Arts and Clture and Politics

The Year of Remembrance vs. the Year of Death: 1814, 1914, 1944, 2014…

 Below is the English translation of my speech given on June 14, 2014 at a historic manor house, in the village of Guthmannshausen, in the vicinity of Weimar, the state of Thuringia, Germany. The speech was delivered on the occasion of the 100thanniversary of the beginning of WWI, the 100th anniversary issue of the magazine Deutsche  Militärzeitschrift (DMZ) and the monthly magazine of politics and culture ZuErst! whose host and editor in chief, Dietmar Munier, marked on that occasion his 60th birthday.  This was a private event attended by approximately 150 people, mostly journalists and contributors to these journals, accompanied by their families.

*   *   *

Each anniversary year brings back memories of times past which one either wishes to revive for himself and his people, or administer to others as a political-pedagogical year of admonition. The German word “Gedenkjahr” cannot be easily translated into other languages, ​​and often this word causes serious misconceptions among different nations. The word “Gedenkjahr” is translated into English or French as “memorial year” and as “jubilee year” — two completely opposing political notions.  Depending on different nations, depending on their historical sentiments, an anniversary year can be memorized as hope, joy, and nostalgia. But it can also be used as an exhortation, a threat of punishment, or a fear-inducing tool. As far as our own anniversary year is concerned, we recall today our own life span and we enthuse about cheerful dates in our nation’s history.  When celebrating one’s happy birthday, and if one, as an old man, still retains good memory, such as Ernst Jünger and Johann Wolfgang Goethe did, then one can say that life has some meaning.

When one is past his 60th birthday one needs to raise a question: “Why any more anniversaries?” The Franco-Romanian philosopher Emile Cioran, an ultra-nihilist and cultural pessimist, wrote that one shouldn’t live past one’s 40th birthday. On the occasion of his 70th birthday Cioran said that any further well-wishing for further life sounds grotesque to him. In an interview, in 1987, several years before his death, he said:” Within fifty years, the Notre Dame will become a mosque.”

By contrast, when hostile nations or groups commemorate the anniversaries of their political disasters, they are often inclined to use the buzzphrase: “Never again!” Commemorative years convert then quickly into symbols of the year of the dead and the days of admonition, especially when hostile nations and groups start cobbling together their endless anniversaries and present them as victimhood teachings at the expense of other nations. Read more

Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Europe and Modern Politics


“Saturn (Kronos) Devouring His Son”, by Francisco de Goya, 1821

“Saturn (Kronos) Devouring His Son”, by Francisco de Goya, 1821

The following is an abridged version of my speech given at the London Forum, February 1, 2014, London, UK. The video of the whole speech is available here.

When discussing myths we must first agree on the meaning of words and expressions we intend to employ.  We must also certify that we assign to those words an appropriate meaning regardless of our own individual approach to this subject. The word ‘myth’ has a very specific meaning when we deal with the ancient Greek tragedies, or when we study the early Greek theogony or cosmogony.  By contrast, the fashionable expression today, ‘political mythology’ has a very subjective meaning, often laden with strong value judgments and derisory interpretations. A verbal construct such as the ‘myth of modernity’ may be interpreted by many of us as something legitimate when denouncing political and historical lies of the System we live in. Yet to a modern self-proclaimed supporter of the System, enamored with system-supporting myths of permanent economic progress and the like, speaking of the “myth of economic progress” or the “myth of democracy” is an egregious political insult. It is viewed as a sign of someone’s undemocratic behavior — a word used by an undemocratic opponent not worthy of residing in the modern democratic system.  How does one dare mention such a sacrilegious locution as “the myth of modern democracy,” or “the myth of contemporary historiography,” or the myth of progress” without being punished??!  Modern political mythology is usually enforced against free thinkers by means of social ostracism at the best, or penal codes and imprisonment at the worst.

In hindsight when we study the ancient Greek myths with their surreal settings and hyperreal creatures, few of us will accord them any historical veracity or any empirical or scientific value. However, few of us will reject those ancient European myths as an outright lie. Why is that?  In fact, most of us enjoy reading those ancient European myths because most of us are aware not just of their strong symbolic nature, but also of their didactic message. This is the main reason why the ancient myths and sagas are still so popular among White Europeans. Those ancient myths of ours thrive in timelessness; they are meant to go beyond the historical timeframe; they defy any historicity. They are open to anybody’s “historical revisionism” or interpretation.  Hence the reason that ancient European myths or sagas can never be dogmatic; they never require the intervention of the thought police or a politically correct enforcer in order to make themselves readable or credible. Read more

The Catholic League on the Weinstein Brothers

As part of our Christmas program here at TOO we highlighted Bad Santa, a film by the Weinstein brothers. The Catholic League has a number of posts on another Weinstein film, Philomena, which is currently in release. This brief comment notes several other anti-Christian movies by the Weinsteins:

[An ad for Philomena in the New York Times] gives high profile to a review by the Times’ Stephen Holden, which says, in part, that the film’s “political subtext” is its “comparison of the church’s oppression and punishment of unmarried sex…with homophobia and the United States government’s reluctance to deal with the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.”

This is a straightforward pitch to anti-Catholic bigots. The Weinsteins are no strangers to Catholic bashing, having made a good living off of it. In 1995, they offered “Priest,” a film featuring nothing but miscreant priests; I succeeded in getting the movie’s opening date moved from Good Friday. In 1998, they gave us “The Butcher Boy,” which starred Sinead O’Connor as a foul-mouthed Virgin Mary. In 1999, we were treated to “Dogma,” where the audience learned of a descendant of Mary and Joseph who works in an abortion clinic. In 2002, they released “40 Days and 40 Nights,” a film that ridiculed a Catholic for giving up sex for Lent. Also opening in 2002 was “The Magdalene Sisters,” a movie that smeared nuns. In 2003, “Bad Santa” opened for the holidays; Santa was cast as a chain-smoking, drunken, foul-mouthed, suicidal, sexual predator. In 2006, “Black Christmas” made a predictably dark statement about the holiday.

In 2013, the Weinsteins released “Philomena,” a tale about an Irish teenager who abandoned her out-of-wedlock son, and who, because of the good efforts of nuns, was adopted by an American couple. Of course, the movie maligns the nuns, as well as Catholic teachings.

It is the sexual maniacs in Hollywood who nurture a debased culture, one that breeds illegitimacy and AIDS. Yet the Weinsteins, and the Times, never stop blaming the Catholic Church, which counsels restraint. Thus have they inverted the victim and the victimizer. Read more

Review of “I Like the White World” by Mark Butterworth

Mark Butterworth is a California author with nine books to his credit on, including such intriguing titles as My Inferiors and A Man with Three Great German Shepherds (and 1000 troy ounces of gold). I Like the White World provides further proof he is not cut out for Oprah’s book club or the Times Literary Supplement. Yet the book is not an in-your-face white nationalist fantasy in the vein of Jack’s War or Tales of New America. The central character, Tom Mason, is not a white nationalist at all, but a Christian filmmaker trying to survive in the hostile surroundings of Hollywood. He is an attractive fellow with an attractive wife and two beautiful children. He must support them, of course, but is hampered by moral and religious principle from playing according to Hollywood’s rules. His wife does not sympathize with these inhibitions.

Tom makes a low-budget Christian movie with mostly volunteer actors that is successful by the standards of its niche market: “with box office receipts, DVD sales, pay per view sales, all the ancillary markets, I guess Blessed Shepherd Church cleared around two and a half million.” When it becomes clear that his superiors consider a simple thank-you adequate payment for this achievement, he resigns.

Despite a successful film on his resume, he runs into difficulties finding another position. His wife is not sympathetic: “She came at my with the ‘why didn’t you consult me first?’ umbrage-taking line of reasoning. ‘Why?’ Simple. Because I’m the man and I do what’s best for us according to my lights.” Under pressure to keep his wife happy, he calls his father for advice.

But his father has been worrying him lately. Tom sounds almost apologetic explaining it to readers: “his opinions of the world have taken a decided turn into the realm of, geez, I don’t know how to describe this because I don’t want to be mean to my father, he’s a sweet guy (sort of), but his politics have gotten ethnic.”

Driving through affluent Orange county together one day, Dad remarks:

You know what? I look around at this and think—I like the white world. I like being white. Some people look at this and say it’s somehow sterile, all this gleaming cleanness, but it’s not cold or sterile. It’s organized and orderly. I like that because I’m organized and orderly. That’s who I come from. That’s what my people do—good, smart, white people.

What’s wrong with organized and orderly, anyway? Fifties white bread? I love the Fifties. That’s when America was at its best and its height. White bread? Delicious! It’s so delicious no toast in the world tastes as good as white bread toast.

So, yeah, I like the white world; and our towns, cities when they’re like this; and our inventions and food, and anybody who says otherwise can go screw themselves. Organized and orderly. I like the white world.

Tom is suitably embarrassed:

I don’t quite know what to do with my dad because, as a Christian, anyone can become a member of the Body of Christ no matter race or culture. I can’t say I prefer white Christian towns, cities and states more than brown or black ones, can I, and not be something of a failure at my faith?

(Thank heaven Charles Martel never got the memo.)

Over the course of the novel, Tom’s wife leaves him for a rich, mainstream Hollywood mogul, and Tom grows closer to his father. There are also scenes involving Tom’s father with the children. Grandpa teaches them to shoot, relates the story of the family’s Puritan ancestors and corrects their multicultural textbook notions about the peaceful, environmentally-conscious Indians such ancestors are said to have oppressed.

Clearly, Mark Butterworth’s novel has the potential to appeal to a certain kind of reader who would only be put off by a racial revenge fantasy like Jack’s War. It is only 151 pages long and sells for $8.99 at Amazon. Not a bad gift idea for friends or family who think you have lost your mind since you got involved in white nationalism.

For more on Tom’s father’s talks to the children, see Athena Kerry’s review at Also see here and here.

Is Tom Wolfe a Race Realist? Part 1 of 3

Tom Wolfe

Tom Wolfe

Perhaps it is a product of his Southern heritage — born in Richmond in 1931, B.A. Washington and Lee, 1951. Perhaps it is due to his academic training, Ph.D. in American studies from Yale, 1957, completed before the neo-Marxist hegemony over the humanities and social sciences. Perhaps it is a result of his years as a reporter developing the New Journalism that seeks to tell the larger story. But most likely it is a consequence of his dedication to social realism that has led Tom Wolfe to become the closest thing we have to a mainstream race-realist author.

What is race realism? Ideological labels are often difficult to delineate precisely, but generally a race realist is one who acknowledges the physical reality of race and the significance of human biodiversity in the development of past and present human societies.

This is in contrast to the establishment’s position that insists upon the primacy of the individual while minimizing the importance of race. Races are not naturally occurring phenomena, but merely social constructs grouped around, perhaps, a few superficial physical characteristics. Yet, the inclusion of and advocacy for multiple “social constructs” within White homelands has become a social/political obsession and the basis for the civic religion of the West.

Race realists can also be distinguished from their more radical cousins, racial nationalists, by their embrace of conservatism grounded in patriotism (e.g., American exceptionalism), Christianity, and/or libertarianism. The nationalists are less enamored of Christianity and capitalism, and paradoxically, tend toward internationalism (“our race is our nation”) while advocating for homogeneous ethno-states. Race realists are not separatists, believing instead that a vigorous pursuit of identity politics within a multiracial state is enough to safeguard their people’s interests.

At 82 Wolfe has been writing for over half a century so he has a very lengthy bibliography. By looking at some representative writings we can see if Wolfe fits the race realist mold. Here I will discuss six nonfictions books: Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers (1970), The Painted Word (1975), The Right Stuff (1979), Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine (1976), From Bauhaus to Our House (1981), and Hooking Up (2000); plus three novels: Bonfire of the Vanities (1987), A Man in Full (1998), and Back to Blood (2012).[1] Because Wolfe spent the first 30 years of his career as a journalist and social commentator, we will first consider his nonfiction works in thematic rather than chronological order. Read more

Review of “Tales of New America”

Tales of New America
by Gunther Roosevelt

reviewed by Brian Hess

This newly-published collection of stories is based upon a scenario described on the volume’s back cover:

20–50 years from now when America has fallen apart economically, socially and racially. The Federal Government loses control as revenue dwindles and poverty spreads. To survive, States begin forming autonomous regions amidst the disintegration. Emerging from the disorder, Northern Mountain States of the west gradually form a new American Republic, de facto at first, finally in law, as it becomes a bastion of prosperity and a crucible of liberty. A religious and martial people arise with a will to reclaim ruined western States lost to invaders, oligarchs and degradation.

This process is nowhere described in the narrative itself, which begins in medias res with a vignette about a border patrol post located at the present boundary of Nevada and Idaho. A white couple with a three-year old child are attempting to enter New America under assumed identities. A young New American border guard notices their nervousness and sends them in for questioning, while a team of mechanics disassembles their car. New America has a great deal of cutting edge technology at its disposal, which the author takes pleasure in describing. A retina scanner and thumbprint reader quickly reveal the interlopers’ true identities.

Read more

Implicitly White themes in “The Hobbit”


bag end

The Hobbit is a bit long, and some of the scenes could have been edited down. But I am not really complaining. It held my interest. The only thing is that it has a sort of “one thing after another for no good reason” feel—the result of a lot of padding needed to make a trilogy of movies out of a short novel. But when you look at the garbage put out by Hollywood, The Hobbit is certainly most welcome.

There are a lot of good things here. You have to marvel at the 3-D magic and computer graphics, especially in the fighting and chase scenes. Of course, I am relatively unjaded when it comes to computer graphics in movies because I am rarely inspired to enter the enemy-controlled territory of the local cinema.

There are some really beautiful scenes set in the forests, fields, and mountains of New Zealand. The scene with Gollum and Bilbo Baggins, set in an underground lake, is hauntingly beautiful—with rocky crags and still, dark waters, illuminated as if by the moon. Read more