requiring pre-civilized methods of retributive justice. For Paul Kersey, this meant the summary execution of a series of criminals that the established police force manifestly failed to control and punish.”

    Two things that might prove useful to us now and long into the future are the themes of cultural renewal and political unity. Since cultural renewal would require cultural transcendence, the political unity will have to move beyond the Enlightenment ideologies of the Right and Left.

    Of course, there’s no one on the Left interested in the future of Whites. But they are interested in our destruction. So the more we know about them the better.

    And that’s not possible from a Right-wing point of viiew. That’s why neither one has really ever mounted a constructive, comprehensive alternative to the all important problem of social-management. Because they’re both constantly responding to each other, as if no other alternative exists.

    One reason for this is that both are essentially providential. Even the metaphor for capitalism is providential. I mean, whose invisible hand? Not mine. Not yours. Your average hard-headed middle-class, Republican-voting businessman with their commitment to Enlightenment laissez-faire and free markets never gave a damn about our future (a point the writer J.D. Vance has helped draw attention to). They could never free themselves from the idea, or belief, that economic profit equals social benefit, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

    Nor could the Left see that their rejection of divine providence led to an equally delusive utopia. Though it has to be admitted that their error was even greater than that of the Right. Though superficially a step forward, it was actually an even bigger step backward to a sort of Old Testament authoritarianism. The Left is so carried away by single variables, vague abstractions and absurd absolutes that they can’t see that their position for the last 200+years is simply a secularizaiton of divine providence where “Nature” replaces the word “God”, as in Man is Naturally Social.

    Of course, if he were, that redundancy would hardly be necessary.

    To continue to cling to the Right and Left makes cultural renewal impossible, but recognizing this fact makes cultural transcendence inevitable. It also requires an even greater political unity than the Right and Left could ever offer. If it were achieved. I think that it’s very possible that it can be.

    In any event, and above all, ideological clinging is a great betrayal of European culture (which includes the geographical extensions of North America and South America, Australia and New Zealand).

    And that should be our organizing principle. That we’re all essentially European, ie; White. Our unity should be racial and cultural. They unify us negatively. Why not unite positively? Why let a mob of ignorant, arrogant and narcissistic cultural philistines who have proven over and over that the only thing they have in common is hatred for us, define who we are, or tell us what to do?

    Which brings me to what I think should be an important aspect of our cultural renewal, one consistent with this article. Aggression. When a culture is under attack like ours is it is essential we look into the vault of our extraordinary history for powers of example. People who raised the level of aggression to inspiring heights. And I don’t mean senseless violence. I mean everything from Napolean to Beethoven. Men who raised the bar in all areas of culture. Men who did things no one thought possible. Men who made the world take notice. Men who left us something to consider, to study and master. Men who were Heroes of a Culture Crisis. In short, Cultural Virtuosos.

    Though some of these people might have considered themselves or were considered failures (because neither them or their critics entirely understood the situation they were in, nor could anyone until later), they still qualified as “Higher Men” as Nietzsche called them.

    I’m sorry to say, for those of you here who still think well of him. that I do not include Hitler in this category at all. Far from being a great man who could penetrate through the smoke screen of beliefs For and Against that surrounded him, he was a man who entirely victimized by it.

    He belongs in that category of Fascists AND Communists both who possess the gift of what might be called Penetrating Silliness. That quite extraordinary ability to grasp a situation while totally missing the point.

    What we need are example of competent aggression, not incompetent.

    From that perspective even Paul Kersey is a more inspiring power of example. One that Whites, tired of being set upon, might actually begin to emulate. It very well may be. But why limit ourselves to that alone? We don’t need to simply believe. We need to act. And for taking action it helps to have powers of example. In that regard our culture, our race, offers infinite riches.

  13. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    Dr. William Pierce remarked that he enjoyed films of the James Bond genra. Yesterday, after having read the above post, for $0.99, I purchased the DVD of UNKNOWN starring Neeson (2011) and enjoyed it until the end when the writer had the real hero of the screenplay conquer world hunger by donating his genetically-modified corn to mankind.

    “Goodwill Southern California Bookstores offer exceptional values on a large selection of books in all genres and all in excellent or new condition. Browse through thousands of new titles and classic favorites at one of our convenient locations. Or, shop from the comfort of home 24/7 on our online Amazon storefront. We restock our storefront throughout the day so check back often.
    “When you buy or donate a book to Goodwill, you are supporting our mission to prepare and place individuals with disabilities and vocational disadvantages in sustainable employment. You also do right by the planet, diverting used books from landfills in addition to saving the paper, ink and production waste used in the printing of new books.
    We urge you to open a book, donate a book, read to a child or give a book as a gift. Abraham Lincoln said, ‘The things I want to know are in books; my best friend is the man who’ll get me a book I ain’t read’.”

  14. AlphonsusJr
    AlphonsusJr says:

    Related, two recent interviews of E. Michael Jones are essential viewing on Youtube:

    The Destruction of Nations and Empire


    Ireland Today

    They’re posted on his channel there. Watch soon, before Youtube flushes them for getting too real about the Red Sea Pedestrians.

  15. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    Thanks for the video referral, which I watched today:’Toughest police station in New York.Fort Apache South Bronx 73′. One policeman speaking towards the end, PTL James Finn had an expression of stoic disgust when describing a “little old lady being followed by a mugger going into the hallway then pushed down a flight of stairs, stomped on for a few dollars of her welfare”. The narrator linked crime with poverty as if providing a socio-economic context. Hence white-flight.
    Liam Neeson was very badly advised or is deeply out of touch with the perpetual black victimhood construct in both the US and Grt.Britain. But the fictional screen (anti) hero for myself in my 1970’s teenage years was Harry Callahan; “You don’t assign Harry to a case, you turn him loose” was the hyped-up tagline. Pauline Kael the movie critic described the film as ‘fascist’. In Detective Callahan you had an avenging force who mocked racial quota’s and the neo-liberal strictures. Clint Eastwood, ‘mighty-whitey’ was a natural successor to John Wayne.

Comments are closed.