General

The Catholic League on the Weinstein Brothers

/in , , /by

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

Cultural Insurrections Reissued

/in /by

insurrections_coverThe hardcover edition of Cultural Insurrections has been reprinted after being out of print for some time. (There’s also a recent Kindle edition of The Culture of Critique.)  Cultural Insurrections  is available at the Charles Martel Society website (here), described as follows:

Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism
By Kevin MacDonald

Jewish intellectual and political movements are a powerful force in Western societies. Marxism, Zionism, neoconservatism, psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism have transformed Western self-consciousness, shattered ancient political orders through wars and revolutions, and promoted the ongoing demographic dispossession of European peoples by Third World immigrants. The Jewish role in these movements is often the subject of fierce partisanship, on all sides, but is seldom the subject of careful and dispassionate scientific analysis. …

In the present volume, MacDonald extends and refines his analyses in chapters on Zionism and the Jewish role in Soviet Communism, neoconservatism, and the promotion of racial integration. MacDonald also devotes chapters to the anti-Semitism of Henry Ford, the psychological basis of ethnocentrism, the unique characteristics of Western civilization, and what Jewish group evolutionary strategies can contribute to its survival. …

CONTENTS

Foreword by Virginia Abernethy
Introduction

Jewish Influence
1. Background Traits for Jewish Activism
2. Stalin’s Willing Executioners
3. Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of the Jewish Community
4. Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement
5. Neoconservative Portraits
6. Jews, Blacks, and Race

Anti-Semitism
7. Henry Ford and the Jewish Question
8. Enemies of My Enemy

Western Civilization
9. What Makes Western Culture Unique?
10. Psychology and White Ethnocentrism
11. Biological Roots of Ethnocentrism and Group Conflict
12. Immigration and Ethnic Interests
13. Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-Off “Racist”?
14. Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?

Hive Alive: Something’s Stirring in the Liberal Subconscious

/2 Comments/in /by

Is the liberal hive-mind in Britain about to shift its thinking on mass immigration? Maybe it is. If so, it’s a very encouraging sign that elites are at least having difficulty defending their program of displacement of the White population.  Here are two important buzzes from the Queen Bee, a.k.a. The Guardian:

Most glaring was Labour’s fear of a resurgence of union power. They didn’t want people banding together to insist on higher pay and better conditions. A steady supply of people for whom just working in Britain offered higher pay and better conditions than they would otherwise expect served to reduce cohesion in the workforce, making common purpose harder to achieve. It’s easy to see why this was not a perceived benefit of immigration that Labour was keen to advertise, or even explicitly acknowledge within the party. … “Better at being Tory than the Tories” was not a vote-winning slogan. Yet it was true. The City of London, its wants pandered to, was becoming the largest, most important financial centre in the world, even as the divide between rich and poor, north and south, haves and have-nots was widening. Britain had become so divided that consequences incredibly damaging to one group of people were fantastically advantageous to others. And anything that was advantageous to the wealthy was unchallengeable, as long as taxes were rolling in. (If Labour want to start apologising, it shouldn’t be over economic migration, The Guardian, 15th November 2013) Read more

After the Fall: Beyond Nationalism

/2 Comments/in , , /by

What follows is my speech delivered at the NPI conference at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington DC, on October 26, 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We could replace the noun ‘the fall’ with other related words having stronger, more loaded meanings, such as ‘the end time’ or ‘chaos’ — or ‘the end of a world,’ if not ‘the end of the world.’  These words and expressions come to my mind along with many fear-inspiring images related to our present and future identities.

I hope that none of us here claims to be a futurologist. In hindsight most futurologists have been proven wrong.  Remember the recent break-up of the Soviet Union, a phenomenon which not a single American or European sovietologist could predict. My main thesis is that prophecies about the fall are nothing new.  Since time immemorial, there have been stories, tales, and myths that have presaged the fall, the decline, or the end of time.  The vast majority of European thinkers and authors, from antiquity to postmodernity, have dealt with the notion of the fall and its aftermath.

On the opposite side of the fall there is historical optimism and the belief in Progress.  Progress has become a secular religion today, but fortunately it seems to be showing cracks and is being subject to critical inquires. The belief in progress and its advocates have had a very loud voice over the last 200 hundred years — and particularly over the last 70 years.  Modern advocates of Progress are usually wrapped up in different garbs, such as the Liberal or the Communist garb, or even the Christian garb. Somewhat pejoratively, we can call these people world improvers.  Read more

Nick the Priest: Bigotry, Balderdash and Britain’s Biggest Suicide-Cult

/in /by

Piety and Preaching

Self-righteous stupidity? Pious posturing? It’s impossible to beat a devout liberal atheist. One of my favourites is the neo-con journalist Nick Cohen. His irrational dogma and logical contortions are always entertaining to watch. He doesn’t write articles: he preaches sermons. After all, his surname means “priest” in Hebrew. But he would react badly to the suggestion that his ideology owes anything to his genetics. Like Richard Dawkins, the leader of his cult, and the late Christopher Hitchens, another of Dawkins’ disciples, he believes fervently in One Human Brain, in which  differences between different groups float mystically free of evolution and biology.

Nick Cohen

Nick “The Priest” Cohen

In a recent sermon in the neo-con Spectator, Cohen defended his cult-leader against attacks by other liberals. Dawkins has been criticizing the Muslim world for its failure to match Western achievements in science. The vast majority of Muslims are non-White, so Dawkins has been accused of blasphemy, that is, racism. Cohen rejects this accusation and goes on the offensive, saying that Dawkins’ critics are cowards. He points out that, unlike them, Dawkins “attacks Muslim bigots, not just Christian ones.” So far, so reasonable. But then Cohen begins his pious posturing. He raises the case of Nahla Mahmoud, a “Sudanese refugee who became a leading figure in the British Council of ex-Muslims.” But she is not receiving support from the supposedly feminist and freedom-loving liberals who are criticizing Dawkins.

“Abusing Islam is NOT free speech”

Mahmoud is an opponent of Sharia law, the violent and corrupt Muslim legal system. But, having crossed the border that Britain shares with Sudan, she “was shocked to find the same system here in her land of refuge.” She made a brief appearance on British television to support secular law for all. She and her family are now under threat for what Cohen calls her “simple moral clarity.” Cohen could, but doesn’t, say that this is yet another example of how Muslims hate free speech and do all they can to destroy it. Cohen himself pretends to adore free speech. But has he ever pointed out how bad Muslim immigration is for free speech? Read more

The Corrupted Kingdom: Power and Privilege in Modern Britain

/1 Comment/in /by

The fetid stench of White Male Privilege. It reeks off this name: Ryan Coleman-Farrow. It also reeks off his behaviour:

Former Met police officer admits failing to investigate rape cases: Ryan Coleman-Farrow faked police reports, failed to pass on evidence and falsely claimed to have interviewed suspects

An investigator from the Metropolitan police specialist sex crimes unit has admitted failing to investigate the alleged rapes and sexual assaults of 12 women by faking police reports, failing to pass on forensic evidence and not interviewing suspects. … Coleman-Farrow, 30, who was dismissed from the Met police in April last year [2011], stood in the dock at Southwark crown court to answer his name, and pleaded guilty to 13 charges of misconduct in public office by wilfully engaging in conduct amounting to an abuse of public trust between January 2007 and September 2010 …

A spokeswoman for Women Against Rape said: “This is a very serious case, because at least 12 victims have been denied justice and at least 11 rapists have received impunity as a direct result of this man’s actions. Every single case this specialist officer has been involved in should be reviewed.” The deputy chair of the IPCC [Independent Police Complaints Commission], Deborah Glass, said: “Ryan Coleman-Farrow was entrusted to investigate serious sexual offences and support some of the most vulnerable people in the criminal justice system. He let them down by his calculated abuse of their trust. His actions are beyond belief.” (Former Met police officer admits failing to investigate rape cases, The Guardian, 12nd September, 2012)

I agree with Ms Glass. But it’s clear what happened. The corrupt and incompetent Coleman-Farrow owed his job to his skin-colour. He was appointed ahead of decent, competent men with the wrong skin-colour. He was then held to far lower standards. And vulnerable women paid the price. That Guardian story truly is disgusting.

But it’s also puzzling. The Guardian had an Evil White Male full in its sights — and didn’t pull the trigger. Because this is the image that heads the story on the Guardian website:

Spot the Evil White Male

Spot the Evil White Male

Read more

Goy Figure: How Gentiles Just Don’t Get It — #1

/1 Comment/in /by

Definitively Dull

Goyishe kop is a Yiddish phrase that literally means “gentile head” (goyishe is pronounced like “goy-isha”). According to the Jewish English Lexicon, it can be defined as “Someone who fails to use his/her head; a dull mind.” It also means: “Someone who thinks like a non-Jew.” I have a goyishe kop in all senses of the phrase, which is why I’m puzzled by the behaviour described below. If you have a goyishe kop too, you will also be puzzled. So read on to test your G.K. rating.—

Fighting for Freedom

The American anti-jihadists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have recently been banned from entering the UK. This came as no surprise to politically aware Brits. Thanks to mass immigration, we have little free speech left here: Muslims and other non-whites despise it and happily collaborate with our hostile liberal elite in destroying it. But mass immigration also threatens the First Amendment in the US. Fortunately, Pamela Geller is one of the foremost defenders of the First Amendment. However, the blogger Irish Savant claims to have detected an inconsistency in her application of her core principles:

Pam, I notice that you adduce as the reason for the ban: “my principled dedication to freedom. I am a human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech…” Well now, that’s not quite true. Like the “liberals” (ha ha) you despise, you are indeed passionate about free speech. Providing it supports your position. Otherwise it’s banned. I know this, you see, because I have tried to comment on your blog (Atlas Shrugs) on a number of occasions. I had two objectives: First to commend you on your fight against the Muslim invasion, but second to point out that said invasion (together with that from Africa) has been brought about largely by Jewish agency.

Strangely enough, not one of them was published – they were banished into the ether. Don’t you Pam, as a “human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech” find this a bit contradictory? (Pamela Geller banned from Britain, 8 July 2013)

Goyishe kop! Irish Savant thinks like a non-Jew. He claims it’s contradictory for Geller to loudly support free speech and then to ban comments about Jewish involvement in mass immigration (not to mention the destruction of free speech). Irish Savant obviously does not understand the most important principle of all: “Is it good for Jews?” Pamela Geller does understand that principle. But then she doesn’t have a goyishe kop. She’s Jewish, after all.

Note: This is the first “Goy Figure” in an occasional series.