Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
A White Nationalist Classic.

I have watched a number of Disney animated features intended for children.

The messages in these films are so clear and so overpowering that it is a wonder none of the volunteer reviewers on Amazon see them.

But they don’t, and I suppose it is just as well.

Five are White Nationalist Classics. These are Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, and Fantasia. Several others make the list but fall short of the WNC class.

None of these feature-length animated films deals with race or race conflict, so then why do any of them merit the WNC classification? The answer is that they encourage the other side of the WN coin, the code of amity, or broadly speaking, the behaviors and attitudes necessary to keep the group’s cradle full.

The importance of these films is best illustrated by the very first Disney feature length animated movie – Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs – produced in 1937.

The story line is taken from one of Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Snow White is a princess who, at the end of the story, marries her handsome prince. However, “Snow White” is not really a romance. She interacts with the Prince for only about two minutes, once at the very beginning of the movie and a minute or so at the end. Love and life-long commitment are automatic in this Movie. The fact of romance needs no development whatever and gets none. It is instinctive and instantaneous.

Thus, in order to find out what this movie is really about we must observe Show White’s actual conduct – what does she spend her time doing in this film? And once we focus on exactly what Snow White spends her time doing, we see that if Snow White were a real princess, then she would be a most unusual one indeed.

When we first see her she is dressed in a plain torn skirt humming contentedly as she scrubs the steps of the Castle. Once in the forest, she finds the house of the Seven Dwarfs and notices that it is a filthy mess. She sets about merrily and lovingly washing dishes and cleaning the house with the help of her animated animal friends. Once the dwarfs discover her in their house, she cooks their dinner and affectionately asks them to bathe first – something the dwarfs apparently have not done in months, if ever.

Thus, Snow White brings to these seven diminutive miners the bare minimum of sanitation and civilization – regular baths, a clean house and clean dishes, and regular meals. And she does it cheerfully with her own labor.

She cooks their breakfast and kisses each one tenderly on the forehead as they go off to work. When they come home, she greets them affectionately at the door and has dinner ready.

Snow White is a selfless, sweet, maternal homemaker. She displays all of the peasant virtues. The message of Grimm’s fairy tale as well as Walt Disney’s movie is that the cheerful labor that goes into making a home and raising babies is the true royal quality, and it is that quality which ultimately merits the love of a handsome prince.

Of course, it has been at least 800 years since a European royal has actually swept a floor or washed a dish. But what Grimm and the European parents who bought his books recognized is that certain attitudes toward work and sacrifice were necessary in order for our race to survive and increase over generations.

In this modern age, our daughters have become so skilled at manipulating mom and dad into maid and butler service that they never wash dishes or do the laundry. The cohesion of the family dinner has given way to our fractured schedules and the isolation of the microwaved TV dinner. Parents leave the piles of dirty clothing which we find strewn all over our daughters’ bedroom floors in hopes that they might someday clean up their own mess, but they never do. For some strange reason, the boys seem to do a slightly better job of picking up after themselves.

When they finally do move out of the house, their apartments are such a dreadful mess – and the sink and dishwasher are so jammed with months-old dirty dishes – that they never entertain friends at home, but feel compelled to frequent bars and restaurants for social interaction, falling head over heels into credit card debt, and losing a significant advantage which territorial boundaries can provide in maintaining standards in the mate selection process.

The basic building blocks of civilization celebrated in Snow White are melting away before our eyes.

Under the current cultural regime, only those with the most powerful instincts will be able to make the sacrifices necessary to form stable relationships and to raise children. As the gentle restraints and pressures of civilized norms crumble, huge numbers will succumb to their own self absorption, their lack of behavioral restraint, and their disdain for labor. They will leave no traces of their presence on this earth in the next generation.

Snow White lives to make life bright, cheerful and clean for all those around her, no matter what circumstances she may be placed in by others. She is the model of the female role you will see in re-runs of the 1950′s family television series like The Donna Reed Show, Ozzie and Harriet, and Father Knows Best. It is the behavior which so infuriated the inner party critics of our culture, most famously Susan Sonntag who railed against the suburbs in the early 1960s as “Christian breeding grounds.”

The modern hatred of all that Snow White represents shows up clearly in the 2004 remake of “The Stepford Wives.” And it is this hatred which commands our unwavering allegiance to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate the uniqueness and importance of Snow White is to contrast that movie with a more recent Disney effort at exploiting the apparently instinctive desire of little girls to find their “handsome prince.”

The 1990 animated piece entitled “The Little Mermaid” follows the same broad outline.

However, when we examine the behavior of The Little Mermaid, we see a young girl who is completely self absorbed. She routinely disobeys her father and the rules of her society. She is willful and headstrong. She fails to show up at music rehearsals and performances, inconveniencing others. She manipulates those around her to get her way, and she is vain about her appearance. Finally, she abandons her family, her friends and her race – all those who should be most dear to her – never to see them again, so that she can become a human and marry her prince. She would never dream of cleaning the house or washing dishes.

I should note in passing that the typical Christian viewing “The Little Mermaid” would look for an abstract conceptual formula – marriage with no pre-marital sex – and conclude that The Little Mermaid is a “Christian friendly movie.” However, the little mermaid’s actual behavior is pure poison and profoundly anti-Christian. The little mermaid displays none of the behaviors which indicate a capacity for making the kinds of sacrifices necessary to stay married or to undertake the drudgery involved in caring for and cleaning up after children – or even to show up at feeding times. In fact, the movie glorifies the opposite behaviors.

The Little Mermaid is particularly seductive because it gets the aesthetic exactly right – the prince in that movie is a robust, aggressive, attractive and unambiguously white male – exactly the kind you would want your daughter to marry. And aside from her fish tail, the Little Mermaid is a very attractive and unambiguously white girl – one who wins the ultimate prize despite her behavior.

The message to Christians is clear. Focus on the behaviors which are being encouraged and celebrated in a film – and do not apply formulas based on conceptual abstractions or theological formulas. Hollywood can easily cripple your children by producing movies that conform to your conceptual abstractions, while encouraging behaviors and conduct which are wildly destructive of your childs ability to form a stable family.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs also established the pattern of demonstrating a single female’s maternal qualities through her interactions with animated animals. Snow White’s animated animal friends all serve as child substitutes – allowing her to display all of those qualities which add up to fitness for motherhood. Disney repeats these kinds of interactions to the same effect in Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.

Snow White had a profound influence on other movies.

For example, you can see Snow White’s behavior toward animals exhibited by Ava Gardner in the John Ford masterpiece, “Mogambo” (1953) – a romance set in Africa also starring Clark Gable and Grace Kelly. The good hearted prostitute – one suited for marriage – is one of Hollywood’s favorite themes. In “Stagecoach” (1939) John Ford has John Wayne’s love interest display her maternal qualities with an actual baby born to another passenger. In Mogambo, John Ford has Ava Gardner’s character demonstrate maternal qualities by mothering a baby elephant – a rough one who knows what he likes and grabs it (and Ava Gardner had lots to grab) and tosses her in the mud several times. Through it all Gardner remains true to Snow White’s tender behavior, imitating her gestures and mannerisms as well as the inflection and tone of her voice. The similarity to the animated classic is uncanny. In these scenes, Gardner’s character demonstrates that she is just an ordinary farm girl who has temporarily gone astray, with all the maternal peasant virtues of Show White.

Contrast the development of the “good hearted prostitute theme” in John Ford’s classics with a more recent effort – “Pretty Woman” – in which we see no maternal qualities at all. Rather, we see behaviors which bespeak fitness for shopping, and fitness for tasteful selection of fashions appropriate to the role of high class, childless and relatively monogamous courtesan – a conception of the role of wife that is quite popular in Hollywood these days. The behaviors we see in “Pretty Woman” are those which display fitness for passing the time pleasantly as our race drifts toward extinction.

Conceptual abstractions and theological formulas are unreliable guides for judging whether a movie is good for your children. Movies, like church going, teach us very specific behaviors. Thus it is the behavior being promoted that counts. Little else matters.

You are what you watch.

The story is simple: a twenty-something suburban couple, Micah and Katie, he a day trader, she a university student, both White, middle class, and American, encounter evidence of nocturnal paranormal activity in their house, which Micah sets out to document; the situation grows progressively worse and eventually climaxes at the end of the film.

The latter employs a number of familiar tactics.

Firstly, it has extraordinary events befall perfectly ordinary folk, and seeks, therefore, to augment its affrighting potential by making it easy for the audience to identify with the characters.

Secondly, it has the male protagonist not take the paranormal threat very seriously, while the female protagonist descends into hysterics.

And thirdly, it has the activity escalate in an algorithmic crescendo, slowly at first, rapidly at the end: said activity is not only minor and relatively harmless during most of the film, but it is never witnessed directly by the protagonists until the final chapters; for the most part, the activity takes place while the characters sleep, with its discovery posthumous and mediated by a digital recording.

What interested me about the film, however, was not so much the technique but how it related to the characters, particularly where whiteness and gender roles and representation intersect in modern American cinema.

Evidently, if we are watching a horror film and if the protagonists are meant to be young and nothing special, we would be wrong to expect them to display great wisdom or superior intelligence. Yet, precisely because they are meant to be nothing special, it is shocking to deduce what their characterisation says about the Ronald Reagan generation.

The viewer will notice, for example, that, although the couple lives together, they are neither engaged nor have plans to marry. Having been together for three years, one would imagine that they know each other well enough by now to be able to ascertain whether their relationship is going anywhere; but, instead, it seems they are content with the status quo, neither party willing to commit to anything, leaving their options open, and, by implication, merely staving off loneliness until they get bored or someone better comes along.

This is the normal state of affairs these days, and, I will concede, one not without advantages: after all, the good old days whose passing so many nostalgic Right wingers like to lament had its fair crop of unhappy marriages and life partnership is a serious commitment where mistakes can be enormously costly in more than one sense.

All the same, open-ended arrangements like that of Micah and Katie bear the seeds of dysfunction and are symptomatic of the disintegration of the Western family structure. An ex-girlfriend of mine from my university days found herself in an analogous relationship, only to discover, after nine long years, that the gentleman in question was unwilling to marry her. By this time she was well into her thirties, not an easy age for anybody to find fresh new partners or start a new relationship from scratch. She was eventually successful, however, and recently married, but she is now over 40 and a healthy conception, if at all possible, will be considerably more difficult – women over 40 are more likely to conceive a child with genetic defects, such as Down syndrome.

The speculation one can make from watching the film is that, perhaps, culpability for the absence of a marriage proposal lies with Micah. This gentleman is good at making money from buying and selling shares on his computer, but he persistently exhibits an irritating lack of maturity and an inability to assume responsibility and keep promises.

Early in the film the couple is advised by an expert in the paranormal not to get a Ouija board or attempt communication with, let alone bait or antagonize, the demon. He, in fact, recommends referring the matter to a demonologist. What does Micah do? Too wrapped up amusing himself recording ‘cool’ paranormal events to think of consequences, gets the Ouija board, attempts to communicate, bait, and antagonize the demon, and scorns the suggestion to call the demonologist, despite mounting evidence to its advisability. When confronted about the Ouija board, which his girlfriend had made him promise not to buy, Micah’s smirking response is exactly what we would expect from his type: “I didn’t buy it. I borrowed it!”

Micah’s puerility is compounded by a weak and half-developed sense of masculinity; his reactions are consistently adolescent, he allows himself to be shaped by events, and he even permits Katie to treat him like a child. That he does is nor surprising, given his lack of seriousness, bemused flaccidity, and fainéant laggadliness, which inspire nothing but contempt.

When, by dint of sniping sarcasm and scornful skepticism, he is finally embarrassed into adopting a more assertive approach, his performance is juvenile and pathetic: “Nobody comes into my house . . . fucks with my girlfriend . . . and gets away with it,” “I am taking care of this . . . this is my house, you’re my girlfriend . . . I’m gonna fucking solve the problem. OK?” Yea, right. Whatever.

Whatever Micah’s shortcomings as a White, heterosexual male, the fact is that he deserves his girlfriend. She is bossy and, as is routine in modern American film and television, incapable of having an argument with her partner without gratuitous sarcasm and derogatory shots at his masculinity. She also shouts, bellows, and dresses in a most unfeminine manner, favoring informal, thick, cotton wear that often conceals rather than emphasizes her feminine curves. This latter point might be unfair, as the filming takes place during evenings and mornings and it is common for people, even sartorially relaxed university students, to change into comfortable clothes while at home. All the same, it is easy to imagine Katie either tarted up for a boozy evening at the nightclub or in sneakers, t-shirts, and jeans or jogging suits, with little variety in between; while at university in the late 1980s and early 1990s I came across hundreds of Katies, so her character conforms to a common American type.

As to the house inhabited by this irksome couple, it is well worth noticing, as it tells us as much about them as it does about contemporary American culture. Firstly, the viewer will observe that there is not a single book in the whole house – not one, except for a copy of one of Wiley’s For Dummies manuals and a handful of college textbooks hidden away on a low-lying shelf. As an English Literature major, it is clear that Katie scrapes by with the textbooks alone: no genuine lover of literature here. And when Micah decides to do some research to better understand the haunting, we find him leafing lazily through a copy of Ernst and Johanna Lehner’s Devils, Demons, and Witchcraft, which is little more than a picture book. At the same time, the viewer will also observe that the shelves in the lounge hold hundreds DVDs: this is, then, the sole source of culture for this college-educated couple.

Indeed, their lounge is dominated by – oh, yes – a monstrous television set several parsecs across and massive enough to form a steep gravitational well. One wonders why the sofas are not in orbit around this monstrosity. Television is so important to this couple that they are not above sacrificing natural daylight in order for the television set to constitute the epicenter of stimuli in the area: the black jumbo set blocks the front window almost entirely, and (presumably to avoid tempting burglars) the blinds to this window are kept permanently shut.

Is it any surprise, then, that their dialogue is so exasperatingly brainless? Admittedly, they are not as dumb and inarticulate as the characters in The Blair Witch Project, who could barely string a sentence together, and who lacked words to name even basic objects or concepts; but, even so, Micah and Katie are somniferously superficial and have nothing interesting to say. I imagine one’s frontal lobes would rapidly necrotize and liquefy after a few weeks in their company.

On the second floor we encounter another anomalous feature. The three-bedroom house has… three double bedrooms. One is theirs; the other two are unused guestrooms. Now, for a house inhabited by a lonely couple with no plans to marry and, as far as one can see, no plans to reproduce anytime soon, this creates the impression of their having more space than their impoverished imaginations allow them to fill. Could it be that they have an active social life and frequently entertain visitor friends? There is little indication that this is the case: the film records their activities over a period of several weeks and, during this time, we find Micah never talks to anyone but his girlfriend, while Katie is visited by only one friend, a patronizing tubular female with no conversation.

When we consider that Paranormal Activity was written and directed by one Oren Peli, a 39-year-old Israeli-born film director and screenwriter, his instincts with regards to what constitutes an ordinary White American couple is revealing because they are those of an outsider: the White Americans in this film are uncultured philistines, infantile, spoilt, obdurate, bickering morons incapable of learning from experience, let alone anything profound or useful; they are, put a different way, like oversized children, with too much time, too big an allowance, and really nothing to do. They are parochial, ovine consumers, serving time with no sense of purpose or direction, completely oblivious of the world outside the confines of their feckless existence, and for whom life is simply a succession of unconnected moments, wiled away meaninglessly in search for endless entertainment and fun.

Peli is not alone pumping out similarly negative portrayals of White American youth; I am reminded of the vile Eli Roth and the latter’s Cabin Fever, another horror film featuring cognitively deficient all-White university students.

The sad aspect of these films is that, because viewers consume them passively as entertainment, the sheer persistence of the attitudes and interpersonal dynamics therein presented act eventually to normalize them. I have seen enough of them reproduced in real life to wonder about the degree to what ordinary people take their cues from modern American cinema when faced with unstructured social situations. Even though most realise that the scenarios presented are fictional, fantastical, stupid, or impossible, American cinema’s influence as a model of social interaction ought not to be underestimated.

To better suspend disbelief, fiction imitates life. But in postmodernity, in the age of ubiquitous information and mass communications, life is known to imitate fiction, with the result that fiction imitates life that imitates fiction that imitates life imitating fiction. Distortions – because the imitations are two dimensional – are introduced into every revolution. Round and round they go, the distortion growing ever larger until they acquire a life of their own. The medium is the message, as the saying goes.

Without cinema able effectively and entertainingly to challenge Peli’s and Roth’s and their ilk’s message, without a different voice providing an alternative narrative, theirs becomes the cultural default, the dominant paradigm and archetype. The main premise of Paranormal Activity is entertaining enough, even for a complete skeptic, but it needs to be told by a less contemptuous narrator.

I also like Tim Burton. He has been accused of “doing the same thing over and over again.” But Burton unique aesthetic always works well with his limited subjects and actors.

Sadly, my optimism about this one was misplaced. Burton’s Alice in Wonderland was a visually stunning shell with mere remnants of the myth at its core. Of course, Walt Disney Pictures has been doing this sort of thing for years. Their mermaid, for instance, has none of the original’s tragedy, while classic Disney films like Bambi are rarely shown, because they do.

Wonderland is a sequel: now 19, this young lady is brought to her surprise engagement party. Confused and unhappy with her suitor, she runs off into the garden to think things over, falls down a rabbit hole, experiences many adventures in Underland, and returns to the party to set things straight.

Visually, Burton maintains all the dark aspects of his other films, whether it comes to the heads floating in the moat around a castle or Jabberwocky’s cut-off tongue. And, there are many references to the mishmash of Wonderland and Looking Glass. The fabulous Queen of Hearts yells, “Off with their heads!” repeatedly and plays croquet with flamingos and hedgehogs. Johnny Depp — the Mad Hatter — is quite good when it comes to Carroll’s tongue-twisting linguistic games. The psychedelic feeling of the books is very believable in the case of the hookah-smoking caterpillar and magic forest mushrooms alike, enhanced by 3D.

And, most important, the Cheshire cat is simply GLORIOUS.

The film does presuppose a prior knowledge of the original texts, which, much like one of the White Queen’s magic potions, is wishful thinking. However, all similarities are, by and large, superficial.

As far as essential content is concerned, the filmmakers use the fact that the original Alice was a brave child and warp it into a Hollywood version of feminism. Many characters in Underland do not recognize Alice, not only because she grew up, but also because she lost her “muchness.” Thus, they insist that she assert her independence, make her own choices, and stop pleasing others, on and on and on. As a result, Lewis Carroll’s stories lose their muchness. (Luckily, Good and Evil are clearly defined in Underland, and Alice’s decisions do end up helping the former side.)

In this attempt to display commercial “girl power,” this project ends up contradicting itself. In the beginning, the filmmakers go out of their way to show the supposed decadence of Victorian society underneath the prim and proper veneer. Young Alice does not want to wear constricting stockings or corsets, let alone be married to a stuck-up nerd, whom she does not like one bit. She is turned off by the idea of marriage further by the fact that she catches her own sister’s husband cheating. And, she is threatened with becoming just like her half-crazed old-maid aunt, lest she accept. Yet in the end, her deceased father’s business partner (and the father of the man whom she just rejected!) invites her to become an apprentice in a sweeping anachronistic move. Emmeline Pankhurst would be jealous. Thus, 19-year-old Alice sails off into another cinematic Happy Ending in order to work on a business venture she herself pioneers — an expansion from Hong Kong into the rest of China.

Seriously?

Disney’s Affirmative Action for girls is not surprising: the film’s audience is predominantly female. This was certainly true of the screening I attended. And, Alice is quite the cash cow: there already exists a proven market for Alice-themed consumption. In Tokyo, one of the most popular attractions for us, North American tourists, is the Alice-meets-Gothic-Lolita cafe. This weekend, tearooms all over town are booked back-to-back. (We called!) Recently, Swarovski unveiled the Alice in Wonderland jewelry collection..

Girls love jewelry. But as a friend of mine aptly noted, she would have preferred to see this movie starting and ending with the rabbit hole, with none of this social commentary.

Alternative Right, March 6, 2010

I can’t praise Craig Bodeker’s path-breaking 58 minute documentary A Conversation About Race too highly. As I explained in my TOQ review, it is an excellent tool for getting white people to begin thinking about the most important issue of our time: the preservation of the white race.

In my review of A Conversation About Race, I suggested that Craig Bodeker make more of the raw interviews available. Bodeker’s new DVD More of . . . A Conversation About Race is pretty much what I had in mind.

The original documentary is a stand-alone feature. The new DVD is not. It clocks in at 38 minutes and is one of those “bonus” discs containing deleted scenes, behind the scenes footage, and director interviews that are often packaged with movies.

Fans of A Conversation About Race need to see More of . . . A Conversation About Race. Bodeker left us wanting more, and now he has delivered.

But More of . . . is not essential for first-time viewers of A Conversation About Race, which can stand on its own and is probably more effective at only 58 minutes.

Film watchers tend to be naive and film-makers tend to be disingenuous about the power of editing to take people’s words and use them to advance the film-maker’s agenda. Craig Bodeker is refreshingly honest about this.

In making A Conversation About Race, he chose clips that illustrate the incoherence of the conventional wisdom about race. Here he shows some of the material he left out, which allows us to get a fuller and fairer impression of his interviewees.

A lot of the material simply could not be used for technical reasons. Sometimes the interviewees stutter or gibber. One time the camera man’s cell phone rang, and Bodeker rebuked him for it, for apparently this was the fourth time it had happened. Sometimes there were small problems with focus or sound.

The most regrettable glitch was the crying baby that interrupted an interview with a young woman who appeared to be an American Indian. (Craig tells me she is from the Philippines.) The baby in her lap was blonde-haired and blue-eyed. (I thought she might have been a nanny.) She began like many of the interviewees by claiming that she thought that racism was all pervasive, then the baby started crying and nothing  after that point made it into the first film. In the More of . . . DVD, she goes on to reveal that she had lived around whites her entire life and had never experienced any racism, save for the time when someone asked her if she was Chinese! The baby turned out to be her adopted child, and she was in an inter-racial marriage. Quite a story!

We get glimpses of how Bodeker set up and conducted the interviews. There were two kinds of interviews: impromptu man-on-the-street interviews and studio interviews.

At the end of one of the street interviews, he engages in shameless flattery to get his subject to sign the release necessary to use his interview. The standard procedure is to have the release signed before the interview, to prevent people from backing out afterwards if they do not like their performances.

In the studio interviews, Bodeker warns the interviewees that he is going to ask them questions that might make them angry. He apparently allowed them to read over a list of sample questions. At least some of them were asked to prepare a statement of their views on race.

Two sequences stand out as my favorites.

The first is a segment of Bodeker’s interview with Ruben, a Mexican national who in A Conversation About Race appeals to his rights as an American citizen until Bodeker gets him to admit that he is not one. In More of . . ., Bodeker sets up the segment by telling us that Ruben got under his skin. In the segment, Bodeker is not just asking questions, he is pressing an argument. His passion is apparent, but I detect no anger, and to my surprise he manages to get Ruben to concede his point. Bodeker again demonstrates that one can persuade people of quite radical ideas as long as one is soft-spoken, reasonable, and does not allow oneself to be pigeonholed as a skinhead or one of “those people in Idaho.”

My other favorite segment is a montage near the end called “Words of Wisdom” in which the interviewees make some very sensible and admirably candid remarks. Bodeker sets this segment up by saying that it is easy to use editing to poke fun a the views of his subjects. But he reminds us that the incoherence of their views reflects the incoherence of the received wisdom on racism. I liked his tone and message here, but unfortunately he undermines it in the earlier part of the DVD with some snide, sniping comments, for example putting one person’s profession (actor) in “scare quotes” and making fun of the coinage “extinctuate” (it was a white person who came out with it, by the way).

The style of More of . . . differs from the original A Conversation About Race. The original is in black and white and has a minimalistic style. The new DVD is shot in color and includes flashier editing and special effects, including rewinds of clips from the original movie, that I found annoying and obtrusive.

As this video came to an end, two feelings were predominant.

First, I liked and respected Craig Bodeker and pretty much all of his interviewees. I particularly liked a couple of the blacks. It is refreshing to see people who are not burdened by “white guilt” speaking frankly and unapologetically about their racial interests. All the subjects had, of course, been well-catechized in the conventional wisdom about racism. But most of them had the potential to see beyond it with a little prodding.

Which leads me to the second feeling this DVD evoked, namely hope. Our system is based on lies: the lie of human equality, the lie of unique white depravity, the lie that diversity is a strength. These lies are so preposterous, so utterly contrary to human experience, that the system it has to create an unsleeping, all-pervasive regime of propaganda and brainwashing to prevent people from looking at reality and thinking for themselves.

But it did not stop Craig Bodeker from creating A Conversation About Race. It did not stop him from putting an ad on Craig’s List, interviewing people with an inexpensive camera, creating a documentary using inexpensive equipment, and promoting it with the internet. It did not stop him from opening the minds of his interviewees and countless viewers around the world.

As I said in my initial review, Craig Bodeker is a talent to be encouraged and emulated. Encourage him by buying his videos. Encourage him to do a new documentary. (I vote for A Conversation About Diversity.) As for emulating him, if there are any aspiring White Nationalist documentary film-makers out there, please contact me. Perhaps we can put together a workshop.

You can purchase More of . . . A Conversation About Race for $20, including first class postage in the US, directly from Craig Bodeker’s website, http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/part_2.asp. You can purchase both DVDs together for $30.

A few observations:

1. Overall, it seems to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the heart of Red State Texas and its high school football obsession. As an anthropological study, it is hard to beat.

2. The producer is Peter Berg, a New Yorker who apparently has a first cousin who lives in a small Texas town and became fascinated with the football cult. Not sure of Berg’s ethnicity, but the show is remarkable in its realistic portrayal of the Christian culture that still permeates rural Texas. The show does not exhibit the typical Jewish producer’s allergy to all things Christian unless it involves taking the name of Christ in vain. FNL is so enjoyable because it portrays our people as they are, not as caricatures. In addition, the sets are dead-on perfect. The houses, the furniture, the settings are all genuine Texas small town.

3. The best positive of the show is the portrayal of the head coach’s relationship with his wife. Their relationship is warm, supportive, and highly sexual. It’s unusual these days to have a mainstream television show portray heterosexual marriage in a positive way. The coach character in particular is stand-out, the epitome of a principled white male who does the right thing and doesn’t back down from adversity.

4. The first season covered at least four politically incorrect plot elements:

(a) A new black quarterback, a Katrina refugee, comes to the town, recruited by local boosters. Once on the team, he acts like a total thug, but the coach displaces the white quarterback to give it to the black, who seems to have more natural talent. During the game, the black player’s ego gets in the way of winning, the coach realizes the error of his ways and pulls the black out of the game and puts in his humble, team-player white quarterback. The Panthers go on to win the game and the Katrina refugee eventually leaves town to play for another school (and re-appears in full thug form as the Panthers’ opposition quarterback in the season finale state championship game).

(b) This same thug quarterback, before leaving town, goes to the local teen hangout (a burger joint) and calls one of the Mexican players a wetback. The Mexican player gets really upset but does not attack the thug. Later, a brainy white kid makes a snide, but non-racist, remark to the Mexican about the general meaninglessness of football. The Mexican, still smarting from the thug’s insult, follows the white kid outside and beats him up so bad he ends up in the hospital; the next day the Mexican is arrested at practice. The rest of the episode features the Mexican claiming it was the white kid who called him a wetback, and that was why he beat him up. The coach initially trusts the Mexican kid, but once he finds out the truth, he kicks the Mexican off the team permanently. I have never heard of ANY mainstream television show portraying a fake hate crime by a minority, even though fakes are the substantial majority of real-life hate crime accusations.

(c) The showboat black running back on the team, who calls himself Smash, tells his mother he wants to take an SAT prep course that costs $1300. The mother can’t afford it but instead enlists their pastor’s help who then takes up an offering at the black church the following Sunday. The black player then takes the money and buys steroids. I can’t think of any show that portrays blacks this realistically, in their full depressing depravity.

(d) Late in the season, an assistant coach tells a reporter that he thinks black players like Smash have a “junkyard dog” mentality that makes them better runners, whereas white players are more “creative” and make better leaders and quarterbacks. In the resulting uproar, black players threaten to quit the team unless the coach gives in and fires his assistant. The coach ignores their threat, and even has white kids from the JV team fill in for the blacks. The coach also stands by his friend the assistant coach, refusing to fire him (even after the asst. coach offers his resignation for the good of the team, the head coach refuses it, saying not firing him over the remarks was “the right thing to do”), and the show portrays the assistant coach as a whole, complex person who truly cares about the kids, not a hateful racist. In addition, the head coach nor none of the main characters ever deny what he said was true, but they just say “what you said was stupid” or “you can’t talk about the black-white thing”. This is probably exactly how coaches in Texas would talk in private. No hand-wringing or shock at the statement, because it’s obviously true.

Before the next game, the black players relent and rejoin the team, because the white coach refuses to give in to their demands. The subsequent game ends in a riot due to the high tensions and the game is called for Dillon after the 3rd quarter, infuriating the home team and town. Dillon players leave town quickly hoping to avoid any more confrontation, but as they make their way out of town local cops stop and decide to harass the team, specifically demanding to arrest the black player on Dillon’s team they think started the riot. The “racist” assistant coach gets out of the bus and confronts the local cops, telling them if they do not have a warrant they will not arrest one of his players. The black players then realize the error of their ways in overreacting to the coach’s statement, and the head black player, Smash, and the assistant coach reconcile.

I have never seen in any mainstream production a more sympathetic, balanced treatment of an individual who utters a racist statement, and portrays positively those that resist the calls for his head. Nor have I ever seen a portrayal of whites being victorious in not giving in to the demands of offended blacks.

5. The casting is almost perfect. Apparently they hired a special Texas casting director for many of the characters, and it’s just dead-on. So many of the characters correspond to archetypes of the larger-than-life individuals who inhabit the South and Texas. As one historian put it, the bravado, faith, and patriotism that characterizes the region is “better than sanity” and this is fully portrayed (the local car dealer and his ubiquitous dead animals on walls, for example; many wealthy Texan males spend millions pursuing large game all over the world). This same character, upset at his ex-wife for dating another man, says “I don’t understand what you see in that tree-hugging idiot who makes seven dollars an hour at a health food store. I will not sit by and see my children turn into Communists.”

6. Two minor critiques: there was a minor early plot element where the small town mayor is portrayed as a lesbian. The head coach’s wife is recruited to help in her re-election campaign, but the coach disapproves, both because he hates politicians and he’s “uncomfortable” with his wife being around the mayor. This plot element seemed somewhat random and was not pursued further in the first season. Second, there is a near-miss interracial relationship that is quickly broken up by the black boy’s mother who runs them out of the house scolding her son “Don’t you bring no white girl in this house”. . . in any case, this plot element is isolated and confined to one episode.

7. The second season seems less promising, as the teen drama elements seem to be overpowering the football-driven plot. However, the first season was solid. Not appropriate for children, of course.

The story is about a veteran homicide detective, Thomas Craven, who must solve the murder of his own daughter, Emma (who dies in his arms), and the conspiracy that led to it. As Craven, Mel Gibson is back with a performance that reminds us why he is one of the all time greats. He hasn’t been in front of the camera since 2002’s Signs, but what a return this is! His powerful performance grabs and doesn’t let go. Even though his intense blue eyes have been intentionally muted with wardrobe and lighting to create a disheveled and distraught character appearance, he still captivates. As a widower, who has now lost his only child, Craven has but one goal left and that is to find and exact vengeance on her killers.

Initially believed to be the target himself, things don’t stack up for Craven and he discovers that his daughter led a life that he knew nothing about. Throughout the film, use of memory flashbacks of Emma as a little girl, and apparitions of her lost spirit, provide love connections, which are beautifully and hauntingly effective. The chemistry, between father and daughter, is wonderfully developed by Gibson and Serbian-Australian actress, Bojana Novakovic. As a nuclear physicist intern, Emma worked for an energy and research firm that held government contracts. She became aware of sinister efforts by her corporate employer (played with arrogant perversity by Danny Huston) to produce nuclear weapons that could be used and then blamed on Jihadists. This future “false flag” operation had the secret support of elements of our own government. Emma’s efforts to “do right” and protect our true national interests were betrayed by those she thought she could trust, including a US Senator.

As Craven investigates with increasing despair, he uncovers key parts of the conspiracy with the enigmatic assistance of a government clean-up agent (and assassin), Darius Jedburgh, wonderfully played by Ray Winston. Although his delivery was difficult to understand at times, Winston’s understated performance is central to the story and his scenes with Gibson are riveting. At one point, Jedburgh philosophically states to an inquiring Craven, “. . . you just never can connect A to B.” Craven responds “How do you know?” to which Jedburgh replies “Because I’m usually the guy that stops you from connecting A to B.” But Jedburgh is “terminal” (as he says “we all are”), and this takes him through a soul searching process, where he will ultimately be tested to either do his assigned job or do the right thing. This is a decision many of our government servants may be asking themselves today.

The themes of honoring family (Jedburgh regrets never having had one and Craven has devastatingly lost his) and protecting our freedoms are tightly woven into this story’s tapestry. A memorable and repeated line, “Everything’s illegal in Massachusetts,” speaks tellingly to current and historic patriots. And Craven’s threat to the Senator, “You had better decide whether you’re hangin’ on the Cross, or bangin’ in the nails,” speaks to our unfortunate loss of faith and increasing corruption.

One aspect of the film that may undercut its effectiveness was a dependency on the ultimate honor and integrity of the media. In sympathy for a female reporter, who showed respect and was less predatory than others, Craven sent her Emma’s secret discs, which revealed the conspiracy. If we still trust in the mainstream media, then it could be a satisfying ending. Unfortunately, trust in media today is justifiably even lower than trust in our politicians. But this reporter was local and working for a less controlled media, so perhaps truth can prevail. This truth dependency is somewhat reminiscent of Three Days of the Condor in which the Robert Redford character’s survival rests in the possible publication of his story in the New York Times. If we had our doubts then, what are we to think now?

The production credits for this revenge thriller are first rate, and give the film a realistic and gritty “film noir” quality. The camera flows smoothly, with visual intensity, and the editing and scoring keep us on an emotional roller coaster. With such a compelling script and top-notch performances, this film has broad commercial appeal, but also works on other important levels. With its truth-seeking attitude and yearning for traditional values, Edge of Darkness, is an uncertain journey through evil and darkness. And like Craven, Emma, and Jedburgh, we are left wondering if we, as a people and nation, can rediscover what is important and return to a world of light.

The Occidental Observer Blog, February 4, 2010

First, let me warm up your neurons a bit. Think Tarzan, Bladerunner, The Last Samurai, fantasy comic books, Pocahontas, made for TV movies, and especially Edmund Connelly on “Reel Bad White” movies. Think tree-huggers, New Age old Liberals chanting and swaying; Indians Good, White Pioneers Bad; Trees Good, Whites Bad; Jurassic Park, Third World Revolution. The Spirit of the People is Greater than the (White) Man’s Technology. That should warm you up.

Now for an old fart who does not see many movies, Avatar, with its special effects (3D complete with 3D glasses . . . yeah I dodged flying objects the first couple times) is amazing. Do you recall the “Feelies” from Brave New World? These were entertainment movies for the proles whose salient feature was that one was wired up to actually “feel” the emotions and sensations that that were PC. Your brain was wired up to the movie.

So, in a nutshell, Whites from Earth are colonizing another planet whose indigenous wonderful hominids with primitive technology but great butts and neural connections to plants and animals, are in the way of The Company which wants its precious mineral called Unobtainium. (This was the only in joke in the movie I think.) There are a couple of social workers trying to get the natives to move and save Precious Life. They are of course outmaneuvered by the capitalists who want their unobtainium and start to bulldoze the magic forest.

All the roots of the trees of the forest are like a giant brain, the tendrils communicating with one another and with the natives. I forget their names but their language sounds like something vaguely recognizable — like a Native American tongue.

The White invaders have a technique of matching a homo sapiens‘ brain with look-alike “natives” who are grown in a uterine-like fluid and become a sort of identical twin, brain wise, though the morphology is completely different.

So, the Good pseudo-native, like in The Last Samurai, goes native and war is begun with the CapitalistImperialistWhitePigs. Spectacular battle scenes with the Good natives mounted on the backs of flying Teradactyl like birds beating the White Man’s machines. As in Tarzan movies, the animals also come to the aid of the natives, after having sensed that the White Man is a greater danger.

In the battle, the chief Bad Guy is a jarhead (Marine) colonel who wants to kill all the Good Natives. Blue eyes and a very White Marine, he of course, is beaten by bows and arrows and big scary animals (a la Tarzan). As he is about to kill our pseudo-native hero, who has of course betrayed the mission of The Company, the colonel yells, “How does it feel to be a race traitor?” With that, two arrows from the love-interest native female sink into his chest.

Of course I am not making this up. The movie ends with the animals and the natives driving the White Imperialists off their planet, and humanely allowing the surviving beaten Whites to go home. Magnanimity, noble savages, miscegenation — and the pseudo-native almost dies but gets to marry/mate his Pocahontas. And the Forest is saved, unobtainium is left unobtained, and the White Men discover that the spirit of the natives is greater than the White man’s technology. Like Bladerunner’s replicants, the natives are more human than homo sapiens — Whites that is. The few other folks who help the natives are Earthlings — Blacks and browns, who of course, side with the natives. They recognize a brother when they see one.

From The Occidental Observer Blog, January 5, 2010

1. The tendency to see only skin color when discussing race;
2. A lack of knowledge about Aryan values and Indo-European culture;
3. A “white makes right” mentality that leads to the inability to self-criticize, even when whites act like blacks or Jews; and
4. The recent proclivity of whites to play the victim, interpreting everything as an attack and claiming they’re not allowed to do anything.

The anti-white analysis of Avatar is a result of an over-simplified biological outlook that is focused only on skin color, and therefore lacks any awareness of Aryan and non-Aryan values. If whites hope to achieve any success in taking back their countries and culture, then we must learn to see beyond purely material interpretations and learn to recognize our own values and ideals when they are literally jumping out of the screen at us in 3-D.

Avatar is the story of RDA, the largest non-governmental corporation in the year 2154, which is looking for a rare mineral that sells for $20 million per kilogram. The corporation employs mercenaries that closely resemble America’s present-day army with goons and thugs of every color. They are mining the planet Pandora, and if the indigenous Na’vi will not relocate so RDA can harvest the motherload and thus score big money, the corporate execs and their army plan on killing the natives in cold blood.

Jewish Greed and Capitalism in Avatar

The greedy, capitalistic corporation represents the Jewish spirit that has overtaken American society. The mercenaries are of many races, and although Colonel Miles Quaritch is physically white, he does not have an Aryan character. Instead, he and several other corporate heads have the Semitic characteristics of spiritual degeneracy and being focused purely on material ends. The short, beady-eyed corporate administrator played by Giovanni Ribisi was almost a Jewish caricature.

These humans are incapable of understanding the Na’vi’s spirituality and think they are mere savages to be controlled so their land and religion can be plundered. The humans see everything as an economic unit, in contrast to the Na’vi, who believe all life is sacred and of value beyond economic profit. The corporate heads find it strange that the Na’vi won’t give up their sacred sites in exchange for blue jeans and light beer.

Another display of Jewishness is the corporate workers’ inability to understand the love between the hero and a Na’vi girl; instead, they insinuate that he was just having a cheap lay.

When the corporation does finally bomb the Na’vi’s sacred tree, the Na’vi fight back for “their land,” echoing the words of the Palestinian national anthem (“My country, my land, land of my ancestors”). When the Na’vi must flee, the scenes are comparable to those of the horrors inflicted on the Palestinians by Israel and the Americans who fight for the Jews.

The Na’vi’s Aryan Values

Unlike most of the RDA executives, the Na’vi display many characteristics associated with Indo-Europeans (and also other noble societies). Their tribes have a tripartite caste system as described by Georges Dumézil, with a warrior-chief, a shaman, and commoners (who also are warriors). They value strength, courage, and honor, the fundamental Aryan values.

The men must undergo an initiation of which Neytiri, the hero’s mate, says, “Every person is born twice. The second time is when you earn your place among the people forever.” The initiation echoes ceremonies common throughout Indo-European cultures, for as in other traditions, the Na’vi required an ascent to the floating islands, where a wild animal must be tamed.

Like the ancient Europeans, the main Na’vi tribe in the film is a group of hunter-gatherers, rather than Semitic nomads. They respect the land, rather than plundering it and then moving on. Also like European cultures in the past, the Na’vi allow women a relatively high position in the tribe and are not as xenophobic as the corporate workers with Jewish values. In addition, the Na’vi are not ruled by their animal passions as is common for many races; instead, they mate for life (a distinctly European trait).

The Na’vi are deeply spiritual and have a great respect for their environment, echoing the environmentalism of the pagans, Hindus, and in more recent times, the Romantics and the entire völkisch movement and National Socialist policies. According to the Aryan Nations website, the threefold Aryan duty is to the folk, to Nature, and to the Cosmos. It could be describing the Na’vi when it states: “This Aryan duty requires us to respect Nature, and the diverse creations of Nature. This means … striving to live in a balanced way by restraining our greed, our desire for material possessions, and by respecting the traditions, the culture, of our ancestors.”

Obviously there are Na’vi characteristics that do not fit the Aryan mold (their religion is more chthonic, for example), but they certainly possess more traditional Aryan qualities than the greedy human industrialists in the film.

The False Dichotomy of a ‘White Makes Right’ Mentality

The Na’vi share many characteristics with not only Aryans, but other great cultures as well. Many reviewers have pointed to similarities to Native Americans, for example. As White Nationalists, it is helpful to our cause to realize that Aryans are not the only great culture, and to not whine when we see other races portrayed in a good light.

A main issue that nationalist reviewers have with Avatar is its portrayal of white-skinned people as vicious colonialists. But the truth is that there have been times in history that our race has acted brutally. The treatment of the Native Americans, for example, is not the brightest chapter in white history, and we have been duly punished for it.

But clinging to the notion that “whites are always right” is false. We do not have to identify with members of our race who are traitors to Aryan values. Doing do makes us jump to a guilty defensive position every time whites behaving badly are onscreen. In fact, trying to explain away injustices with elaborate explanations makes whites seem like little children who won’t apologize just for the spite of it. Rather than try to justify acts of our ancestors who did not uphold the Aryan spirit of honor, we should move beyond the mistakes of the past and work to overcome them in the future. Playing the victim and complaining is better left to those who are less noble.

A Different Kind of Race Traitor

A scene at the end of the film resulted in a number of claims that Avatar is anti-white. The white colonel yells at the hero, “How does it feel to betray your race?” The implication many see is that the hero has betrayed the human race to fight for the aliens. But in fact, it is the colonel who has betrayed his race, and become Jewish in spirit. He is a military puppet, the way that many white thugs in the military are simply puppets for Israel. The hero, on the other hand, defends a people’s land and acts with honor, truth, and courage; as such, he is displaying the qualities of a true Aryan.

The corporation in Avatar, with its Jewish-like humans and mercenaries of many colors, is not simply “us” portrayed in a bad light; it is what we are fighting against—the takeover of our lands by greedy capitalists who would have our homes and culture destroyed for profit. They are the ones who do not understand our religions, who destroy our environment, and seek to erase the memory of our ancestors.

As the success of the film suggests, the general public is tired of this as well—people are still fascinated with epic myths, heroes, and men of honor, and like the Na’vi, wish they could fight against mindless capitalism. As such, some time spent thinking critically reveals that Avatar is not a “white guilt” film at all. It is a collective fantasy of taking back our land from the industrial machine and keeping our traditions alive. The popularity of Avatar gives us hope that people are ready to be wake up and fight for a just cause.

Tea Party tells the overall story of the Tea Party movement, but it is not just a bloodless recitation of facts. It also seeks to build personal relationships between its audience and the Tea Party movement by focusing on particular activists, most of whom seem to be from the Atlanta area, where the director and producers are also located.

According to the film, the first stirrings of the Tea Party movement were near the end of the Bush administration in the waves of right-wing discontent with the massive bailouts of banks and other large, powerful, well-connected companies that were deemed “too big to fail.”

All of these companies were fierce advocates of private enterprise when they were making profits. But when they were losing money, they were only too eager adopt a kind of negative socialism in which the public only shares the losses, never the profits.

The bailouts just kept getting bigger after the election of Barack Obama, and with the signing of the profligate and corrupt “stimulus” bill on February 17, 2009, protests broke out around the nation.

The first specifically “Tea Party” protests took place on February 27, 2009. Almost 30,000 people participated in 50 events all over the country. These numbers are particularly impressive, given that the events were organized in only five days.

On April 15, 500,000 participated in 850 Tea Party events around the country.

After that, sporadic Tea Parties took place all over the country to protest various big government initiatives, from taxes to bailouts, Cap and Trade, and health care reform.

More large scale Tea Parties took place July 4 and July 17.

The July 17 protests were focused on Obama’s health care reform initiative. My favorite segment of the documentary follows a group of doctors who went to Washington to lobby Congress against Obamacare.

At one point, they entered a hearing on health care reform chaired by black Democrat John Conyers. We get a glimpse of the snake oil being peddled as reform. An unidentified speaker lauds a single payer system as the “magic solution” for the nation’s health-care needs in the condescending tone of someone addressing school-children.

Conyers, in a truly classy gesture, invited the Tea Party doctors to participate, even giving one of them—a very impressive Armenian named Vahan Kasabian—the lectern. It almost made me think that our system can still work.

But then Conyers scotched the whole discussion by asserting that the only reason for opposing Obamacare is the racist desire to defeat the first black president. Yes, it is childish. But remember we are dealing with a black man here.

The culmination of the documentary is the September 12 march on Washington, in which some 75,000 people from all over the United States converged to demonstrate the Tea Party movement’s steady resolve and growing numbers. After a montage of sound-bites from the speakers, the documentary ends with members piously visiting various monuments and memorials around Washington.

The activists profiled include Jack, a forty-something white suburban dad; William, an older white minister of a black church who is also a painter and military re-enactor; Dr. Fred Shessel, a Jewish doctor who gets a lot of screen time because Jews are discomfited with the overwhelming non-Jewishness of the Tea Party movement; Dave, a white guy with a grin and big biceps; Jenny Beth Martin, a white suburban mother of two who lost her business to the recession and her house to foreclosure because she was not “too big to fail”; and Nate, a black Tea Partier who gets quite a lot of screen time because liberals, observing the overwhelming whiteness of the Tea Partiers, predictably accused them of being racists.

All of these activists are likable, sincere, and articulate. But I was most impressed by Jack and Jenny Beth.

Jack’s unassuming but forceful calls to activism and his Aryan insistence that he does not deserve thanks or praise for merely doing his duty were quite powerful. The guy has the power to motivate people.

Jenny Beth Martin impressed me with her organizational skills and commitment. No, she is not a great orator. Yes, she talks in earnest about “tweeting” things. But she comes across as real, and sincerity is a rare and shining quality in politics today.

Other people who get screen time are Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, a libertarian/conservative non-profit organization; Georgia Representative Tom Price; and Joel Aaron, a talk radio personality.

I highly recommend Tea Party. It is a very good introductory documentary for people who know nothing about the Tea Party movement. It presupposes no background knowledge, and it is very easy to understand and follow. Tea Party should also be seen by anyone interested in right wing politics, grassroots political organizing, and documentary film-making.

In many ways, Tea Party is a model political documentary. It does not just inform and entertain. It motivates. People who see it will try to change the world.

It is encouraging to see just how much technical competence, artistic talent, good taste, and hipness can be found a little to the right of mainstream. As someone still further to the right, I realized just how much we have to learn, but I also feel hopeful that we can eventually do work of this quality as well.

You can purchase Tea Party: The Documentary Film here. But skip the trailer, which is laughable. It makes the film sound like a monster truck rally or the latest release by Michael Bay.

Weak Tea

Patrick Buchanan thinks that the Tea Party movement may save the Republic. But I have read The Death of the West, so I know better.

Sure, in the short run, the Tea Parties might lead to the election of more Republicans and stall some of the worst excesses of Obama and the Democrats.

But the Republicans can produce no lasting change.

The Republicans are the natural party of America’s disappearing white majority. The Democrats are the natural party of America’s emerging non-white majority. Whatever power the Republicans can wrest from the left in the next few elections will inevitably be taken back unless the erosion of the white majority can be halted.

And nobody in the Republican party—or the Tea Party movement, or the Ron Paul movement, much less the Libertarians—even wants to do that. If the idea has crossed any of their minds, none of them has had the guts to utter it.

Furthermore, the ideas of the Tea Partiers—like those of Ron Paul—appeal only to a vanishingly small minority of the disappearing white majority. For every person who showed up at a Barack Obama rally, there were 100 potential voters who did not. For every person who showed up at a Ron Paul rally . . . well, they were pretty much the whole Ron Paul electorate.

The Tea Party movement has somewhat broader appeal, but people intelligent enough to understand its message and self-reliant enough not to be threatened by it are a small and shrinking minority.

I found myself smiling whenever Jenny Beth Martin raised her shrill voice seeking to energize the Tea Partiers with the mantra of “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics.” It would be nice. But it will never compete with “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” much less “Welfare, Food Stamps, and Affirmative Action.”

The Tea Partiers constantly invoke the US Constitution, but they have a largely mistaken view of its nature and its relationship to the American people. The Constitution did not create the American people, the American people created the Constitution.

Who are the American people? White people who came from Europe, settled this continent, and eventually decided that they could better govern themselves. The US Constitution was just one white American experiment in self-government. Nothing like it has ever been created by other races. Nothing like it has ever been successfully adopted by other races.

The Constitution and everything else that is good about America was created by white people. When white people disappear, all those good things will disappear with them.

Nobody is going to save the Republic without explicitly working to save the white majority.

And the Tea Partiers are not doing that.

Designed to Fail

But it gets worse. The Tea Partiers, like the Republicans, actually obfuscate the necessity of preserving the white majority by playing by the rules of political correctness.

I’ll bet there were all of five blacks at the September 12 march. Why do I think that? Because all five of them were featured in the documentary.

I’ll bet there was one Latina at the march. Why? Because she was on screen too.

I suspect that the Jew, Dr. Fred Shessel, was highlighted in the film for similar reasons of diversity.

I am sure that the producers and director simply wished to immunize themselves against the predictable charges of racism by highlighting non-whites. Since they sincerely believe that they are selling universal, race-neutral ideas, they saw no downside to it.

But they have to understand: the rules of political correctness are designed by the left to make effective right-wing resistance to their agenda impossible. The enemy knows that the only way the right can win is by preserving the white majority.

Therefore, the left have bullied the right into adopting the politically correct premise that white racial consciousness and white racial advocacy are simply immoral. Once rightists have accepted that premise, all of their efforts will be in vain. The mainstream right in America has accepted parameters that are designed to make them lose.

The Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly white. It manifests a great deal of what Kevin MacDonald calls “implicit” white racial consciousness. This is why its enemies have branded it racist. To combat this charge, the creators of this documentary go out of their way to showcase non-whites.

But by showcasing non-whites, the Tea Partiers are fostering the same folly that helps the Republicans evade facing up to their inevitable demographic Armageddon.

They hope that significant numbers of non-whites will somehow decide—perhaps by repeating the magic mantra of “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics” till their lips go numb—to stop riding on the system and start pulling it instead.

You see, Republicans and Tea Partiers are so terrified of defending the white majority that they have pinned all their hopes on fiscally responsible, law-abiding, hard-working . . . blacks.

The trouble is: there just aren’t that many of them, and they’ll have an uphill battle convincing the other 99.7% of their people.

The same is true of other non-white groups: there just aren’t enough sensible ones to support the policies favored by the Tea Partiers.

If the Tea Partiers are going to win, they are going to have to break the taboo on explicit white racial consciousness and start working to preserve the white majority.

When that happens, they will have arrived at White Nationalism, which is a whole new cup of tea.

This may in part account for the differing interpretations here of Avatar, a movie I have not seen and do not intend to see unless, perhaps, it is broadcast free on TV one day.

That being said, mainstream media reports suggest that Avatar is intended as a relatively straightforward Leftist (and therefore anti-white) production. In “Does ‘Avatar’ Contain Hidden Messages?” Brett Michael Dykes writes:

Are you beginning to get a sense of why some viewers noticed what they believe are underlying messages in the film?

Some prominent members of the media who screened the film certainly took note. In a glowing review for the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert noted that “Avatar” “has a flat-out Green and anti-war message” that is “predestined to launch a cult.” Meanwhile Ben Hoyle, writing in the Times of London, noted that the film “contains heavy implicit criticism of America’s conduct in the War on Terror.” Further, Will Heaven of the Daily Telegraph said that the plot line involving people of color who wear “tribal” jewelry while sporting dreadlocked hair, being saved by a noble white man gave the film a “racist subtext” that he found “nauseatingly patronising.

But are these hidden messages really all that hidden? James Cameron himself hasn’t been shy in publicly proclaiming the fact that he’s an environmental activist who believes that humans and “industrial society” are “causing a global climate change” and “destroying species faster than we can classify them.” In a recent interview with PBS’ Tavis Smiley, Cameron admitted that he made “obvious” references in the film to Iraq, Vietnam and the American colonial period to emphasize the fact that humans have a “terrible history” of “entitlement” in which we “take what we need” from nature and indigenous peoples and don’t give back.’” http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hmg-avatar-hidden-messages.html

What I do with any production I’m interested in is trace its racial and ideological genealogy.

The major force behind Avatar is filmmaker James Cameron, who is evidently white (a Canadian of Scottish or at least part-Scottish ancestry). His studio made the movie, and he wrote, co-produced, directed, and co-edited it. It therefore largely reflects his views as mediated by the Hollywood Establishment which would break any white man with an independent point of view.

Cameron, while multi-talented, is like any white politician, journalist, or academic. He is successful because the rigid socialization process characteristic of his profession is congenial to him.

A cursory examination of published information about his views suggests that he is a conventional Leftist and therefore anti-white. The two go together nearly 100% of the time. (When they do not, the Leftist in question usually is not conventional.)

I remember that the depiction of the Irish and other non-British passengers in Titanic, an earlier Cameron film, and particularly the malevolent portrayal of the ship’s English captain and crew, represented simpleminded, indeed childish (anti-Brit) racist stereotypes.

Other significant contributors to Avatar are co-producer Jon Landau and co-editor Stephen E. Rivkin, who are Jewish, and the film’s distributor, 20th Century Fox Film Corp., a subsidiary of neocon media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

However, due to his pivotal role in the film’s production, Avatar’s views are essentially Cameron’s.

The blockbuster film Avatar has just been released. It’s about a group of humans who wish to mine the resources of the planet Pandora. The humans are portrayed as white, industrial society imperialists and the Pandorans as pre-industrial, close to nature indigenes. One of the whites is rescued by a Pandoran woman, taken up by the tribe and learns to love their traditional ways. He becomes the hero of the film by turning against his own race and leading the fight of the natives to preserve their existence.

The blogger Fjordman is not impressed:

Avatar has to be one of the most anti-Western and especially anti-white Hollywood movies I have seen in a long time.

The hero is the U.S. Marine Jake Sully who has been sent to the planet-like moon Pandora because humans desire the mineral resources found of Pandora, which is inhabited by a race of tall, blue-skinned aliens, the Na’vi. They have a non-industrial civilization technologically inferior to ours but apparently spiritually richer and in perfect ecological harmony with the natural environment. The hero predictably falls in love with the native culture and connects with a native girl …

Basically, the white characters are portrayed as brutal, greedy and insensitive beasts who rape the environment and destroy other cultures with a smile in the search for profit. The main antagonist is the white Colonel Quaritch, a brute who hardly possesses a single positive character trait. The final climax of the movie is when he screams “How does it feel to betray your race?” to the protagonist while he is trying to murder him.

Although a few of the white characters such as Jake Sully are portrayed in a more redeeming light this is only because they totally reject their own civilization and join the other team in the fight. In other words: the only good whites are the ones who utterly turn their backs on their own destructive and evil culture. As reviewer Armond White put it, “Avatar is the corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt.”

Fjordman isn’t alone in taking the film this way. Another reviewer writes:

Avatar is just the latest scifi rehash of an old white guilt fantasy . . . it’s undeniable that the film … is emphatically a fantasy about race. Specifically, it’s a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people. Avatar and scifi films like it give us the opportunity to answer the question: What do white people fantasize about when they fantasize about racial identity?

If we think of Avatar and its ilk as white fantasies about race, what kinds of patterns do we see emerging in these fantasies?

In both Avatar and District 9, humans are the cause of alien oppression and distress. Then, a white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior . . .

These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color — their cultures, their habitats, and their populations. The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the “alien” cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become “race traitors,” and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed. This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare . . .

There are two things that have to be explained about all this. The first is why white liberals would fantasise about being traitors to their own race. The second is why liberal moderns, who think of themselves as progressives, would support the traditionalism of non-white societies.

It can seem very confusing. In the film the native Pandorans are portrayed in the most positive terms for having “a direct line to their ancestors.” You would think, then, that the whites in the film would be encouraged to have a strong sense of ancestry and ancestral loyalty. But they don’t. Quite the opposite — their path to redemption is to become race traitors.

So why do liberal moderns have a fantasy of fighting against their own race? I put forward part of an explanation just a few weeks ago. I’d noticed that Australian men were being told that domestic violence was a product of a patriarchal male culture. In other words, men committed violence against women in order to perpetuate their own unjust privilege in society.

I cautioned men against accepting this idea because of what it logically entailed. Once a man accepts that masculinity and masculine culture are an oppressive source of privilege and injustice, then he loses moral status and authority in society. This in itself is bad enough, but worse follows. What the domestic violence campaigners then tell men is that they can redeem themselves, and restore their moral status and authority, by breaking ranks with other men and acting against the masculine culture. They are redeemed, not only by forfeiting their own masculine self-identity, but by identifying in opposition to the masculine in society.

And a similar logic applies when it comes to race. Once a white person accepts the idea that whites are privileged at the expense of the non-white other, then there is a loss which will be hard for the most conscientious and politically aware to bear. Such people will want to speak with moral authority in society, but how can they as white oppressors? The path to redemption is, again, to break ranks and to identify with the non-white other in opposition to other unenlightened whites.

This helps to explain why some liberal whites are so obsessed with an anti-white/pro-other agenda. It comes to express their self-concept and identity. It lies at the heart of how they see themselves and the ground on which they stand.

But why do white liberals praise what is traditional and non-liberal in native societies? Why are the Pandorans allowed to express a connection to ancestry and to defend their own culture but not whites?

If I understand Lawrence Auster correctly, a possible answer is as follows. There are white liberals, white non-liberals and non-white non-liberals. All three are necessary for the liberal script to play out in society. White liberals see themselves as morally virtuous because, in contrast to white non-liberals, they are open and accepting of the non-white other. But this then requires the non-whites to remain something “other” to the white liberal. What could be more “other” to the white liberal than non-white traditionalists?

In other words, the white liberal is practising his “virtue” by identifying with non-Western traditionalists. He is being a liberal in the very act of romanticising what is traditional and non-liberal.

Here’s something else to consider. Liberals want equality and yet there appears to be inequality of power and wealth between different races and cultures. How can this be explained?

There are left liberals who believe that such inequality came about when one group of people, “whites,” invented race and racism as an excuse to dominate and exploit other groups of people. Therefore whites are exceptional — exceptionally bad, that is. All that’s necessary to restore equality is to attack white privilege and power.

If you believe this, then you’ll get upset with any expression of white group identity. Even the most harmless expressions of such identity will be condemned as an attempt to defend “supremacy.” But the identity of other groups won’t matter so much, since they aren’t seen as being tied to power, privilege and inequality. In fact, they might even be tied to resistance to whites and therefore be seen as progressive.

This is another reason for whites being treated differently to others and not being allowed to express a communal identity, whilst the identity of other groups gets a free pass.

Or there’s the issue of dissent. There are left-liberals who see themselves as dissenters to the establishment (even though they are themselves a significant part of the establishment). But how do you demonstrate your dissent? If you think the establishment is a conservative bulwark against reform, then you can express your dissent in a predictable way — by advocating for progressive reform.

But what if you see the establishment as a soulless, materialistic, powerful Western industrial complex squashing the small, indigenous tribes in its path? Then perhaps you will express your dissent by identifying against the Western power complex in favour of the disappearing underdog tribes with their ancient wisdoms.

You might even then have a politically legitimate way to identify with things that you really do feel are lacking in more atomised modern liberal societies. You might even sound at times like a bit of a traditionalist — just not for the mainstream Western culture which retains its negative status as powerfully oppressive and destructive.

From Oz Conservative, December 21, 2009

In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World, Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone argued that “whoever controls the media controls the culture.” And a linchpin of that media is Hollywood and its associated TV studios and networks.

Why does it matter that Jews control Hollywood? In essence, it matters because it represents the loss of power of one group—majority white Christians—to a group with a long history of hostility toward the people and culture of the West. Jewish control of Hollywood has been a crucial means for dispossessing majority whites from their place in the country they built. As some have argued, the twentieth century was “a Jewish century,” and much of this was because Jews controlled the image factory known as Hollywood.

Again, what Kevin MacDonald demonstrates in The Culture of Critique, cannot be repeated too often: “The Judaization of the West means that the peoples who created the culture and traditions of the West have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history — surely the prelude to their demise as a culture and as a people.” And, as I argued earlier, the treatment of Christmas shows how Jews “have been able to translate this hatred of Christ and his birthday into increasingly scandalous imagery, thanks to their domination of Hollywood and TV studios.”

Today I’ll talk about how that has affected the kind of Hollywood films we get with respect to Christmas. In essence, it means that in the last forty or so years, the Christian aspect of the holiday has vanished on screen. The best we can hope for is a positive, feel-good portrayal of the season, such as we had in Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause (1994) or Tom Hanks’ The Polar Express ten years later.

Too often, however, films have associated the Christmas season with negative or even horrific stories. Perhaps the best example of this is Silent Night, Deadly Night. This is a 1984 slasher film that begins with a young boy named Billy witnessing the murder of his parents by a man dressed as Santa Claus. Billy ends up at St. Mary’s Orphanage, where he is beaten by Mother Superior. Later, morphing memories of his punishment at her hands with images of Santa, Billy grows up to become a killer teenage Santa. At work, for example, he strangles a co-worker with Christmas lights and then dispatches the girl with whom the co-worker was having sex.

After a string of other Santa murders, Billy returns to the orphanage, with the police hot in pursuit. Tragically, they shoot and kill Father O’Brien, a deaf priest dressed as Santa. Sneaking into the orphanage, Billy, dressed as Santa, swings his ax at Mother Superior, but a policeman shoots him down. Imparting his central message, Billy assures viewers, “You’re safe now . . . Santa Claus . . . is gone.” Not exactly a happy message at Christmastime.

In 1984, such imagery was still able to rile the population. Siskel and Ebert condemned the film, going “so far as to read the film’s production credits on air, saying ‘shame, shame’ after each one.” Angry mothers protested the movie around the nation, and TriStars Pictures, its distributor, quickly ceased advertising the film.

Silent Night, Deadly Night did have antecedents. Black Christmas was a 1974 movie set in a sorority house during Christmas break. A maniac is making calls from within the house, killing the coeds one by one. The movie also takes every opportunity to pair beloved Christmas songs with chilling scenes, a phenomenon that was later repeated in Gremlins, as we will see.

Another, Christmas Evil (1980), features a delusional Santa stand-in who murders three church-goers in front of a church. (He stabbed one man in the eye with a toy.) Later, while wearing a ragged Santa outfit and being chased by an angry mob, our main character drives his van off a bridge, imagining himself to be Santa in his flying sleigh.

As Austin Pearl, a Jewish reviewer, approvingly wrote, “Christmas Evil ruins Christmas unlike any other movie.” In particular, this reviewer liked “all the vividly disturbing images of Santa sprinkled throughout the movie.”

It’s no surprise that Pearl also liked the 2003 Billy Bob Thorton film Bad Santa, which was a concerted ethnic effort to trash Christmas. Jewish director Terry Zwigoff made the film under producers Ethan and Joel Coen for the Disney subsidiary Miramax, run by two more Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Billy Bob Thornton stars as the bad Santa of the title, going about his life boozing and swearing with abandon. At one point he has anal sex with an overweight woman in a changing room, while elsewhere he goes to a mall drunk and destroys a reindeer display in a drunken rage. Ho ho ho.

Near the end of this dark film, he is shot by a group of policemen but survives. Despite his obvious guilt in numerous crimes, he is pardoned because “the Phoenix police department shooting an unarmed Santa Claus in front of children was more fucked up than Rodney King.”

According to Wikipedia, critics described it as an “evil twin” of Miracle on 34th Street, the inspirational Christmas classic. No wonder Austin Pearl wrote glowingly that “Bad Santa is perhaps the most subversive, offensive Christmas movie ever made—with Thornton as a truly despicable character who, for once, does not receive a total personality transplant by the movie’s end.”

Director Zwigoff intended this film for impressionable teenagers, the vast majority of whom are, one would assume, Christians. When asked if he thought the film would do well, Zwigoff answered, “I think it might. Every teenager in America is dying to see this film. Though they won’t be able to get in unless they have a very open-minded parent.” Clearly he was aware of the film’s subversive content.

Two years later came another Jewish-directed anti-Christmas movie. The Ice Harvest, Harold Ramis’s “grisly black comedy/film-noir,” sees Billy Bob Thornton return to a mayhem-filled Christmas. One reviewer intoned that The Ice Harvest “is a must-see for fans . . . in the mood to see one of the worst Christmas Eves in the history of cinema.” Roger Ebert was also impressed. “I liked the movie for the quirky way it pursues humor through the drifts of greed, lust, booze, betrayal and spectacularly complicated ways to die.” In other words, Hollywood’s version of Merry Christmas stuff.

Gremlins

Perhaps the most unsettling Christmas movie was the original Gremlins (1984). Though directed by Joe Dante, Steven Spielberg’s production company, Amblin Entertainment, released it. Time magazine characterized the film as being “developed and ‘presented’” by Spielberg and being one of his “children too.”

Stylistically, too, this film is completely Spielbergian, beginning with a typical suburban paradise. Snow is on the ground as local residents prepare for Christmas.

The drama begins when protagonist Billy receives a cute “mogwai” from his inventor father, but the creature spawns siblings that are far from full of holiday cheer. On the contrary, they bring violence, mayhem, and death to this otherwise happy time of year. Their mischief is methodically paired with normally positive symbols of Christmas. For instance, when Billy’s mom is home alone making Christmas cookies and listening to Christmas music, she is attacked by a squad of ghoulish gremlins, long in tooth and with murder on their minds. After stabbing one through the heart, she dispatches another with a deft push of the blender switch, turning the previously Christmas-cookie-aroma-filled kitchen into a bloodbath. Retreating to the living room, she is literally attacked by the Christmas tree, which is full of gremlins. This conflation of joyful Christian symbols with diabolical evil is a central device to the whole movie.

Another example comes when the police pass by Billy’s neighbor’s house and are greeted by the neighbor, dressed as Santa Claus, running about helplessly as gremlins eat into his brain. Next, Christmas-caroling gremlins arrive at grouchy old Miss Deagle’s door, only to send her flying out the second-floor window of her house in a malfunctioning motorized chair.

The scenes which most firmly tie this movie to a distinct Jewish sensibility, however, come with two extraneous dialogues between Billy and his girlfriend Kate. Passing a group of Christmas carolers singing “Silent Night,” Kate suddenly and soberly states that Christmas is a time when “a lot of people get really depressed. . . . While everybody else is opening up their presents, they’re opening up their wrists. It’s true. The suicide rate is always the highest around the holidays.” When she volunteers that she doesn’t celebrate Christmas, Billy asks, “What, are you Hindu or something?” Historically, the non-Christian group in America with mixed feelings toward Christmas is not Hindus, but Jews. Here the mask is in place but the true message is easily discernible.

Much later in the movie, after the gremlins have wreaked havoc on Kingston Falls, Kate launches into a startling horror story about Christmas, one that seems completely gratuitous since it is independent of the blood-thirsty gremlin theme. Surveying the rubble left by the marauding gremlins, Kate relates how she now has another reason to hate Christmas. It seems that when she was nine, she and her mother were decorating the tree on Christmas Eve, waiting for her father to come home from the office. They waited, but he never came.

Then, four or five days later, as the temperature dropped, Kate went to make a fire. “And that’s when I noticed the smell.” Thinking it was a dead cat or bird, they called the fire department to clean it out, but instead “they pulled out my father. He was dressed in a Santa Claus suit. He’d been climbing down the chimney on Christmas Eve, his arms loaded with presents. He was going to surprise us. He slipped and broke his neck, died instantly. And that’s how I found out there was no Santa Claus.”

Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics

Finally, we arrive at what must be the most blatantly hostile and offensive portrayal of Christmas ever found in the mainstream American media. The creators of the animated series South Park concocted a Christmas character to replace Santa. This new character is “Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo,” an animated human feces. Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Jewish boy Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror. (This early version can be viewed here.)

No wonder Mr. Pearl, our Jewish reviewer, gleefully explained his motive for collecting anti-Christmas films in these terms: “It’s my wanting to recognize things that are deliberately anti-Christmas. It’s my wanting to take a big you know what on everyone’s Christmas spirit. . . . Each one of them is so anti-Christmas that I want to share them with the world, thereby forcing everyone to realize how liberating it is to rip off the Christmas mind control device and have some laughs in the process.” (Pearl provides embedded YouTube scenes of the anti-Christmas films he recommends).

Two years later, the more extensive Mr. Hankey version was released as Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics. (A parallel CD of the songs includes the delightful “Merry Fucking Christmas”). Here Mr. Hankey besmirches the faces of children singing Christmas songs. He then introduces us to the next scene, Christmastime in Hell, where Hitler is shown crying over his Christmas tree. Later, when Jesus and Santa sing a duet, Santa gets miffed that there are far more songs about Jesus than about him, so he leaves the stage. When Jesus implores him to return, Santa speaks the cheery words, “Aw, fuck you, Jesus!” (Read the script here.)

This episode is a parody of the Charlie Brown Christmas Special in which everyone yells out “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!” only after Charlie has realized the true meaning of Christmas—which has Christ at its center. In the South Park version, the characters wish the Jewish boy Kyle a Merry Christmas only after he has taught everyone, through Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, that Christmas and Christianity are shit.

Replacing Christmas with the culture of the Holocaust

Finally, this brings us to Christmas this year [2008]. More than ever, the focus will be on Jewish themes rather than Christian. As a recent New York Times article admitted, Holocaust-themed Christmas releases have been the norm for years. Sophie’s Choice, for example, debuted in December 1982, Schindler’s List was released in the same month in 1993, and The Pianist opened two days after Christmas in 2002.

This year is no different: On Christmas Day the new Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie will debut. This film features Cruise as a German officer who plots to kill Hitler, prompting Cruise to joke in an interview, “Go kill Hitler on Christmas!” We will also have Defiance and Good, two more Nazi-oriented films, which will premier a week after Christmas. Then there is The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, “which tells the story of a forbidden friendship between the son of a Nazi officer and a Jewish boy imprisoned in a concentration camp.” And don’t miss The Reader, which features Kate Winslet being tried for her years as a concentration-camp guard. Finally, there is Adam Resurrected, starring Jeff Goldblum as a Holocaust survivor living in a mental institution. The title seems to posit the death of Jesus at Christmastime and his replacement with a Jewish resurrection.

Out with the old religion, in with the new. A friend wrote: “I’ve seen the previews for Valkyrie. Good grief! And to release it on Christmas Day — it really doesn’t get more obvious than this. Sort of like saying, ‘Don’t you realize, THIS is your new religion, not all this Jesus business!’”

Three years ago, Fox News Channel host John Gibson wrote The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Well, it has gotten worse than we thought. But Gibson’s parting words are still the only formula for a reversal in this war. “Those who would ban Christmas and Christians should not mistake the signs on the horizon. The Christians are coming to retake their place in the public square, and the most natural battleground in this war is Christmas. The war on Christmas is joined.”

And may the good guys win. It’s a battle we can’t afford to lose. Merry Christmas!

Originally from The Occidental Observer, December 25, 2008

No, you’re not trapped in one of Bill White’s darkest fever dreams. You’re watching Hollywood’s latest “racially charged” drama, Precious. The movie, directed by a Black homosexual, is based on the novel Push, which was written by a Black lesbian. It is part of a general paradigm shift that has occurred within the last couple years in which Hollywood has eased up on exploiting White Guilt for a spell in favor of exploiting an even deeper reserve: White Pity.

Precious, the titular monstrosity, fantasizes about being a blonde White woman, has a crush on her White math teacher, and is eventually rescued from a cast of literally and figuratively dark characters by White, nearly White, and very light heroines. White and light social workers, like guardian angels, are offering salvation, but the dark forces of Black culture try to pull her away from the heavenly glow of literacy, employment, independence, and Whiteness.

This inversion of the role of Whites isn’t part of some realization by Hollywood that it has been too hard on us. With White Pity films, we’re encouraged to perceive ourselves as noble protectors of our inferiors. In Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood turns his back on his own ungrateful White family to take pity on a Hmong girl who’s been raped and terrorized by Hmong gangsters. In The Blind Side, a suburban White family welcomes a homeless and muscular Black buck to live in the same home as their very young teenage girl.

It’s a bit refreshing to see more accurate portrayals of the poverty and depravity of America’s ethnic ghettos, but it’s the same product with a different pitch. Whites must transfer their resources to minorities. We have a moral obligation to give what we have to them. The new movies continue to promote our ongoing cuckolding on a civilizational scale, but accommodate the fact derived from focus groups that Whites are getting a bit desensitized to the guilt shtick.

Frankly, and this may be even more heretical than “racism,” the problem I saw was that there really wasn’t any hope . . . at all. If you’re not literate by 16, then encouraging you to try to study until you can get into college is preposterous. At one point, the teacher tells Precious that getting educated is more important than raising her child. I tried to picture these characters performing any kind of job whatsoever and was incapable of it. For all the conservative nonsense about “workfare,” proposing that Precious’s mom could become independent if she tried is preposterous. Pretending that illiterate Third World couch potatoes infesting the collapsing ruins of Western Civilization would be capable of achieving first world educational, occupational, and social goals is a kind of abuse.

It’s like telling a paralyzed kid that he could walk again if he would only try harder.

From Occidental Dissent, December 19, 2009

Good Hair is Chris Rock’s exploration of the remarkably complex, controversial, costly, time-consuming, and even toxic world of Black female haircare. While Imus was fired and subjected to a Two Minutes Hate for casually referring to some college basketball players as “nappy-headed hos,” Chris Rock has extended the same point into a two hour documentary which gets featured on HBO, gets shown at film festivals, and achieves critical acclaim.

As it should have.

It was an honest and balanced documentary that was done by a Black father whose young daughter asked him “Daddy, how come I don’t have good hair?” He focused on it as a community issue, refraining from the histrionic whining about Whites imposing European standards of beauty on them. He didn’t even mention the notorious “doll tests” from Brown v. The Board of Education case. I was waiting for it, and it never came. Maybe he wasn’t aware of it. But I think he deliberately intended to keep the focus where it belongs: on what his tribe is thinking and doing.

Readers of this blog should be warned that Al Sharpton is featured multiple times in the documentary, but they’ll find him in a different mode than they’re probably accustomed to seeing him. Frankly, I admire Al Sharpton and wish we had more men in our own community as committed to speaking up for us as he is for them. He’s admittedly too quick to cast blame on Whitey, but an advocate who’s a bit too protective is preferable to an advocate like Bill Cosby who spends his time scolding his community for failing to integrate and deracinate. This is where Chris Rock strikes a nice balance, wholeheartedly embracing his race and culture while frankly analyzing how it should cope with its challenges.

But the analysis ultimately falls short. It fails to honestly explore WHY Black women struggle so mightily to look White. Both Sharpton and Rock leave the lay viewer with the impression that Black women are merely being vain or stupid and should cut it out. As simple as that explanation is, there’s a darker reason, an uncomfortable one that casts their monomaniacal pursuit of “good hair” in an entirely different light.

Half of the reason is biological. As a group, Black women are objectively less attractive than White women. White women are literally loaded with deceptive indicators of youthfulness: light hair, light skin, light eyes, and big foreheads. The politically incorrect (and hurtful) truth behind the notorious “doll test” is that the preference for the lighter dolls is culturally universal. Toddlers instinctively find White dolls to be more aesthetically pleasing. Pornographic cartoonists in Japan, driven by a very competitive profit motive to produce the most attractive females possible, draw caricatures of youthful Caucasian girls (with admittedly smaller frames, chins, and noses than our norm).

But this biological issue wouldn’t be that such an issue if it weren’t for the sociological issues: Black imprisonment and interracial relationships. The bottom decile of potential suitors are incarcerated by the government. W. E. B. DuBois’ talented tenth are chasing blonde women. The product of these variables is a high-stakes competition between Black women over the relatively few Black males who are willing and able to court them. The relative importance that men in general and Black men in particular place on attractiveness pits them in a sexually selective race condition between one another to look as objectively beautiful as possible.

Telling the Black women with a weave who’s unable to pay her rent to change her priorities is akin to telling a cheetah that’s dying of exhaustion that it ought to slow down and catch easier prey. It betrays a fundamental ignorance of the bigger picture, won’t solve the problem, and blames the victim. If Chris Rock is serious about making the world a better place for his adorable daughters, he’ll need to step out of the barbershop and onto the golf course.

From Occidental Dissent, December 17, 2009

Brass meets Gold

This one flew under the radar when it was first released in 1993.

The plot can be summarized thus. A Jewish-American divorcee—Debra Winger as Joy Gresham—enters the life of an Oxford don—Anthony Hopkins as C. S. Lewis. Lewis wrote the iconic children’s fantasy Narnia. He is shown as the brilliant literary analyst in the role of teacher as well as in social exchanges with colleagues—all middle aged or older Anglo-Saxon males.

Gresham sees through the famous professor’s intellectual mastery to perceive a vulnerable, repressed man. She first matches him intellectually then subjects his emotional life to cutting critique. Lewis first resists this criticism but is drawn to the American’s honesty and intelligence. His resistance crumbles and before long he is breaking out of his cold persona.

The lessons all flow in one direction, from the Bronx to England. Lewis changes his ways, becomes more honest, more humble, more human. Gresham remains unchanged, as oracles do. What needs changing?

The two protagonists’ bond despite pronounced differences. Lewis was deeply religious and belonged to a Christian milieu. Oxford had all the trappings of a Christian institution. The film opens to the angelic harmonies of a hymn sung by the Magdalen College boys’ choir. Dinner is opened with a Latin grace. Lewis was also an anti-communist. He had conservative social views. In 1934 he famously remarked that “Any large number of free-thinking Jews” is incompatible with the flourishing of a Christian tradition. Gresham was a self-declared atheist who announces early in the film that in the 1930s one was either a fascist or a communist. But arguments never develop over these differences, despite her knowing Lewis’s writings by heart. She never ridicules Christianity by word or gesture. Her only differences with Lewis concern his alleged emotional dishonesty.

The story has two climaxes. In the first Gresham delivers a devastating or perhaps merely a vicious critique, seemingly out of the blue. Lewis has married her to circumvent British visa regulations and allow her to remain in London. The marriage remains unconsummated. The relationship is ostensibly one of friendship. Lewis invites Gresham to a social function at his Oxford college, Magdalen, and the two retire to his rooms for tea. As Lewis puts on the kettle, Gresham begins to work herself up to critical pitch:

Gresham: “So what do you do here? Think great thoughts?”

Lewis: “Teach, mainly.”

Gresham: “What do they do, sit at your feat and gaze up at you in awe?

Lewis: “No, not at all.”

Gresham: “I bet they do.”

Lewis: “We have fine old battles here, I can tell you that.”

Gresham: “Which you win. It must be quite a boost for you being older and wiser than all of them. Not to mention your readers [colleagues].”

Lewis: “What?” [from the next room.]

Gresham: “Your readers; that gang of friends of yours. All very well trained not to play out of bounds.”

Lewis: “What are you talking about?”

Gresham: “Of course this morning, not much competition there!”

Lewis: “That’s nonsense. What about Christopher Riley. He never lets me get away with anything. You know that.”

Gresham: “Except doubt, and fear, and pain, and terror.”

Lewis: “Where did all that come from?”

Gresham: “I’ve only now just seen it. How you’ve arranged a life for yourself where no-one can touch you. Everyone that’s close to you is either younger than you, or weaker than you, or under your control.”

Lewis: “Why are you getting at me. I thought we were friends.”

Gresham: “I don’t know that we are friends. Not the way you have friends anyway. Sorry Jack.”

Lewis: “I don’t understand.”

Gresham: “Oh, I think you do. You just don’t like it. Nor do I.” She exits.

As Lewis says, Gresham is getting at him in a decidedly unfriendly manner. But he comes to agree with her, in practice if not in abstract. Surrender is eased by the crisis of her fatal illness and Lewis’s realization of how precious she has become. He loves her honesty.

In the second climax, Lewis finally completes his treatment by sobbing uncontrollably with grief following Gresham’s death. Gone is his reserve. Gone is his stoicism. He is delivered from Englishness.

This is an allegory of ethnic contest and dominance that plays on stereotypes. How different the plot would be if written to reaffirm European confidence in its traditions and culture. The visitor would have striven to conform to high-culture Englishness with its politeness and restraint. She would soon learn that in Britain overt verbal aggression is considered transparent one-upmanship—simply not cricket. She would be offered the example of one or two Anglo-Jewish dons who are assimilated to English ways. She would be taught that true friendship does not admit the relentless subversion of others’ self-confidence; and that tolerance is a form of civility which entails reciprocating others’ suspension of tribalism. And she would quickly learn to judge Bolshevism from the perspective of its victims as well as its beneficiaries.

Such a plot would also be flawed by simplistic ethnic stereotypes, though with Britain on top—a sort of ethnic missionary position that I suppose is also out of date. A balanced story would have shown some give and take. An outgoing, intelligent, and unpretentious lady from the Bronx blows some fresh air into stuffy Oxford and brings companionship to a lonely bachelor. In return she comes to perceive her own aggression and ethnocentrism and learns some social graces.

From The Occidental Observer

Craig Bodeker

TOQ: In A Conversation About Race, you explain how you came to be a believer in “white guilt.” How did you come to be a disbeliever? How did you become racially-conscious?

Craig Bodeker: By traveling. From my early experiences in the American South and in Hawaii. I was able to see firsthand the differences between racially homogeneous areas — like Minnesota in the 1970s, and these more racially diverse areas. In the South, I learned that many African-Americans call each other “nigger.” This amazed me. I was brought up to believe that this word was actually more offensive to blacks than ANY of those seven words one couldn’t say on television, yet here were American blacks calling one another that infamous epithet at will.

If I would have suggested, in my Minnesota classroom, that African-Americans freely call each other that offensive word, I would have been ridiculed and corrected. I was learning that there’s a large disconnect between the real world, and the classroom, on the subject of race.

In Hawaii, I learned that for all the blather about how “diversity is strength,” it’s still white men that carry most of the state’s financial burden. The State of Hawaii levies what’s called a General Excise Tax of 5% of one’s GROSS INCOME — (in addition to the already sky-high state and federal tax liabilities one incurs while living there). But this special tax is applied only to specific professions. Realtors, insurance reps, bankers, accountants, lawyers, and others are all subject to this “special-tax.” These are all arguably, areas where whites excel, and this is illustrated by the number of whites in Hawaii that work in these professions. But targeting positions where whites are a majority for special-taxation, according to Hawaii, is not a matter of “disparate impact” against whites. No, it’s just how it has to be, in order for Hawaii to survive financially . . .

TOQ: Have you sent copies of A Conversation About Race to Mr. Lee and Mr. Dragland, the schoolteachers you mention whose brainwashing turned you into a believer in white guilt?

Craig Bodeker: No. I left Minnesota at 18, and have no wishes to return, or to try to educate Minnesotans. Mr. Lee and Mr. Dragland — (from the film), chose to emotionally abuse 5th graders in their charge, with their “lesson” on “racism.” I’ve learned that in the Religion of Multiculturalism, there are Believers and there are Priests. Although Mr. Lee was supportive of me in other ways during the 5th and 6th grades, both teachers must be considered Priests of the PC Church. And as such, cannot be responsive to reason or logic. Efforts at persuasion are wasted.

Minnesotans seem to enjoy the moral superiority so many of them preach, even as they’re politically represented by the likes of Keith Ellison and Al Franken, and Islamic Somalis fill their welfare rolls and their jails.

TOQ: How did you decide to make A Conversation About Race?

Craig Bodeker: It was the disconnects in logic. Every day they seemed more obvious. Before Obama’s election, many American’s believed that we would never elect an African-American as our President, and that this “fact” was proof of America’s “racism.” Yet no one is saying now, that “racism” is dead, due to Obama’s election.  Whites who vote for white candidates, as opposed to “diverse” candidates, are just more proof of our racial-bias. But when non-whites vote for fellow non-whites, it’s NOT proof of their racial-bias . . .?

When I first began posting short videos on Youtube, I learned that on the Internet, there is a verbal-war being waged right now, between those on the white side of issues, and those on the black, and “diverse” side of issues. For all the lip-service we hear about our desire for a post-racial society, there exists today a heated conflict between blacks and whites in cyberspace. If you have any doubts about this, just go to any Youtube video, and make a comment, either pro-white, pro-black or pro “diversity”, and wait for the responses. We can ignore this real and growing conflict by dismissing it as online hate-speech, but we do so at our own peril. Those big 20th century media companies that still want to influence our lives, say it’s not really happening, but that it’s simply a few bigots in their pajamas ruining it for everyone.

These disconnects between the media-world, and the real one we live in, were becoming so pronounced and obvious to me, I came to realize that if I didn’t make this film soon, someone else would . . . !

TOQ: What are some of the more memorable reactions to A Conversation About Race?

Craig Bodeker: The single most memorable reaction was my wife’s face, when the truck pulled up to our home with the first ten, large crates of ACAR DVDs. I’ve never seen a better effort at blending a WTF, with loving support . . . ! She admits now that she didn’t know quite what to think, when I told her I wanted to use our savings to produce a controversial documentary film. Thankfully, she kept whatever doubts she had to to herself. I appreciate her quiet faith in me, and I’ll never forger that look.

Another memorable reaction occurred at a health-club. The subject of ACAR came up in a dry-sauna. One older, tall, actor-looking fellow said he’d be interested in seeing it, and I gave him a copy. A week or so later I saw him again and asked his opinion. He was a bit reluctant at first, but then he told me that he felt ACAR was dishonest. He said that in the film, I never declared my intentions as the filmmaker. I had to stop him there, and remind him that I clearly stated my intentions, in the first three minutes of the film. He then said that that I never stated my REAL intentions.

Next, he claimed I didn’t define my terms in the film. When I mentioned that the definitions also appear at the beginning of the film, he stammered, repeated his assertion that ACAR was dishonest, and then really let me have it. He called me a White Supremacist!

One conclusion I reach in A Conversation About Race, is that if a white person is not INDIFFERENT to the subject of his race, he MUST then be a White Supremacist! There can be no middle-ground for people with ancestors from Europe. All others are allowed, and encouraged, toward racial or ethnic advocacy, in today’s PC culture, but not whites.

This is memorable for me, because it reinforces the label I used in the film for people like the man in the sauna. That label was “Believer,” and this man was not going to let pesky facts interfere with his beliefs on “racism.” He was incapable of acknowledging any of the clear points the film made, and that fact made me realize that many Americans today are so thoroughly brainwashed by Political Correctness, they’ve become impervious to elementary logic and reason. This was a sobering realization.

TOQ: Was A Conversation About Race influenced, in content or style, by any other documentaries?

Craig Bodeker: Sorry for the short answer, but no. It was completely self-inspired.

To be honest, I can’t really think of any documentary producers that have really impacted me. Growing up, I always enjoyed feature films.

I was impressed with much of Evan Coyne Maloneys’  Indoctrinate U.  I just saw it in 2009. If I had to choose a feature filmmaker, I’d say Terry Gilliam has always been a favorite of mine and that his film Brazil would be an excellent candidate for a new CGI-enhanced remake. I also like a lot of the early David Lynch work.

As for newer films, I loved District 9 and Up.

TOQ: Have you seen Errol Morris’s Mr. Death? If so, what do you think of it?

Craig Bodeker: I have not seen it, but have seen others on the topic.  My opinion is that European “hate-speech” laws are counter-productive. American founding father; Thomas Jefferson, spoke eloquently about how truth needs no defenders.

TOQ: What White Nationalist thinkers, writers, and websites have influenced you and how?

Craig Bodeker: The term White Nationalist itself is a bit vague to me, and I don’t necessarily consider myself one. Many WN’s tell me I’m not qualified for membership . . . I’ll say that Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance has been influential.  I am impressed with both their civility, and their use of humor.  I also benefit from Peter Brimelow’s VDARE website. Both of these sites are courageous and unwavering in their positions, and yet they manage to exercise restraint and subtlety in their rhetoric. The Council of Conservative Citizens also has a good site. And they bear the additional burden of coming from the South, so therefore must automatically be stereotyped as  ”white racists.” I visit The Occidental Quarterly, and the National Policy Institute‘s websites often as well.

I’d also mention James Edwards’ The Political Cesspool blog and radio-show, which is broadcast from Memphis, Tennessee, as well as streamed online. There are those that will label these sites as “hate” websites. But just as we’re discovering the true motives behind those who support Global Warming legislation, we’re also discovering the true motives behind those that champion the cause of “eliminating hate . . .”   It’s more about gaining political power and money, than it is about helping the oppressed.

TOQ: You have traveled quite widely in other countries. Where have you gone, which ones were your favorites, and why?

Craig Bodeker: Wow. Big question. I remember when, as a boy, our family packed up the motor-home and took vacations all around the USA. I particularly remember one time, while driving the family toward California, when my Dad declared that “travel was the best education.” Even at eight years old, I was encouraged.

As I grew older, and began traveling on my own to Mexico and Canada, I discovered that my Dad was right. I can learn more watching how other people and cultures address their issues than I can sitting in a classroom, reading about them from textbooks.

While living in Hawaii, I discovered Asia. Flying to the US mainland from Hawaii for “getaways” had become somewhat tiresome. I wanted adventure, and when a friend told me that the flight to Tokyo lasted about as long as a flight to Las Vegas, I began considering travel to Asia.

I’ll always love the Kingdom of Thailand. I’ll admit that when I was a young, single man, I was curious about Thailand’s night-life-industry and it’s bar-girls. But after getting to know that part of Thailand, I started becoming aware of the real Thailand, The Land of Smiles, as it’s known, and of her proud, yet gentle people. From a practical standpoint, I like Thailand because it’s cheap!  No nation on Earth has tastier traditional food, and If you like to stick to a budget, it’s hard to beat Thailand for first-world comforts, at second and third-world prices. You can stay in a jungle/beach-front resort, dine on giant prawns, and genuinely relax on an exotic, white-sand beach, for a fraction of what it costs elsewhere.

I’ll also say that the nation of Myanmar (Burma), made an impression on me. This is an outcast nation that was actually boycotted by the “International Community.” It’s the cheapest place I’ve ever visited, but it’s also, most definitely, the third-world. Most roads consist of dirt and craters, but some, newer roads are made by manually placing flat rocks over a graded section of Earth, then covering it all with hot-asphalt. It ends up being a fairly smooth ride. This back-breaking work is nearly always performed by women.

What impressed me about Myanmar though, was not their road-crews, but their desire to remain Burmese. The “International Community” demands that Myanmar open herself to outsiders, in order to exploit her rich natural resources. The Burmese know that their deep poverty would end the moment they did so, yet they choose isolation. They don’t see their neighbor to the west, Thailand, as positively as I have described. They acknowledge the blessings of Thailand’s wealth, but they also acknowledge the replacement of Thai culture, with the current culture of drugs and prostitution. The everyday Burmese I spoke with were not cringing in fear of their narco-trafficking dictators, as our Government and media would have us believe, but rather, were concerned about keeping their identity as a people. They would rather be poor and Burmese, than rich and International.

China is as fascinating as it is huge. One could spend a lifetime there and not see it all. They are a proud people, but don’t handle a “loss of face” well. If you ask a typical Chinese for directions to a place he is not familiar with, he would rather make-up fake directions, sending you to God-knows-where, than suffer the “loss of face” that accompanies any expression of ignorance. It is better to be wrong about a thing in China, than it is to say, “I don’t know.”

China has race-based admission policies to public parks and such. There are fees to enter, and I am normally charged ten times what my American-Chinese friends are charged. The official policy is a nationalist one, not a racial one, but every time I’ve entered with an American-Chinese, they’ve always seemed to know that  he was from America, and yet charged him the Chinese price . . . ?

Of course, Europe holds a special place for me. Both of my grandparent families came to the USA from Germany in the 1870s and 1880s. I love to explore Europe, and hope to do so, in much more detail, in the future. One of my favorite photos is of my wife and I standing in front of Neuschwanstein Castle, outside Munich.

We normally avoid large cities, but Paris is a must-see destination. More examples western heritage and culture can be found there than anywhere (along with much that is non-western). And the best food in the world as well! But each year in France, more Churches close their doors, and more Mosques open theirs. Visit Paris, before it’s no longer Paris.

The Netherlands are also fascinating to me. Once the commerce-engine of the world, their recent experiments in liberalism have nearly bankrupted them. And as I wandered along the canals (and coffee-shops), of Amsterdam, I couldn’t help but notice the contrasts: family-owned business under the same roof for 400 years, situated next to a porno shop with gigantic dildos in the window. I makes me wonder, is there already a culture-war being waged? Which culture will prevail? Which one wants it more?

TOQ: How did traveling in foreign countries, especially in the Far East, make you more aware of your own racial and cultural identity?

Craig Bodeker: I learned quickly in Asia, that to the extent that the term “racist” has any meaning at all, Asians are racists. And especially the Chinese! (See the previous answer about China). Skin-whiteners are the rage throughout Asia, and especially in the south, where people are darker-skinned. Many light-skinned Mandarin speakers–from China’s north, where Beijing is the center of Government, automatically look down upon Cantonese speakers from the south, even when said Cantonese speaker is a Hong Kong millionaire.

Caucasian whites in China are known as “White-Devils”  and are not to be trusted.

In the Philippines, most Filipinos admire whites. Whether from Europe, Canada, America or Australia, we’re considered capable, ethical, and smart. Blacks and other dark-skinned peoples, including the blacker Filipinos, are considered less-capable and ethical, and are commonly looked down upon.

In Hawaii, the prevailing culture says that the best mate a successful white man living there can find, will be a Japanese woman. (White women are less frequent in Hawaii). And If you absolutely cannot find a willing Japanese girl, a Korean girl will make for an acceptable compromise, but not one of the myriad other, darker-skinned Asians that populate the islands.

A white man dating a white woman while living in Hawaii is considered  gauche. Hawaiians place the Japanese on the top of the racial totem-pole and the Filipinos and darker-skinned Asians at the bottom. Whites belong somewhere in the middle.

I’ve never met a person in Asia concerned about racial-diversity. Most would say  that diversity is their enemy, and that racial-homogeneity is the key to their own national success.

Somehow, all of these big media companies, in all of their “documentaries” and “specials” on “racism,” have managed to not once stumble-upon this attitude, which is common sense to most non-white races? I wonder why that is.

TOQ: What is your next documentary going to be about?

Craig Bodeker: Still working on that. I’ll be part of a roundtable discussion on race at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina (an historically black college), in January. And I’ll proudly be speaking at the American Renaissance Conference in Washington DC in February. I’ll probably film my travels to each of these events from Denver, Colorado, in hopes of creating something with a bit more color, and music, than used in A Conversation About Race.

TOQ: Thank you.

You can buy A Conversation About Race from Craig Bodeker’s website.

Read Greg Johnson’s review of A Conversation About Race here.

Kodi McPhee & Viggo Mortensen in "The Road"

Editor’s Note: The reviewer discusses the ending of the film in very general terms. While not technically a spoiler, I thought that readers should nevertheless be warned.

The Road makes The Road Warrior look like a utopia. Based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy and directed by John Hillcoat, The Road stars Viggo Mortensen and Kodi McPhee as a father and his little boy struggling to survive and reach “the coast” in an America devastated by some sort of ecological apocalypse.

This event apparently killed off all animals and plants, but it somehow left human beings alive to live off foraged canned goods and, when these run short, cannibalism. It is no more preposterous a premise than the average zombie film, but the art-film pretensions of the director’s style make it seem silly.

Then, after two harrowing hours of wind, rain, leaden skies, depression, talk of suicide, suicide, more talk of suicide, starvation, roving cannibal gangs, ambushes, earthquakes, falling trees, mistrust, man’s inhumanity to man—just one damn thing after another—a happyish ending is delivered by a deus ex machina.

The initial apocalyptic premise is suddenly revised. We learn that not all animals are dead, and not all people have been reduced to cannibalism. It is, in short, a happy ending, delivered at the price of turning the rest of the movie into an emotional cheat. If the movie had remained true to its original premise, the final line would be “Well kids, it looks like meat’s back on the menu.”

But I am not complaining. Frankly, I was glad of any ending. I just wanted out of there.

Like many people who are profoundly alienated from the system, I relish the thought of a good crash. A crash will destroy the mechanisms of social control and mental conditioning. The struggle for survival will rid us of egalitarianism, progressivism, sentimentality, mental masturbation, and pious rot. False values will be liquidated. (I watched with pleasure as the family in The Road walked over jewels and banknotes, searching for food.) The weak and foolish will perish, the strong and clever will survive. A spell of healthy barbarism will set the stage for the rise of a new civilization. And maybe this time we will get it right.

Post-apocalyptic movies, however, generally disappoint, since in general too much of the bad stuff survives for my taste. The Road, however, goes to the opposite extreme. I wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in that world (not that I would have fared well in The Road Warrior either). But personal survival is less important to me than the survival of the white race, and, frankly, until the premise changed at the end, I saw little hope of that either.

Is there a racial meaning, message, or bias to The Road? Not really. The cast and extras are all white, except for two or three blacks. I like to think that in the sort of apocalypse projected in the movie, blacks would fall into cannibalism, while whites would manage to hold some semblance of civilization together in the hope of waiting out the catastrophe. Instead, we see whites reduced to cannibalism and despair.

The one black who has lines in the movie steals the white family’s goods and is caught. Mortensen’s character holds him at gunpoint and strips him of his clothes, leaving him naked, begging, and blubbering. The little boy prevails upon his father to leave the clothes behind, but we never learn if they are reclaimed.

I was amused to read in internet forums that this scene bothered some viewers. They were terrified of a world in which the struggle for survival cancels out white guilt and hardens the heart to Negro pleading. That, of course, is the whole payoff for me. But these critics should be comforted, for the silly child’s instincts prevailed in the end.

The Road in an unremitting downer with no redeeming dramatic or artistic value. If there is anything good in the book, it does not make it to the screen. I think this was supposed to be “art,” so of course it is not entertaining. Intellectual poseurs will claim that it is thought-provoking, but it is really just perplexing.

Don’t waste your time and money on The Road. And for God’s sake don’t show it to anyone who is depressed. I predict that this movie will cause more suicides than a Finnish winter.

The basic premise is simple: neutrinos from an exceptionally large solar flare act like microwaves and rapidly heat the Earth’s core. Scientists discover this, governments are warned, and, faced with a planetary cataclysm, secret plans are implemented to save humanity. Only government officials and the rich benefit from these plans, of course, and the secondary storyline consists of a writer’s accidentally finding out something is up and then narrowly escaping a series of escalating natural disasters as he tries to save his family and get them to safety in the Himalayas, where it is rumored space ships have been built, and where they eventually arrive to discover seven Old Testament-style arks, one of which they manage to board, thus ensuring their survival.

As can be expected in the age of CGI, when hundreds of millions of dollars are spent making a film, the special effects, the sound, and the situations faced by the characters are truly mind-blowing. My wife and I were both on the edge of our seats for the film’s whole two and a half hours’ duration, our jaws not only on the floor, but rolling down the incline of the cinema theater, out of the door, down the street, and into the River Wey, where they sank straight to the bottom, to be devoured by the piranhas and the crocodiles. During this time we witnessed crust-shattering Earthquakes, miles-high mega-tsunamis, exploding volcanic calderas, whole coastal regions and cities falling into the sea, global flooding, and even massive continental displacements.

On this level, if you love seeing the Earth destroyed in graphic detail, this film is terrific escapism. But, as is usually the case with Jewish cinema, doomsday films like these serve as a vehicle for indoctrination into a “humanist,” liberal, anti-White ideology. (I put “humanist” in quotation marks because although the ideology in question is often described as “humanist,” or “universalist,” it is also one that contemptuously rejects the notion that the White race is worth preserving at all, in which case it cannot accurately be described as “humanist.”) 2012 is to date the most aggressively anti-White doomsday film I have seen.

Firstly, both the scientist who discovers the phenomenon (Satnam, played by Jimi Mistry) is Indian; and the one who learns of it and then goes on to advise the president of the United States (Dr. Adrian Helmsley, played by the London-born Nigerian Chiwetel Ejiofor) is Black. Secondly, the President of the United States is not only Black, but deep Black, played by Danny Glover. Satnam, Helmsley, and Glover are portrayed very sympathetically, and the latter two are selfless, thoughtful, strong, determined, humanist heroes.

And the White characters? Ah, yes, I forgot. As an afterthought, and for the purposes of bearing the brunt of the brainless, emotion-laden action, we have Jackson Curtis (played by John Cusack), the writer I mentioned earlier. Curtis is a complete loser: author of a science fiction novel that barely sold; the excised element of a failed marriage; and a disorganized, unremarkable, overall underachiever, who works part-time as a limousine driver for a repulsive Russian billionaire. The remaining White characters are just peons, necessary to keep the plotline going, physically attractive, but otherwise completely vacuous, shallow, small-minded, none-to-bright, and interchangeable.

When not all of the above, it is Charlie Frost (played by Woody Harrelson), a creepy, hermetic conspiracy theorist and general nutcase, whose residence is a derelict trailer, and whose diet consists entirely of gherkins and beer.

None of the latter White characters have anything to do with saving the human species: this is only made possible by Black and Indian scientists, a Black president (who leads the effort), and Chinese engineers (who build the arks, within a time-frame thought impossible by the Whites). The Whites are simply beneficiaries for colored talent, industry, and generosity.

We see where we stand with writer, producer, and director Roland Emmerich.

Who is this Emmerich? He is the same gentleman of ultra-liberal and militantly homosexualist persuasion who brought us films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. These were films that emphasized special effects and epic disasters, yet evinced an epicly poor grasp of the science: in Independence Day, for example, the alien ship was Mac-compatible and the positioning of a ship that was a quarter of the mass of the moon in near-Earth orbit caused no seismic activity.

These were also films with an anti-White, anti-European racial agenda: in Independence Day the heroes were a Black man (played by Will Smith) and a Jew (played by Jeff Goldblum); and in The Day After Tomorrow we are treated (as we are several times in 2012) to an interracial couple as well as the arrogant and ignorant derision of Friedrich Nietzsche as a crank who harbored inappropriate affections for his sister.

Emmerich spoke at the 2009 Atlanta Jewish Film Festival; supported the odious Hillary Clinton in her race for presidential candidature; has campaigned and donated funds to further gay and lesbian and third world causes; and does not like Hollywood because, among other reasons, he finds it racist and homophobic. Well, well, well – what a surprise.

We can now see 2012 is quite harmonious with his system of beliefs. Besides anti-White, multiculturalist zealotry, we find the film a quasi-communistic, spitting-mad screed against what the hard Left would term “privilege.” When it transpires that only the super-rich and a pre-selected list had advance warning and access to tickets to ride the arks while the rest of humanity was kept in the dark, Dr. Helmsley is outraged. He is outraged again when he sees the size of his cabin – “You could have fit ten people in here!” And he is outraged yet again when, one of the arks having suffered structural damage, it is the intention of Mr. Anheuser, the commander in chief, to leave its intended occupants all stranded in the face of certain death, rather than open the gates to his ark to let the horde in. The remaining world leaders of the G8, all White, eventually respond to his extemporaneous and impassioned appeal, but are nevertheless slow to react, and in any event, only follow the lead of the female German chancellor; the Black US president, we know for certain, would have ordered the gates to be opened, as the reason for this abnegating and down-to-Earth leader’s absence is that he chose to stay behind to look after his desperate and doomed citizens, having opened the doors to the Whitehouse to offer them comfort and succor.

We also find in the film gleeful vengeance meted out against Catholicism, with the destruction of a number of Catholic icons, such as St Peter’s basilica, whose dome topples over a crowd of praying faithful, killing them all; and the statue of Christ the Redeemer, in Rio de Janeiro, which crumbles to pieces, killing more faithful.

Apparently, Emmerich had planned to show catastrophic scenes of the destruction of Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām in Mecca, the mosque where the Muslim faithful congregate during the Hajj, but decided to excise said scenes for fear of a fatwa. (Apparently he feels he has nothing to fear from Christians.) Both Catholicism and Islam have traditionally been intolerant of homosexuality.

Interestingly, although Emmerich claims to be against organized religion, he does not show scenes of destruction involving Jewish temples. Was this an editing error? An oversight, perhaps?

As to the end of the film, in case we have not had enough Afrocentricity, or have been too obtuse to notice its having been relentlessly piledriven into our brains for the past 160+ minutes, we are shown that Southern Africa – the Cape of Good Hope, the new “roof of the world” – is to be the new home of what remains of humanity, the place where humanity is to begin again in the new flooded and re-jiggled Earth. Hence, out of Africa and back to Africa we go, is Emmerich’s sledgehammer moral. Afrocentrism reigns supreme.

It is a shame that it is people like Emmerich making these types of motion pictures. If only we were allowed to enjoy a rollicking disaster film without having him ram his repugnant  – and, frankly, fatuous and silly – ideology down our throats, or having to endure the thought of this repellent creature growing obscenely rich while contemning the very same White people who fund his lifestyle for the most part – if only we were allowed that, we could speak of relatively innocuous entertainment.

Unfortunately, however, our enjoyment is spoilt, and our resentment stoked, by the obnoxious subtext pervading every frame. And it is this type of subtext that causes me (and no doubt others) to long for the day when the corrupt, idiotic, myopic, and criminal establishment that legitimates Emmerich’s message is swept out of power, dismembered politically, ostracized socially, decimated fiscally, disprivileged academically, and extinguished forever as a force of destruction in the entire Western world.

Is not that what they have been trying to do to us for the past sixty years?

First, the book of New Moon is terrible: nearly 600 pages of pedestrian prose, glacially paced, padded to excruciating lengths not with fluff, but with damp, insipid, indigestible literary sawdust. (Don’t any of the big publishers employ decent editors? I am not asking for Victor Hugo every time I pick up a work of popular fiction, but could we at least have Stephen King?) Worst of all, the most compelling character, Edward Cullen was absent throughout much of the book. The only thing that got me to pick the book back up after flinging it down several times in dismay was the hope that finally the romance of Bella Swan and her vampire lover Edward Cullen would resume.

Second, Catherine Hardwicke, the superb director of the first Twilight movie, was replaced by Chris Weitz, and the previews of the movie were not promising. Frankly they are as flat and dull as the novel.

But I have to hand it to Weitz and scriptwriter Melissa Rosenberg: they managed to extract a compelling two hour movie from the sprawling mess of the novel. New Moon is not as good as Twilight, but it is a worthy successor and a bridge to the final two novels/films, which promise much more. The momentum has not been lost.

Part of what makes New Moon work is simply the lingering magic of the first film. We were all glad to see the familiar characters and settings again.

Beyond that, Weitz manages to condense vast boring tracts of the novel into tightly paced, compelling scenes, many of them wordless. The literary sawdust has been replaced with visual poetry—and light comedy.

Taylor Lautner

But the best thing about New Moon is the performance of Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black. Although in the book, Jacob seems merely a distraction and digression from the main plot, Taylor Lautner’s performance made this movie his own. Amazingly, when he was on the screen, we did not miss Edward Cullen. Lautner is a fine, sensitive actor, with a magnificent physique, imposing stage presence, and genuine animal magnetism (which comes in handy for playing a werewolf).

(Guys: I saw this movie with an audience that was 90 percent white, 80 percent under 30, and 80 percent female, and I can tell you if you don’t already know: women go for muscles. They might say something different, but their gasps, sighs, and flutters told a whole different story.)

My two main criticisms of this movie are that the computer animated werewolves look fake, and the Cullens mostly look terrible. In the first film, they are lighted and made up to seem pale but beautiful and strong, like marble statues. In New Moon, they look like corpses who have just awakened from a decades-long nap, with the bad hair one would expect.

Now, as a white racialist, what is my take on this movie? In my review of Twilight, I emphasized that I liked three aspects of that movie.

First, even though the movie added in a number of non-white bit characters, it largely follows the book in underscoring the beauty of white people. New Moon undermines this, by making the Cullens look unappealing and by placing the spotlight on Jacob Black and his fellow young American Indians, who are portrayed by exceptionally handsome, muscular, and fit actors. By the way, judging from the biographies of the actors as well as their looks, all of them seem to have some white ancestry, despite their coppery complexions, which gives them longer, handsomer faces rather than typically round, ugly Amerindian faces.

Although there is a deep friendship—and the seeds of romance—between Jacob and Bella, in the end she returns to Edward. However, the movie can only promote miscegenation through its portrayal of an unusually handsome and gallant non-white male. White girls considering such dalliances in the real world need to realize that race-mixing destroys all races that take part in it. They also need to look at statistics on non-white tendencies towards infecting white women with STDs; raping them; and abandoning, abusing, and murdering them and their children.

Second, I liked how Twilight portrayed Bella Swan and Edward Cullen as exceptionally mature, cultured, and well-mannered young people—without implying that these qualities in any way detract from them being fun-loving and sexy. New Moon does nothing to undermine this, but it does nothing to add to it either.

Third, Twilight emphasizes traditional sex roles. Edward Cullen and Jacob Black are not today’s silly, weak, effeminate, non-threatening males. They are strong, masculine, gallant, heroic, and a little dangerous. Bella Swan is no ass-kicking, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She is physically weaker than Edward and Jacob and attracted to their strength—including the dangers that come with it—and grateful for their protection. (Bella requires a lot of rescuing.) New Moon reinforces this aspect of the story, with Jacob and his wolf pack taking on the role of rescuers.

Yet Bella is in full possession of her real strength as a woman, which makes both men willing to sacrifice themselves to protect her. They do not want to live without her, but they both break off their relationships with her, because they fear that their supernatural strength threatens her well-being. Both come to learn, however, that Bella is safer with them than without them.

When Edward thinks that Bella is dead and seeks to end his life, Bella takes on the role of the rescuer, appearing in the nick of time to save his life, not through strength, but simply because she is the one who makes his life complete.

Echoing my review of Twilight: in spite of their supernatural powers, Edward Cullen and Jacob Black are what in decades past were known simply as red-blooded males. Because of the sickness of our society, such men today can appear on the screen only in the guise of monsters. But because of the strength of nature, women find the monsters irresistible nonetheless.

White people should see New Moon, but the parents of young girls need to warn them about the consequences of miscegenation in the real world.

Clint Eastwood: No Longer Making Our Day

America is still a majority white nation. Whites still hold most of the nation’s wealth and power. Thus the process of white dispossession cannot continue without the cooperation of white Americans. Because of this, Hollywood cannot portray all white Americans as evil racists. That can wait until after we are extinct. In the meantime, Hollywood must also offer images of decent, moral whites: the kind of white people with whom white audiences would like to identify. It should come as no surprise, however, that the measure of these white characters’ virtue is their willingness to cooperate in their own people’s dispossession. Thus, although the viewer is given an image of the evils of white majority society, he is also allowed to identify with a member of the white majority who steps forward to defend the rights of non-whites. I call this character the “righteous white.”

Righteous whites are a staple in Hollywood race films, whether the non-whites they champion are American Indians in Kevin Costner’s Dances With Wolves (1990), Japanese Americans in Come See the Paradise (1990) and Snow Falling on Cedars (1999), or blacks in movies from To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) to Mississippi Burning (1988), A Time to Kill (1996), Ghosts of Mississippi (1996), The Hurricane (1999), and The Green Mile (2000).

Late in his career, Clint Eastwood has invested a great deal in presenting himself as a righteous white, both in True Crime (1999), where he comes to the aid of a black, and Gran Torino (2008), where he champions a family of Hmong. Eastwood not only starred in both movies, he produced and directed them.

In True Crime Eastwood plays reporter Steve Everett, an adulterous recovering alcoholic. Sensing a travesty of justice, he looks into the case of Frank Beechum, a black man condemned to death for murdering a white woman and scheduled to die at midnight that very day.

Though Everett is liberal and non-racist, the rest of the whites in the movie are racist to one degree or another. For example, when the white warden tours the execution chamber, two white guards joke around by imitating a condemned man who finally confesses. This is in contrast to Beechum, who maintains his innocence. Later, a smarmy white pastor attempts to use the black convict for his own ends, hoping to draw publicity to himself. The pastor goes so far as to invent a last-minute confession by the condemned. The camera repeatedly intrudes on the guards’ banal conversations and jokes, despite the solemn atmosphere created by an impending execution. True, one guard is black and one Asian, but they appear as props. The focus is on the more numerous white guards and warden.

In addition, the key witness to the murder comes across as a cowardly white who hopes to gain attention by embellishing his story. In any case, he and another white witness are shown to be guilty of racism in that they “naturally” pick the black man they saw at the crime scene out of a police lineup. When Everett visits the home of the black grandmother of a possible witness, she delivers a soliloquy on the pervasiveness of anti-black racism in America.

When it turns out that the woman’s now-deceased grandson killed the white victim, the shooting is shown as unintentional; thus, there are no true black criminals in this movie, only white racists. Everett’s new evidence halts the execution seconds after it has begun, and Beechum survives to enjoy freedom with his doting wife and daughter. Steve Everett may look good at the end of the film, but the same can hardly be said of whites in general.

In Gran Torino, Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a retired auto worker living in a neighborhood that has been taken over by poor Hmong refugees. Walt is an angry, bitter old widower who is alienated from his family. He later learns that he is terminally ill. He also has negative, racist feelings toward the Hmong. Eventually, though, Walt involves himself in the struggle of a young Hmong neighbor, Thao, to resist the pressure to join a gang. He comes to value the family-oriented Hmong culture while remaining alientated from his own family.

When Walt repels a gang assault on Thao, the gang responds by raping Thao’s sister and shooting up his house. Thao wants to retaliate immediately, but Walt first stalls him, then locks him in his basement. Once Thao is safe, Walt confronts the gang members outside their house. With a cigarette in his mouth, he asks them for a light. Then he thrusts his hand in his jacket. The gang members think he is pulling a gun and shoot him dead. In fact, he was only reaching for a cigarette lighter. The gang members are arrested for killing Walt in cold blood. By sacrificing his life, Walt has halted the cycle of violence and saved Thao and his family. But Walt does more than merely sacrifice his life for non-whites. He also sacrifices the interests of his children to them. When Walt’s will is read, it is revealed that he has disinherited his children, leaving his house to the Catholic Church and his prize Ford Gran Torino to Thao.

It is a model of righteousness that can only lead to racial suicide.