Featured Articles

More on the “W-Word”

/in /by

Greg Johnson’s “The ‘W-Word” makes the point that Hillary Clinton is now actually resisting white dispossession — to the extent that it is her own dispossession — the only way possible by appealing to a latent but real white racial consciousness and solidarity.

There is a certain irony to this situation, which we could enjoy more fully if our own interests were not the victim of the whole process. The Clintons assumed this election would be a cakewalk, and in their minds already saw themselves living another eight years in the White House. They took their victory so much for granted that they were not concerned when Florida and Michigan were disqualified.

Then this mulatto comes along and actually has the nerve to become a serious competitor, and then a real threat, and finally he upsets the whole apple cart. The Clintons figured the black vote was also theirs and never imagined until the last few months that something like this could happen.

The Clinton’s racial liberalism has now become nothing more than ballast, useless weight, or even a drag, which is being jettisoned to attract as many of the voters, i.e., white democratic voters, that they can get, as the black vote is not really in play for them. So Barack Obama — he whose very name increases the surreal feel of the whole all-too-real scene — has been racking up nearly 95% of the black vote, and supposedly most of the liberal white (i.e., the Jewish and ultra-liberal coalition) vote, while Hillary has been getting about 60% of the whiteDemocratic voting base.

The money story is most telling. Obama is obviously getting the bulk of the financial support of the traditional big contributors (i.e., the Jews and their affluent white fellow-travelers) leaving Hillary to borrow money from herself to pay for her campaign. This is all enough to cause me to actually root for Hillary, something I would never have believed possible a few months ago.

What we are seeing here is part of the phenomenon Kevin MacDonald refers to as “implicit whiteness.” In politics it is usually associated with Republican presidential candidates typically getting about 60% or sometimes even a little more of the white vote. But it is something new to see it occurring within the Democratic Party at this level. And this is what it is. There are no real differences between Hillary and Obama on the substantive issues, or even on the symbolic issues, except for the symbolism related to her whiteness and his blackness.

[adrotate group=”1″]

It may be that in this presidential election cycle implicit whiteness will actually play a more important role, be more obvious and more strongly expressed, in the Democratic primaries than in the general election. This is largely because of the Democratic candidates’ lack of differences on the substantive issues, which enables implicit whiteness to play a greater role in the voter’s decision process.

In the general election there will be pronounced differences on substantive issues, on the Iraq war but much more importantly on the economy and basic pocketbook issues and fears, issues that strongly tend to work against McCain. These differences will weaken the role of implicit whiteness in the decision-making process, probably because by its very implicitness it lacks the coherence to take priority over explicit substantive issues.

And so far McCain has done nothing to strengthen implicit whiteness in his favor, in spite of its vital importance to his chances for victory. On the politically permissible substantive issues that would most effectively mobilize implicit whiteness — above all controls on non-white immigration, and after that, political and economic nationalism — McCain is taking the opposite tack. And even in symbolic gestures, such as his Selma bridge stunt, he seems to be doing his best to fatally weaken the one thing that could give him victory. Hillary now seems to see this in her own primary contest, but probably too late. It seems that McCain so far is not learning the lesson of her mistake.

His choice of a running mate will probably be his most important chance to mobilize implicit whiteness in his support. Mitt Romney’s early appeals to the populist concerns of implicit whiteness, such as non-white immigration and the outsourcing of jobs, actually had McCain on the ropes for a while after the Michigan primary. But then Romney went off-message (perhaps he got advice to back off the issues that center on white interests) and lost momentum, allowing McCain to recover and regain the lead. In the last few days before he bowed out of the race, Romney attempted a cautious return to the white-centered issues that gave him his only success, but by then it was too little and too late. Choosing Romney would provide McCain with some connection to issues that appeal to implicit whiteness, a starting point which he can develop further if he chooses to do so.

Richard McCulloch’s website is at www.racialcompact.com.

Eye on Hollywood: The Race Films of Denzel Washington: Déjà Vu All Over Again

/in /by

Last fall, in my capacity as a frequent contributor to this website’s print companion, The Occidental Quarterly, I addressed a crowd of citizens concerned with the well-being of Europeans and European Americans. My presentation had the long title of “Cultural Displacement and the Jewish Experience: The Entertainment Industry as a Case Study.” Perhaps fitting in a world moving away from the printed word, I had about twenty minutes of film clips to hold the attention of the audience.

My focus was on two films, Crimson Tide (1995) and Remember the Titans (2000), both starring African-American actor Denzel Washington. Washington has appeared in over a dozen films that prominently feature a racial angle. His first big-screen appearance, Cry Freedom (1987), set the stage for his anointed celluloid calling: addressing race problems in the way Hollywood wants America to think about race. In Cry Freedom Washington played Steve Biko, an anti-apartheid activist who died at a police station in South Africa. Two years later he appeared in Glory as an escaped slave who joined the Northern army during the Civil War.

Mississippi Masala (1991) was an innovative look at interracial romance (good) and hostility to interracial romance (bad) as seen through lenses of white, black (African American) and brown (immigrants from India). This was immediately followed by Spike Lee’s Malcolm X (1992), which was mirrored in some respects by the later race film The Hurricane (1999), a story which explicitly argued that black boxer Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter was framed and imprisoned due to white racism.

Philadelphia (1993) is among the more clever vehicles for discussion of racism and discrimination, as it depicts the plight of a closeted gay man (Tom Hanks) dying of AIDS. Hanks plays successful young lawyer Andrew Beckett who is fired from his law firm after a colleague notices lesions on his face caused by AIDS. The film uses reverse bias to show the audience that it is inhumane to have any prejudices at all. Washington plays the part of B-grade lawyer Joe Miller, a macho African America who despises homosexuality. The irony set up by this plot is obvious: of anyone, a black man should know the evils of prejudice and discrimination. His subsequent education becomes the hoped-for education of benighted viewers.

Crimson Tide (1995) is a more subtle Washington approach for taking a stand against white racism. The issue of race and power in America is introduced in the opening scene, which tells us that the three most powerful men in the world are the President of the United States, the President of Russia, and the commander of a nuclear ballistic submarine. At the start of the film, the commander (played by Gene Hackman) is white. Washington plays a more educated, peace loving officer who eventually takes control of the boat and prevents an unnecessary nuclear strike.

Chastised, the white commander exits the stage, which would seem to be the subliminal intended cue for white men in general. This explicit portrayal of role reversal exists as part of the greater narrative from Hollywood film and other media, academia, the courts and the government in which whites are removed from their niche and replaced by non-whites.

Remember the Titans (2000), perhaps more than any other Hollywood movie, presents the template for the planned replacement of the American majority. Ostensibly a heart-warming tale about a group of high school football players working to overcome racism in turbulent times, the barely buried subtext is that whites will gladly — altruistically — hand over to blacks every favorable niche they have. The football team represents American society in microcosm: black, white, and tense. Only through the replacement of the white coach and white players by black counterparts can amity be realized. In the film, most whites accept this displacement with but slight resistance.

For a longer essay on this topic, I plan to view all or at least the majority of Denzel Washington’s films. Of the more recent ones, Antwone Fisher (2002) certainly fits the race genre, while reviews suggest American Gangster (2007) does as well. It was while viewing the 2006 Déjà Vu, however, that I discovered an unwelcome twist to the typical Washington-character-as-moral-exemplar format: In Déjà Vu the morally flawed or racist white is portrayed as nearly demonic. And his evil is directed at a perfectly innocent black woman, as well as at Americans more generally.

Déjà Vu accesses Americans’ memories of three traumatic events—the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina (complete with its overtones of racist whites). Like executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the villain in Déjà Vu is a young white “patriot,” who has planted a bomb on a New Orleans ferry, killing 543 innocent Americans in the process. The central victim is Claire, a beautiful young African American woman who was actually killed prior to the ferry explosion. Washington, as ATF agent Doug Carlin, falls in love with her as he voyeuristically watches her through a kind of limited time machine.

Carlin was distraught when he first viewed Claire’s lifeless body, still drenched in the same kind of gasoline as the victims of the ferry bombing. The fingers on one of her hands are missing, apparently sliced off in the explosion. In an effort to prevent Claire’s death and the ferry bombing, Carlin studies the actions of the bomber and travels back through time to thwart him. It is here that we see Claire’s demise in real time.

The fanatical white bomber is played by James Caviezel, who previously had portrayed Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. To throw investigators off, he attempts to inflict injuries on Claire that would be consistent with injuries sustained in the ferry bombing. Here we see the demonic as enacted by a white man upon a helpless black woman.

Claire is tied to a chair, arms behind her back. Then, in preparation for her immolation, the bomber pours gasoline over her hooded head. Next, he sadistically brandishes pruning shears as he approaches the thrashing black captive. As she screams through her hood, the bomber slowly picks up her hand and prepares to cut off her fingers. Hence the missing digits.

Any normal viewer would react with horror at such an unimaginable instance of evil. Further, he might even equate such evil with the race of the villain in the film. The idea that popular images translate into harmful stereotypes has a long pedigree, both in academia and in the public mind as well.

Ethnic Notions, for instance, is a documentary exploring “the deep-rooted stereotypes which have fueled anti-black prejudice.” Ceramic Uncles & Celluloid Mammies: Black Images and Their Influence on Culture and White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture do the same in book form. Slaying the Dragon and Picturing Oriental Girls: A (Re)Educational Videotape do so for the sexual objectification of Asian women in Hollywood films that “whites” allegedly produce.

None of these distinguish between European-derived whites and Jews, of course, despite the fact that the latter have dominated Hollywood from its inception. See, for example, Neal Gabler’s wonderful An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. For the multicultural project as a whole, however, it is white males (clearly understood as non-Jewish) who are the principal oppressors of the rest of the world. Among the ranks of the victims, Jews rank near or at the top because of the Holocaust, a narrative that is constantly reinforced by Hollywood.

In the last two decades or so, there is simply no correlate among minority images to equal the constant barrage of negative images of white males. For instance, rarely do truly negative images of Jews appear in American film, and the image of the black male has undergone a 180-degree change. From the savages and rapists of D.W. Griffith’s 1915 classic Birth of a Nation, film audiences are now treated to a steady diet of films with stars who have joined Sidney Poitier in the category of black film icons: Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy, and Samuel L. Jackson, with the possible additions of James Earl Jones, Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Danny Glover and Cuba Gooding Jr.

Contemporary viewers are unlikely to ever see the blood-curdling violence of ‘true crime’ attacks by black males on innocent white victims in cases such as the Wichita Massacre (five young whites raped and/or murdered), the Knoxville slayings, or the pre-Christmas murder of a family of four whites by a slightly built black man in Ithaca, NY. Instead, the news media focus far more on the alleged crimes of white men, as in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax or the Jena 6 fraud.

How Hollywood spins its powerful tales of good and evil, and how those tales invariably present and reinforce racially-coded messages, is a long and complex story. But it should give one pause that in a society that was created and once dominated by whites, a consistent message is emitted portraying white males as so often vile and evil. Not only are minorities who identify with the film victims of white mayhem likely to internalize a desire for revenge, but many whites themselves will subconsciously respond by wanting to punish the white evildoers. This process of white “altruistic punishment” can be likened to a body’s immune system going haywire and destroying its own healthy cells.

To be sure, one film alone is unlikely to establish a lasting image of any character or race. Rather, what is important is to identify the common characters and scenes that are repeated over time. Further, merely looking at one set of creators for one film — in this case director Tony Scott (brother of Ridley Alien, Kingdom of Heaven Scott) and screenwriters Bill Marsilii and Terry Rossio — will not establish which power ultimately controls the film industry. What is needed is an appreciation of the ideological hegemony within Hollywood and the determination to investigate its productions over a long period of time. Such an effort may then shed light on why the white male is so often depicted as violent and evil. In real life in America, many others provide their share of evil doing, yet we rarely see them on the screen.

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

A Spreading Fire

/in /by

Punctuated Equilibrium

It is easy to become discouraged when contemplating the stranglehold the Israel Lobby has on American policy in the Middle East.  One could compile a long list of actions taken by our government at the behest of the Lobby that serve the interests of Israel but not America. Exhibit A in this list is the neocon-promoted war in Iraq with its enormous cost in lives, in money, and in political instability.

In the face of this great power, it is sorely tempting to go along to get along on this issue, or just hunker down with a twelve pack and watch junk TV and ballgames as the U.S. sinks into an economic and foreign policy black hole.

But while the Lobby is powerful, it is not all powerful. As in the Jonathan Pollard case or the AWACS deal for Saudi Arabia, it has lost a game or two. And ironically as it gets more powerful, it increasingly impels mainstream figures to take a stand.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Consider the following:

  • The recent indictment of Ben-Ami Kadish on charges of spying for Israel.  Kadish is accused of passing US military secrets to the same Israeli who was the handler for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard.  The Kadish indictment shows there remains at least some integrity in our federal prosecutorial system on matters relating to Israeli lawbreaking.  Indeed, Joseph DiGenova, the US attorney who oversaw the spy prosecution that ensnared Pollard, in commenting on the Kadish indictment was direct and outspoken in accusing Israel of lying to the United States and of conducting “a much larger espionage operation with sleeper cells in the United States than we understood or could have known at the time.”
  • The still pending trial of former AIPAC foreign policy director Steven Rosen and analyst Keith Weissman on charges of conspiring to disclose classified national security information to Israel.  Despite Rosen’s and Weissman’s arguments that they have a First Amendment right to disclose classified information and AIPAC’s expenditure of $2.5 million for Rosen’s legal bills, Judge Ellis has refused to dismiss the case, although he has granted a multitude of postponements.  It is true that the case receives little attention in the media and true as well — unfortunately and disgracefully — that President Bush is likely to pardon Rosen and Weissman (and Larry Franklin, the codefendant who earlier pled guilty).  Nonetheless, the fact that the government has persevered in prosecuting this case shows an intent by some elements of our government to send AIPAC a message that it is not above the law.
  • Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and his recent attempts to open a dialogue with all of the Palestinian leaders, not just those of whom Israel approves.  For such misdeeds the likes of Abe Foxman, Marty Peretz, and David Horowitz have implied or openly stated that Carter is anti-Semitic and a “Jew hater.”  But such attacks have not dissuaded Carter from continuing to speak out on these issues.
  • The efforts of organizations such as Grant Smith’s Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (“IRmep”) to monitor and counter the actions of AIPAC and its affiliates.  Smith is a dogged researched who makes ample use of Freedom of Information Act requests and other research tools.  By such means he has obtained,  among other things, the transcripts of the 1963 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings in which Senator Fulbright uncovered evidence that AIPAC or its predecessor was acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Israel.  Using these tools,  Smith makes a strong case in his books Foreign Agents and Declassified Deceits that AIPAC has long and repeatedly violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Logan Act, and federal election laws.  IRmep is a small organization, but it is an active and uncompromising one.

So, some strong willed persons are taking action against the Israel Lobby.  Let’s join them.  Here are some things we can do:

  • Join IRmep or similar organizations.  These organizations are generally quite small, so giving them your support can have a real impact.
  • Invite some friends over for dinner, and after they see that you are almost normal, let them know you read books such as Walt and Mearsheimer’s  Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Carter’s book on Palestine, or Kevin MacDonald’s books.  You may bolster their courage to step out of line themselves.
  • Send letters of support to those such as Walt, Mearsheimer, Carter,  and others who dare to speak out against the Lobby and its policies.  These people receive enormous and often false and mean spirited criticism from the Lobby and its minions.  A simple but sincere letter from a supporter may mean a lot to them.
  • Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.  Or maybe write a book or article yourself.  The dissolution of our once great country is giving us plenty to write about.

Do these things because they are the right thing to do.  Don’t worry overmuch (here I am preaching to myself) about how great an impact you will have.  In the words of Emerson, “nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”   The important thing is to be active, not passive, despite the long odds of success.  Activity breeds more activity, in yourself and others, like a spreading fire.

Travis Woodson is an attorney practicing on the West Coast.

Canada is a police state

/in /by

Kathy Shaidle’s VDAR.com article on the Canadian thought police is an excellent summary of the horrifying regime of political correctness that reigns in Canada. One incident is particularly striking. Richard Warman, who has made a career of bringing complaints to the Canadian Human Human Rights Commission (CHRC), was accused of stifling free speech by Paul Fromm. For example, Fromm wrote that Warman was “the high priest of censorship” and “the mortal enemy of free speech and free thought.”

Warman then sued Fromm for defamation and won. The judge ruled that because Mr. Warman was acting legally in bringing complaints to the CHRC and because he had always been successful in these complaints, therefore he could not be reasonably accused of acting to stifle free speech.

There is an indisputable, thoroughly Orwellian logic to this. Canada has in fact outlawed certain types of speech. That’s what the CHRC is all about. Mr. Warman, in collaborating with the CHRC, could not possibly be guilty of stifling free speech because the types of speech Warman is complaining about are not in fact allowed. One is not free to say these things.

Get it? In the opinion of the court, Warman could presumably be reasonably described as stifling illegal speech, but to say that he is stifling free speech is simply incorrect. Ergo, what Fromm wrote was defamatory. Pay up.

Perhaps Fromm should have phrased his complaints a bit differently: Warman (and the CHRC) are acting to stifle certain thoughts when they are expressed publicly. Minimally, at least some of the thoughts frowned on by Warman and the CHRC are completely reasonable and should be allowed in any civilized society. And first among such thoughts should be that criticism of the behavior of groups should be tolerated. It should be possible to criticize, say, the behavior of the organized Jewish community (which strongly supports the CHRC). And people should be able to note that in general Muslim immigrants have not assimilated into Western societies, or that blacks have lower academic achievement even after controlling for socioeconomic factors.

But Canada is now a police state, so don’t even think about it. Literally.

First They Came For… Canadian “Hate Speech” Totalitarianism Is Not New

Kathy Shaidle

VDARE.com

May 6, 2008 [article]

Obama Squirms Under a New Light: Traditional (White) America’s

/in /by

Wednesday night’s televised debate on ABC between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was, as one might expect given recent campaign blunders, a mostly comfortable evening for Clinton and a surprisingly awkward performance from Obama.

Moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous — but especially Stephanopolous — gave Obama a difficult time with questions about his anti-white slurs against Pennsylvanians who “cling” to God and guns, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s refusal to wear an American flag lapel pen, and even his association with left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers.

Yes, the questions were largely unavoidable, even for the MSM, but notable for being piled up so high. And, for a refreshing change, a candidate with undeniable “links” to anti-white hate actually had to stand for questions about it. This “white heat” on Obama persisted almost throughout the evening, and it was satisfying to watch, even if the MSM seized upon it for the ratings value more than anything else.

How tough were the questions? Tough enough that other corners of the MSM were angry with the moderators the morning after.  The usually-sharp Tom Shales, the Washington Post’s TV critic, accused them of beating up on Obama

Sounds to me like Shales just couldn’t stand watching a black candidate for president be tagged with “hate” associations.  But imagine if a white candidate had some sort of association, however tenuous, with a far-right figure who admitted to committing bombings and killings on behalf of his cause.  The MSM wouldn’t merely feel a duty to give him tough questions — they’d see it as their duty to make sure he couldn’t run for office.

Obama, as anyone who follows the news now knows, was caught telling a closed-door crowd in San Francisco that he wouldn’t do well in Pennsylvania because it’s filled with religious fundamentalist, anti-immigrant gun nuts (translated from the original quote).

Of course, he wasn’t talking about black gun nuts or Hispanics who “cling to religion,” he was talking about whites. That unspoken aspect aside, the comments were taken as offensive by many Pennsylvanians, and the Clinton campaign took full advantage. The comments will likely prove devastating to Obama in any general campaign, perhaps even more than the Rev. Wright thundering “God damn America” (and in a similar vein, I must point out that Rev. Wright specifically meant “God damn white people.”)

There is much justified frustration among white advocates about the complete lack of explicit white advocacy or resistance by whites. But this episode demonstrates that there is some fairly powerful proxy opposition. (Kevin MacDonald terms this “implicit whiteness” because it reflects white values and white interests without explicitly stating that they are white.) Religious faith, gun rights and immigration are all issues that whites are “allowed” to pursue, to varying degrees, so long as they don’t mention their own racial interest. So, when there’s an attack on the proxy issue, the resulting blowback is essentially white resistance. By my take, white resistance isn’t completely dead, just mis-channeled.

[adrotate group=”1″]

On Rev. Wright, Obama again struggled with a question from Charles Gibson about the timing of his attempts to disassociate himself, once saying that he “disowned” Rev. Wright, which he corrected to “I disowned the comments” when a surprised George Stephanopolous said, “You disowned him?” Stephanopolous said, correctly, that if Obama won the nomination, we’d all be watching Rev. Wright videos on TV, non-stop. Obama lamely answered that if it weren’t one thing, it would be another.

On affirmative action, Stephanopolous proposed that one reform could take income into account, so that a rich black student wouldn’t be favored over a poor white one. Incredibly, Obama offered only that “I still believe in affirmative action” and that programs should take “the whole person” into account (which is a fairly ridiculous thing to say, given that affirmative action’s very purpose is to ignore the whole person). Affirmative action is so unpopular among whites, and Stephanopolous’ proposal so reasonable, that it’s surprising that a speaker as savvy as Obama wouldn’t seize upon it. But he didn’t.

This is the essential problem Obama — or any candidate in America, really — faces. Your basic job is to try pleasing as many racial and ethnic groups as possible without offending the others. That’s almost impossible to do. I remember once, as an attorney in New York, hearing a mayoral cabinet member describe the mayor’s morning meetings. “It’s basically about which ethnic group is mad that day, and how the mayor’s going to fix it.”

We’re now watching that on a national scale, and it is up to whites to ensure that they are included in ways more explicit than proxy battles over guns and religion. Imagine the squirming anti-white activists will be doing then.

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

N. C. Aizenman: The Washington Post’s Reigning Champion of Illegal Aliens

/in /by

The treatment of illegal immigrants by the MSM has been a tiresome spectacle for years:  They’re lovely beings.  The American citizens, whites or other opponents of their continued presence here are awful trolls. We constantly hear of the illegals’ plight.  We never hear about the people hurt by them, namely white Americans (and to a large extent, black Americans, too).

But for unvarnished advocacy for these Hispanic invaders, the Washington Post’s N.C. Aizenman stands above the crowd.  “N. C.,” as she styles herself these days, is Nurith Celina Aizenman (“Nurith” is Hebrew), a former journalist for the New Republic who apparently decided that opining on events from a liberal perspective wasn’t direct enough:  Now she’ll just dose you with it straight, under the guise of a news column.

Her March 27, 2008 front-page story on the calamity befalling Virginia because of immigration crackdowns will make you want to scream (In N.Va, a Latino Community Unravels).

“A vibrant Latino subculture built in Prince William County over more than a decade is starting to come undone in a matter of months,” she begins.  Translation:  “The bland white world I detest is callously rejecting the wonderful injections of multicultural color it was lucky enough to get.”

We can be sure that Ms. Aizenman (seen here cavorting in the vibrant Afghani culture while on foreign assignment) has never described white culture as “vibrant.”  Or would never, if pressed.  We can be equally sure that she hates this country’s traditional white population, except the few in the media world enlightened enough to share her view that most of it needs to be scrapped in favor of a Peruvian-shawl-and-kente-cloth paradise.

In the story, Aizenman tells us of Hispanic business owners massaging stress-induced sore arms, “ghost town” strip malls, and empty churches (Christian worship is authentic when practiced by brown people, but hateful and small-minded when practiced by white people, you see).

She lobs in that hackneyed newspaper reference to the weather (“The sun gleamed over Manassas out of a cloudless sky”) before announcing the new friendlessness of an illegal Guatemalan woman named Silda.

“A police car drove by, and Silda quickly pulled [her 3-year-old daughter] Cynthia toward her body,” she writes, informing us that the illegal Guatemalans are Jews, and the Prince William County police are the Nazis.  Thanks, Nurith.

Nowhere are there whites or Americans quoted about how happy they are to see the illegals go.  The disgust over the third-world style storefronts, unsightly gatherings in the parking lots, and inability to find anyone who speaks English?  Not mentioned.  The incredible costs imposed on taxpayers, the police and the courts, and infrastructure?  Not mentioned.  The frustration of displacement?  Not a word of it.  When white America unravels, N.C. Aizenman won’t be there to tell you about it.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In short, whether through N.C. Aizenman or the rest of the MSM, whites do not have a voice.  Their concerns, feelings and frustrations are not featured on the front page of the Washington Post.  As America’s demographics put whites in the minority, this will have to change.

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

Eye on Hollywood: No Country for Old Men

/in /by

While traveling in Greece last spring, I found myself lacking for reading material. At a bookstore in Patras, I found an overpriced copy of Cormac McCarthy’s No Country For Old Men. At the time, I thought it might have been a bootleg copy because pages of narrative seemed to be missing. For instance, one moment the man who appeared to be the leading character was sipping a beer on the steps of a motel and a few pages later we hear about his corpse. Well, maybe that’s just the way McCarthy writes.

As most readers know, the Coen brothers, Ethan and Joel, have adapted this novel to the big screen, and it won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. Various blogs have credited the Coens for their “realistic” portrayal of Mexicans—drug smugglers, vicious murderers and all-around threats to the peace of (white) America. I haven’t seen the film yet, but the book does read that way.

In fact, the sheriff in the book (played by Tommy Lee Jones in the film) mulls over the changes that have come to American life. Back in the thirties, someone handed out a form asking teachers what problems there were in schools. Answers were “things like talkin in class and runnin in the hallways. Chewin gum. Copyin homework. Things of that nature. . . . Forty years later. Well, here come the answers back. Rape, arson, murder. Drugs. Suicide . . . Forty years is not a long time neither.”

Interestingly, these same forty years were the period in which the traditional WASP leadership of American was replaced by a new one, an “adversary culture” in Norman Podhoretz’s words. David Gelernter, the Yale University computer scientist nearly killed by a bomb sent by the Unabomber, wrote a stunning essay in the American Jewish Committee’s house magazine Commentary about this change. “The perversity I want to understand starts in the 1960’s.” He sees the rise through the ranks of a new class as both unhealthy and ominous. To many readers of Commentary (there were plenty of letters of complaint) it was unforgivable that Gelernter identified Jews as the cause of the problem.

“One dramatic sign was the big influx of Jews.” Perversity resulted from that fact that “the old elite used to get on fairly well with the country it was set over. Members of the old social upper-crust elite were richer and better educated than the public at large, but approached life on basically the same terms.” The new, heavily Jewish elite, Gelernter argued, is not only different from the non-Jewish masses, “it loathes the nation it rules.”

I’ve often wondered if the same sentiment applies to the Coen brothers. Having won multiple Oscars, they certainly qualify as elites. And like many of those in Gelernter’s essay, they are Jewish, having grown up in a predominantly Jewish section of Minneapolis.

Ethan Coen has commented that he always felt the outsider, one who never identified with “flat-voweled Scandinavian-American Minnesota.” That world, of course, is the object of the Coens’ hit film Fargo (1996), a cold world in which non-Jews are far from brilliant and unpredictably violent. Kindly but slow-thinking police chief Marge Gunderson (played by Frances McDormand, Joel Coen’s real-life wife) is able to outwit Minnesota criminals only because they are even less intelligent.

Gaear Grimsrud, for instance, is arguably not even intelligent enough to be considered a real human. He kills without forethought or remorse, and in one famous scene is caught feeding the remains of his crime partner into a wood chipper in back of their cabin hideaway. The red effluent issuing from the machine stands in stark contrast to the white Minnesota snow.

This scene recalls the prose of another Jewish member of the new elite, novelist Philip Roth.  In one passage from Portnoy’s Complaint, Roth mocks the barbarity of white Americans:

Let the goyim sink their teeth into whatever lowly creature crawls and grunts across the face of the dirty earth . . . let them eat vulture, let them eat ape-meat and skunk if they like—a diet of abominable creatures well befits a breed of mankind so hopelessly shallow and empty-headed as to drink, to divorce, and to fight with their fists. All they know, these imbecilic eaters of the execrable, is to swagger, to insult, to sneer, and sooner or later to hit. Oh, also they know how to go out into the woods with a gun, these geniuses, and kill innocent wild deer . . . You stupid goyim! Reeking of beer and empty of ammunition, home you head, a dead animal (formerly alive) strapped to each fender . . . and then, in your houses, you take these deer . . . cut them up into pieces, and cook them in a pot. There isn’t enough to eat in this world, they have to eat up the deer as well! They will eat anything, anything they can get their big goy hands on! And the terrifying corollary, they will do anything as well.

Roth’s worldview, as well as that of Joel and Ethan Coen as presented in Fargo, highlights a strong cleavage in Jewish thinking differentiating Jews from non-Jews. In biblical terms, this was the story of brothers Esau and Jacob. The elder brother Esau, hairy like an animal, is the archetypal goy. Jacob, the clever younger brother, represents the Jew. It’s rather surprising to see how the dichotomy has persisted.

Three decades ago, Hollywood insider Ben Stein added a new dimension to understanding this split. In his 1976 essay “Whatever happened to small-town America?” he explored television’s pronounced hostility toward rural (read Christian) America. Overwhelmingly Jewish, the television elite, like its Hollywood counterpart, imagined that small-town Gentiles naturally meant Jews harm. “As a result, when he [a Jewish TV writer] gets the chance, he attacks the small town on television or the movies.”

Echoing Gelernter, Stein wrote that “A national culture is making war upon a way of life that is still powerfully attractive and widely practiced in the same country.” The result is that “in the mass culture of the country, a hatred for the small town is spewed out on television screens and movie screens every day.”

Sounding like a Hollywood informant for Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, Stein concluded that “People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be.”

One result of this sentiment was that shows portraying Gentile American life in small towns simply disappeared. The change on American television in the early 1970s was so abrupt that Wikipedia even has an entry on it called “The Rural Purge.”

Another result was that when images of small towns did appear after this purge, what Marx called “the idiocy of rural life” was featured. Thus, for example, the fictional Ohio town of Fernwood depicted in Fernwood 2 Night “is full of bigots, Klansmen, quacks, hillbillies, and religious frauds.” Fernwood 2 Night was produced by Norman Lear whose All in the Family is perhaps the quintessential anti-white TV show: stupid and bigoted Archie Bunker surrounded by enlightened liberals and assorted multi-cultural types who delight in making fun of him.

Having grown up in a small town, I have far different memories of life in such a place. Put simply, it was a wonderful area in which to grow up, and I always consider it superior to what is available in American cities and suburbs today. One of the biggest changes is to the people themselves: in my youth nearly ninety percent of Americans were of European descent, while today that figure has plummeted to around sixty-five percent.

Another difference is that the non-WASP elite today, the one that “loathes the nation it rules,” is composed even more of the elite Jews Gelernter and Stein discussed. With the huge rise in crime against whites and the vast array of preferences in society for non-whites, I’m probably not the only person to think that McCarthy’s title No Country for Old Men could just as easily read No Country for White Men.

Come to think of it, as I consider the rise of non-white Hollywood stars, I realize the subtext of many movies is just that. For instance, Remember the Titans (2000), a high school football story starring Denzel Washington, is really an allegory about the replacement of whites with non-whites. I wonder how I’ll react to the Coens’ version of McCarthy’s book.

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