Tis The Season for Love

‘Tis the Season: A Pro-White, Pro-Natal TV Movie

/29 Comments/in /by

Last year just before Christmas a movie caught my attention because it’s one of the rare pro-White modern Christmas movies, and, for added surprise, it is also pro-natal. Try to name any Hollywood film or any kind of TV fare that fits that bill.

The movie is called  ‘Tis the Season for Love (2015) and it comes from the Hallmark Channel.

In this day and age with the war on Christmas in full swing and at a time when births to White parents are way, way down historically, what a treat it is to have one movie straight out of the maw of our entertainment industry that shows for one woman, life in a small town with a traditional man beats out the “You Go, Girl” life of a single woman in New York City. And there is not an ounce of irony in the entire movie.

Here is Hallmark’s summary of the show:

Beth Baker is an out-of-work actress stuck in New York City without her friends at Christmas time. She decides to return home to the quaint small town she escaped 10 years before and finds a place far different than the hamlet she left. She suddenly finds performing possibilities and even romance that kind of blow her away. Will the holidays prove to be as magical for Beth as they appear, or is Christmas magic doomed to disappear as quickly as it arrived for a lady who is ready to take chances she could never have imagined a decade before? Then again, this is the kind of thing that seems to happen during the Christmas season all the time.

Further, this movie got some serious numbers—2.3 million viewers at its debut three years ago. As far as I can tell, there has been no backlash against the movie, its actors, or its creators, and this year Hallmark again ran it. My own motive for highlighting this movie is to give TOO readers a small Christmas present as we head into the thick of the Christmas season. To be honest, so much of my own cultural criticism has been negative and pessimistic — if only because circumstances and honesty dictate it. So I’d like to offer something positive at this wonderful time of year. Read more

Biocentric Political Thought in the Third Reich: A Review of Johann Chapoutot’s The Law of Blood

/155 Comments/in , /by

The Law of Blood
Johann Chapoutot
La loi du sang: Penser et agir en nazi
Paris: Gallimard, 2014
(English translation by Miranda Richmond Mouillot
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018, in press)

“I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.” — Walter Sobchak

In today’s culture, any nationalist activist, or really anyone who is politically incorrect, is liable to be labeled a “Nazi” and compared to Adolf Hitler. This is so even when the comparison is patently absurd and the person in question is obviously not a “Nazi”: whether the conservative French patriot Jean-Marie Le Pen, the anti-Zionist mixed-race Franco-Cameroonian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, or indeed the populist civic nationalist Donald Trump. Comparisons to fascism are also de rigueur whenever the Western politico-media Establishment wishes to demonize a foreign leader who refuses to kneel, such as Slobodan Milošević or Vladimir Putin.

The reason such individuals are called “Nazis” and compared to Hitler is typically not because of any formal ideological similarities — none of those above have ever championed a totalitarian dictatorship or any kind of systematic racial or anti-Semitic politics — but for more emotional, civil-religious reasons.[1] In the current culture, “Nazi” or “Hitler” is simply the meanest name one can call someone (hence the phenomenon of Godwin’s law) — the designated term for anyone violating the orthodoxies of political correctness. Political correctness, in turn, has steadily shifted leftwards and radicalized over the years. This means that, today, if people adopt the opinions of prominent anti-Nazis like Charles de Gaulle or Winston Churchill (who were both racialist proud of their White identity and moderately Judeo-critical), they will, however absurdly, be sure to be called “Nazis.”

However, eventually a reaction sets in. Nationalists and free-thinkers will tend to become curious: what did Hitler and the National Socialists actually think? Am I, the so-called Nazi heretic, really like them? Were they — the designated worst evil of human history —  really that bad? These questions — as writers such as Irmin Vinson and Greg Johnson have noted —  are irrelevant to the legitimacy of ethnic Europeans’ right to live and prosper in their own homelands.[2] Furthermore, and quite obviously for anyone who examines the topic, the fact is that there are innumerable differences between historical German National Socialism and contemporary European nationalisms and White advocacy.

Nonetheless, National Socialism remains a historically and politically important subject, the genesis and downfall of which remains crucial to understanding the development of Western civilization in the twenty-first century. We can then salute the French historian Johann Chapoutot who in his La loi du sang: Penser et agir en nazi has provided a formidable intellectual history of official thought in the Third Reich.[3] Chapoutot, who had previously written a somewhat less fair-minded but still useful book on National Socialist Germany’s infatuation with Greco-Roman civilization,[4] can be credited for showing why and how so many Germans found National Socialism to be both intellectually and emotionally compelling. Read more

Roche Trap: A Tribalist Lets Slip the Truth

/49 Comments/in , /by

A Spectre is haunting the Unz Review — the spectre of a highly ethnocentric Jewish commenter called Tyrion 2. He possesses all of Kevin MacDonald’s “background traits for Jewish activism,” from ethnocentrism and intelligence to aggressiveness and psychological intensity. With shameless disregard for facts and logic, he assails any criticism of Jews at the Unz Review, arguing aggressively and incessantly that no Jew anywhere has ever done or said anything harmful to non-Jewish interests.

Trap for a Tribalist

As you might expect, Tyrion 2 has been busy on re-prints of my own articles at the Unz Review. For example, he denies that the Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche had any true responsibility for the massive increase in Third-World immigration under Tony Blair’s New Labour government. Here is his defence of Roche: “She was a junior minister in a government (naturally) dominated by Gentiles and only holding the relevant brief for 2 years. As to her motivations in upholding the party line of Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott, I don’t know (upholding the party line as a junior minister? keeping her job?).”

Anyone who reads my article “Roche Motel Revisited: The Comfort of an Atomized Society” will learn how far Tyrion 2’s assertions are from the truth. However, I thought that he wouldn’t bother attacking the re-print of my article “Liberals vs. Mother Nature” at the Unz Review. After all, the article is about India, Freddie Mercury and AIDS, not about the Jewish corruption of Western politics. I was wrong. Tyrion 2 seized on one small reference to Jews in the article – and entered a Roche trap:

Yes, both Jews and Parsis have been overachievers and yes, as you point out, Parsis were not as singled out for dislike as Jews [were] but Parsis lived in super diverse India and Jews lived in much more homogenous [sic] Europe. (Comment of 8th December 2018 on the re-print of “Liberals vs. Mother Nature” at the Unz Review)

Diversity is Good for Jews

Tyrion 2 is making the classic Jewish argument that racially and religiously mixed societies are safer for Jews than homogeneous ones. According to him, in “super diverse India” (in fact, not-so diverse Gujarat), Parsis didn’t stand out and so didn’t suffer persecution and expulsions as Jews did in “much more homogenous Europe.” And guess what? Tyrion 2 is thinking exactly like Barbara Roche:

Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Roche wasn’t acting on her own when she became immigration minister and opened Britain’s borders to Somalis and other low-IQ, high-criminality Third-Worlders. She was collaborating with other Jews to make Britain a more “comfortable” place for Jews. And since she left office, she has continued to campaign for open borders and for more anti-White bureaucracy:

Tony Blair should promote the benefits of legal immigration to Britain, and “not back off” from plans to create a super equalities commission, Barbara Roche, the former equalities minister, has urged. … The child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother, Ms Roche has reason for her feelings on immigration. “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I’m Jewish but I’m also a Londoner; I’m English but also British.” (Roche urges Labour to promote the benefits of legal migration, The Independent, 24th June 2003)

Migration maniac Barbara Roche

In fact, Barbara Roche is neither English nor British. How could she be, when “being Jewish informs [her] totally”? For her and for other powerful Jews in the West, a term like “British” or “French” or “American” is merely geographic. That’s why she was so eager to flood Britain with low-IQ Third-Worlders, re-shaping its demographics in a way that, while inflicting huge harm and expense on native British Whites, allowed her to “feel comfortable” while sipping “her cup of Americano coffee” at Euston station. Read more

“The Mightier Our Blows, the Greater Our Emperor’s Love”: The Crusader Ideology of Germanized Christianity in the Song of Roland

/16 Comments/in , , , , /by

There is a mysterious quality to the first literature of any ancient nation. The earliest recorded poems are those produced right at the edge between the forceful spontaneity of barbarism and the dead letter of civilization. They almost invariably reflect a primordial and manly mindset very different from that of our own time. They express the psychology and values of conquering peoples, heeding closely to the law of life, by which nations prosper or die. So it is with the Iliad of ancient Greece,the Beowulf of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Song of Roland of the French.

The Song of Roland is the French national epic and the first great piece of French literature, emerging in the eleventh century, on the back of the First Crusade to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. The poem’s author is even more mysterious than Homer, for we do not even know his name. The Song is a vivid and powerful expression of the values of medieval European chivalry and indeed of the centuries-long clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam, dating back to the Muslim conquests of Roman Christian Levant and North Africa.

In contrast with later criticisms of Christianity as embodying a universalist “slave-morality,” in the Song we find Christian values perfectly fused, and perhaps subordinated to, the essentially Germanic warrior ethos of the French knightly aristocracy in the form of a novel crusader ideology. The Song presents a perfect case-study of what James C. Russell called the “Germanization of early medieval Christianity” or what William Pierce called “Aryanized” Christianity.[1] The heroes of the poem are obsessed with honor, family, nation, religion, and service to the emperor. I shall present the historical Charlemagne and the values of the Song of Roland. These can help us understand both the emergence and defense of European identity in past centuries. Read more

Quo Vadis Vatican? Jewish involvement in the radical changes of the Second Vatican Council

/34 Comments/in , /by

Add New

Here’s to our murder-less mystery story, where its religious-ecclesiastical background calls for careful threading, though no issues of faith or belief are involved. I am referring to the Second Vatican Council, (1961–1964), some of its deliberations, the shadowy maneuvers that brought them about, and the implications and consequences for the brethren and the world at large. The Council implemented profound changes, of which many faithful are probably not fully aware, and from which the Catholic Church has perhaps not yet recovered.

But first some background. The late 1950s were a time of critical ideological tension. In Italy, Communist governments, provincial and local, ran and administered large swaths of the country. There was a chance that in the next political elections the Communists could win the majority.

Understandably, America was concerned and had disturbing contingency plans should the enemy win. In this, I think, they misunderstood Italy’s collective psychology. For one, many had already perceived the utopian nature of Marxist egalitarianism and sensed that a Communist state would resemble a convent or a prison. But they also knew that, if the Italian Communists won, they would quickly convert the convent into a brothel and the prison into a discotheque. That is, a change in name but not in substance.

Still, Pope Pius XII, who died in 1958, came from a noble family with a long history of service to the Church. Now policy and the political winds called for a Pope with a different background, a “populist” we would say today — one whose humble origins would implicitly raise favor among the discontent, hope in the disenfranchised and sympathy in the downtrodden.

Pope John XXIII filled the bill, for he was the fourth among thirteen children in a family of sharecroppers. And soon he acquired the byname of “good.” From then on, the masses knew him as “the Good Pope.”

Logic is never a friend of mass psychology, for ‘good’ is a relative term. Good compared to whom? In fact, according to a meaningful section of past and current Catholic thinkers, John XXIII was a disaster. Read more

Enrique Krauze, Mexico’s Most Prominent Public Intellectual, Hates Trump (and White, Protestant America)

/26 Comments/in /by

Enrique Krause. The background is for his documentary “Beyond Borders” (in Spanish).

 This piece is an update of my very brief TOO note of 2016, “Enrique Krauze.” Krauze is a Jewish-Mexican historian, essayist, editor, and public intellectual; he can be read in all the most elite places, even dispensing his wisdom in the pinnacle of the journalist profession, the New York Times. In the October, 9, 2017 article “How  Mexico Deals with Trump” of The New Yorker, the American biographer Jon Lee Anderson describes Krauze as “arguably the country’s [Mexico] most prominent public intellectual.”

Krauze hates Donald Trump. Of course, by now, even Trump’s biggest boosters—the Alt Right and talking heads like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson—have given up supporting Trump. But that’s because he has not followed up on his promises, particularly with regard to immigration: the wall, birthright citizenship, lowering legal immigration, deporting illegals, and not providing welfare benefits to immigrants. For Krauze, the hate is much deeper. His reasons for hating Trump are much more akin to the reasons so many American Jews hate Trump.  Put simply, Krauze hates Trump not for what he hasn’t done, but for what they see as a President Trump portending some kind of Hitlerian revolution in the West.

According to the Líderes Mexicanos magazine, Leo Zuckermann (another Mexican Jew) is one of the 300 leaders of Mexico. This April Zuckermann interviewed Krauze to talk about the latter’s 2018 book, El Pueblo Soy Yo, whose central theme is populism. I will translate from Spanish to English a passage from the television interview in which Krauze responds to a leading question by Zuckermann. Krauze says that, with the election of Trump, the United States

has degraded Western history. And the country is in a situation of political, historical and moral conflict of enormous [emphasis in Krauze’s voice] proportions and still of unknown prognosis. And there is, without a doubt, a battle between a prospective tyrant, who is Donald Trump, with very clear [emphasis in Krauze’s voice] fascist tendencies—… his racism, his nativism, his hatred, not to mention his personal pathology: megalomaniac, narcissistic in short (we would spend all night talking about this) that also dominates a Congress that wants to be dominated [!!!], against a judicial power that is defending itself, the press, the media, the radio and television channels. 

… the polarization is terrible, and there are thirty-something percent of Americans who, whatever happens with Trump, would approve of him even if he killed people on Fifth Avenue, as he said [emphasis in Krauze’s voice]; nothing would happen.

Zuckermann agreed and referred to an intellectual he had admired so much, Samuel Huntington, especially for his book Political Order in Changing Societies (although not for his later books, such as Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity). Krauze responded:

I knew him [Huntington]. I even had a controversy with him, and this essay that I published in The New Republic is an essay against him [emphasis in Krauze’s voice] because he is Trump’s prophet. He is the man who says in 2003, in his latest book, “the United States is in danger.” But is the United States in danger? No. It is the White, Protestant United States—the United States that Huntington saw himself in the mirror—that is in danger. And why? Because of the Latin American and, in particular, the presence of Mexicans.

Krauze continues sarcastically, rephrasing Zuckermann’s comment, that White Americans

were losing their soul. That’s why I included [Huntington] there [in my book], along with a variety of my texts against Trump, including, of course, the text of my criticism of [then president] Peña Nieto for having invited Trump to Mexico: that was a historical error.

In other words, Krauze thinks that White Protestants in the U.S.  have some kind of moral obligation to accept as many Mexicans and others as want to go there—the same position held by his co-ethnics in the U.S.  Read more

Barons of Bullshit: A Trip Around the Runnymede Gasbag Community

/26 Comments/in /by

Linguistics is the scientific study of language, but it hasn’t actually attracted many good scientists. It hasn’t attracted many good writers either. In fact, I would say that the world’s most famous linguist is also one of the world’s worst writers. The Jewish linguist and radical campaigner Noam Chomsky (born 1928) is a gasbag whose books are painful to read. His prose is pompous, pretentious and prolix. And I would connect that to his politics.

In general, I would say that left-wingers write more badly than right-wingers. Often much more badly, as this prize-winning extract shows:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

That extract isn’t a joke or a parody. Instead, it’s the entirely serious academic prose that won the feminist scholar Judith Butler first prize in a Bad Writing Contest back in 1998. Butler is a gasbag and a bullshitter. She’s also Jewish like Noam Chomsky. Is that significant? I think it is. Although mainstream linguistics, like mainstream biology, insists on the Psychic Unity of Mankind, I think that mainstream linguistics is wrong. The way we talk and write is influenced by our genetics, not just by our culture and environment. Jews have a higher average verbal intelligence, which allows them to read, write and talk faster and longer than non-Jews.

Bigger and better

That fluency allows Jews to be bigger gasbags and better bullshitters. Chomsky and Butler are bad scholars but prolific writers and speakers. The part-Jewish Christopher Hitchens boasted in his autobiography that “On average I produce at least a thousand words of printable copy every day, and sometimes more. I have never missed a deadline.” I argued in “Gasbags Are Not Great” that the quantity of Hitchens’ “copy” was not matched by its quality. Like Chomsky’s, his prose is pompous, pretentious and prolix. Like Chomsky’s, I find his books painful to read. But Jewish and part-Jewish writers can be prolific without being painful. The part-Jewish Mark Steyn seems to write even more than Hitchens did, but his prose is pleasing to read, not painful.

I’d say that this is because Steyn is right-wing and not a gasbag. But I’ve argued in “Wicked Muslims, Innocent Jews” that he can be a bullshitter. For example, his claim that Jews are suffering first and worst from Muslim immigration into Europe is entirely untrue. It’s a dishonest attempt to conceal the central Jewish role in opening Europe’s borders to the Third World. Mark Steyn, Rod Liddle and other right-wing philo-Semites also constantly rail against the bogus concept of “Islamophobia.” But they don’t discuss where the term came from and who supports the Muslim groups that exploit it. The Muslim lobby-group Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) uses “Islamophobia” to demand ever-harsher laws against free speech and ever-stronger repression of native White resistance to Muslim crime and misbehaviour.

Mentoring Tell MAMA

But which rich and powerful lobby-group mentors and advises Tell MAMA and has seen its former chief executive become co-chair of Tell MAMA? Why, it’s the Community Security Trust, the Jewish group that also hates free speech and wants to crush native White resistance. Dr Richard Stone, Jewish high priest in the Stephen Lawrence cult, has written that “British Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” Against whom? Against the White and historically Christian majority, of course. While Jews supply the verbal intelligence and legal expertise, Muslims are supposed to play the role of non-White victims in a campaign to undermine and dispossess the White majority.

A bullshitting report on a bogus concept

But Mark Steyn and Rod Liddle don’t write about the central Jewish role in the Islamophobia industry. As I said in “A Singularly Semitic Scandal,” they’re being typhlistic and turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts (typhlism is from the Greek typhlos, “blind”). Who actually introduced the term “Islamophobia” to British politics? It was the Runnymede Trust, which supplies “Intelligence for a Multi-ethnic Britain” and which proudly boasted in 2017: “This report is being published on the 20th anniversary of our initial report Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, which first brought the term to public and policy prominence, in Britain and indeed beyond.” Read more