Featured Articles

Media Watch – 21st Century White Men and the Slave Mentality

The hair-curling humiliation of a Department of Justice official for ‘racially insensitive’ remarks demonstrates the reaches of anti-majority power in the United States

John Tanner’s 15 minutes of fame, like that of so many white men, came about for stating a plain truth about race.

Tanner, chief of the Department of Justice’s voting rights division, was invited to speak at a gathering of the “National Latino Congreso” in Los Angeles in early October.  On the topic of ID requirements, Mr. Tanner said they did not affect minorities to the extent they affected whites because minorities have shorter life spans.  “They die first,” he said.

Never mind, of course, that this is true.  Never mind, as well, the context:  Mr. Tanner was speaking to an explicitly racially-conscious Hispanic group primarily interested in advancing its own ethnic interest — at the expense of whites, his own race — and blamed the earlier deaths of blacks and other minorities also on his own race, via “disparaties in health care.”

Mr. Tanner’s punishment was to be called before the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 30, 2007, for what can only be described as a modern-day whipping by whites’ new masters, such as Jewish Rep. Jerold Nadler of New York, black representatives Bobby Scott of Virginia and John Conyers of Michigan, and black Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota.  The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank captured some of the more grisly exchanges.

Ellison, the black Muslim, exacted unique torture by demanding that Tanner describe in his own terms his sins against blacks (from Milbank’s article):

“Exactly what are you apologizing for?” Ellison demanded.

“I hurt people,” Tanner confessed.

“How did you hurt them?”

“The reaction of people to my statement —”

Ellison pounced. “So you are apologizing because of the reaction?”

Tanner retreated. “I caused that reaction, certainly not intentionally. I made a clumsy statement.”

“So the problem is the tone?” Ellison pressed.

“I certainly had a bad tone and clumsiness.”

This also failed to satisfy Ellison. “Are you just trying to curry favor?” he demanded.

“I feel that if I make remarks that people misinterpret —”

Uh-oh. “So people misinterpreted what you said?” a triumphant Ellison asked.

Tanner retreated. “I apologize for that,” he said.

Ellison’s technique is designed for maximum psychological dominance.  One level of control is to simply inflict pain for actions or words that are disfavored — for instance, if Mr. Tanner were simply yelled at for his remarks.  Another, much higher, level involves requiring the subject to self-torture, or self-submit, to the dominant power, by mouthing in his or her own words.  One is reminded of dissenters kidnapped by totalitarian governments who are forced to appear on television and recite for the camera that they have been disloyal to the regime.

Under American enslavement of African blacks, the whipping of a slave by a master likely served two functions:  One, to punish an individual slave for a transgression, and two, to remind the slave, as well as the others, who is in charge.  It was clear from this hearing who is in charge.  Mr. Tanner, though having ascended to a position of some power, holds a job for which the very purpose — enforcement of voting rights — is to advance the interests of minorities.  He needed to be reminded of this, apparently.

[adrotate group=”1″]

For racially conscious whites, what is most disheartening is to watch the utter humiliation of a white man before this group.  It is somewhat like a child watching his father be physically beaten by a larger, more powerful man.  Not only are you helpless, but you suffer deeply in the knowledge that the very one charged with your defense is also helpless.

This is the state of whites today.  They must watch in horrified silence as their own men are cut down — and fail to put up any sort of resistance themselves, thus compounding the shame.

Anti-majority activists like Rep. Ellison should be careful here.  Groups can withstand much abuse, but gleeful humiliations and wanton exercises in cruelty are the sort of thing that create the slow burn of a reigniting resistance.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Media Watch Bob Herbert Knows Who the New Massa Is

Bob Herbert is a black liberal columnist for the New York Times.  There’s nothing remarkable about his writing or much original about his ideas:  America is racist white country, Republicans are bad people, and so on.  (He could be on to something about the Republicans, though.)  His haughtiness during television appearances is off-putting.

In what might seem to be an unusual twist, this Saturday he took on Nikki Tinker, a black woman who recently unsuccessfully challenged Steve Cohen, a Democrat who represents a majority black district in Tennessee.

Tinker’s sins:  an ad linking Cohen to the Ku Klux Klan, and another suggesting that he’s a hypocrite to visit “our” (i.e., black) churches.

Herbert actually waded in to defend Cohen’s vote against renaming a park in Memphis currently named for the Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Ku Klux Klan founder. Why the sudden burst of Klan-defense from Manhattan?

Well, as the surname “Cohen” suggests, Cohen is Jewish.  Herbert delights in quoting him:  “It’s not like Nathan Bedford Forrest was inviting Jews over to celebrate Seder.”

For Herbert, this was an easy racial power equation to solve:  Black and white may squabble down below, but the most sacred of the cows is the Jews.  They are, as I have documented, Herbert’s bosses, both at the Times and as a political and cultural matter generally.  So, explaining the spectacle of a black man denouncing a black woman and defending a “white” politician is really fairly easy.

[adrotate group=”1″]

I have not plumbed all Herbert’s columns, but it’s a safe bet none defend a white gentile politician in even remotely the same way.

Down below Herbert’s office in Times Square, there’s the occasional band of odd black nationalists who hector passers-by, both white and Jewish (rough video —  in it, a man sparring with the black nationalists screams “I’m Jewish!  I’m on your side!”, to which the lead speaker responds by belittling the Holocaust, causing the Jewish man to cry.)

I certainly don’t endorse this bizarre band, but as the comments about Jews show, its speakers have not learned the lesson of ascending to power:  You may — and should — denounce white gentiles, but must always defend Jews.  Even if they voted in support of a Klansman.  For having learned this lesson, Bob Herbert keeps his elevated station, far above the craziness of the street.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Joe Klein and the Loyalties of the Neocons

In a post to his blog for Time Magazine, Joe Klein made a point that has been obvious to many for quite some time: “The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives—people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over atCommentary—plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.”

Needless to say, he was lambasted for this indiscretion. John Podhoretz, writing in the Commentary blog, labeled him “manifestly intellectually unstable”; others labeled him an anti-Semite and called for his firing from Time.

And the ADL went into its usual hysteria whenever such comments surface:

The notion that Jews with “divided loyalties” were behind the decision to go to war is reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government, which has unfortunately gained new currency of late with public figures such as Jimmy Carter and professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt suggesting that American Jews are disloyal and that pro-Israel groups have undue influence over American foreign policy.

As Klein has noted, these attempts at silencing, character assassination, and intimidation are “happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society.”

It is not in the least surprising that there are conflicts between Jewish interests and the  interests of the wider society. The theme of Jewish disloyalty has a very long history and there are great many plausible examples where indeed Jews have been disloyal to the societies in which they reside. Nor should this be surprising given what we know about evolutionary psychology.

It seems only yesterday that Jacob Heilbrunn’s book They Knew They Were Right announced in the mainstream media that yes indeed neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. However, Heilbrunn took pains to deny that the neocons were disloyal.

The good news, then, is that even though Heilbrunn pushed the envelope a bit, he is already well behind the curve in terms of frank discussion of Jewish identities and influence in the mainstream media.

Issues that were formerly only discussed in places like The Occidental Quarterlyor The Occidental Observer are now discussed in Time Magazine,Commentary, and the Huffington Post.

The times they are indeed a-changin.

Media Watch – Vox Populi, Verboten

The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages.  Guess which types of comments won’t make the cut.

New York Times’ “Public Editor” Clark Hoyt announced in his most recent column that our paper of record will soon begin allowing reader comments to be posted on its Web pages. See  Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet, Nov. 4, 2007.

Before delving in, I knew exactly The Times’ concern:  racially conscious whites.  Midway through the column, Hoyt confirms this by telling us who won’t be allowed to appear:  “Take, for example, ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’, who recently managed to get a comment posted on one blog, The Lede, suggesting that The Times ‘have all the displaced ILLEGALS form the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Builiding… and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront (sic) of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.”

Hoyt proudly tells readers that he personally directed that the comment be removed.  Needless to say, he does not ask whether Hispanics are indeed urinating outside.  Hoyt also informs us that to ensure future censorship of racially conscious comments, the Times has hired a four-person Memory Hole team to seek out and destroy any blips of white racial consciousness.

Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.”  It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.

This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority.  The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.

What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.

One might think the sentiments revealed by the Internet would cause the media to do some self-evaluation.  If it really cares about fair and insightful coverage of American society, as well as reporting to its audience, it might ask whether its coverage is geared toward that.  If white Americans are angry about what has happened to their country, why not cover that, even you as the journalist disagree?  They might just find that their (mostly white) readers appreciate seeing their side of the story for once, instead of the incessant coverage of any and all minority complaints.

But this assumes, of course, that the mainstream media is interested in either fair coverage or maintaining readers.  In fact, it is not interested in either.  On racial issues, the media does not waver from a steady course of denying inherited racial differences, denying Jewish influence, extolling the supposed virtues of “diversity” and denigrating whites.  The biggest story of the past 50 years is this:  America had a white majority approaching 90 percent for several hundred years, and now finds itself headed toward a white minority.  But that story gets no coverage.  Whites are not asked how they feel about this.  It prompts the question:  if an entire race died in the forest and the media didn’t cover it, would it make a noise?

This trend has continued, despite a steady drop in circulation at most major papers over the years.  The illegal immigrants so beloved by The New York Times are not, I am guessing, reading The New York Times.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The proper journalistic reaction to ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’ is to find out why he believes as he does, not shut him up.  That an organization ostensibly dedicated to gathering information, viewpoints and trends would announce itself to be working against that very mission by censoring whites is remarkable.

The irony is lost on The Times.  But we now at least have proof of how dead-set against whites it is.  And with the Internet, we know that our death will make a noise — and perhaps be postponed.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Media Watch – The Nameless Whites of CNN’s Shenandoah Coverage: When Will Our People Speak Without Fear?

As one might expect, the beating death of a 25-year-old Hispanic man in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania by white teenagers took the top spot on CNN’s web page.

And, as any white advocate (and most whites in general) knows, this is in sharp contrast to media treatment of obviously racial attacks on whites by other racial groups, such as the Knoxville Horror and the Wichita Massacre.  When whites attack others, “hate crime” is presumed, and when others attack whites, “hate crime” is strenuously denied — both by law enforcement, and the media.

This point is almost too obvious to belabor.

But in reading CNN’s coverage, I was struck by something.  First, the reporters included the fact that they were approached by several “Anglos” who wanted to talk about Hispanic-on-white violence, but wouldn’t give their names.

I vividly recall this phenomenon when I was a reporter.  Whites rarely wanted to be quoted by name.  They saw me as a communist agent for Big Brother of some kind, whose goal was to make them look foolish in the newspaper.  They had (sometimes irrational) fears of losing their jobs or being harassed for speaking their minds on anything.  Blacks and Hispanics, however, saw me as a hero, a “safe” figure riding into town with a white hat.  They did not doubt that I, as the journalist, was on their side.  They spoke freely to me and identified themselves without hesitation.

As it happens, both white and minority perceptions were entirely accurate.  In fact, the press is on the side of blacks and Hispanics.  And it does set out to make whites look foolish.  I was merely seeing the logical result of my anti-white, liberal profession’s efforts.

The experience of the CNN reporters in Shenandoah echoed mine.  I could just imagine the frustrated, probably working-class whites approaching the CNN van, caught between a desperate desire to let their side of the story be known and the tremendous (and as I now see, real) fear of retaliation from the system for being seen as pro-white.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects — the church minister, authorities, and townspeople on the “good” side of the racial issue — offers their names without hesitation.

I was struck by another thing, and that was the reaction of Crystal Dillman, the white fiancé of the murder victim.  She was quoted as saying “People here are just ignorant. They think life begins and ends in Shenandoah.”

I imagine that Ms. Dillman is the one who, because of her willingness to pair off with a Hispanic man, is the one who considered herself superior.  She obviously imagined her relationship as a sign of her great intelligence, open-mindedness and cultural experience.  She was going to escape the suffocating confines of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania one way or another.

I am disappointed by this attitude, because it demonstrates how well the anti-white brainwashing of our times has worked.  We’ve convinced several generations of whites — both young men and women — that their own race is no good, and that to validate themselves, they need to glom on to person of other races.  Even if that person works as a berry-picker.

Listen to the quote of Jessica Lane, described by CNN as an “Anglo”:  “The young guys around here are racist because they think they’re so much better than everyone else,” said Lane, 18.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Yet it’s hard to imagine that whites in a hard-scrabble part of Pennsylvania actually think they’re “better than everyone else.”  More likely, they’re frustrated by living in a society where white males are denigrated and anyone else is celebrated.  Again, it’s probably Ms. Lane who thinks that because of her open-mindedness, she’s the one who’s “better than everyone else.”

Like the rest of the “preferred” subjects, Ms. Dillman and Ms. Lane know that their remarks will be greeted with widespread support, and thus do not fear giving their names.

[adrotate group=”1″]

We need to reach a time when whites with a defensive perspective are unafraid to speak.  Unfortunately, there is good reason for keeping identities mum. (I write under a pen name myself.)  Anti-white groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center relish digging out whites who speak up on behalf of whites and destroying their lives with “intelligence reports” or even a single phone call.  Their efforts get real results, and the fear generated reverberates to all whites who would defend their race.  Even if the SPLC doesn’t get you, the press, the police, and more importantly, your boss, just might.

I encourage whites to be braver.  Those with the courage to speak out will find more friends than they imagine.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Media Watch – Top of the Masthead: How To Handle Walt and Mearsheimer

In 2003, when The New York Times found it necessary to address the issue of Jewish prompting for the war in Iraq, no less than the Editor — that’s the No. 1, capital “E” editor — wrote the piece himself.

Said Bill Keller, the belief the the war is for Israel is “simple-minded and offensive”.  But wrong?  The article had enough concessions, though, that it’s easy to imagine the angry phone calls that would have poured in — and been heard — had anyone under Keller penned the piece.  Here, a demand to speak to the highest authority in the newsroom would have had the caller patched through to the writer himself — thus defusing the bomb.

Anyone looking for an indication of the gravity of having the editor write about an issue should check to see how many times, since his ascension to the spot, Mr. Keller has done so.

This pattern repeated itself in September of this year, when New Yorker editor David Remnick, who is Jewish, stepped in to discuss Walt and Mearshimer for “Talk of the Town.”

Remnick’s approach is like Keller’s:  concede the “grain of truth” to the allegation of Jewish control over foreign policy, but dismiss it otherwise as an oversimplification (Using a quote from Zbigniew Brzezinksi, Remnick compares the Israel lobby to the Armenian, Greek and Taiwanese-American lobbies).  And make sure to distance yourself from shrieks of anti-Semitism, which are just as much of an oversimplification.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But both editors, of course, ultimately dodge the issue.  With the evidence stacked so high, they best they can do is to tell us that the issue is really more complicated than that.  This rhetorical technique is easily manipulated:  Matters are “complicated” when the obvious point makes Jews look bad, but very simple when the obvious point makes them look good — or white gentiles bad.  You will never hear Keller or Remnick argue that the Third Reich or apartheid South Africa was “complicated,” for instance.

Both the weakness of their retorts — and the positions of the writers — are yet another insight into the undeniable power of Jews over the direction of America.

Eye on Hollywood: Reel Bad Whites

As I wrote back in early June, Arab-American professor Jack Shaheen has long been concerned about the consistently negative images Hollywood comes up with when portraying Arabs. Over the years he has written three books on the topic: The TV Arab; Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People; and Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs After 9/11. In the massive second book Reel Bad Arabs, he canvassed 900 films, “the vast majority of which portray Arabs by distorting at every turn what most Arab men, women, and children are really like.”

Shaheen was wise to point to the selective framing of Arabs and how it is repeated endlessly. Naturally, such repetition has a goal, one captured in an old Arabic saying: “Al tikrar biallem il hmar. By repetition even the donkey learns.”

With respect to an ethnic group—nay, a whole race—closer to my own heart, I worry about the images of the white majority. You know, the Leave It to Beaver types that we were (and were surrounded by) in our youth. 

Hollywood, it seems, has not favored us over the last half century or so. Either they supplant favorable white images with favorable images of African Americans and more recent Americans such as Jews. Or they create images of whites that are far more negative than typical of the first half of Hollywood’s existence. Why the change?

Further, why has the “reel,” or contrived studio image of whites, especially men, taken such a hit? Have whites really become that bad? Or have we always been evil, but our oppressive powers hid that truth?

Allow me to illustrate. Consider the following actual, or “real,”  stories:

The Ithaca Christmas Massacre of 1989: Ithaca, New York, home to Cornell University, is small, like many such towns in the Finger Lakes region. A white man, Tony Harris, married with two children, felt it was a good place to raise a family. Unfortunately, he, his wife, son and daughter were murdered there three days before Christmas 1989. Sixteen-year-old daughter Shelby was raped before she was killed. The suspect was African American Michael Kinge. Records indicate that Kinge had ridden his bicycle to the country setting of the Harris’s home, assaulted them with a gun, then tied all four to beds in two upstairs bedrooms. He shot all four, then attempted to dispose of the evidence by burning the bodies.

The Wichita Massacre of 2000: Pat Buchanan was one of the few nationally-known personalities to reference the Wichita Massacre of 2000. In his book The Death of the West, he described the crimes that took place on the night of Dec. 14, 2000:

Five young people were at a party when their home was invaded by brothers, ages twenty-three and twenty. The five were put into a car, driven to an ATM machine, forced to withdraw their money, and taken onto a soccer field. The two women were forced to strip and were raped. Then the victims were forced to have sex with each other at gunpoint. All were made to kneel down. Each was shot in the ear. The three young men and one woman died. The other woman, left for dead, ran bleeding and naked for a mile in the cold to find help, as the brothers drove back to ransack the house.

One of the victims had decided to become a priest. Another had bought an engagement ring and was about to propose, but “in the minutes before he died, Jason Befort was forced to watch as the woman he hoped to marry was raped.”

The Knoxville Torture Murders of 2007: On the night of January 6, 2007, a young white couple, Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, were on a date. On the streets of Knoxville, they were allegedly carjacked by black men, then kidnapped, beaten, gang-raped, tortured and murdered. The national press was silent.

As with the Wichita Massacre cited above, Hollywood wanted nothing to do with the story of black men anally gang-raping a 23-year-old white man. They did not want to graphically portray black men pouring cleaning fluid down Ms. Christian’s throat after orally, anally, and vaginally gang-raping her. Nor did they want to discuss how Newsom’s body, with “multiple gunshot wounds,” was discarded and set afire next to railroad tracks.  Ms. Christian’s body was found wrapped in garbage bags in a trash can. Some have suggested the body had been dismembered.

Now consider how Hollywood portrays interracial crime:

A Time to Kill (1996): In A Time to Kill, two Southern rednecks, dirty and disheveled, race their souped up yellow pickup trick across the red dirt of rural Mississippi. Sweaty and drunk, they hurl a full bottle of beer at black youths innocently playing basketball outside a small grocery store. Inside the store, the rednecks cruelly harass the long-suffering blacks of the neighborhood, including a young black girl.

Walking home alone along a country lane, groceries in hand, the girl is struck down by a can of beer thrown by one of the rednecks. As the bag of groceries flies out of her hands, a broken egg on the ground with its yoke running into the dirt symbolizes what is about to take place with the girl. Lying prone on the ground, she is filmed from various angles as the two white men take turns brutally raping her. Once finished, the men intend to leave no witness alive, so they roughly fit a rope around her frail neck and lynch her.

Déjà vu (2006): This film portrays a young white self-styled “patriot,” not unlike executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The villain here has planted a bomb on a New Orleans ferry, killing 543 innocent Americans in the process. The scene accesses Americans’ memories of three traumatic events—the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina (complete with its overtones of racist whites).

A previous victim had been a beautiful young African American woman brutally butchered by the white man. He tied her hands behind her back, placed a burlap hood over her head, then poured gasoline over her in preparation for her immolation. Next, he sadistically brandished pruning shears as he approached the thrashing black captive, slowly picked up her hand and cut off the fingers of her right hand in order to remove evidence from under her fingernails.

Transforming Politically Incorrect Reality to Suit Hollywood’s Anti-white Agenda

But It goes beyond creating fictitious cases of whites preying on blacks. Hollywood has taken real cases where blacks have brutalized whites and portrayed them as the exact opposite: White men brutalizing innocent blacks.

For instance, in October 2001, African American Chante Mallard, a young nurse’s assistant, hit a homeless white man, Greg Biggs, leaving him half lodged in her windshield. Ms. Mallard then drove home, parked her car in the garage, and left Mr. Biggs stuck in the window. For two days she checked on Biggs’ condition, talked to him, and when he finally bled to death, she and her boyfriend dumped the body in a park.

Hollywood transformed this into an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation as well as a film. In the CSI episode Anatomy of a Lye (the twenty-first of the second season), the driver became a white lawyer. In the 2007 film Stuck, Mena Suvari, the actress who played Lester Burnham’s blonde, blue-eyed high school love interest in American Beauty, starred in the role of Ms. Mallard.

The film was directed and co-written by Stuart Gordon, a Jewish American who has evidenced a highly critical view of majority culture, beginning with his founding of Screw Theater in 1968 and an adaptation of Peter Pan that featured nudity and hallucinogenics, for which Gordon was arrested. His Organic Theater Company later staged Sexual Perversity in Chicago.

Hollywood, of course, has not limited its inversions of politically incorrect reality to portrayals of white-on-black crime. A plethora of films have portrayed women or African Americans in high-status positions such as doctors, lawyers, or professors that were traditionally dominated by white males. An exception — until recently — was that Hollywood continued to portray airline pilots as white males. But even here, Hollywood now often shows a preference for women or African Americans as pilots.

For instance, in Turbulence (1997), a blonde flight attendant flies a 747 while a crazed white man played by Ray Liotta stalks her. In the Tom Hanks flick Cast Away (2000), we see both a female and a black pilot. And in a related theme, Jodi Foster plays an aeronautical engineer in Flightplan (2005). This, of course, is all part and parcel of the forward march of multiculturalism in the United States, as in the West more generally.

Another common example is for a Jewish character to rescue people in distress. A classic in this genre is the 1996 film Independence Day, which starred Jeff Goldblum as a hero fighter pilot along with African American Will Smith. (In this film, President Thomas J. Whitmore was still played by a white man; but, as we all know, portrayals of blacks as president have become commonplace, to the point that such portrayals have been suggested as paving the way for Barack Obama’s looming presidency.)

It is so common for Jews to be such heroes in film that one film expert has created a category specifically called “Jews to the Rescue.”

Then of course there are the numerous films in which the engineering genius is played by a black. One genius that comes to mind is Dr. Miles Bennett Dyson, “the original inventor of the neural-net processor which would lead to the development of Skynet, a computer A.I. intended to control and defend the United States, but which would later seize control of the world and launch a global war of extermination against humanity.” His appearance, of course, was in Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Speaking only for myself, I fear that such fictional images of the dispossession of white males signal a real desire on the part of some segments of society to dispossess white males in real life. What then will future films look like when in fact the majority has been eclipsed?

Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.