Jews as a hostile elite–again

/115 Comments/in , , , /by
Peter Brimelow ends his recent article (“Redneckophobia”? Why Obama Is Attacking Arizona“) by noting : “Our political class may live in a fantasy world, but the motive for its immigration enthusiasm is all too real: a relentless hatred of the historic American nation.”The immediate object of his ire is one Klejda Gjermani, described by Brimelow as “an Albanian expatriate of Jewish descent” who stepped off the boat and pretty much immediately realized she suffered from redneckophobia.  She works for Commentary, so I am sure she feels quite at home there.Bookmark and Share

Writing in Takimag, Paul Gottfried (The Death of the WASP) also raises the issue of Jews as a hostile elite, claiming that although I am generally an “over-the-top critic of Jewish power” (specifics would be nice),  on this particular issue I have “hardly scratched the surface”:

Even that over-the-top critic of Jewish power, Kevin MacDonald, has hardly scratched the surface in delineating the nastiness with which the children and grandchildren of Eastern European Jewish immigrants clawed their way to the top of the academic-media industry, on the backs of those they often despised. And all the while they appealed with brilliant success to a guilty WASP conscience.

I’ll really try to work on this problem, maybe check my Thesaurus for some good synonyms for “despised.” Memo to self: Must stop being polite.

It really wouldn’t matter much that Jews have become an elite except for this relentless hatred and loathing.   After all, all societies have elites. What is toxic is that such a substantial portion of our elite–especially that part of the elite that is ensconced in the media, the financial, and the academic world– hates (loathes, despises)  the traditional people and culture they rule over.

We should never forget what happened when Jews were a hostile elite in the USSR. The loathing and contempt for the traditional people and culture of Russia was a major factor in the avid Jewish participation in the greatest crimes of the 20th century:

A very traditional part of Jewish culture was to despise the Russians and their culture. (Even the Jewish literati despised all of traditional Russian culture, apart from Pushkin and a few literary icons.) Indeed, one wonders what would motivate the Jewish commissars to revenge apart from motives related to their Jewish identity. Traditional hostility toward non-Jews and their culture forms a central theme in the writings of Israel Shahak and many mainstream Jewish historians, including Slezkine,  and I have presented summaries of this material elsewhere…. hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews and the image of enslaved ancestors as victims of anti-Semitism have been the Jewish norm throughout history—much commented on, from Tacitus to the present.  (review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century)

In other words, this is a problem that is endemic to Diaspora Judaism. Hostility and loathing toward the people and culture they live among is a very long and tragic theme of Jewish history and a potent source of historical anti-Semitism.

And speaking of “redneckophobia,” the above passage continues:

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary.

Gottfried notes that the Jews who deposed the WASP elite “appealed with brilliant success to a guilty WASP conscience.” Why the WASPs are so guilt-prone is an important question, but it’s ironic that Shelby Steele recently appealed to White guilt to explain why the West can’t muster the moral courage to condemm Israel’s enemies (WSJ, “Israel and the surrender of the West“). Leaving aside the monstrosity of what he says about Israel, this is the gist of the argument:

One reason for [Israel being seen as the bad guy] is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on.

When the Israeli commandos boarded that last boat in the flotilla and, after being attacked with metal rods, killed nine of their attackers, they were acting in a world without the moral authority to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So the conclusion is that the Jews who deposed the WASP elite by appealing to their guilt proneness to the point that the new Jewish hostile elite has carte blanche to displace them by importing a new people (opposition would be “racist”) now find themselves with a West unable to defend the moral legitimacy of whatever Israel does. I suppose there is a certain justice in this, but the loss for the traditional people of America is incalculable. And given what happened in the USSR, White people should be very afraid of what the future may hold.

The Jews turn on Turkey

/86 Comments/in , /by

Well, that didn’t take long. Turkey’s involvement in the flotilla and its support for the Palestinians has now made it an enemy of the Israel Lobby, with all that that entails. All in all, it’s a good example of Jewish power and moral particularism. After long opposing any resolution on Turkey’s genocide of Armenians, Rep. Howard Berman, a major force for Israel in the US Congress,  suddenly supports a Congressional resolution, stating, “nothing justifies Turkey’s turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian genocide.” He and “a host of other members of the House’s unofficial Jewish caucus have signed on as co-sponsors.”

Berman suddenly found his moral bearings, along with the organized Jewish community. The neocons are naturally leading the charge, summarized byJim Lobe who quotes from a report by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:

“If Turkey finds its best friends to be Iran, Hamas, Syria and Brazil (look for Venezuela in the future) the security of that information (and Western technology in weapons in Turkey’s arsenal) is suspect. The United States should seriously consider suspending military cooperation with Turkey as a prelude to removing it from [NATO],” suggested the group.

[JINSA’s]  board of advisers includes many prominent champions of the 2003 Iraq invasion, including former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey, and former U.N. Amb. John Bolton.

What’s interesting here is the proposal to eject Turkey from NATO. It wasn’t long ago that Turkey was being assured that it could become a member of the EU. Turkey’s exclusion from Europe is widely seen as a big factor in its change of foreign policy.Thomas Friedman: “After a decade of telling the Turks that if they wanted E.U. membership they had to reform their laws, economy, minority rights and civilian-military relations — which the Erdogan government systematically did — the E.U. leadership has now said to Turkey: ‘Oh, you mean nobody told you? We’re a Christian club. No Muslims allowed.’ The E.U.’s rejection of Turkey, a hugely bad move, has been a key factor prompting Turkey to move closer to Iran and the Arab world.”

And that’s the good news. The neocons and the organized Jewish community were big supporters of Turkey’s bid to join the EU–which would have meant that  71 million Turks would havethe right to move anywhere in Europe. This would mean the end of Europe as having any defining culture or biological coherence — obviously not a concern to Jewish activists like Friedman.

It’s worth remembering that Jewish activist organizations regarded the admission of Turkey to the EU as a way of civilizing Europe and ensuring cultural, religious, and ethnic pluralism — precisely the policy proposals that the Jewish community has advanced in all Western societies, particularly since the end of World War II. In 2002, at the height of the push for Turkey’s admission to the EU, the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) had this to say in response to former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s argument that Muslim Turkey has no place in the European Union:

Ironically, in the fifteenth century, when European monarchs expelled the Jews, it was Moslem Turkey that provided them a welcome…. During the Holocaust, when Europe was slaughtering its Jews, it was Turkish consuls who extended protection to fugitives from Vichy France and other Nazi allies…. Today’s European neo-Nazis and skinheads focus upon Turkish victims while, Mr. President [d’Estaing], you are reported to be considering the Pope’s plea that your Convention emphasize Europe’s Christian heritage. [The Center suggested that Giscard’s new Constitution] underline the pluralism of a multi-faith and multi-ethnic Europe, in which the participation of Moslem Turkey might bolster the continent’s Moslem communities—and, indeed, Turkey itself—against the menaces of extremism, hate and fundamentalism. A European Turkey can only be beneficial for stability in Europe and the Middle East. (Seehere; the statement has presumably been removed from the SWC website.)

Turkey in the EU was obviously a win-win situation for Jews: The end of Europe as a Christian civilization with an ethnic core combined with a moderating influence on the Muslims that would benefit Israel. I rather doubt that we’ll be seeing this sort of thing anymore. The chances of Turkey being admitted to the EU now are less than zero.

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s argument that Turkey has no place in Europe is just as valid against admitting any Muslims to Europe. Although the rejection of Turkey doesn’t change the present suicidal dynamic in Europe, it will certainly slow down the process compared to what would have happened had Turkey been admitted, perhaps allowing enough time for Europe to waken from its slumbers.


Bookmark and Share

Against the Armies of the Night: The Aurora Movements

/1 Comment/in /by

The single greatest force shaping our age is unquestionably globalization.

Based on the transnationalization of American capital and the worldwide imposition of American market relations combined with new technologies, globalization has not only reshaped the world’s national economies, it’s provoked a dizzying array of oppositional movements, on the right and the left, that, despite their divergent ideologies and goals, seek to defend native or traditional identities from the market’s ethnocidal effects.

In the vast literature on globalization and its various antiglobalist movements, Charles Lindholm’s and José Pedro Zúquete’s The Struggle for the World (Stanford University Press, 2010) is the first to look beyond the specific political designations of these different antiglobalist tendencies to emphasize the common redemptive, identitarian, and populist character they share.

The “left wing, right wing, and no wing” politics of these antiglobalists are by no means dismissed, only subordinated to what Lindholm and Zúquete see as their more prominent redemptive dimension.  In this spirit, they refer to them as “aurora movements,” promising a liberating dawn from the nihilistic darkness that comes with the universalization of neoliberal market forms.

Focusing on the way antiglobalists imagine salvation from neoliberalism’s alleged evils, the authors refrain from judging the morality or validity of the different movements they examine — endeavoring, instead, to grasp the similarities “uniting” them.

They abstain thus from the present liberal consensus, which holds that history has come to an end and that the great ideological battles of the past have given way now to an order based entirely on the technoeconomic imperatives specific to the new global market system.

The result of this ideologically neutral approach is a work surprisingly impartial and sympathetic in its examination of European, Islamic, and Latin American antiliberalism.

Yet, at first glance, Mexico’s Zapartistas, Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, Alain de Benoist’s Nouvelle Droite, Umberto Bossi’s Northern League, the incumbent governments of Bolivia and Venezuela, and European proponents of Slow Food and Slow Life appear to share very little other than their common opposition to globalism’s “mirage of progress.”

Lindholm and Zúquete (one an American anthropologist, the other a Portuguese political scientist) claim, though, that many antiglobalist movements, especially in Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East, “share a great deal structurally, ideologically, and experientially,” as they struggle, each in their own way, to redeem a world in ruins.

The two authors accordingly stress that these oppositional movements do not simply resist the destructurating onslaught of global capital.

Since “the global imaginary [has] become predominant, linking oppositional forces everywhere,” they claim antiglobal oppositionalists have adopted a grand narrative based on “a common ethical core and a common mental map.”  For the “discourses, beliefs, and motives” of jihadists, Bolivarian revolutionaries, European new rightists, European national-populists, and European life-style rebels are strikingly similar in seeking to inaugurate the dawn of a new age — defined in opposition to global liberalism.

For all these antiglobalists, the transnational power elites (led by the United States) have shifted power away from the nation to multinational corporations, detached in loyalty from any culture or people, as they promote “hypergrowth, environmental exploitation, the privatization of public services, homogenization, consumerism, deregulation, corporate concentration,” etc.

The consequence is a world order (whose “divinities are currency, market, and capital, [whose] church is the stock market, and [whose] holy office is the IMF and WTO”) that seeks to turn everything into a commodity, as it “robs our lives of meaning [and sells] it back to us in the form of things.”

As the most transcendent values are compelled to prostrate themselves before the interests of capital, the global system disenchants the world — generating the discontent and alienation animating the antiglobal resistance.

From the point of view of the resistance, the power of money and markets is waging a scorched-earth campaign on humanity, as every country and every people are assaulted by “the American way of life,” whose suburban bourgeois principles aspire to universality.   

*   *   *

In their struggle for the world, antiglobalists prophesy both doom and rebirth.

On the one hand, the Armies of the Night — the darkening forces of globalist homogenization, disenchantment, and debasement — are depicted as an “evil” — or, in political terms, as a life-threatening enemy.

Globalization, they claim, disrupts the equilibrium between humanity, society, and nature, stultifying man, emptying his world of meaning, and leaving him indifferent to the most important things in life.

In opposing a global order governed by a soulless market, these antiglobalists attempt to transcend its individualism, consumerism, and instrumental rationalism by reviving pre-modern values and institutions that challenge the reigning neoliberal consensus.

As one Zapartista manifesto puts it: “If the world does not have a place for us, then another world must be made. . . . What is missing is yet to come.”

At the same time, antiglobalists endeavor to revive threatened native or traditional identities, as they deconstruct modernist assaults on local culture that parade under the banner of progress and enlightenment.  They privilege in this way their own authenticity and extol alternative, usually indigenous and traditional, forms of community and meaning rooted in archaic notions adapted to the challenges of the future.  Even when seeking a return to specific communal ideals, these local struggles see themselves as engaging not just Amerindians or Muslims or Europeans, but all humanity — the world in effect.

Globalization, the authors conclude, may destroy national differences, but so too does resistance to globalization.  The resistance’s principle, accordingly, is: “Nationalists of all countries, unite!” — to redeem “the world from the evils of globalization.”

*   *   *

If one accepts, with Lindholm and Zúquete, that a meaningful number of antiglobalization movements share a similar revolutionary-utopian narrative, the question then arises as to what these similarities might imply.

The first implication, in my view, affects globalist ideology — that is, the recognition that globalism is itself an ideology and not some historical inevitability.

As Carl Schmitt, among others, notes, liberalism is fundamentally antipolitical. Just as Cold War liberals tried to argue the “end of ideology” in the 1950s, neoliberal globalists since the Soviet collapse have argued that we today, following Fukuyama, have reached the end of history, where “worldwide ideological struggle that calls forth daring, courage, imagination and idealism” has become a thing of the past, replaced by the technoeconomic calculus of liberal-market societies, conceived as the culmination of human development.

In a word, liberal “endism” holds that there is no positive alternative to the status quo.

The strident ideologies and ideas of liberalism’s opponents have already dislodged this totalitarian fabrication — as The Struggle for the World,respectable university press publication that it is, testifies.

Lindholm and Zúquete also highlight globalization’s distinct ideological nature, as they contest its notion of history’s closure.

A second, related implication touches on the increasing dubiousness of right-left categories.  These illusive designations allegedly defining the political antipodes of modernity have never meant much (see, e.g., the work of Marc Crapez) and have usually obscured more than they revealed.

Given the antiglobalists’ ideological diversity, right and left designations tell us far less about the major political struggles of our age than do categories like “globalist” and “antiglobalist,” “liberal” and “antiliberal,” “cosmopolitan” and “nationalist.”

Future political struggles seem likely, thus, to play out less and less along modernity’s left-right axis — and more and more in terms of a postmodern dialectic, in which universalism opposes and is opposed by particularism.

A third possible implication of Lindholm/Zúquete’s argument speaks to the fate of liberalism itself.  Much of modern history follows the clash between the modernizing forces of liberalism and the conservative ones of antiliberalism. That the globalist agenda has now seized power nearly everywhere means that the “struggle for the world” has become largely a struggle about liberalism.

Given also that liberalism (or neoliberalism) ideologically undergirds the world system and that this system has been on life-support at least since the financial collapse of late 2008, it seems not unreasonable to suspect that the fate of liberalism and globalism are themselves now linked and that we may be approaching another axial age in which the established liberal ideologies and systems are forced to give way to the insurgence of new ones.

But perhaps the cruelest implication of all is the dilemma Lindholm/Zuqúete’s argument poses to U.S. rightists.  For European new rightists, Islamic jihadists, and Bolivian revolutionaries alike, globalization is a form not only of liberalization but of “Americanization.”

And there’s no denying the justice of seeing the struggle against America as the main front in the worldwide antiglobalist struggle: for the United States was the world’s first and foremost liberal state and is the principal architect of the present global system.

At the same time, it’s also the case that native Americans — i.e., European Americans — have themselves fallen victim to what now goes for “Americanism” — in the form of unprotected borders, Third World colonization, de-industrialization, political correctness, multiculturalism, creedal identities, anti-Christianism, the media’s on-going spiritual colonization — and all the other degradations distinct to our age.

One wonders, then, if a right worthy of the designation will ever intersect an America willing to fight “Americanism” — and its shadow-casting Armies — in the name of some suppressed antiliberal impulse in the country’s European heritage.

Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1st Books, 2004).

Subscription Drive for The Occidental Quarterly

/69 Comments/in /by

The Occidental Quarterly fills a unique niche  in bringing together scholarly articles on a wide range of topics that are mired in political correctness elsewhere.

There are quite a few reasons for the precarious state of our civilization and our people. But one of the main ones is that we have lost the intellectual and moral high ground to a cultural elite that is hostile to our people and our culture.

A main purpose of TOQ is to change the attitudes of White people so that they will feel confident identifying as White and explicitly asserting their interests as Whites. Politically aware Whites must understand that the elites that dominate culture and the political process in the West are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

The domination of the mass media and the academic world by elites that are hostile to White identity and interests is a major barrier for educated Whites to act on behalf of their interests. White people cower in fear of being called a racist for believing and acting in ways that are absolutely normal and natural for all the other peoples of the world. While other peoples defend themselves, their culture and their borders, societies in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand that have been controlled by Whites for hundreds of years are the only ones to accept their demise as a moral imperative. We view this outcome as the result of competition over the construction of culture in which the legitimate interests of Whites have been compromised.

All of the scientific data are on our side. Increased ethnic diversity is associated with a host of societal ills, including decreased support for social welfare programs and lack of public trust. Those who argue that Western societies have a unique moral obligation to cede cultural and political control to non-Whites completely ignore the legitimate interests of Whites. No one argues that countries like Korea or Uganda have a moral obligation to allow other peoples to swamp the native population.

Digital download subscriptions are only $30/year for four issues; print subscriptions by mail are only $60/year to U.S. addresses. Go here and decide which of the many subscription/purchase options is right for you.

You will not only find the articles fascinating and informative, you will also be supporting the work of scholars who are part of a community defending our people and our culture with the highest level of integrity and intellectual sophistication. See www.toqonline.com.

 

Hijacking Jesus on the Way to the Apocalypse

/1 Comment/in /by

Put on your flak jacket. Make sure your seat belt is fastened. Pull down your goggles. And don’t forget your earplugs.

Take a deep breath and steady yourself! Ready? Okay, were going to the movies.

First Stop, 2012

No need to worry about the future, because there isn’t any.

The end is near; the end is here, and it’s not a pretty sight. Dad, reconstituted loser dad, zips along at breakneck speed, saving the family as the freeway buckles beneath them in LA. But it ain’t just California that’s falling off and caving in. It’s the whole planet. Holy Mother Earth is a goner due to some strange of combination global warming, and magnetic pole shift.

Of course, the trend starts in California. All trends start in California. But the idea is to get to Shangri-La or Tibet, in order to be saved! We’ve heard this before. That’s good news for Buddhists, but what about the rest of us? Sad to say most of us don’t get saved. But President Morgan Freeman — St. Morgan (aka America’s Spiritual Presence-in-Chief) for most of us — elects to stay with the un-elect and disappears with the rest of us, under the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier as it flattens what’s left of Washington DC. The image of the wise, altruistic Black president who, as a member of the elite could have saved himself but goes down with the ship is one of the most striking images of the film.

Warning: This movie is profoundly exhausting. So you may just want to double up on the vitamins before you go see 2012.

The political messages are interesting. We are led by a saintly Black president to our inevitable demise. The two structures that you see toppled completely are the U.S. Congress and St. Peter’s in Rome. The United States of America and the Catholic Church have got to go?

The Chinese are the ones that provide the technology to save just those Chosen Few, including a few White people.

The movie is pitched to White people, with the main characters, played by John Cusack and Amanda Peet, and their family life providing most of the human element of the story. But the Whites are living in a world where Indian scientists discovered the problem, the Chinese have the technology to escape the disaster, and there’s a Black president of the United States. Although they have a central place in whatever emotional pull the story has, in the big picture, they are bit players.

And there won’t be many Whites around in the future. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only land mass remaining after the disaster, and it is the destination for the arks after things settle down. Now I don’t know if this is a reference to the Garden of Eden theme, or Africa as the birthplace of the human race, or simply that the Chinese are doing a lot of investing in the resources of Africa.

But the world will re-start in Africa, so that Africans will constitute the vast majority of all humans. Presumably they will all be like President Morgan Freeman — fonts of wisdom and paragons of altruism and morality. The world will surely be a much better place than it is now.

Legion

Children, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord.

Psalm 23

So opens the film, Legion.

The rain is beating against the gray earth. A mad dog is barking as he descends. And who is he that descends?

The one who kills two cops and behind whom the lights turn off as he pulls off into the darkness.

He is the Archangel Michael, but not as we commonly understand him.

The angel is confronted by another angel, or is it in a demon? Or is it Satan?

A scene opens up with the usual horrifying physical brutality. He cuts off his wings.

Is he getting settled in? So far, the movie reminds me of Blade Runner.

He has come to the America of now, ghetto Blacks and uneducated, poor and demoralized Whites.

Meanwhile back at the diner, appropriately named Paradise Falls, the place is full of the fallen. Mother Mary who is with child is a slutty waitress. Her boyfriend wannabe is needy and weak. The sweet little old lady turns out to be a foul mouthed evil spirit, who crawls on the ceiling and is difficult to kill.

The lost-souls-gathered-together-in-the-diner is an old theme reworked with what are now getting to be popular clichés of the various types of lost American souls.

And Mary is a whore, of course.

[adrotate group=”1″]

“‘And why is God angry with his children?’ I used to ask my mother as she was tucking me into bed” says Charlie, the mother of the child to be. “I don’t know, I guess He just got tired of the bullshit.”

Michael the Archangel is fallen. He has come to earth, disobeying God’s last command, which is to ‘off’ the rest of us, because “He just got tired of the bullshit.” God’s had it so he’s doing us in.

So Michael has taken it upon himself to save humanity, and he does so by issuing some serious, high-tech weaponry to the people in the diner. He does this so that they can fend off God’s hordes of angels, as they come to finish off mankind.

Lots of hordes and lots of blood, all to the tune of drones, clanging metal and the deep throb of the musical score. Later “Mary” and “Joseph” escape in a SUV loaded down with quite a cache of weaponry. That leaves the Archangel Michael and the Archangel Gabriel to duke it out down here on earth. More heavy metal and more blood.

I won’t say anymore, in case you see it.

A major theme is a clever marriage of the Apocalypse and the Nativity stories. A lot of things are being turned on their head. The first assault is by an ice cream man. The ice cream man cometh? The Angels inhabit the bodies of wasted humans, much in the way aliens have been doing lately.

The only good angel is a fallen angel, who wants to save mankind from the wrath of God. So there’s a lot of re-spinning of old tales.

The babe has not come to save mankind, but rather, mankind will be safe as long as the child is alive. You could take that to mean simply that as long as we keep having kids, we’ll keep surviving — definitely a good message. The Archangel Gabriel was the messenger of God, who came to tell the Virgin that she was with child. This time he’s come to kill the kid, not too angelic, at least by traditional standards.

Let’s say, on a positive note, that Nativity trumps Apocalypse. And in these oh-so-apocalyptic times, that is good news indeed. But what is the message of this movie exactly? Is it Christian? If it is, it’s a twisted kind of Christianity.

There’s a re-working of an old theme with Michael and Gabriel locked in an immortal combat. The two archangels that have come down to earth are very earth-like. They fight it out like a couple of motorcycle gang leaders in a bar in the Mojave Desert, somewhere on the edge. Even the weaponry used is brutal. The mace-like thing wielded by Gabriel is straight out of the Middle Ages or Mad Max. And it’s interesting to note that it is presented as good fighting good, and not as good fighting evil because we normally associate any angel with good. I don’t really know what it means, and if it’s part of the subtle subtext, or what.

The fallen Angel, Michael, is not evil. He is not satanic. He helps mankind. He is even willing to sacrifice his life to save mankind. So he’s a kind of Christ figure. It is Gabriel, the messenger of God, who is evil and cruel and uncaring. And it is Gabriel, who is doing the work of God, which would then make God evil.  So it does becomes a battle between good and evil in a twisted way.

So here is the Nativity story, resurrected to give God a bad name. Apocalypse is undone, and the angels who return are demons, and not saviors of mankind. So there you go, the updated hip, Twisted Sister version. Strange tales in strange times.

Chics only: Michael is appealing, and I don’t mean just in a spiritual way.

Warning: This movie is not recommended for pregnant women.

Eli’s coming, hide your heart, dear.

Yeah, though I walk in the Valley of the shadow of death

I will fear no evil

The end has come and gone, and we are 30 years past the “flash.” Yes, it’s yet another apocalyptic movie. This one called the Book of Eli.

Eli, played by Denzel Washington, walks the path. He walks the path through the world after the war, after the flash, after the great hole was made in the sky and the sun poured in, not like honey this time, but dispensing death. Everybody now wears shades, because the sun blinds.

It seems the ozone layer is completely gone. So Eli walks across the vast expanse of what was once America the beautiful. Let’s do that programming thing. We know we are to be nuked; we know we are to be wiped out.  We know because they keep telling us.

Abandon all hope ye who enter the Cineplex.

His first encounter is with a gang of thugs using a woman for bait, thrown out into the desert sun to lure in the unsuspecting. The hero, Eli, a kind of Black Jesus figure, is set upon by a gang of brutal, stupid, sub-humans, who just all happen to be White men. But he is protected by the Lord, or else he is just one hell of a shot, because he nails every single one of them.

Now this post Apocalyptic world makes Mad Max look upbeat, by comparison. Cannibalism is now the norm.

Eli, makes his way to a town run by an evil character played by Gary Oldman. Carnegie rules his town by stealth. He knows where the water is and he’s not telling. No, because he uses his control over resources to control the people. Cold and calculating Carnegie, the smarmy snake oil salesman is evil personified. And interestingly enough, he is a sickly, and pockmarked White man. The very name Carnegie suggests power and its abuses. And in keeping with the evil White man stereotype, he abuses his woman and sends her daughter out to whore. He is obsessed with getting a certain book.

Now the Bible is the good book, and it is carried by the good Black man, Eli. Carnegie wants it because it can hypnotize, and he can control people through its words. His attack animals are physically repulsive, violent, stupid and to a man, White.

The hero, Eli, has been walking for 30 years on the earth; the same number of years as Jesus Christ walked on the earth before his crucifixion. And sure enough, Eli will be crucified. Or rather, set upon by this gang of White brutes and shot as he attempts to continue his walk westward, guided only by the voices in his head and accompanied by Solara, the innocent girl who must escape the brutes.

The color tone is sepia and the sound, a high frequency screech and howling winds. But then, this is the Valley of the Shadow of Death.

Eli and the poor little White girl, who has run away to avoid being trashed by her daddy and thrown to the mob, even though he isn’t her daddy, set off on the journey to the appointed place. And then there’s a funny interlude.

Standing alone on the desert flat is a rundown old frame board farmhouse. The paint’s peeled off long ago. It is the very heart and soul of dereliction. The two head for it. They walk up on the porch, knock twice and immediately fall into a trap door.

An old couple have somehow survived these many years and serve them tea in china cups. She winds up their old Victrola. Mind you, the “flash” took place in the time of the MP3, but nonetheless this genteel old lady cranks up the Victrola before cannibalizing the guests. But hell, you know, they’re White folks!

But just in the nick of time the bad guys show up and old Carnegie wants to reclaim his daughter from her Black protector for his evil henchmen. But most of all he wants The Book.

There is a western style shootout with heavy artillery, and Eli gets shot, and surrenders the Bible, but they continue on. He bandages himself up. Now he’s got a hole in his chest the size of a golf ball, but God is great, what can I say?

They make it to the end, they make it to Alcatraz, now a library, and Eli dictates the book. It is at this point, you realize he has walked through the Valley of the Shadow of Death without the benefit of sight.

The only good characters in the book besides, the child in Banana Republic wear are Eli and her mother, who are both blind. Blind to the evil around them?

And you have to understand that the evil Carnegie, the snake oil salesmen, only wants the Bible so that he can hypnotize the mob and use them to his evil ends.

The final scene of the movie is of The Book. You see it on a bookshelf with the words, King James Bible, on the spine. And next to it, is a book with the word Tanakh, that is Hebrew for the Old Testament, on its spine.

Denzel Washington wrote the movie with Joel Silver, a Jewish screenwriter and producer. Once again we are treated to a favorite theme: A noble Black man will lead us out of the darkness of the White man with the words of God’s Chosen People. Jews and Blacks working together to destroy evil White men in the interests of producing a morally uplifting civilization.

Afterthoughts

The themes of these movies are relentlessly morose. All the imagery is bleak. And in two of the movies, the optimistic message of Christianity is turned upside down and served up as prophecy of doom. In the Book of Eli, doom is the desert that the world has become. In Legion the scenes of the shootout at the bar are relentlessly gory. The story itself is a sick twist on the Nativity. It features archangels brutalizing each other with maces. This movie starts out on a cold, rainy, bleak night with a mad barking dog trapped behind a chain-link fence. Then there’s the depiction of America as a nation of ghettos and diners, or even worse, a desert full of cannibals.

And the funny thing is that America is becoming like this. The degradation of the society is an ongoing project. This is what people spend their time doing. They go to these insane, hyperventilated, over-the-top sci-fi slug-fests called entertainment.

And all this stuff gets poured into our minds day in and day out.

There is no letting up on the violence, but then added to that is this preoccupation with The End.2012 is the Hollywood spin on the Mayan prophecy, and Legion and the Book of Eli Hollywood versions of Revelations. The promotion and cultivation of fear is a Hollywood staple, using a twist on old themes. In 2012 instead of the visitation of death coming from the sky above, it comes from the very earth beneath your feet, which buckles and erupts for the entire length of the movie. And the heroes again, as with Independence Day, are a Black and a Jew — in this case a Black scientist and a presidential adviser, who appears to be Jewish. Together they usher in the New and Better World.  The White suburban dad is, of course, a loser in 2012, but even so he winds up being saved. The War of the Worlds anti-hero and troubled dad, played by Tom Cruise, is another version of the same stock character.

And in the Book of Eli, besides having a Black Christ figure, the Whites in the movie are uniformly subhuman, savage, and beyond salvation. To a man they are absolutely repulsive. No subliminal programming here! Hollywood’s war on the White male continues unabated.

And then there’s the sound. As we know, the soundtrack makes the movie. The dreary beat of the rain and howling dog in Legion and the high-pitched droning and the howling winds keep you on edge throughout the Book of Eli. It’s all hideously abrasive. I know I was being tongue-in-cheek when I wrote the reviews, but I am serious when I say that you walk out of these movies exhausted, drained of all feeling.

I remember going to movies as a kid and walking out, feeling totally exhilarated and just wanting to dance down the street. My spirit was lifted. The joyful mood would last for hours.

Sitting through these movies is exhausting. Even when I am there I don’t want to be there. The sounds are irritating. Most of the imagery is bleak and ugly. It’s hard to believe this is considered entertainment.

And even more unbelievably, Hollywood tries to pass these movies off as Christian movies.

The constant depiction of life as brutal, as an unending struggle is played out again and again. I think of the scenes of these pathetic people reduced to cannibalizing each other in the Book of Eli. All the subliminal programming. What am I saying? The messaging is as subliminal as a ton of bricks.

What is the point of all this?  What is the perpetual pique of the Hollywood moguls really all about?  Rather than dishing out mindless entertainment, they are making movies that that are full of very mindful propaganda and programming.

We are being told time and again that our civilization is a failure and is going to collapse or be destroyed.  We are told that it is time for it to go.  The Mayan Prophecy tells us that it is inevitable.  The movie 2012, tells us the new world begins in Africa.  Legion tells us our world is rotten to the core and not worth saving.  Christianity is presented as being in a state of self-destruction.  The book of Eli describes a world destroyed by technology of the West, which is to say by White people.

Good guys are Black and Indian scientists in 2012, and a Christ-like Black man in the Book of Eli.  The central White guy is an irresponsible, selfish, divorced dad in 2012.  The Whites in Legion are uniformly bad.  The old lady is a monster, the pregnant girl is a slut, and her boyfriend a nerd.  But the book of Eli depicts White men as either evil or subhuman.  It doesn’t get much worse than that!  I am not sure if Hollywood wants to get rid of Whites, and particularly White men, or just relegate them to the bottom of the pile.

What is this sick thing, called entertainment, doing to people? It really is changing the way people are and, I would go so far as to say, turning people into animals, except for the fact that the animals are far better behaved. It certainly seeks to degrade our society and it succeeds.

Anyway, this goes along with my central thesis that there is no reality — only what we see in the movies and on TV. Media is so big and so overwhelming that it really is creating reality. The media is a giant suction device that sucks people in and they become like it.

Think of the changes in society: the crudeness that is the height of cool, and the brutality that people don’t even question anymore.

Hollywood began seriously trashing Christianity several decades ago. But now it seems that a Christianity in tow is a lot more useful.

Legion lectures us that God is finally so fed up with us that he has to destroy his creation, the human race.  Interestingly enough one of the reasons is our ‘racism”.  Not listed as reasons are murder, rape, arson, and robbery.  The subtext would seem to be that Christians never practiced Christianity.  The movie uses the themes of Christianity without really ever endorsing the religion.   The central themes and images of Christianity such as the Archangels and the Virgin Mary are presented in such a degrading manner that the movie cannot be understood to endorse Christianity.

I believe the message is that Christians were never truly Christian.  At the same time the presentation of the themes and imagery of Christianity belittle  the religion.

In the Book of Eli, we are told that it is only Blacks who truly practice Christianity while Whites use it as a means of social control and a way of deceiving and exploiting the common people. The last scene of the bookshelf, with the two books, the King James Bible and the Tanakh side by side, tell us  that Christianity and Judaism are of equal value.

A politically corrected Christianity is now to be tolerated.  Better to lull audiences into thinking that their religion is not just the butt of jokes and has regained some kind of dignity. Better to finish off what is left of our civilization using Christianity as the primrose path.

Penelope Thornton (email her) is a freelance writer and a serious student of the media and its games.

Frank Salter on Stupid Open Borders Arguments

/104 Comments/in , , , /by

Frank Salter  is a giant in the intellectual defense of White identity and interests. His book On Genetic Interests is a breakthrough in providing a rigorous conception of ethnic interests based on evolutionary theory and modern research in genetics and the  social sciences.

Salter has just published a wonderful article in Quadrant, an Australian neocon publication (“On misguided advocates of open borders“). It is a masterpiece of elegant argumentation and a complete trashing of his professorial opponent, the unfortunate Mirko Bagaric, who seems almost ludicrously unaware of the most basic academic literature bearing on the issue. The good news is that it’s an excellent introduction to Salter’s thinking–much recommended.

Prof. Bagaric believes that all the world’s ills could be solved if the poor people were allowed to immigrate to places like Australia. Instantly world poverty would be solved! What’s not to like?

Salter lists the downsides to this idea–all of which apply equally well to other Western societies similarly bent on open borders self-destruction.  Diversity is associated with “reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.” Ethnic diversity is also associated with “reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

Critically, he points to “invidious ethnic stratification” as an inevitable result: “No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.”

Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.

Sound familiar? These are all the things that Westerners can look forward to as they become minorities in the societies they built and dominated for hundreds of years. This resentment and contempt will produce enormous unrest in Western societies, and ultimately it will result in violence directed at White people perpetrated by ethnic groups with deep historical grudges against their erstwhile benefactors.

Salter also emphasizes the general point that everyone has rights and interests. People who argue for open borders argue solely from the rights and interests of people who (naturally) want to go to a place where they have a higher  standard of living. They never take the perspective of the natives. Egocentrism writ large. As Salter argues, the open borders movement is profoundly immoral.

The other consistent strand of Salter’s thinking is that this horrifying state of affairs has resulted from the domination of elite forms of discourse by advocates for open borders among academic, media, and political elites.

The egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole. … The rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission.

There are other factors as well. For example, Salter points to a collusion of self-censorship on immigration by self-interested politicians bent on obtaining support from immigrant constituencies.

But the role of elite academics should never be underestimated. Not one Australian academic stood up to point out the shoddiness of Bagaric’s arguments. The revolution in the academic world that toppled Darwinian social science in favor of erecting the culture of critique is critical to the demise of White nation states. In my view, this revolution was at its core an ethnic revolution, resulting from the rise of a Jewish intellectual elite, Jewish ownership and influence in the media, and Jewish influence on the political process. It is not surprising that the revolution that caused the impending increase in ethnic hatred and conflict in Western societies was itself the result of ethnic hatred and conflict.

The power and rigor of Salter’s ideas are a huge asset in combating the suicidal tide sweeping all White countries.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Translation of Solzhenitsyn's "In the Camps of GULag" — Chapter 20 of "200 Years Together"

/92 Comments/in , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s important 200 Years Together has unfortunately not been translated into English. However, this process is now beginning with the posting of Chapter 20, “In the Camps of GULag.” As the title suggests, the chapter discusses the role of Jews in the Gulag. There are several important themes.

Despite apologetic claims by Jews, in fact Jews lived better in the camps. Obviously, it’s a touchy subject–just like everything else about the role of Jews in the Soviet Union.

If I wished to generalize and state that the life of Jews in camps was especially difficult, then I would be allowed to do so and wouldn’t be peppered with admonitions for unjust ethnic generalizations. But in the camps, where I was imprisoned, it was the other way around – the life of Jews, to the extent of possible generalization, was easier.

Jews also looked out for each other–yet another example of ethnic networking. Free Jews were often in positions of authority and they favored their own people. For example:

A Lett Ane Bernstein, one of my witnesses from Archipelago, thinks that he managed to survive in the camps only because in times of hardship he asked Jews for help and that the Jews, judging by his last name and nimble manners, mistook him for their tribesman – and always provided assistance. He says that in all his camps Jews always constituted the upper crust and that the most important free employees were also Jews (Shulman – head of special department, Greenberg – head of camp station, Kegels – chief mechanic of the factory), and, according to his recollections, they also preferred to select Jewish inmates to staff their units.

The few Jews who did share in the common labor did so out of principle–in order to avoid the stereotype of Jews who did not work. They were rewarded for their efforts by being rejected by “both sides” — indicating that everyone in the camps was aware of the ethnic divide–just as American prisons are organized along ethnic fault lines. But Solzhenitsyn optimistically describes Jews who countered the common tendencies: “I try not to overlook such examples, because all my hopes depend on them.”

Nevertheless, the resentment and hatred of the Jewish position in the camps was real. Solzhenitsyn realizes that all humans are prone to these tendencies, but he also understands that the ethnic divide exacerbated the “heavy resentment”:

When an alien emerges as a “master over life and death” – it further adds to the heavy resentment. It might appear strange – isn’t it all the same for a worthless negligable, crushed, and doomed camp dweller surviving at one of his dying stages – isn’t it all the same who exactly seized the power inside the camp and celebrates crow’s picnics over his trench-grave? As it turns out – it is not, it has etched into my memory inerasably.

The Russians did not show ethnic networking and accordingly suffered. Notice that he sees the mass murder involved in collectivization as a personal loss to his ethnic group.

Those who know about terrific Jewish mutual supportiveness (especially exacerbated by mass deaths of Jews under Hitler) would understand that a free Jewish boss simply could not indifferently watch Jewish prisoners flounder in starvation and die – and not to help. But I am unable to imagine a free Russian employee who would save and promote his fellow Russian prisoners to the privileged positions only because of their nationality, though we have lost 15 millions during collectivization: we are numerous, you can’t care about everyone, and nobody would even think about it.

The White Sea canal, completed in 1933, has gone down in history as a particularly brutal forced labor project in which thousands of workers died. Solzhenitsyn points out that all six of the people in charge of the project were Jews:

Genrikh Yagoda, head of NKVD.

Matvei Berman, head of GULag.

Semen Firin, commander of BelBaltlag (by that time he was already the commander of Dmitlag, where the story will later repeat itself).

Lazar Kogan, head of construction (later he will serve the same function at Volgocanal).

Jacob Rapoport, deputy head of construction.

Naftaly Frenkel, chief manager of the labor force of Belomorstroi (and the evil daemon of the whole Archipelago)

Solzhenitsyn’s observations fit well with the findings of historians like Yuri Slezkine showing that Jews were a political and cultural elite in the Soviet Union. Slezkine draws special attention to Jews as Stalin’s “willing executioners” supervising the greatest crimes of the 20th century.

Throughout the chapter Solzhenitsyn’s brutal honesty shines through. He bends over backward to give examples of Jews who behaved in ways contrary to the general tendencies he and others observed. Nevertheless, he recounts how he was often accused of anti-Semitism simply for recording his observations. It’s okay to depict an evil person as a Russian, but never identify him as a Jew.

Solzhenitsyn’s observations add to the growing evidence of the role of Jews as a hostile elite in the USSR–hostile to the native Russian population and willing to engage in the most brutal crimes against them. This translation is very important for bringing this message to the English-speaking world, if only to dispel the common representation of Jews as always and inevitably historical victims.

White Americans should think long and hard about what these observations imply for them as they become a minority in a country dominated by hostile minorities, including Jews as a hostile elite.

Bookmark and Share