The Men Who Make the Killings

The white male has become the monstrous Other in his own nation, a nation he does not recognize and that no longer recognizes him. In America, his invisible suffering finally found a voice after one mention of liberal Hollywood icon Rosie O’Donnell as a fat pig changed everything. Be-cucked and floundering, the Republican establishment looked on in horror as the enigmatic billionaire Donald Trump improbably won, with the commentariat scratching their heads as to how they could’ve missed all of the signs the much-maligned American hinterland was fed up with being the lone societal punching bag. Various “coastal elites” traversed what they regard as the backwoods backwaters of the nation ostensibly looking for answers, but mostly voyeuristically providing “decline porn” and freak show-peeping to the dinner party set back home. There was no attempt to understand who these people are, or why they are not even so much angry, though they are—furious in fact—but more betrayed and dismayed.

The critic Robin Wood argues that horror films usually elicit our interest in, and sympathy for, the monster. Usually these films become the vehicle for the monster, the Other, that is tormenting the normal members of a society. There is typically the moral hero who must stand against this creature. Robin Wood argues that in these horror films, the monster is usually the center of interest and sympathy from the audience. It is the strangeness and the complexity of the monster that elicits the interest in it rather than in the moral character, the character supposedly so like us; however, the argument that the monster is a center of sympathy from the audience is a far more complicated proposition.

Typically cast out of normal society, the monster returns to have its revenge upon those that define the social norms. For example, in John Carpenter’s Halloween, Michael Myers has been sequestered away from society for the grisly murders of his family, confined to an asylum. On the anniversary of these murders he returns home to wreak havoc. He is the Other, the social pariah, rejected by society. He has a seeming singularity of purpose, but there is more to him behind that mask. This elicits interest in the psyche of this monster: what are his motivations, his back-story, et cetera?

As Robin Wood would argue, Myers’s traumatic background should elicit sympathy from the audience. However, this is not wholly accurate. The assertion that horror films elicit interest in the monster is almost wholly true; the assertion that the monster is a source of sympathy from the audience is another issue entirely. Myers is after all a brutal murderer. And how else do we explain the alien in Alien, for example? It is a creature wholly unlike us as humans. Its motivations and back-story are very engaging, as it is so unlike us, and is a complete unknown (or was until Prometheus and Alien: Covenant). Yet the notion that it inspires sympathy from the audience is absurd. When the alien is finally destroyed, it pleases the audience. The creature seems driven to do nothing but kill, feed, and reproduce.

Perhaps there is more, but we are incapable of understanding the actual thought process of such a creature, if there is one. It is seemingly the complete embodiment of the Other. It does not look like us, it does not act like us, it does not communicate like us, and, most critically, it doesn’t think like us—at least not on the surface. The alien is a parasitic organism. It has an incubation period inside of another live organism before killing it and effectively hatching. From there it feeds and grows.

The alien is driven to thrive and survive despite what havoc it may wreak on the ecosystem around it. So is the alien really that much different from the alien spores eating away at and pillaging what was once a civilization? Physically it bears absolutely no resemblance to us, but its will to survive drives it to kill, feed, and reproduce.

Perhaps sympathy could be derived from the fact that it would not survive if it did not feed, but it’s hard to sympathize with something that has to continually destroy multiple lives, human lives in the context of the film, to subsist. And besides, how can we possibly excuse countless unnecessary killings/murders done not to survive but for sport or out of malice, even if one has had a tough lot in life such as Myers?

And what of situations where we may find ourselves subconsciously rooting for the monster as we do in Silence of the Lambs for Hannibal Lecter? Thanks to his intellect and charm, is that more a reflection of Lecter or of the audience? What does that say about us? Additionally, can we truly call what we feel for Lecter sympathy, or perhaps more of a camaraderie?

The point is this: in horror films the monster is virtually always a subject of interest due to its complexity; any resulting sympathy is usually fleeting as a consequence of the function of its existence as the projected Other more than anything else. The monster or Other serves a purpose—in its inscrutability, it is easy to project our fears and anxieties, and as it is so unlike us, it makes it easier to banish or kill. There is a terrific episode of Black Mirror that deals with this notion of “Otherizing” in war-time. As with the alien in Alien, there is perhaps more linking the monster to the audience than the audience would care to admit, depending on who is doing the seeing and their level of honesty about themselves and what they would do to survive. In any case, a feeling of sympathy is a reflection of removal from a situation. Empathy is where one projects oneself into the shoes of another, so to speak.

This is why the study of Alien and Silence of the Lambs is so interesting. The two monsters could, on the surface, not be more different. Yet they both inhabit a similar space in our cultural framework. The alien is truly not us; it is another species. Hannibal Lecter has committed one of the greatest taboos in Western society: cannibalism. Lecter may not be able to help his cannibalistic nature, but in a way he is more inhuman than the alien. There is a certain amount of ritual involved in his killings. He is so cold and calculating on the one hand that he is almost inhuman. Yet he is also the epitome of what humans once aimed for: he is cultured, he is intellectual, and he values things like art and classical music—in this respect the alien has human characteristics. Yet it is motivated by a profoundly base desire of survival. The alien forces us to consider what we would do in order to survive. It is difficult to forgive the alien for surviving when its life costs numerous human lives, members of our tribe so to speak, but the survival of humanity revolves around the consumption of other organisms. How are humans any different to the alien than cattle or chickens are to humans? Does the alien know morality? As it clearly does not, survival or no, the alien must be expelled. To embrace this alien, especially at the expense of one’s own, is to commit suicide.

Hannibal Lecter’s consumption of human flesh is a luxury, as he does not have to eat it strictly from a needs standpoint—there are plenty of other food options available. He is compelled to consume human flesh simply because psychologically he feels that he has to. What would we do if there was no other option to survive other than to consume human flesh? The aversion to cannibalism is quite pronounced in Western culture, and for good reason, but in many non-Western societies, it is still relatively commonplace. The idea of cannibalism sickens us, but it also fascinates us. The multifaceted elements of Lecter absolutely captivate us as an audience. Lecter looks like us in a way that the alien does not, but in many ways he is far more alien.

To my mind, Lecter is the embodiment of the cosmopolitan “elite” occupying positions of power and trying to play God.

Most horror films on the surface are a force of good pitted against a force of evil. Clarice Starling is a force of good—she is moral and she is a servant of the law. She upholds the law and is thus a reflection of our morals as a society. Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill are the Other; their behavior is completely unacceptable according to our cultural values. We do not condone eating people or killing them and fashioning accessories out of their skin, although there seems to be a very odd and deeply disconcerting fascination in the “trans community” with Buffalo Bill.

We do condone bringing people like Buffalo Bill to justice according to our laws and confining them away from the rest of society. In fact, most would favor retributive justice, resulting in execution of the cannibal, belying the notion that liberalism is natural. Regarding the alien, whether it is cognizant of its crimes or not, this does not concern us at the basest level. What concerns us—what should concern us at any rate—is our own survival.

In the case of Silence of the Lambs we have Clarice, who despite getting help from Hannibal Lecter to catch Buffalo Bill, does not deviate from her ultimate goal of catching the killer and bringing him to justice. Despite her relationship with Lecter, when he manages to get free from prison, Clarice does not maintain the collaborative spirit. Rather, despite the long odds, she attempts to get him to reveal something about his location over the phone. She does not compromise her morals. Conversely, Lecter does not have an ideology as a man governed by base desires, yet completely in touch with the most refined aspects of high our culture while, and this is crucial, being himself an alien.

The same fascination with back-story, the unseen, and the monster extends to Silence of the Lambs. We see very little of the true horrors of Hannibal Lecter in the film, and perhaps that is why it is so easy to be seduced by his humor and charm. It isn’t until the countless other sequels that we get more than a glimpse into the depths evil that this man commits. The idea of his actions being off-screen, his past shrouded in mystery, so much of this man unseen, is a very Gothic idea. David Sexton writes:

Another bloodline passes through Stoker’s Dracula. We learn in Hannibal that, like Dracula, Lecter is a central European aristocrat. His father, too, was a count and he believes himself to be descended from a twelfth-century Tuscan named Bevisangue (blood-drinker). Like Dracula, Lecter drains his victims. After meeting him for the first time, Clarice Starling feels ‘suddenly empty, as though she had given blood’. Lecter, like Dracula, has superhuman strength; he commands the beasts; and he lives in the night. Barney, the warder, tells Clarice on her second visit that Lecter is always awake at night, ‘even when his lights are off’. Many of his physical attributes resemble those of Dracula. ‘His cultured voice has a slight metallic rasp beneath it, possibly from disuse’, we are told in The Silence of the Lambs. Dracula, says Stoker, speaks in a ‘harsh, metallic whisper’. Dracula’s eyes are red, Jonathan Harker realises when he first meets him, in the guise of a coachman. Later, when he sees Dracula with his female acolytes, he says: ‘The red light in them was lurid, as if the flames of hell-fire blazed behind them.’ So too: ‘Dr Lecter’s eyes are maroon and they reflect the light in pinpoints of red. Sometimes the points of light seem to fly like sparks to his centre.[1]

In direct opposition to the red of Dracula and Lecter is the red of consanguinity, or shared blood, the bonds of which, indeed, are thicker than water (typically colored or referred to as blue). The red is a nation’s life-blood, a nation that obviously cannot survive without its people.

The precise point at which all of this alienism radiates outward in the modern world is with a hostile “elite” that is itself alien. Of course the “elite” is not exclusively Jewish, but it has become, by necessity as a survival mechanism, philo-Semitic. In order to understand the illness slowly killing Western civilization it is crucial to trace the symptoms back to the source, to the cause of the illness. To quote Revilo P. Oliver, “The culture of the West, like every viable civilization, is a unity in the sense that its parts are organically interdependent. Although architecture, music, literature, the mimetic arts, science, economics, and religion may seem at first glance more or less unrelated, they are all constituent parts of the cultural whole, and the disease of any one will sooner or later affect all the others.” The illness is in large part born of a unique evolutionary quirk of the White race which has mutated into a self-destructive pathology. This pathology has been encouraged and exploited by a Jewish minority for its own gain in parasitic fashion, but which is ultimately maladaptive, for it causes the death of the host. By understanding Jewish influence and domination of each constituent part of the cultural whole it becomes clear that, be it the music industry, activism in the form of “social justice” and “feminism,” alcoholopioid-producing pharmaceutical companiespornographythe retail industrythe movie industryfinance, or the media, the negative Jewish influence is poisoning each and every part, not just one, the over-lap and mutual reinforcement of each “facet” of this imposed and alien anti-culture only serving to hasten the illness into its terminal stages.

The anxiety over the infiltration of borders is consistent throughout history in the rise, decline, and fall of once-mighty world powers. Late Georgian and Victorian England may be considered one example among many. Hyper-aware of their status as the preeminent world power, and thus a highly desirable immigration destination, Victorians in particular became fearful of, or at the very least concerned with, alien resettlement in England, particularly from Eastern Europe (read: Jewish) but also Ireland, and a distinct discourse regarding the so-called Other in poetry and fiction as diverse as Tennyson’s “The Lotus-Eaters” and Bram Stoker’s Dracula ruminated on the changing composition of England.

Though Dracula, for example, pre-dates the post-World War II acceleration in the numbers of “guest workers” in Europe and the recent flood of “migrants” who have proven to be infinitely deleterious to the fabric of society, it spoke specifically to this anxiety of the Other, which in many ways remains prevalent in the general populace, but stands in stark contrast to the elites’ One World narrative. After all, Dracula and Lecter prove themselves to be subversive forces, as opposed to the naked onslaught of a zombie horde or a massive green alien. But for the discerning eye, Lecter and Dracula look just like us, they move among us, they converse with us and assume aristocratic qualities. For Greg Buzwell:

Dracula’s forays into London, for example, and his ability to move unnoticed through the crowded streets while carrying the potential to afflict all in his path with the stain of vampirism, play upon late-Victorian fears of untrammelled immigration. The latter was feared as leading to increased levels of crime and the rise of ghetto communities. Dracula creates several lairs in the metropolis, including one in Chicksand Street, Whitechapel—an area notorious for the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888—and one in Bermondsey, the location of Jacob’s Island—the low-life rookery immortalised by Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist. … Such fears, which Dracula mirrors very closely, ultimately lay behind the introduction of The Aliens Act of 1905, which was put in place largely to stem immigration from Eastern Europe.[2]

The course of events in Britain, from “elite” subversion to the eventual push-back—which came too late—is witnessed almost identically, but at a slight delay, in the United States.

This wave of immigration led to a growing unease in terms of concerns about the degree of (mis- or non-) assimilation of these immigrants into English society, even, in fact, their very presence. Fears of invasion and contamination were not only expressed at this time in public discourse, but also in textual examples of the period. Dracula is a foreign invader, coming to England to buy up land and take women—“Your girls that you all love are mine already.” This invader emerged from the lands where the Huns had initially settled in Europe before their excursions against Rome, and in part evokes the image of the malicious barbarian from beyond the frontier. Dracula the character also embodies the literary trope of the “Wandering Jew.” Dracula is both new and old. As Jonathan Harker writes in his journal: “It is the nineteenth century up-to-date with a vengeance. And yet, unless my senses deceive me, the old centuries had, and have powers of their own which mere ‘modernity’ cannot kill.”

The parallels with today’s situation are striking, and indeed have accelerated even further. On top of the fact that the state of Qatar owns more London real estate than the crown, consider the proliferation of mosques as nodes or alien spores of conquest throughout British cities in general, much as Dracula bought up property throughout London. Victorian fears of the rapacious Other, so lampooned as grotesque exaggeration, have come to be realized in a modern culture unwilling or unable to confront the ramifications of what this might mean. Victorian England articulated a very clear set of norms governing sexual, economic, and social behavior. Breaking them could result in severe consequences (see, for instance, the Oscar Wilde trials in the 1890s). Dracula is the physical, over-determined manifestation of the collective fears of Victorian England. At willful odds with the rigid social code, Dracula literally punctures the surface of Victorian sensibility. For Anthony Wohl: “Popular literature assigned similar characteristics to the Irish, blacks and members of the lower classes. [They] were seen as: having no religion but only superstition, [being] excessively sexual, and [originating from] unknown dark lands or territories.” The id’s drive is at the center of horror, and the prohibitive measures taken to rectify societal transgressions stem from these primal impulses. Indeed, these tensions between societal expectations and basic impulses are at the heart of civilization; the ability to restrain oneself, to delay gratification and behave with morality and purpose for something greater than oneself, is what differentiates civilization from barbarism.

Continues David Sexton, “Lecter is the face that looks back at us out of our own boredom. He is our monster, the evil we embrace for our diversion. And he feeds on us.” Lecter is in the last nothing without the spectacle. Sexton elaborates:

In Hannibal, this idea is made explicit in a manner distinctly reminiscent of the accusation embedded in ‘Au Lecteur’. Lecter attends the exhibition of Atrocious Torture Instruments, but not to look at the exhibits. He faces the other way, back at the spectators, for his thrills. ‘The essence of the worst, the true asafœtida of the human spirit, is not found in the Iron Maiden or the whetted edge; elemental ugliness is found in the faces of the crowd,’ the oracular narrative voice proclaims. … Barney warns Dr Chilton, as he says goodbye to Lecter, that his new guards don’t know how to deal with him. ‘You think they’ll treat him right? You know how he is—you have to threaten him with boredom. That’s all he’s afraid of. Slapping him around’s no good.’ But ennui is not just his fear—‘Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books’—it’s his origin. Lecter uses his own boredom as a threat to others. When he is extracting the story of the silence of the lambs from Clarice and she is not delivering what he wants, he says, ‘If you’re tired, we could talk towards the end of the week. I’m rather bored myself.’[3]

We are pleased when the alien is destroyed, and when Buffalo Bill is brought to justice, but what about the typical response to Lecter? The audience feels a certain camaraderie with him; they delight in his ability to outsmart everyone, and they are seduced by his charms. Yet what if Lecter was a real man, how would the general public regard him? The alien is an outright monster, completely inhuman. Hannibal looks like any of us, yet his crimes are arguably more heinous, more, dare I say, inhuman. In reality, a man like Lecter would delight in the media spectacle that his actions would create; the general public would at once revile him and be drawn to him. In our culture of spectacle, Lecter and the audience alike crave attention and publicity, to “survive,” and one reflects the other insofar as the current culture is constructed, or de-constructed as the case may be.

However, the reality is that the audience would not just survive but thrive without Lecter or Dracula draining them, distracting them, arresting them. Just as the alien needs organisms to survive and reproduce, Dracula and Lecter are also strictly parasites. Without the attention, Lecter exists in a vacuum: his works, his psychological ploys, go unnoticed. He would simply wither away. Similarly, Dracula must seduce, corrupt, and draw “life” from life to sustain his living death, adding to his coterie or harem if you like. As with Lucifer, he is only as strong as others are weak, and very often relies on others to do his bidding or to do the dirty work for him. It is more manipulation than real power. This recalls the modern invention of the “masculine” financier and his violence—“making a killing,” as the case may be, which originated in the 1980s with the explosion in the Jewish-driven “financialization” of the economy, which more often than not took the form of the criminal, often in name but certainly in fact. Jewish conquest of the alien other. Though less culturally-pervasive, this “legacy” remains with us today. As Leigh Claire La Barge writes:

First reporting in 1982 on a new category of businessmen, the corporate raiders, the New York Times noted that “they have even developed their own language laced with images of aggression and sexual conquest.” Soon after, periodicals quit analyzing this language and began employing it. Time’s description of venture capitalist Arthur Rock, the man who arranged the initial financing for Apple, as one of “the men who make the killings,” is one of many examples. … Ellis’s text uses financial, journalistic language to synthesize…different texts, all unified by the representation of the masculine financier and his violence.[4]

This interpretation is almost exactly correct, although the conflation of masculinity and violence through this lens does a disservice to masculinity; it is a displaced masculinity, not a true masculinity, which finds gain as the measure of a man. Such an internal conflation could only occur by a certain kind of man, in a certain set of social, political, and economic conditions, where everything must fall under the aegis of The Market’s overlords, and in this Doppelganger World, it is the anarchists and communists who carry water for global capital.

[1] Sexton, David, “Mr. Harris’s cookbooks,” August 18, 2001. Guardian Saturday Review.

[2] Buzwell, Greg, “Dracula: vampires, perversity and Victorian anxieties,” 2014. Discovering Literature: Romantics and Victorians.

[3] Sexton, David, “Mr. Harris’s cookbooks,” August 18, 2001. Guardian Saturday Review.

[4] La Barge, Leigh Clare, “The Men Who Make the Killings: American Psycho, Financial Masculinity, and 1980s Financial Print Culture,” 2010. Studies in American Fiction 37 (2).

24 replies
  1. Geowhizz
    Geowhizz says:

    Nice essay. While having no sympathy for Hannibal and the like, agree your discussion of the other issue is apt. Excising a malignancy metastasized to key organs is daunting. Surgery and cauterization have bought time, but the cancer always returned.

  2. Eric
    Eric says:

    E. Michael Jones has an interesting take on horror movies: They are morality plays about well-deserved punishments for sin. In almost all cases, the sins are sexual, and the sinners attractive teenagers. In Freudian terms, the ego (controlled self) falls prey to the id (which demands no limitation), and the superego “punishes” the ego in proportion to its unwillingness or inability to control the id.

    The “monster” is the superego, the “victim” of the monster is the ego, which has succumbed to temptation.

    Jones is a traditionalist Catholic, so he frames the situation in moral – theological terms. Traditional Church doctrine is: no sex allowed outside of heterosexual marriage. Even then, it should be limited to acts of procreation. There are other moral proscriptions: no divorce. Certainly no abortion or birth control. No violations of the Ten Commandments or practicing of the Seven Deadly Sins.

    That leaves a whole lot of room for sins to happen and that need to be punished (unless they are confessed and atoned for, with due repentance — even then, some sins cannot be forgiven).

    By traditional Catholic standards, we live in a society awash in sin. But our Christian heritage has not gone away.

    I once tried to tell liberals about an easy way to cure themselves (not that they would want to). I told them: “When you say something liberal (in the politically correct, culturally Marxist sense of the term), you might not be aware of it, but there’s a teensy little voice inside your head that screams, “That’s bullshit!” Your problem is that you don’t heed that little voice. But I promise you, it’s there. If you would just listen to it, and acknowledge that what it’s saying is true, you would be a much happier person, and a much less insufferable one as well.”

    Well, there is something like that “little voice” that informs our secularized culture. Because of our Christian heritage (remember: culture and history shape us, not just biology), we see ourselves as sinners in need of redemption (or punishment) — especially at a time when casual abortion, birth control, casual hookups, and so on, are so prevalent — not to mention an economic system that is basically man exploiting other men. Not to mention all of the corruption in our politics and law. Not to mention America’s role as the world’s chief bully and prostitute for international Jewry.

    There is so much for us to be punished for! But alas, redemption is out of the question. It’s no longer anything that we see as a possibility.

    That leaves only punishment. We feel the need to be punished. We know that we are bad and But of course, we don’t want to directly experience it. That’s where horror movies come in. They give us the experience vicariously. We love the monster and delight in the ingenious ways that he tortures and kills his victims (us).

    A nice dramatic twist is to make the victims as innocent appearing and vulnerable as possible. This satisfies Plato’s dictum that appearances are deceiving and not to be taken at face value. On the other hand, a good writer or director will make sure that the victims are also irritating. There has to be some sense in which they “deserve what they get.”

    People’s tastes differ when it comes to the kinds of horror movies they like. A blood-splattering slasher movie, perhaps? Or something more intellectual?

    Unfortunately, the Jews have thrown a wrench into the works. Namely, the Holohoax. I think we would have a much larger and better selection of horror movies if it weren’t for this Jewish invitation to us white goyim to engage in maudlin self-flagellation. The Holohoax has the effect of substituting a fake sin for real sin.

    Not just the Holohoax. The Jews have gotten us worked up about sins that are not so much fake as they are exaggerated: Our terrible mistreatment of people of color (as if they never mistreated each other). Our “imperialism” (as if that is only something that white people ever practiced).

    Fake sins invite fake confession and fake redemption, as well as fake piety. So the white libtard practices a religion of sorts. Its confessional and altar center on a Jewish narrative that is based on falsehood and exaggeration. Redemption takes the form of self-induced white genocide. It takes the form of embracing a narrative of whites victimizing anything and everything: the environment, trans people, or whatever they happen to come up with next week.

    From a social and cultural standpoint, this has had the effect of turning white people into drones ruled by the fear of not conforming to whatever Jewish false narrative happens to be on offer — a false narrative intended to destroy white people and Western civilization and to create a globalized technocratic police state. There is no room for irony, wit, humor, or creativity in such a world. I even fear for the future of horror movies. Can real sin compete with faux sin? If not, I guess I’ll have to settle for watching old horror movies — for as long as the Controllers allow me to.

    • Geowhizz
      Geowhizz says:

      Virtually all the Jewish people of my acquaintance appear white. Surely they get this. What’s their endgame. The world’s colored people certainly consider them white. Not likely to get a pass.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        I would say that Jews are motivated more by hate than by reason. They will sacrifice reason and even imperil themselves in order to injure other people. That’s why they’ve been kicked out of countries so many times. They will touch that hot stove over and over again rather than give up their own misanthropy.

        Having a nation of their own since 1948 has emboldened them. They know that they can go there for refuge if things get too hot in other countries. When and if “people of color” start killing whites in western nations, the white-appearing Jews will “make Aliya” to Israel. Any Jew, no matter where he lives in the world, is automatically granted citizenship when he moves there.

        Of course, they’ll kvetch about it when it happens. Most Jews have no desire to live in Israel. It’s so much more fun and profitable for them to exploit the goyim in other countries. As Norman Finkelstein’s mother put it in the documentary “Defamation” by Yoav Shamir, “They’d have to work” instead of being parasites, practitioners of nepotism and con artists.

        • Geowhizz
          Geowhizz says:

          Insightful analysis and conforms to my experience of many Jews as well. Too many Jews seem hardwired in unfortunate ways that determine their behavior irrespective of reason or “common sense” It’s just who they are. Sadly for us all.

        • Sam J.
          Sam J. says:

          You’re not the only one that thinks this.

          “They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.”


    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      The name of the game has always been and still is — survival . It is what the Biological Imperative for Reproduction ( written into the DNA of all nondefective living things ) is about — continuity of life ( plants and animals where the antithesis of life is oblivion ).

      The christian notion of Redemption is fraught with dysfunctionalities . For example , extra-marital heterosexual affairs are not in violation of the BIR ( biological imperative for reproduction ). ALL Life would quickly become extinct without the BIR which existed long before any notion of Redemption . It should be obvious that the BIR is more important than any rule against extra-marital affairs . Perhaps the notion of Redemption needs a religious procedure in order to be forgiven .

      The problem is overpopulation — same as for all of the animal realm below human — where religion is not entirely against the inexorable Biological Imperative for Reproduction
      ( aka ” be fruitful and multiply ” ).

      The Malthusian doctrine has never been defeated except by religious-like edicts .

      • Raeto West
        Raeto West says:

        With respect, Malthus seems not to be highly thought-of by Jews. To my surprise, I found E J Hobsbawm dismissed Malthus as lightweight. It took me some time to work out that Jews have a history of killing off rivals, always through convoluted secret plotting. The entire 20th century was an exercise in killing whites (and some others!) In fact it’s possible that Malthus was encouraged, to distract from awareness of Jews’ activities in the (((French Revolution))).

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          The [ Malthusian doctrine ] that is meant is now called the ” Malthusian catastrophe ” , in the jew-owned and dominated Wikipedia , where human populations are subjected to abnormally large reductions by starvation deaths , disease deaths and war deaths . Large-scale Jewish killings of rivals would likely be classified as depopulation by war deaths .

          Jews may be the main proponents for dismissing this practically self-evident Malthusian doctrine . What would be their motive for rejecting something that is virtually axiomaticly true ?

          • Rerevisionist
            Rerevisionist says:

            Jews are aware that for centuries their decisions on wars determined deaths of whites and others. Easy examples are the (((French))) Revolution, the US ‘Civil War’, both world wars, wars since 1945. These deaths far exceed deaths through famine. Jews know this perfectly well, and encourage the goyim to believe the problem is just with food. It works in other ways: blacks in Africa have a huge population growth, but it’s not caused by food. It’s the result of white medical and engineering methods: antibiotics, water supplies, roads and trucks and planes.
            Malthus is fascinating as a partial truth: it seems to be a weakness of many whites to seize a simple theory. Same thing with Christianity.

    • JRM
      JRM says:


      “I once tried to tell liberals about an easy way to cure themselves (not that they would want to). I told them: “When you say something liberal (in the politically correct, culturally Marxist sense of the term), you might not be aware of it, but there’s a teensy little voice inside your head that screams, “That’s bullshit!” Your problem is that you don’t heed that little voice. But I promise you, it’s there…”

      The problem is that Liberalism is a religion. You were asking these people to abandon their faith.

      Mental exercise: replace “Liberals” and “Liberalism” with “Christian” and “Christianity” and re-read the paragraph quoted above. It holds just as true.

      Just as Christianity essentially died as a cultural force with the onslaught of modernity and science, the religion of Liberalism will fade when the crime level rises to a certain point; or the civilizational veneer gets stripped away, or we become a minority-majority nation and it suddenly becomes open season on all Whites.

      Then, Liberalism will no longer hold its current cultural weight and consensus reality will collapse, to be replaced by- perhaps- a new found pragmatic realism amongst White men. If enough of us are still around.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      ““When you say something liberal (in the politically correct, culturally Marxist sense of the term), you might not be aware of it, but there’s a teensy little voice inside your head that screams, “That’s bullshit!””

      How do you know?

      “Your problem is that you don’t heed that little voice. But I promise you, it’s there.”

      Talk about an empty promise.

      If you can’t tell us exactly how you know it’s there then you’re in no position to promise anyone anything.

      “If you would just listen to it, and acknowledge that what it’s saying is true, you would be a much happier person, and a much less insufferable one as well.””

      Listen to what?

      A voice in their head that you put there?

      °and acknowledge that what it’s saying is true”

      But “it’s” not saying it. You are.

      “you would be a much happier person”

      So, their happiness depends on listening to the voices in their heads that you put there.

      “and a much less insufferable one as well.”

      Talk about insufferable.

      “Well, there is something like that “little voice” that informs our secularized culture.”

      Again, how do you know?

      If anything we could say that the whole comes from the fact that they have no conscience at all.

      But that would just be something we could say.

      The point is, your explanation is much like theirs.

      Like them, it’s obvious you’ve never learned how to question your own assumptions.

      And you’re one of my favorite commenters here. There’s a lot that you say that’s on target.

      And, though you’re certainly welcome to your interpretation to this response of mine to your previous comment, I’m not here to pick a fight with someone who, for the most part, I’m in agreement with.

      In fact, I’m responding exactly because this is one of the last places on the Internet that seems to value freedom of speech. A place where healthy, vigorous debate can happen. A place where people can have adult disagreements without any hard feelings, because those participating are operating in good faith and aren’t so thin-skinned.

      “I think we would have a much larger and better selection of horror movies if it weren’t for this Jewish invitation to us white goyim to engage in maudlin self-flagellation.”

      But you’re the one talking endlessly in this comment about punishment.

      My point is that your thinking in this comment is as absolutist as theirs.

      My point is that in a battle of Dogma versus Pragma we have a fighting chance.

      But in a battle of competing Dogmas they’ll win every time.

      First and foremost, because they have control of all of the necessary resources.
      Second, because they promise more to more people. All of whom are willing to believe them.

      And what’s the difference between Dogma and Pragma?

      Pragma is willing to expose the vital system of ideas it lives by to a process of continuous feedback and correction.

      And Dogma isn’t.

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        If anything we could say that the whole comes from the fact that they have no conscience at all.

        Should be

        If anything we could say that the whole problem comes from the fact that they have no conscience at all.

  3. john Lilburne
    john Lilburne says:

    the links to the altright don’t work

    (Mod. Note: “higher powers” have been notified. Thanks.)

  4. Holberg
    Holberg says:

    “Of course the “elite” is not exclusively Jewish, but it has become, by necessity as a survival mechanism, philo-Semitic.”

    I’ve been looking for a way to express that reality as succinctly as this. So upon reading this line, pen and paper was instantly sought. Absolutely spot on.

  5. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Superb essay. Thank you!

    Very grateful, as always, for this site and its writers.

    The only thing is, with something so well-reasoned and well-written, I couldn’t help but think while reading it, that

    Diagnosis is complex, but easy.


    Action is easy, but complex.

    What, ladies and gentlemen, are we going to Do?

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “The anxiety over the infiltration of borders is consistent throughout history in the rise, decline, and fall of once-mighty world powers. Late Georgian and Victorian England may be considered one example among many.”


      But the two periods above listed as examples, 1714 and 1837 respectively, were before the West came to realize the full impact of its population explosion, which could be seen as a kind of internal mass migration, an internal rupture.

      It introduced a population massive in quantity and defecient in quality.

      Most of us belong to this group. But very few ever realized it and even fewer actually did something about it, something positive, ie; made sure they got the kind of education that would enable them to understand and carry on the cutting edge of advanced culture in the Western world.

      Goethe, 200 years ago, in his Conversations with Eckermann, said something about the curse of “the talented poor.” By which he meant the culturally and intellectually gifted.

      That having a passion for knowledge would guarantee a difficult, though rewarding life, for even the most privileged.

      But to be underprivileged and intellectually curious and passionate would be a kind of curse, or cruel trick played on an individual by destiny itself.

      So, just combine the two, the population explosion, which introduced Ortega’s “Mass Man”, with the curse of the talented poor, and their obviously small numbers, and you could see that, with or without Jewish Supremacy Inc. we would have had the devil’s own time maintaining our poor best.

      Since our own people would have rejected the kind of education necessary to preserve our culture.

      And that’s pretty much how it turned out.

      The population explosion and the communications revolution combined to produce a kind of cultural Gresham’s law, inferior culture drove out superior culture.

      Superior in terms of adaptation.

      Though, obviously, the paraiste has always been with us, it was this set of circumstances that accounts for the extent of their infiltration and subversion.

      So, when you add JSI, you can see that our chances were slim starting in the 19th century. Everything happening now flows from that time to the present.

      In any event, anyone who wanted to be truly educated in a way that is personally satisfying while making an important difference and contribution to his people would have to live a life that could only be described as a heroic going against the grain.

      We see them, now and then, in places like here at TOO, with KM, his staff and the sites commenters, over at The Unz Review as well, and we do come across them every once in a while in our personal lives.

      But they’re few and far between.

      How could we unite them to be a group in form inspired by a leader, and each other, and mobilized around an organizing principle that gives us a solid foundation and a clear focus?

      That’s the question before us now.

      If it can’t be answered, well, you all know the rest.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Denunciation without Refutation.

      The literal definition of a troll.

      Then again, trolling and self-awareness don’t go together.

      • Jody Vorhees
        Jody Vorhees says:

        Richard is correct. There is a lot of intellectual brilliance visible on this site, but we are always left with the same fundamental and unanswered question: “What must we do to save ourselves?”

        • Sam J.
          Sam J. says:

          The answer is the one I repeat over and over. We must get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means necessary they must go. It’s the only surefire well tested and 100% reliable method of dealing with them. People who have done this have seen immediate relief and great rises in prosperity for their people.

          • Geowhizz
            Geowhizz says:

            We must organize. Suppose we’ll be smeared as white-supremacists if we do. Why aren’t Jewish supremacists given the stink-eye? J.J. Rousseau, I believe, wrote “If you want to know who rules, find who you can’t criticize.”

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          “What must we do to save ourselves?”

          If you are a christian , you need to ditch Christianity and get on board with the new religion of { The PRIME DIRECTIVE } for the continued survival of mankind ( includes your progeny , relatives and friends among multitudes of others ) beyond any future specified and guaranteed extinction event such as The Solar Extinction Event .

          { The PRIME DIRECTIVE } is a scientificly oriented religion which does not rely on psychological captivity techniques ( aka brainwashing ) to enforce enthrallment to religious dogma that is beyond all rhyme and reason such as being appointed , on judgement day after you die , to live in heaven forever just because you have faith in that religious belief — an astonishingly small price to pay for such a large expectation .

          Also , take note of the above comment by Sam J. except that I would replace getting ” rid of the Jews ” with getting [ rid of Babylonian Judaism ] as the main aim ; of course , doing that would likely entail significant risk in getting rid of some of them .

Comments are closed.