TOQ: I really enjoy your novels. I have reviewed the Northwest Quartet, and I have also read Slow Coming Dark, Fire And Rain, and most recently The Stars In Their Path, as well as the collection Other Voices, Darker Rooms. Who are your main literary influences? Which of your works are your favorites and why?

Harold Covington: My father was a reader of pulp science fiction back in the 1950s and 1960s, and he had these big cardboard cartons of old sci-fi paperbacks in the basement, including a lot of the old Ace doubles that went for 50 cents in those days and would probably go for a couple of hundred bucks apiece today if you could get hold of an intact copy. They were written by all the sci-fi greats of the 50s and 60s: Robert A. Heinlein, Brian Aldiss, Philip K. Dick, Alfred Bester, Edmond Hamilton, Alan E. Nourse, Andre Norton, Ray Bradbury, etc. Those were my first bulk reading, and then starting about age 14 I somehow (don’t remember how) discovered H. P. Lovecraft, and that was love at first sight. I still lug around three-volume Arkham House set of his complete works with me wherever I go.

My Northwest novels are purely political polemics, wherein I say things that wouldn’t be politic to say openly in any other context. They are for the purpose of imparting ideas and disseminating practical information using what Lenin called “Aesopian Language,” the language of fable. My actual fiction as such, novels like The Stars In Their Path, The Renegade, Vindictus, etc. aren’t really “influenced” by anyone or anything. They’re just stories I get into my febrile brain and which I have to purge by telling them and letting them out.

As to my favorites, excluding the Quartet, which don’t count because they’re not really novels in the true sense of the word, I’d have to say that The Madman and Marina [in Other Voices, Darker Rooms] is the best short piece I’ve ever done. It may possibly even be the best piece, period—I once had an e-mail correspondent in St. Petersburg tell me he didn’t believe that my name is Covington, that I had to be a Russian writing under an American pseudonym, because only a Russian could produce such a Dostoyevskyan story. I consider that to be the best review I’ve ever had.

Personal favorite among the long novels? The Stars In Their Path, I’d say. Like all my other books it tells a story, but I use reincarnation as a device to keep on telling the same story over and over and over again, a different way each time and with different characters, rather than draw the same plot out to 100,000 words of padding. I think that was neat, if I do say so myself.

TOQ: In the Northwest Quartet and Fire And Rain, I was especially impressed with how you can blend intense drama with light comedy, classical eloquence with pop-culture slang and vulgarity. Joss Whedon and Quentin Tarantino came to mind. Do you pay attention to popular culture? Do you watch movies or television? Name some favorite writers, directors, movies, TV shows.

Harold Covington: I don’t watch television any more, and haven’t for a long time. It’s not just that it’s Judaized to the max and politically nauseating, it’s just stupid. Moronic. I glance over hulu.com every now and then, and I don’t see anything on there that prompts me to get cable again. Why pay $75 a month for drivel?

Movies are another matter. DVDs from the Blockbuster bargain racks are about the only form of recreation I can afford, besides a library card. In that sense yes, I have managed to keep up with enough popular culture, especially among young White people (negrofied though that culture is) so that I can make my young characters believable. I think so, anyway. None of my youthful readers have complained so far.

There are certain movies that just plain creep me out, like Naked Lunch, and there are certain flicks I find fascinating because they’re just plain bizarre, like Dark Star and the American version of Kingdom Hospital, which IMHO is the just plain weirdest thing ever shown on television. My own DVD collection includes Henry the Fifth, (Kenneth Branagh version), Zulu, The 13th Warrior, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and a few oddballs from the 70s like Time After Time and Absolution. I gave some friends of mine the first five episodes of Sharpe’s Rifles. I like a lot of escapist swashbuckling stuff, as you can tell.

TOQ: Do you plan to write any more novels?

Harold Covington: At this point I would say probably not. I’m pretty much NVA’ed out. There is a limit to what can be accomplished through fantasy and the creation of a fictional mythos. If I have not yet succeeded in imparting a vision of possibility to our people in the four Northwest novels already extant, I probably never will. I am concentrating henceforth on trying to turn the vision into reality through the Northwest Front, the “Party” of the novels, and it’s a five-star bitch. Getting “our” people to peep out from behind their computers and commit a real live physical act out here in the real world is like pulling teeth. Half of my contacts I can’t even get to respond to an e-mail.

I still have some bits and pieces of novels and stories lying around in manuscript form and on my computer, plus some ideas I’d like to play with if I ever get the time and the right situation (like the long prison sentence on some ridiculous fabricated charge which I’m sure our lords and masters would like to oblige me with). The main one is a kind of adult version of the Harry Potter series where a secret society of powerful Aryan spirits operating in a kind of nether world one step above this dimension use their magical powers to try and reverse the destruction of our people wrought by the Sauron-like Jewish overlord of the Dark World, although it would hopefully come across a little more convincing than that. I doubt I’ll ever get around to it, though. I need to concentrate what time I have left on building something in the real world.

Read Part 4 here.

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.

Ms. Scherr made eight specific points regarding the film’s “errors,” before concluding that I am, in fact, a “racist.” Most critics agree the film does an excellent job pointing out the vagueness of that term, and that how it has recently morphed into the intellectual equilivent of calling me a “poopyhead.”

But I will still address Ms. Scherr’s eight points here.

Point 1

“Bodeker never says whether he believes that discrimination found by courts and government commissions also doesn’t ‘really amount to anything.’”

That’s because I don’t. What’s more real to you? Spontaneous answers from real people, or proclamations issued by courts and government commissions?

Point 2

“He makes no effort to examine the scientific findings on intelligence and race, which have yet to produce convincing evidence that IQ differences are caused by genetics.”

That’s because neither I nor any of the subjects said anything about causality. Nearly every interview-subject stated clearly that they believe blacks outscore whites in basketball, but that whites outscore blacks on standardized tests, and that Asians outscore whites on those same tests. Are these “beliefs” really radical and bigoted? Or are they mainstream?

Point 3

“After trying to get interviewees to admit that blacks are more criminal than whites. . . .” See the film. I don’t “try” to get anyone to admit anything. Each subject was chosen for their candor.

Point 4

“What he neglects to mention is that it’s unclear how many, if any, of the black-on-white rapes were hate crimes—that is, motivated at least in part by racial bias.”

According to the Justice Department report cited in the film, blacks sexually assaulted white women over 37,000 times in 2005. Whites sexually assaulted black women less than ten times. 37,000 to 10. How “random” does that sound to you?

Point 5

“Moreover, Bodeker asserts that Latinos are deliberately taking away whites’ majority status. ‘If we object to the stated agenda of replacing whites as the racial majority in America with Hispanics, it’s us who get called the racists,’ he says, ‘not the people who are openly and actively working to change the racial makeup of our country.’” I don’t really see the criticism here. Have they heard of La Raza?

Point 6

“The South Carolina Council of Conservative Citizens—a white supremacist group whose national conference Bodeker attended in June in Mississippi—recently hosted a big-screen showing of the movie in three locations.” And they told me they were Conservative Citizens. . . .! (I did actually ask the organizer if the CofCC was a “white Supremacist” group. He said absolutely not.) According to the SPLC, white organizations cannot be trusted to accurately stereotype themselves.

Point 7

“Since the documentary’s release last year, Bodeker has given interviews to the Romanian National Vanguard News Agency (motto: ‘International News for People of European Descent’), Mark Dankof (a radio broadcaster who also contributes to the anti-Semitic American Free Press), and The Political Cesspool, an overtly anti-Semitic, racist show whose guests have included former Klan boss David Duke, neo-Nazi April Gaede and Holocaust denier Mark Weber”

How dare I seek publicity for my documentary! Why don’t I just calmly wait ‘til CNN or PBS calls me to air it? Seriously, though, am I now to be held personally responsible for every word ever uttered by the staff, or even by the guests, of any radio show that I’ve appeared on? I accepted the generosity of those few in today’s media that actually understand the concept of free speech, warts and all!

Point 8

“On The Political Cesspool’s Jan. 31 show, for instance, one of the hosts asserts that ‘everything that is good about civilization—just about everything that is good, from literature to works of art to law is something that came from our [white people’s] minds.’ Bodeker’s response? ‘I have to agree.’”

What part of “just about” don’t you understand. . .?

On the next day, October 9th, Ms. Scherr released her follow-up attack. But rather than offer any stronger, or legitimate criticisms of, A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE, she chose a different tactic. She relied upon an anonymous cyber-stalker to gather “quotes” attributed to me from the comments section of unrelated political videos from Youtube. She called this piece of journalism “A Peek Behind the Curtain: Views of a Racist Filmmaker . . ,”

Some pretty strong statements were quoted—as well as MIS-quoted, surgically and deceptively edited,, taken out of context, and even made up! And once again, these “quotes” that represent proof of my “racism,” were found on the comments section of Youtube.

Have any readers ever been to the comments section on Youtube? Does anyone NOT KNOW what a mosh-pitt of “free expression” it is? There are, sometimes, actual screaming matches, even though they’re conducted in written form. Sometimes people say harsh, mean things there, in that last remaining refuge of Free Speech. Am I to assume that the SPLS’s Sonia Scherr has never made a sarcastic comment? Or even a distasteful one? Or that anyone who EVER has should be stereotyped, marginalized and disenfranchised? This seems to be what the SPLC suggests. . . .

Most who have viewed A Conversation About Race, say it succeeds because of its fairness and clarity. American Thinker’s Larry Miller said, in his positive review of the film, “. . . People in America have no idea how to define ‘racism.’ The word flits about like an evil spirit in our national vocabulary—but none of us knows exactly what it means.”

So I will take it as a compliment, that the Southern Poverty Law Center, after viewing A Conversation About Race, (no doubt through a legal microscope) cannot find any genuine aspects of it to criticize, and end up instead having to resort to that same, tired conclusion, “Craig Bodeker is a Racist.”

Call me optimistic, but I see that as progress. They cannot refute the film’s basic premise, even though it contradicts the very essence their stated mission!

So instead they call me a poopyhead.

When a set of beliefs becomes a society’s accepted morality, portrayals of good and evil often take stock forms. I’m younger than the majority of people who will read this, but even I am shocked with how much multiculturalism has replaced the old Ten Commandments morality as the basis of what it’s necessary to believe to be a civilized human. Anti-racism has largely filled the moral vacuum created by secularism and denationalization. Even American “patriots” have adopted a “more multi-cultural than thou” attitude to justifying their allegiances to the nation and traditional symbols like the flag. (just read any George Bush speech defending his Middle East policy).

Today, youths get their values from TV and movies. The reach of the American media truly is global. Tomislav Sunic writes in Homo americanus that “the belated version of Homo americanus appears often unnerving to American visitors in Europe in search of an elusive ‘true’ Frenchman, German, or a Dutchman.” Recently while in Russia I became one of those Americans unnerved. I went to the theater hoping to get a sample of Russian cinema. All the movies playing were dubbed American films.

When non-Americans do produce their own movies, too often the themes they take come straight from the discourse of American race relations. The crimes and poverty of an oppressed minority are blamed on an indifferent or even malevolent majority. . . . Read the whole article.

Braveheart

Its message is remarkably explicit.

Braveheart the movie, and indeed, the life of the historical Sir William Wallace, dramatizes the very central dilemma of Western Civilization.

But before you can really understand Braveheart, you must understand The Seven Samurai, that giant of Eastern Nationalism.

There is a reason why I reviewed it first, before reviewing Braveheart.

Recall that The Seven Samurai is written from the perspective of the aristocracy, the Samurai. The message of that movie is that the Japanese elite exists to sacrifice themselves for their people. And the movie itself powerfully reinforces that sense of duty and sacrifice among that Japanese elite. It is the Japanese peasants that are inconstant and untrustworthy — at times disloyal and self-interested. But in times of danger and external threat, the Japanese elite will always rally to defend them.

It is a picture of a nearly perfect nationalism.

In sharp contrast, Braveheart shows us a peasant revolt. A revolt of a nationalist White underclass. The main message of Braveheart is that the Western elites had entered the age of decadence at least 700 years ago. Even in nationalistic and intensely tribal places like Scotland, these elites have been divorced from us for a very long time. They do not represent us, and perhaps, never will. This message of Braveheart is something we must contend with and plan for.

So let’s examine the nationalism of this movie. It consists of five distinct phases.

The first phase is the education of youth. As a young boy, Wallace sees a dozen rebellious Scottish nobles lured to a parley only to be hung by the English king. Wallace’s father and older brother head off to battle and return dead, as young Wallace is handed over to his uncle who sees to his education.

As far as we know historically, Sir William Wallace (1270 – 1305) was the second son of Sir Malcolm Wallace. The title “Sir” meant that Sir William and his father owned some land, a few horses, and some weapons. They were also under military obligation to some Baron or Earl. But the economic portrayal in the movie is accurate. No fancy art collections, furniture, china, or other extravagant displays of surplus would exist in the homes of Scottish nobles, much less in the homes of working knights of the common “Sir” variety.

The significance of this phase of the movie is to introduce the audience to the fine art of racial and ethnic decapitation. Kill off the independent minded leaders and more compliant and treacherous ones will fill the void. Note well that this actual historical practice long preceded the Marxist ideological justification for it and its exponential expansion under Bolshevism.

The second phase of the movie finds an adult Wallace, the courting male, returning from his foreign education, and displaying all the right symbols of evolutionary fitness for marriage and child rearing. He is, according to the movie, a man of peace, wishing only to be a farmer and to raise a family. Those of you in the movement should mark well his displays of self-discipline and intellectual accomplishment in courting his intended. He does not rise to provocation. He displays all of those qualities that indicate his ability to support and nurture her children over the long haul. He certainly does not daydream out loud about Scottish nationalism nor wars of independence and secession.

It is only when the woman he secretly marries is assaulted by English soldiers, that his violence begins, and only after the English magistrate kills her that his massive rebellion begins.

Thus, in the movie, the casus belli the defense of Scottish women. And indeed, it is hard to conceive of an individual motivation more powerful, or closer to the hearts of modern nationalists.

It is here in phase two that we get our first deviation from the historical William Wallace and our first evidence of explicitly nationalist choices in the construction of the story line. The historical Sir William Wallace certainly did rise to provocation, as he killed a young Englishman named Shelby in a one-on-one fight which would have been classified as a hate-crime had King Edward been burdened by the need to wend his way past the halachic complexities imposed on a criminal justice system bent on coddling criminals but punishing severely any assault against preferred groups of victims. The historical Sir William was outlawed, and had no choice but to head for the hills and rally his countrymen to attack the agents of the King who were hunting him down.

But the Producer, director, and star chose a modification of history which he must have known would have a much greater emotional impact on the typical modern male moviegoer. Upon seeing phase two of this movie, every male descendant of European Christendom would immediately understand its modern relevance.

For the dimmer lights among us, who might not be entirely clear by this point how profoundly disagreeable this movie is to the sensibilities of the inner-party, Mel Gibson threw in a gratuitous but very nice touch in the form of an explicitly homosexual English Prince of Wales, who, along with his pretty-boy friends, is portrayed in a most unflattering and negative light. It is unclear whether this subplot is there for our edification and amusement or whether it was included for the additional purpose of jabbing the proverbial finger in the eye of the Hollywood culture destruction machine.

Once the love of William Wallace’s life is dead, and the violence begins, phase III of the movie, that of rebellion, warfare, and betrayal follows.

Throughout the movie, King Edward is constantly bribing the Scottish nobles with more lands and more titles if they will deny Wallace and his infantry the armored cavalry and other support they need to win battles. The Scottish nobles see the issue as purely one dimensional — what is in their interests. Never once do they recognize that the only reason the English king is willing to give them lands is that their peasants are rebellious and tribally-minded. Giving the nobles additional lands is far cheaper than fighting the Scots as a unified people.

The nobles never ask themselves what would happen to them if their own people were suddenly de-nationalized and rendered meek and obedient. Would not the English King strip them of their lands just as quickly as he granted them? Indeed, they acquired the lands only because of the threat of nationalist rebellion. Once that nationalism is extinguished, how secure are those lands? How could they possibly keep those lands except by keeping that nationalism alive?

Indeed, the nobles see none of it.

And in this respect the dilemma faced by William Wallace is unchanged to this day. We have an inner party composed primarily of aliens who have taken over all positions of power in the electronic media, the universities and the government in the US They have mounted a massive cultural attack on the descendants of European Christendom throughout the Western world through their electronic media with the objective of de-racinating and de-nationalizing them. At the same time, they have enacted a series of anti-discrimination laws, sexual harassment laws, and other schemes that are clearly intended, and have the actual effect of displacing the outer party elites.

And the ultimate tragedy for our Western elites is that they are incapable of understanding that their own collective survival depends on ours. Without us they will be displaced and quickly perish in this Darwinian world of racial and ethnic competition. Neither prosperity nor intelligence guarantee victory, and a disembodied elite, with no base of racial support simply cannot compete.

Yet our outer party elites prattle on about individual merit, racial integration, and globalism, all wonderful sounding universalisms, while remaining utterly oblivious to the particularist fate that awaits them once the inner party becomes secure that we have been stripped of our racial awareness and are no longer capable of mounting a meaningful “peasant revolt.”

Like the Scottish nobles who attributed their own good fortune at the hands of the English king to the importance of their own individual positions, our Western outer-party businessmen attribute their own position to their own individual talents. It has never occurred to them to ask how long the inner party elite, or their black and brown coalition partners will allow them to retain those positions once their fear of us is gone.

Now it may have been somewhat reasonable for Scottish nobles in 1295 to reason that Scottish nationalism was a permanent condition and would never disappear. And indeed, the English King had no effective means at his disposal to displace those feelings of nationalism. But how can an outer party CEO of a fortune 500 company in the year 2000 possibly ignore the vast juggernaut of inner party propaganda directed at his fellow Euro-Americans as vast governmental and foundation resources are used to stir up tribalism and racial feeling among the inner party’s black and brown coalition partners.

Only an outer party elite could stubbornly refuse to follow the massive flows of money and resources and find the truth. The racial and ethnic groups committing these vast resources do so with the idea that this massive investment will produce results. It is the height of arrogance and complacency for the outer-party elites to think that it will not lead precisely in the direction it is headed, to the utter displacement of them and their children.

How can a Euro-American CEO of a fortune 500 company possibly believe he will be allowed to prosper and keep his fortune once immigration makes his racial group a political minority and once the propaganda juggernaut has demoralized and destroyed the only threat which enforces restraint upon the racial coalition seeking to displace him?

In this third phase of the movie we are introduced not only to the central dilemma of the West, its corrupted elites blinded by individualism, but to a potential, if temporary, solution as well.

In Sir William Wallace, we have the charismatic leader who rallies the peasants and overcomes the reluctance and self interest of the corrupted elites. In this respect Sir William Wallace is perhaps first in a long line of nationalist leaders, including Cromwell, Napoleon, Forrest, Paul Kruger, and Hitler, all of whom conform to the same broad pattern. First, they have enormous charismatic appeal. They have the ability to fire the imaginations of their fellow nationals. Second, for the most part, they come from the middle of the social spectrum and the top of the ability spectrum. Finally, because their movement is premised upon leadership, the movement is inevitably temporary. It does not survive the death of the leader.

And it is here that an appreciation of The Seven Samurai is important. Contrast the leadership of Wallace to the leadership of the sensei, part of a permanent caste with a permanent code of responsibility and self sacrifice. The sensei is not charismatic. He merely reinforces consensus norms with discipline and self sacrifice. It is a different vision of leadership with more lasting, cross generational results.

What we must do is build a leadership that persists over generations and is capable of recognizing what needs to be done depending on the demands of existing circumstances.

It is only at very rare times in history when outbursts of violence from charismatic leaders will be met with success. More typically, they are crushed under the tank treads of universalism, and become, like the nobles in the opening scene of Braveheart, object lessons to others in the rewards of meekness and obedience.

Sir William Wallace was partially successful only because Edward was tied up in wars in France. In the modern world, our own William Wallaces must become persistent evangelists for the cause, and await a time when the inner party beast is otherwise occupied before we can assert our own sovereignty. And even then, an infrastructure must be in place that ensures our control over our own destiny has become organic and second nature to our people — from top to bottom — and thus can be perpetuated beyond the life of the leader.

Our first priority is to equip ourselves, as a people, with the ability to encode the urgency of our own survival, and create permanent private associations which work tirelessly toward that survival in ways that will be apparent to us, and yet apparent only to a small minority of our enemies. We must avoid the mistakes of the US Civil War and the Boer War, mistakes that were repeated in the 1930s by those who, by that time, should have known better.

I should note one particularly jarring scene in Braveheart.

In the middle of one battle, King Edward has Irish infantry charging at Wallace’s Scottish forces. As they meet in the center of the field of battle, the Irish and Scots embrace each other, and the Irish turn around to face the English instead.

Historically, of course, the scene is utter fantasy. It never happened. And indeed the scene is only plausible to a movie audience living in the final quarter of the twentieth century. Plausible because of what we Euro-Americans have learned about racial and ethnic politics, and of course, fervently to be wished by all white nationalists, who are only too painfully aware that all of the descendants of European Christendom must hang together or we shall surely hang separately.

This rather discordant scene amplifies the message of Braveheart to a level of significance far beyond the typical Eastwood shoot-em-up, for example, in which the symbol of European strength and resistance exists only as the lone individual adrift in a polyglot world, destined for absorption or displacement even as the lonely, unhappy, hero resists that absorption and displacement through a dazzling display of individual aggression. The last Mohican, if you will.

This fictional Irish mutiny elevates Braveheart to a plane high above any strict historical narrative of the particular national expression of William Wallace back in 1296, and makes it a unique expression of modern white nationalism. This scene recognizes that the universalizing empire of Britain (and its huge, mongrelizing Twentieth Century heir) is the enemy of every European people (including the English themselves, ultimately) and that only by joining forces can that universalizing empire (with its new inner party elite and their black and brown imports) be overthrown.

But as we all know, the retribalization of us Euros on purely racial lines is not anywhere near as smooth nor as easy as it appears in this fantasy battle scene in Braveheart. All of which begs the question how this scene made it into the movie in the first place.

It is possible that the scene could be viewed as a marketing ploy, to make the movie appeal to a wider audience based on historical ethnic identity. But then the scene must still be believable within the context of the movie itself to that ethnically aware audience to be effective, and it is hard to understand how a modern producer could take that risk without grasping the white nationalist core of what he is putting on film. How could he include it without faith that such a core would resonate among most viewers?

Finally, you often hear Wallace in the movie speak of fighting for “freedom.” He uses that word frequently in his exhortations to the troops. Curiously, no one else in the movie ever mentions the word. And indeed, as you think about this “freedom” it is entirely unclear exactly what he means. His contemporaries all live on isolated farms and they are free to do whatever they please. They can drink, party, run around naked, and there are no English around to interfere with such individual activities. Indeed, it would seem that the only time “freedom,” as moderns understand it, could be impinged would be those brief and infrequent times when some soldier with an alien crest on his uniform shows up and draws his sword, depriving the victim of property or life — much more immediate injuries than the mere control of behavior implied in the modern notion of individual “freedom.”

Indeed, Gibson’s Braveheart uses the word “freedom” as modern code for something else. As I pointed out in the Introduction to Sir Arthur Keith, the word “freedom” has come to have two meanings. Primarily, the word “freedom” has evolved in our modern world to mean what the inner party wishes it to mean, namely the ability to indulge in individual vices such as adultery, abortion, drug use, and homosexual sodomy without interference by the government or one’s religious neighbors. Secondarily, it might also mean the ability to move to and work where you please, all individual freedoms.

But it becomes obvious as you hear the movie version of William Wallace utter this word, that he intends nothing of the modern kind. Back in the thirteenth Century, the word “freedom” probably meant not being under an obligation of servitude nor payment to some overlord. And yet Wallace clearly is not talking about abolishing obligations of servitude or payment to Scottish nobles or a Scottish king.

Rather, it becomes clear that Wallace is using the term “freedom” in exactly the same way that a modern member of a dissident militia group uses the term. It is a code word meaning independence of the group and control over its evolutionary destiny. In the context, that is the only meaning the word can possibly have.

The fourth phase of the movie portrays his life following his defeat at Falkirk, his continuing guerrilla warfare against the English in the hills, a fictional dalliance with the queer prince’s queen (played by the exquisite Sophie Marceau) sent to negotiate with Wallace, and his final betrayal and execution.

The fifth and final phase of the movie is very short, and you have to watch the scene very carefully to catch its significance.

Following Wallace’s execution, we see a fictional dramatization of the prelude to the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, a scene in which Robert the Bruce, then King of Scotland, is expected to pledge fealty to the English crown before an English army and is waffling as ever over what to do. Finally he makes up his mind and decides to fight, shouting to his assembled troops “You bled with Wallace, now bleed with me!”

It is a remarkable scene fraught with ambiguity and indecision. Note that Robert the Bruce does not say, “fight for freedom” nor “fight for Scotland,” nor “fight for the freedom of Scotland.” Rather, he asks the assembled Scots to fight for him and his crown, implying that the nation and his crown are one and the same thing. Thus, the independence to be won at Bannockburn is conditioned on the individual interest of this particular nobleman. The Scots fight and win, but Scotland and its people are not yet in the equation. Once again, we see a uniquely modern nationalist perspective.

Fascinating.

The historical Robert the Bruce began his military campaign almost immediately upon the death of Wallace in 1305, betraying King Edward in 1306 and then undertaking a long struggle similar to Wallace’s before subduing the Scottish Earls and being recognized as king by the Pope in 1309. He then gradually drove the forces of the incompetent (but not homosexual, as far as we know) Edward II out of Scotland, culminating in the historical battle of Bannockburn, in which the English army surely understood well in advance exactly what they were to face.

In conclusion, I must confess that reviewing this movie is difficult. It is difficult because it hits way too close to home. Rather than a dry history of Scotland 700 years ago, it seems to deal with very real issues of today with the historical backdrop a mere symbolic representation of today’s reality.

It is also difficult because it is hard to believe that such a movie could ever be produced and displayed in public in modern America.

What you see on the screen is so completely unexpected that you recoil — at the theater you look around at the rest of the audience nervously to see if anyone else is watching you to see if you “get it.”

You are not a fraction of the way through this two reeler of an epic and you are wondering how on earth such a politically incorrect movie could ever have been financed by Hollywood.

Of course, the short answer is that Hollywood had absolutely nothing to do with this film.

It was bankrolled by its Star and director, Mel Gibson, with an assist from Alan Ladd, Jr. and one Bruce Davey. Other than the film editor, not an inner party member anywhere around this film. Gibson was born in upstate New York and raised in Australia. So while it is obvious that Gibson feels an emotional connection to the story of Sir. William Wallace, such empathy for the original is quite obviously driven by experiences seven centuries removed and half way around the World from the original. Perhaps it is a connection born of these experiences shared by us in the audience that makes this such a powerful movie.

The very existence of this movie begs all sorts of profound questions. I was reminded of the major philosophical question explored by the Victorian Poets, whether an artistic representation is conscious craft or unconscious inspiration. When one hears Gibson speak on the television talk shows there is no hint that he could be so crafty and devious as to create an explicit white nationalist masterpiece and slip it past the social censor so effortlessly. Could the message to us be an accident? Is history inherently and inevitably nationalist when presented straight up, with only the distorting lens of the inner party to conceal its meaning?

And as I debate with myself whether those explicit WN scenes are the accidental product of the Muse, or whether they are included as a result of conscious craft, I must lean in the direction of conscious craft. There are simply too many wonderfully instructive WN inclusions for all of them to have been an accident.

(If you have any doubts, by all means go see The Patriot just released. The critics uniformly hate it, and for good reason. It shows the classic Western peasant’s revolt in full bloom, with only one token bow to the demands of multi-culturalism, offset by the deft touch of casting Jason Isaacs, a visible member of the inner party, as the murderous British Col. Tavington, the very poster boy of a Bolshevik church-burning terrorist in action. It is a blatant pro-militia movie, one which the critics would just as soon you not see.)

But the real wonder is the fact that Braveheart was released to critical acclaim, rather than massive protest. Indeed, there is a powerful message in its generally positive critical reception.

The average culture critic in American has no idea what white nationalism is, and absolutely no capacity to recognize it when he sees it.

For us that is wildly optimistic news, for it intimates that our movement can, if we are smart, propagate itself without much resistance.

In truth, the movie is a masterpiece of modern coding.

It is a magnificent flower poking its head up through the layers of concrete in which our dying civilization has been encased by the inner party and its culture of critique.

And finally, the movie is difficult to review because it leaves you with a rather pessimistic sense of realism. Western nationalism is dramatically different from Japanese nationalism. Theirs comes from the top down, with the aristocratic samurai sacrificing themselves for the benefit of their nation. In the West, nationalism simmers up from the bottom, from the ordinary folk in the form of peasant revolts, for which we always pay a terrible price — harassed and betrayed at every turn by a Western elite that sees themselves as a race of nationless global supermen rather than the flabby and defenseless daydreamers they really are. It is, of course, a fatal illusion. The real world around them is filled with hostile races seeking to displace and enslave them and their children, even as they idealize a world full of win-win transactions and peace through World commerce and global mobility of capital.

The Movie Braveheart leaves you with a distinct sense that our struggle has been ongoing for over 700 years now, and that it will continue on for quite some time to come.

There is no letup and no relief in sight.

And depending upon your disposition that is either good news or bad.

It is our very own reality.

"The Dream of Ossian" by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

My ponderous English friend GuessedWorker of Majority Rights has weighed in on Michael O’Meara’s prize winning essay on White Nationalism and my response to it. He inclines toward the view that a materialist account of ethnic genetic interests will prove more persuasive than seductive mythic appeals in any future White racial rejuvenation in North America.

GuessedWorker has spent many years now searching for a philosophy to justify British nationalism. He sees liberalism as something of an ideological straitjacket (a view I happen to share) wrapped around the English mind. Like JW Holiday, who now seems to have disappeared from the blogosphere, GuessedWorker sees in Salterism a potent vehicle to wreck this mental logjam.

In his account of the American West, GuessedWorker sees rational self-interest as being fundamentally operative, not some myth or highly altruistic national purpose; settlers moved West for their own selfish reasons, namely cheap land and freedom from government interference. He doesn’t touch upon the views of American policymakers whose influence was historically decisive.

Thomas Jefferson was undoubtedly the most important. He dreamed of an “empire of liberty” in Transappalachia and the Louisiana Territory. As president, Jefferson’s mythic vision of the sturdy Anglo-Saxon republican yeomary played a decisive role in his acquisition of Louisiana from France. He spoke glowingly of the destiny of Anglo-Americans to spill over and control the North American continent.

In The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, Eric P. Kaufmann wrote extensively about the Anglo-American myth complex, its origins and duration, the depth of its penetration into the American psyche, its power and appeal, decline and eventual eclipse in the 1930s by the cosmopolitan mythos of the Jewish New York Modernists. Reginald Horsman covered the topic in even greater detail in Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism. A strong argument can be made that American racial decline tracks exactly the decline of the indigenous Anglo-American mythos.

Generations of Southerners were raised on the myth of the Lost Cause. Southern nationalism emerged after the War Between the States when the heroism and wartime sacrifice of Confederate soldiers and the bitter memories of Reconstruction became an object of myth-making. From Texas to Virginia, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy raised stone monuments in town squares to honor the fallen dead. It is difficult to find a small town in the South without some form of Civil War memorial. The mythology of the Lost Cause was closely intertwined with Southern identity and the white supremacist ideology of the Jim Crow South.

In the early twentieth century, the myth of the Ku Klux Klan as presented in D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation sparked the revival of the defunct organization. As I wrote in the previous thread, the Second Klan swelled to millions of members in the 1920s. It was easily the largest American nativist organization of its time. There can be no doubt about the power of myth to inflame the popular imagination. The arresting image of the Confederate dead rising phoenix-like from the ashes to defend Southern womanhood had a powerful appeal to Anglo-Protestant nationalists in the Midwest who sought to preserve American purity from the corrupting influence of European immigrants.

When Americans look back at the Antebellum South, even today they do so through the prism of Gone With The Wind, one of the most popular novels and films of all time. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin went on to become the best selling novel of the nineteenth century. It colored Northern attitudes towards the Old South for over a hundred years. More recently, the Roots series of 1970s is shown in almost every high school classroom when the subject of slavery is being discussed.

Our enemies have their own myths. In the U.S., the progressive movement is driven less by facts and figures than by a vague notion of racial transcendence. The myth of the colorblind society as articulated by MLK in his I Have a Dream speech is at the heart of the anti-racist status quo. It has its own martyrs like Emmett Till, Rosa Parks, James Meredith, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner; its own demons like Bull Conner, George Wallace, and the Klan. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the culmination of the myth of the Civil Rights Movement. From the beginning, the symbolism of the Obama campaign was the story, not his plan for, say, health care reform.

There will always be men who are driven by data points. At the same time, there will always be far more who are driven by art and drama. The common man wants to see and hear about good vs. evil, justice vs. injustice, heroes vs. villains. He doesn’t have the patience or the inclination to grasp complex topics like evolutionary fitness or ethnic genetic interest.

Something more is obviously needed. The academics who spend the most time rehearsing and arguing about racial data points rarely become white separatists. Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment, but married and reproduced outside his race. Steve Sailer has argued against White Nationalism. Jared Taylor hasn’t endorsed anything beyond repealing the civil rights laws and ending third world immigration. At least from my perspective, the race realism movement has been a disappointment.

In the U.S., publicly embracing White Nationalism often entails career and marital sacrifices. When it is done, racial altruism overrides the narrow pursuit of self-interest. It is much easier to start and raise a family (to maximize one’s EGI) if you go along with the status quo. An incredibly appealing myth is usually needed to overpower the actualization of normal human desires; to inspire someone to go above and beyond his own self interest in pursuit of a collective goal.

In the early twentieth century, there was no conflict between myth and self interest. The new racial science (Darwinism and Mendelian genetics) complemented the mythic-inspired nativist movement. Both will undoubtedly be needed for White Nationalism to ever triumph in North America.

From Occidental Dissent, August 12, 2009. Be sure to scroll down and read the comments.

Stanley Kubrick, 1928 - 1999

For some time I have been concerned that we in the nationalist movement pay insufficient attention to culture and the arts. I am convinced that the same sensitive “code” antenna that we apply to news articles can be applied to movies. So let’s place a few under the “Jewelers loop” and discover the deeper meaning.

Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is a 10 karat D flawless — as good as it gets!

If you have already seen this movie I want you to see it again. If you haven’t seen it, go. And enjoy the female nudity. It is all for a good cause.

For the truth is that Kubrick has grabbed the football and scored a touchdown. Many have seen the movie but (almost) nobody saw the quarterback sneak.

The kick off to my curiosity about this movie came in two parts; first, a clear memory of Kubrick’s past masterpieces packed with profoundly politically incorrect content. He is not above using sex and violence to lure us to the theater to see messages that are profoundly disturbing to universalist egalitarians. 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange are classic examples. This is another.

Next, and more important, were the uncomfortable movie critics on TV who, while admitting that this movie was about sex, thought that the American public would not want to see it.

At the first exhortation not to see this film, my code antennae sprung erect.

A clear warning that something in this film is at odds with the agenda of the inner party culture destroyers.

(For a subtle piece that uses every tool in the Hollywood arsenal of culture destruction to maximum effect see The Election.)

The clear message from the inner party critics was that they wanted this movie to fail at the box office. Of course, I did not expect them to articulate their own reasons why. That isn’t how our social signaling and instruction system works here in America. But in truth, I am not sure the inner party critics could articulate their reasons. Most likely, they watched the movie and smelled vague danger, but because the movie lacked any easily recognizable tag of hostility, they could not instantly summon the appropriate verbal script of rebuke.

Yes folks, its that good!

And the reason is the movie’s simple act of deception. The inner party cannot recognize that a candid, relaxed portrait of themselves in their element is a hostile act. They may not like it, but they cannot bring themselves to bitch out loud.

In order to tell you why it is that good, I am going to have to “spoil” the movie for you. But since the movie does not really center on a plot, there is little suspense to spoil, and of course there are higher values involved.

Tom Cruise, plays an outer party doctor living and practicing medicine in New York City. It is Christmas time in New York, and you cannot help but notice Kubrick’s deft portrait of Christmas in New York as something quite different from, for example, Christmas in Oklahoma. Few apartments we see house Christians, but all have “Christmas” trees and ornaments. Not a crucifix nor a manger to be seen anywhere. (For reasons that entirely escape me, our ancient paganism is improbably and yet profoundly comforting to the inner-party alien, who for inexplicable reasons is frightened to death by the sermon on the mount. If they think Christ is scary, just provoke us into bringing Thor’s Hammer out of retirement! — but then I digress.)

Tom and his wife, Nicole Kidman are on their way to a Christmas party hosted by his wealthiest patient.

At the party, a guest attempts to seduce Kidman, while Cruise has to attend to a nude model or prostitute who has overdosed in the bedroom of his host. The host appreciates Cruise’s emergency services and his discretion. The host’s ethnic origin is entirely obvious (played by Sydney Pollack). On his way back to join the party, Cruise is accosted by two models who apparently want to double team him.

The sexual predation at the party is blatant. It is also accepted by all the party goers as if it were the natural state of enlightened humanity.

Cruise spots a friend who dropped out of his medical school class playing piano at the party. Cruise promises to come see him play at a local club.

The next evening, (actually, the movie moves quickly, and I might have the events a bit out of order) Cruise and Kidman decide to share a marijuana smoke before they get intimate, and this provokes a remarkably aggressive verbal attack from Kidman in which she talks about a fantasy of making love with another man.

Cruise, in his intoxicated condition gets called by the daughter of another wealthy patient who has just died. Cruise goes to the apartment of the patient. The daughter, who is engaged to be married, comes on to Cruise, with her fiance in the next room. Cruise maintains his professionalism.

After the visit, he takes a walk and is accosted by a prostitute on the street. He goes with her to her apartment and is interrupted by a cell phone call from Kidman wanting to know if she should wait up. He says no, but the mood is spoiled so he leaves.

He then goes to the club to see his piano playing friend, and is told of parties where his friend is paid a fortune but must play blindfolded. The friend never knows where the parties are and only finds out that one is starting and given the password for entry an hour in advance. He is escorted to the party by guards. After the piano player’s cell phone rings, Cruise twists his friend’s arm for the location and password. At this point the serious adventures begin.

To gain access to the party, Cruise must rent a costume and a mask, which he does, from an amusingly predatory costume rental proprietor.

He takes a cab to the party at a huge mansion out on Long Island.

He walks in on an orgy unlike any other you have seen or imagined. It is highly organized. There is more voyeurism than action. The entire performance seems carefully orchestrated, and the participants, including the master of ceremonies, the nude entertainers, and the masked party goers all seem to know each other and what to expect. Neither the need for nor the function of the masks is entirely clear.

The master of ceremonies is an old man with a staff who directs the nude ladies with cabalistic chants.

Cruise is approached by one of the young ladies who warns him to flee or he will be killed. Cruise declines, and is exposed by the master of ceremonies. The girl who warned him offers to sacrifice herself if he will be allowed to leave alive, the deal is struck, and Cruise is expelled by the guards and goes home.

The next day, he notices a news item to the effect that the girl who sacrificed herself for him was found dead. He goes to look at her in the morgue at the hospital.

He returns the costume (with the exception of the mask) to the predatory owner, and his girlfriend.

He tries to track down his piano playing friend, can’t find him, and notices that he is being followed.

That evening, he visits the prostitute’s apartment, and encounters her female roommate who lets him in. The roommate delivers the bad news that the prostitute tested positive for HIV and is gone.

Tilt!

The problem with this movie is that you tend to get caught up in the swirl of action, and the message can rip right past you. But when the roommate conveys the bad news about HIV, I am jolted erect in my seat. The Hollywood culture destruction machine would never allow this sort of scene in one of its movies.

So what is going on here?

At a minimum, we have a conservative message being thrust upon an unwilling audience, but perhaps there is much more. The AIDS interruption lifts me up out of the delirium of action and forces me to whip out that jeweler’s loop.

And suddenly it is painfully obvious.

Cruise is a typical outer party professional earning a good living in an intensely remote and hostile land. You are instantly struck by his isolation, and the isolation of his family. No co-workers to talk this over with and to understand or come to his aid. And he is utterly unwelcome in the cabal. His role is to work, pay taxes and not think too hard!

Like all outer party elites in the big city, he is absolutely clueless about how the society around him really works, and why it works the way it does, and then suddenly he stumbles upon the inner sanctum of the inner party. He sees the rewards and entertainments that draw them together, and he also experiences first hand the terror they can inflict on wayward members or unwanted intruders.

Movie hell! This feels like real life in the big apple!

The ending to this movie has two parts. First, his wealthy patient friend, played by Sidney Pollack, calls and asks him to come over. Pollack then explains that he was at the orgy, that Cruise is in “way over his head,” that it was he, Pollack, who had him followed. His piano playing friend was put on a plane back to Seattle, the girl wasn’t killed but died of an overdose, and nobody was killed by this Cabal that he is a part of. He, Pollack, is explaining because he trusts Cruise to stop investigating and just forget this ever happened.

The movie goer is left with an intense feeling of alienation. There is a powerful and disciplined cabal that runs things from behind the scenes, and maintains its membership with corrupt entertainments and enforces discipline with terror.

But, of course, according to one of its organizers, It’s harmless. Just a few nebbishes from Brooklyn who wouldn’t hurt a fly havin a little fun. Hey, it might be a dictatorship, but it is a benevolent and fun loving dictatorship, so that makes it OK!

All the while , of course, Pollack is delivering a not-so-subtle economic threat, which as we all know, is exactly how it works in real life.

In the meantime, of course, Cruise has explained to Kidman the whole series of misadventures before his meeting with Pollack, and is fearful that his marriage might be in danger. He has arranged with her and their daughter to go Christmas shopping, which sets up the final scene in FAO Schwartz.

Now curiously, the critics hate this ending, claiming it is no ending at all.

But to normal viewers, the conclusion is absolutely pre-ordained. My wife knew the outcome ten minutes before the end.

After all, Cruise and Kidman are sojourners in a hostile and alien land. When Cruise pops the fateful question, Kidman responds as she must, but in a playful and hip way.

So it is no wonder that critics absolutely hate this movie.

The reason they hate it is that the typical outer party viewer is left with a powerful feeling of vague threat from a predatory culture in which a cabal such as the one portrayed in this movie makes perfect sense. The kabal is populated with people who show harmless and genial public faces during the day, but cannot show their real faces among themselves at private parties after dark.

It is some of the richest symbolism I have seen on celluloid. This flick veers awfully close to the truth folks. And it gets away with it!!

I give it four stars.

Not as great as “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, but great nevertheless.

I would be interested in hearing from readers with other views.

Yggdrasil-

. . .

When I review a serious movie, one I rate a Nationalist Classic, I try to react to the movie itself, and what I see within its four corners. I try not to speculate on the motives of the writers, director and producers. After all, the significance of the movie is the actual impact on the audience, and not what the producer or director was subjectively trying to accomplish.

This is particularly true of Kubrick, who has produced three masterpieces, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, each of which deal with the very essence of the universalist state, the nature of bureaucracy, and the evolutionary-nationalist core of humanity. Kubrick himself could have had any number of possible subjective intentions when he produced and directed these films, including showing his fellow tribesmen just how alien and dangerous WE are, even in our modern, degraded state — or perhaps scaring the bejabbers out of his fellow tribesmen, just like the ADL does, but on a much higher intellectual and artistic level.

Who knows!

None of that is relevant. What matters is the meaning of his movies for us.

With that in mind, I would like to share with you the text of three very perceptive e-mails on Eyes Wide Shut.

Email One:

Welcome back. You succinctly summed up the movie. I felt the same way, that Kubrick was telling us that we have no power. After all, the height of success for most of us is to achieve the level of wealth and social standing of that New York doctor played by Cruise. The doctor, who is portrayed as being at the top of the heap when the film opens is shown to be a nobody as the film progresses. For some reason I took the inner party people at the orgy to be participating in some Satanic ritual. They certainly weren’t Christians! Overall I agree with your assessment of the film.May you never tire,

E-mail Two:

I admit I was going to let this movie slide away unwatched till you mentioned its subtle theme causing me to reconsider. I’m in agreement with the critics somewhat on the ending. That is unless Kidman’s character was expressing some sort of resigned cynicism with a touch of sarcasm added for good measure saying in affect “F**k off you SOBs.”The characters seem to take parallel courses thru the movie though both characters arrive at slightly different emotional states at the end Cruise in a state of insecurity and Kidman more like a Siegfried in front of the dragon. A great movie director leaves his audience with a defining moment and Kubrick (at least to me) delivers it with a line “to laugh in your face” as pronounced by Kidman in her replaying of her dream. I see the whole face and cruel purpose of Jewish inspired Liberalism in that telling [line] with Kidman’s haggard appearance and an emotional state played out, one of disbelief and fear for the unknown course she would be forced down.

I think we have to admit Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Nordic cultures play out with simple almost childlike themes, Melville’s “Billy Budd” a fantastic parable comes to mind. That line uttered by Kidman was meant to crush those ideals and that way of thinking of life and how we face it. Maybe a few people would understand the way we do but you’re right — a vague uneasiness is probably the best to hope for amongst the unwashed. I’ll ask some of my unenlightened friends what they thought of it, and that is probably what I’ll hear besides comments on the nudity.

If I may suggest a movie with somewhat the same theme, “The Matrix” a techno violence B type if you like that sort of thing. At the end I sat there thinking, “How could they make such a blatant movie?” Thank you for your time. If the take on the ending was 180 degrees off perhaps a follow up commentary summarizing the many other viewpoints of it.

E-mail Three:

Dear Sir:After seeing the film (Eyes Wide Shut) a few weeks ago with a MOT (“Member of the Tribe”), I pointed out to her that Kubrick was also a MOT. Nothing but a shrug; she wondered how her parents would like the film, (esp. the sex parts) having not seen it yet.

I was uneasy throughout. The Jewishness of the Christmas party in the first half of the film, was somewhat apparent, the leering “Hungarian” seducer, the host’s adventures with a drugged “shiksa.” The “Russian” owner of the costume store pimping his daughter (?) . . . Now that I think about it, most things alien are presented as something twisted or disgusting (e.g the Asians who used the shop-keepers “daughter,” the adulteress whose father had just died.).

Did Kubrick really make this as a jab a the “inner elite” or one against the foolish goyim who play with fire?

Curiouser and curiouser . . . think I’ll take another look.

Cordially,

For a picture of Kubrick see:

Kubrick picture

Yggdrasil-

Back in the 1960s I used to read about a “Marxist” Japanese movie entitled The Seven Samurai which supposedly inspired an equally Marxist (or was it existentialist?) American western knock off entitled The Magnificent Seven starring Steve McQueen. Well, I saw the American version live at the theater and could not discern anything remotely Marxist about it — perhaps because I attended the wrong temple and lacked the cultural background necessary to understand Marxism.

In my temple, Marxism appeared as a simple form of slavery for Christians, and I didn’t see any of that in the movie.

It was only a couple years ago that I managed to see and record the original Japanese masterpiece directed by Akira Kurosawa on the cable network.

I was absolutely stunned.

This is the most important and explicit nationalist movie I have ever seen.

A copy should be available in the foreign films section of your local Hollywood Video. I urge you to rent and watch it once for the enjoyment and a second time for the nuance.

The nationalist themes are not quite as in your face and obvious as they are in Braveheart, that other giant among nationalist classics, but it is a more important and more realistic treatment of the major dilemmas which haunt all modern nationalists. And for that reason, it has more important lessons for us.

I suppose that any movie set in an impoverished village might be viewed as Marxist, as the village might resemble in the mind’s eye of a modern, the kibbutz or the collective farm, where life is natural and inequality at a minimum.

Of course, professing Marxists have no intention of living in an impoverished village themselves. Rather, this ideal is for others, and not so much a real village but rather an ersatz psychological village, to benefit those consigned to such a “natural” existence of centrally planned labor as may be chosen for them by Marxists.

For indeed, Marxism in all of its modern flavors is a yearning for dominance over alien tribes and races which are needed and tolerated only because the Marxists disdain cleaning up after themselves, and need contented servants to do their dirty work (or in the Frankfurt School flavor, to consume and rack up debt). It is all about the propaganda and force needed to ensure a willing labor supply, with the romance of the Sthetl, or kibbutz, as the idealized model by which the Marxists rationalize for their own psychic comfort the imposition of equalizing poverty and labor upon the lesser races over which they hold sway. Same old slavery — different marketing.

And as Professor Kevin MacDonald would clearly hold, the marketing of utmost importance is to the importuning minds of the Marxist elites themselves. One must delude ones self in this modern world, before one can successfully delude the masses.

The Seven Samurai was produced in 1954, shortly following the defeat of Japan.

When you watch this movie I think you will agree that its meaning to a Japanese of that era must have been crystal clear. The rather clear and obvious purpose is to bind up the wounds between the warrior class that has just lost a calamitous war, and the rest of the nation (symbolized by the farmers in this movie) for whom the war was a disaster.

But I am not really concerned with the immediate meaning of this movie for a Japanese audience in 1954. Nor am I particularly interested in dissecting the elaborate “code” so deftly employed to remain within the obvious limits imposed by American censors who occupied Japan until 1952, and by their hand picked Japanese successors.

Rather, I am intensely interested in its meaning for us as modern-day nationalists of a Euro-American persuasion.

As I watched this movie, I was overwhelmed by the sense that it was speaking directly to me, with messages of overpowering modern importance. It may have been set in Japan, but it was not uniquely nor exclusively Japanese.

The movie opens on a small farming village in 16th century Japan. The village is mired in poverty but is nevertheless plundered by bandits following every harvest. In our first encounter with the bandits, from a distance, their leaders appear to be wearing the familiar Viking helmets with horns coming out of them.

Thus, not more than 5 minutes into this 3 hour and 20 minute epic, my code antennae are at max alert. After all, it was Viking marauders who just nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki a few years back, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians over the issue of how Japan was to surrender — whether their Emperor would be required to shuffle on down to the banana boat, so to speak, in the process.

It is not clear to me whether Japanese would react to these costumes in the same way. Doubtless the costumes are authentic suits of armor from 16th century Japan, but in all probability, the Japanese of 1954 would be at least as familiar with the horned helmeted image of the marauding barbarian Norsemen as they would the details of armor bandits might have used 500 years ago. In any event, the bandits are unmistakably alien in their appearance and demeanor.

The villagers argue about whether to fight or negotiate, and consult the village patriarch who says they shall fight. He remembers a particularly bad season for bandits years ago and recalls that all the villages were burned down save one, which survived because they hired a few Samurai to defend them. The villagers are instructed to go find Samurai and hire them.

Missing from the discussion is any mention of a “government” or even the concept of government. Recall that this drama takes place at a time when the Kings of Europe not only had sizable standing armies, but had sizable armies of clerks keeping tax records, and battalions of magistrates and sheriffs spread throughout the land, as well as professional cadres of court advisers. A troupe of 41 similar bandits operating anywhere within 16th Century Europe would have met a very quick and decisive end at the hands of the nearest national army.

What we see spread before us in The Seven Samurai is a rich tableau of the natural libertarian state of nature, in which there is no mention of government at all. In passing, I should note the extreme irony that this perfect state of freedom from the restraints of government, and indeed the lack of any consciousness of what government might be, should exist in the most cohesive and racially homogeneous nation on earth. Perhaps that is the only soil in which true freedom can grow! Indeed, perhaps government as we know it was invented for the very purpose of amalgamating differing tribes, depriving them of their independence and suppressing their consciousness of ethnic difference, all in the service of empire.

Instead of a plea to government, we have a candid debate among the villagers about the costs and benefits of paying tribute to the bandits as against the costs of hiring the Samurai.

The primary impression one gets of the villagers is fear. Fear of strangers and fear of their own inability to put up a collective defense. In this sense, the movie is anthropologically correct. The villagers are all related by blood. They are a tribe possessed of a dual code, suspicious of the harm that may be inflicted by all strangers, by bandits certainly, and by the Samurai, probably.

So at length, a few villagers set out to the large town with nothing more than a large bowl of rice with which to hire Samurai to defend them.

In the next segment of the film we are introduced to the Samurai themselves. They have no coherent organization, and all appear to be freelance contract workers or fighters for hire. While there is mention of the fact that they are members of a Samurai caste by birth, you never see a Samurai woman, and indeed, the warriors are all “rogue males” mired in poverty, beset with exceptionally high mortality, having a very low statistical probability of passing their own genes on to the next generation, and an absolute zero chance of engaging in the kind of “high investment parenting” that would be required to produce one such as themselves.

Like the warrior ant, they exist to sacrifice themselves for someone else.

In a word, they are all “lone wolves,” surprisingly individualistic for Japanese. None are members of any organized gang or male hunting group.

Most are mired in poverty and live on the edge of starvation. While they may be members of a higher caste than the farmers, they are poorer, having no security, and possessing only the tools of their trade.

In searching for defenders, the farmers judge these Samurai by the way other Samurai react to them. A particularly astute older Samurai rescues a child from a thief holding her hostage by disguising himself as a priest. After his triumph, a young Samurai begs him to be his “Sensei,” his teacher, leader and guide.

The farmers ask the aging Sensei to help them in exchange for three meals a day. He is convinced of the justice of their cause and agrees. The Sensei then hires five other Samurai on the same terms, and with a very rough farmer boy who wishes to be a Samurai, the seven return with the farmers to defend the village.

On arrival, the Sensei speaks with the patriarch, and then takes charge, plotting strategy and organizing the farmers to building earthworks, constructing moats and destroying bridges so as to limit access routes into the village. He delegates to the other Samurai the job of teaching to farmers to fashion primitive spears or pikes from bamboo, and then training them in their use.

All goes quite well until the seventh Samurai finds the farmers’ cache of swords and armor taken from Samurai they have killed in the past — Samurai on the run from the armies of defeated war lords. The Samurai they have hired take this as an affront, and a repudiation of their sacrifices, but decide to continue to fight for the farmers despite their treachery.

Is this all beginning to sound vaguely familiar to you nationalists?

The Samurai hold themselves in readiness to protect their fellow Japanese at all times, but are hated and feared by them most of the time, absent a clear and present danger. The Samurai are held in contempt by those they live to protect. In fact, they are hunted down and killed when vulnerable. And it is only in times of dire threat that the ordinary people will value the Samurai and submit to the leadership and guidance of the Sensei.

There are three houses that lie outside the perimeter of the village and are indefensible. The occupants of these houses mutiny and attempt to desert the defense of the village, only to be chased by the Sensei with his sword drawn. They submit and the Sensei delivers a stirring speech, which is the highlight of the movie.

The outlying houses are three!

The village has twenty!

We can’t endanger twenty for three.

No outlying house can be saved while the village proper is destroyed.

Remember! That is war!

You’re all in one boat.

He who thinks only about himself will destroy himself too!

Such selfishness will not be tolerated!

I cannot imagine a more beautiful and moving statement of the nationalist credo! But you are going to have to see it in the dramatic original to truly understand.

While the Samurai have only their traditional swords and bows, the bandits have three guns. Thus, the survival of the village is dependent upon the cunning, skill and disciplined use of traditional means and technologies against superior and alien technology.

In the process of saving the village, and of killing all of the bandits, four of the seven Samurai are killed.

The closing scene is one of the most powerful in any movie ever produced.

The farmers are planting the rice. As the three surviving Samurai contemplate the scene of renewed economic activity and the restoration of normal village life, they turn to the burial sites of their fallen comrades.

We see a grave site consisting of a large dirt mound, stark in its poverty and simplicity. At the top of the mound we see four smaller mounds with the Samurai swords emplaced as markers.

In contemplating the scene the Sensei says to his trusted co-warrior:

Again we’re defeated.

The winners are those farmers. (The nation!)

Not us.

And thus it will be always among those born with an independent and warlike spirit.

In times of peace and prosperity, our own Euro-American village will not want to hear our message! And that is understandable, for according to the lessons of the of The Seven Samurai, this is in accord with the very nature of things among a people. However, as our Euro-American village begins to sense the danger, it will be our duty to respond for them and to expect nothing but danger, sacrifice and death in return.

And as it happens, none of us can serve in any official capacity as guardians of our people as long as those services are under the thumb of alien masters.

So in the meantime, it is our duty to wait patiently, and to hold ourselves in readiness.

Every one of you has skills and a role to play.

It is your duty to resist debt and conspicuous consumption. Do not allow your labor to strengthen our Marxist slave masters. Build your resources and contribute to the effort to spread our message to those with the spirit to hear and join our movement.

It is your duty to spread your genes into the next generation.

Any young lady who is willing to interact with you has already inherited the essential core of racial awareness that you seek. Remember, our ideas have been branded as markers of low status and low ability to support and nurture children. Stick to the socially acceptable displays of love, tenderness and dependability that are the psychological markers of evolutionary fitness in the sexual selection process. Display fitness for supporting her and nurturing her children in an appropriate male role.

It is your duty to spread the message of your commitment and your calling in ways that do not diminish your own status or livelihood. Among probable enemies keep your counsel, yet spread the message diligently among our own who display a disposition to understand and respond positively.

It is your duty to accumulate the resources to be a good missionary for the cause and to contribute to the efforts of others who display great skill in that calling.

It is your duty to be patient and to remember that your calling is one of measured and disciplined sacrifice for a nation that will only value that calling in times of emergency and may never acknowledge nor approve your efforts on their behalf.

As the emergency of our people becomes more apparent to all, one from among us will emerge as the Sensei, the Leader, the Fuhrer. We will know him when the time arrives.

And when that Leader emerges, and upon taking diligent counsel announces to us that the time has indeed arrived, then shall we unleash the ancient hammer of Thor – the hammer of our hallowed ancestors and departed heroes! Only then shall we demonstrate to the other nations of the World just how seriously we take the survival of our own, and just how little selfishness and individualism we will tolerate until the emergency has passed and our independence and control over our own destiny have been assured.

To the performance of all of the above duties I strictly enjoin each of you,

as I remain faithfully yours,

Yggdrasil-

Ice Age Columbus ~ Who Were the First Americans?
– Get this DVD and show it
to All Your Friends and Family!

Dennis Stanford (left) and Bruce Bradley with Soultrean spearhead

You’re missing out if you haven’t yet watched Ice Age Columbus — Who Were the First Americans?

If tens of millions of our White kinsmen see this amazing DVD, our people’s coming to their senses will be significantly accelerated. The astounding new scientific discoveries that Ice Age Columbus contains have the potential to cut years off of the fatal and frustrating WAIT for our fellow Whites to become sufficiently energized and informed to fight for our survival as a race.

You can buy Ice Age Columbus by calling The Discovery Channel Store at 1 800 475-6636. Ask for product #740597. The Discovery Channel website is at Discovery Channel store.

I’ll be putting up many more posts in this thread describing every scene of this long DVD movie/documentary, but let me summarize what it contains.

BBC article

As you watch this revolutionary DVD, you will follow two parallel narratives. One narrative is a series of interviews with the world’s top scientists on the migration they have proved took place 17,000 years ago. The other narrative is a complete movie dramatization using actors and computer graphics of the HIGHEST quality to SHOW a clan of our White ancestors making the epic first journey to the New World by humans.

The scientists are completely convincing (and brilliant) in their narrative. The actors and animators are completely convincing (and brilliant) in their narrative. Any White person who sees Ice Age Columbus will be convinced by them.

The actors and scientists portray our Solutrean ancestors as noble, smart, resourceful, tenacious, brave, and admirable. The actors look JUST LIKE US! There are no “caveman” beards or ooga-ooga to make these brave voyagers look different or alien from us.

Here is an all-too-brief outline of the proofs that we came to America 17,000 years ago, 6,000 years before any Asians:

1. The Solutrean spear points found everywhere in Southwestern France and Spain EXACTLY match the “Clovis” spear points which have been found across America. These “Clovis” blades are proved to be the oldest artifacts ever found in the New World. The show begins with a close-up zoom onto a 17,000-year-old spear point that has been found in Virginia. It is a Solutrean spear/knife blade. You can see it. And, more importantly, the world’s top scientists (white guys, of course) in the field are sure of it. And they tell you this in the DVD.

2. The ONLY way that the very unique, very skilled Solutrean flint-knapping technology could have gotten to America is that somebody had to BRING it with them.

3. No Solutrean-type point has ever been found in Asia. Anywhere. Ever.

4. Solutrean points are everywhere in France and Spain.

5. Exactly at the SAME 17,000-year-old date as the appearance of Solutrean blades in Virginia, the North Atlantic was covered by a 30-foot-thick solid sheet of ice that stretched in a giant arc from Southwestern France to the (above water then) Grand Banks of North America. The ice-age ocean was 500 feet lower than it is today. Coastlines extended much further as a consequence.

6. Solutrean caves (like the Lascaux caves of France) show that Solutreans hunted seals. Seals lived on and under that great ice sheet. Seal meat, seal hide, seal bone, and seal fat provide everything needed to make the journey.

7. In addition to the previously unknown vast ice sheet stretching solid from France to Newfoundland, new super-computers show that there was a very fast (4 miles per hour) counter eddy that floated huge broken rafts of the broken sea ice westward from Europe to North America like a giant people-mover. Solutreans stuck on these huge blocks were quickly moved across the North Atlantic. They had already mastered the technology of surviving in super cold back in France, where a worsening Ice Age was driving them to starvation in extreme cold.

8. The Solutreans’ best source of the meat they desperately needed to survive was seals out along the vast arc of sea ice.

9. The Solutreans could easily make skin boats that were big and adequate to the journey.

10. The Solutreans got water from melting sea ice with burning seal fat, which gave them a heat source.

11. American geneticists have proved that a unique DNA haplogroup marker that they have found present in some American Indian DNA must have come from the only other place it is found . . . in Europe. And thus, Europeans had to bring it. They have also shown that this haplogroup DNA is 17,000 years old.

There are dozens more revolutionary discoveries like these above that I don’t have time to list right now. But others in this thread, who have seen the DVD (or the TV show) can describe them in subsequent posts, as I will too.

Anyway . . . here’s the concluding point: this DVD, Ice Age Columbus, might be the most important White Nationalist educational tool on DVD in years. The scientists don’t need to be White Nationalists. Who knows what their racial views are. The important thing is that the FACTS they have discovered ARE White Nationalist facts.

Stan Hess tried to get copies of this DVD, and initially encountered a suspect disappearance of “Ice Age Columbus” from the Discovery catalog. But repeated calls and orders to Discovery appear to have brought this masterpiece of science and film-making back into the catalog, so that you can order it too. . . .

And if we think about human nature a bit, the best way to push this philosophy of extinction wouldn’t be to have angry black men yelling “I’m takin’ yo bitch, fool.” Instead, make black men seem harmless, intelligent, deep and most importantly “just like us.” A particularly brilliant strategy would be to portray Western society as already having reached where you want it to go.

From the perspective of propaganda, I’m Through With White Girls is a success. The black protagonist, Jay Brooks (Anthony Montgomery), is culturally white as can be. His best friend that he lives with is white, he works as a comic book cartoonist and as the title of the movie tells us, he dates exclusively white women. The movie opens with him bailing on a redhead while she’s in the shower. That night and the next day he’s bombarded with voice mail messages from her and other women he’s left in a similar manner.

After Jay has a talk with his more stereotypically black best friend/conscience (Lamman Rucker) he decides that he’s going to quit white women cold turkey and launches “Operation Brown Sugar.” Sitting on a bus, he has a blond on one side of him and a light skinned black girl on the other. The blond is leaning into him smiling while the black girl wants to be left alone. Jay resists the temptation to pick up the blond and continues in his determination to find a sistah’. Finally, he meets a bestselling half black author from Canada who talks like a valley girl and is afraid to do book readings for that reason. From that point on white women are nowhere to be seen in Jay’s life and the movie becomes a love story. Near the end, after things go sour with his “Halfrican” Jay realizes that the problem was never white women in the first place but his own commitment issues.

From the title and cover of this film one gets the impression that it’s going to be about interracial dating. But the story could easily work without white women, and they’re nowhere to be seen soon after the beginning. This is a story about two complex young blacks forming a relationship, and not a bad one at that. The characters are complex and sympathetic.

So why the racial angle? In order to make interracial relationships normal in the most subtle way possible: without treating race as a serious issue at all. Jay is a black guy with every-man problems; the white women he shares his bed with are only a convenient excuse he uses to avoid facing them. He can act like a white nerd or hang out with his black best friend’s family. His girlfriend is mixed and can write black fiction while talking like a Saved by the Bell character. Even the white roommate becomes a hip-hop expert in order to get a job at a record shop and impress a girl. Identity isn’t based on blood or even something you carry with you your whole life. Changing it is akin to going on a diet.

All these good looking and nice multiracial people are in the same boat, living their lives and discovering themselves. What kind of crank would be insensitive enough to think that racial survival or good breeding should be given any consideration? This is the genius of Hollywood. Understand how the propaganda works before you can change it.

Richard Hoste runs the website HBD Books.

History has taught us that the most fundamental necessities for the existence of a healthy and progressive White society are the racial quality of its members and a moral code or value system which complements and enhances that quality.

Ultimately, of course, the former is much more fundamental than the latter. Only a sound race can give birth to sound racial ethics. Without the living biological entity, there is and can be nothing. But as long as the race survives — as long as the potential for effective racial sovereignty exists — alien and spiritually damaging values alone will not prove fatal.

The enemies of our race have obviously long understood this truth. That is why, a half-century ago, they waged the most vicious war the world has ever seen in order to destroy an idea based upon that racial truth. That is why they subsequently organized the systematic swamping of White civilization by millions of alien immigrants. And that is why they have used their control of the news and entertainment media, of the government, and of schools and universities to implement a massive propaganda campaign to encourage miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites.

One Sheaf, One Vine: A Society without Miscegenation as portrayed by Belgian painter Léon Frédéric (1856 - 1940), "The Ages of the Worker," painted circa 1895 -1895, detail of central panel of triptych in Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Of course, miscegenation is not a natural occurrence. Evolution would have been impossible if every evolutionary experiment had been short-circuited by cross-breeding. Nature’s urge toward higher and more complex life forms has demanded that subspecies remain genetically isolated until all possibility of genetic admixture has been removed. Even though such isolation of the various human subspecies from one another has not been of sufficient length to ensure the impossibility of genetic admixture, it has ensured the existence of deep-seated psychological barriers which, under natural conditions, prevent miscegenation.

When these natural conditions are disrupted and distorted, however, unnatural sexual activities such as homosexuality and miscegenation have been known to result. Just as bulls have been known to mount mares, and St. Bernard dogs have tried to mate with Chihuahuas when forced into close confinement and deprived of their natural environment, so Whites have copulated with Negroes in similar circumstances. It is the disruption of the White man’s natural environment and the dehumanization of his society and culture, therefore, which the Jews and their collaborators in the news and entertainment media have consistently worked for in order to encourage racial mixing.

Cause . . .

This campaign began at least as early as 1967, when 16 U.S. states still had laws against miscegenation. In that year Jewish director/producer Stanley Kramer brought out the film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy as a couple whose daughter begins an affair with a Negro. The aim of the film was clear and since has been admitted. It was designed as an “educational film” for White Americans: after seeing their on-screen heroes, Tracy and Hepburn, surrendering their White daughter to a Black male, they would feel less compunction in doing the same.

Since that time Whites have not just been encouraged to mate with non-Whites, they have been subject to every conceivable Pavlovian method to blackmail and bully them emotionally into doing so. With ever increasing intensity the message has been that miscegenation is not just an option, but the option that society expects. Particularly, the primary aim of the Political Correctness movement, in all of its manifestations, has been to confuse heterosexual Whites and make them feel sinful and guilty for being White; to encourage them to “repent” by helping put their race out of existence.

The Hollywood film Last of the Mohicans, which came out in 1992 with the Jewish actor Daniel Day-Lewis in the leading role, is a typical example of how the Jewish news and entertainment media have spearheaded this campaign. In the film White males are portrayed as weak, cowardly, disloyal, and barbaric — and as justly deserving of their slaughter at the hands of the noble, dignified, courageous, and sexy Red Indians. Yes, just to ensure that White women don’t miss the implication that White men are worthless, the leading White female character dumps her despicable British-officer fiancé and runs off into the sunset with the Mohican hero. The underlying message of the film is clear: race-mixing is not only natural and understandable, it is also the morally right thing to do.

. . . and effect

Zoologists and anthropologists have identified two types of feral constraint which ensure that under natural conditions animal groups — including human groups — which may be able to interbreed with each other refrain from doing so. On one hand, there are inborn biological impulses based upon physical “sign stimuli,” such as smell, color, and visual differentiation. Then there is the behavioral imprinting and habituation which takes place in the early weeks and months of infancy based upon the intimate relationship between the mother and the infant. This helps to ensure that when sexual mating is eventually attempted, it will take place only with those forms that resemble the parent or siblings.

Not surprisingly, the Jews have gone all out to corrupt and cripple the latter tendency in Whites, particularly under the guise of “children’s entertainment.” In 1994, for example, the Walt Disney Company brought out a re-adaptation of its 1967 film The Jungle Book. This was Disney’s first children’s offering since being taken over by the Jewish clique headed by Michael Eisner, and, predictably, it was a complete distortion, both of the original Kipling story and the 1967 Disney animated version. With a story line remarkably similar to Last of the Mohicans, the White heroine rejects her British-officer fiancé for an Indian jungle boy played by a Chinese actor.

Significantly, the White girl’s decision is portrayed as being based upon moral considerations of right and wrong, upon her realization that White society and White men in particular are irredeemably bad. Eisner pursued this line in the two subsequent Disney animated children’s films, Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which are similar both in their pernicious race-mixing propaganda and in their blatant disregard for the original stories. Such systematic consistency in shape and content suggests design rather than coincidence.

In any case, the actual motivation of Michael Eisner in churning out such material is not the most important question. The thing that really matters is the actual effect of his efforts: young children are being influenced, at an age where they are most open to behavioral imprinting, with a message that miscegenation is good and morally correct, and that Whiteness is evil and morally wrong.

. . . and another effect

Just as young Whites in the past were encouraged by an alien religious dogma to feel sinful because of their natural sexual urges, to feel unclean in having them, and to seek “salvation” by denying them, so today they are indoctrinated with guilt-inducing ideas about being White. And the solution which they are offered to overcome these artificial feelings of guilt and self-hate is increasingly clear: mate with a non-White partner and have mongrel offspring. Racial suicide is thus insidiously presented to them as the only way in which they can overcome their Whiteness and all the consequent pain and shame that goes with it.

Actually, miscegenation has rapidly emerged as the official religion of the New World Order and its adherents. Propagated with an increasingly hysterical fervor, it has been developed as the new universal slave-morality which embraces and transcends established religions such as Christianity. In March 1994, for example, evangelist Billy Graham’s publication Christianity Today urged readers to rejoice over the existence of mixed-race marriages and mixed-race children and to do everything possible to make them fully accepted into society. It even stated that this is one area where the news and entertainment media are morally ahead of the churches.

This propagation of miscegenation as an ideological crusade also has made significant inroads into the education system. When a North Carolina middle school principal recently cautioned a White female student and a Black male student about the dangers of interracial dating, he was immediately suspended from his job and disciplined. He was not allowed to return to work until he had been “reeducated” after confessing and repenting his “sins” in a counseling and sensitivity training program.

The ideological nature of this campaign to promote miscegenation was also reflected in an article in the August 1996 issue of Maryland Family Magazine, part of the Times Mirror group. Written by Helen Armiger, described as a candidate for ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church, “How to Raise an Unbiased Child” argues that society is compelled to teach its youth to live harmoniously and productively within a global environment. Quoting approvingly a Maryland education official, Arminger insisted that there exists a moral obligation to provide children with the opportunity to engage in a variety of relationships with people of different races and sexual orientations without any kind of parental or social constraint.

. . . the effects keep rippling

Behind the high-sounding slogans portraying miscegenation as morally imperative and beneficial, the motivation of its proponents is clear: the intention is not to “save” or “redeem” Whites, but to destroy them completely. What such “morality” really derives from is a totally subjective, alien mind-set which seeks the biological extinction of the White race, and which, from its own perspective, sees such an extinction as a good and righteous thing. Some of its proponents are much more honest than others in admitting to this reality. One journal, Race Traitor, edited by [Jewish academic] Noel Ignatiev and subtitled “Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity,” openly declares its conviction that the only way to solve the social problems of the age is to abolish the White race. Its admitted aim is not “multiculturalism” or “multiracialism,” but biological unity and racelessness.

Such thinking is not confined to the political fringes. On September 29, 1996, The New York Times Magazine ran an article by [Black] writer Stanley Crouch (author of the book The All-American Skin Game: Or, the Decoy of Race). Entitled “Race is Over,” Crouch’s article confidently predicted that a century from today unprecedented levels of racial mixing — of a wide variety of combinations — will ensure that the very concept of race will be redundant. Americans of the future, it argues, will find themselves surrounded in every direction by people who are part Asian, part Latin, part European, part American Indian. The sweep of body types, combinations of facial features, hair textures, eye colors, and what are now “unexpected skin tones” will, in Crouch’s view, be far more common because the current paranoia over mixed marriages should be by then largely a superstition of the past.

Mate Crime?

Even this declared goal, however, reveals only part of the agenda, because one particular race has an exemption ticket from this universal morality of genetic amalgamation. But The New York Times Magazine article symbolizes what the Politically Correct movement is really all about. When the mainstream Harper’s Magazine runs articles advocating government-sponsored summer camps for young White girls to meet and begin relationships with non-White males, it is not doing “good” for those girls; it is actively encouraging what is most definitely bad for them. And when the Prudential Insurance Company of America sponsors a series of racial unity conferences for children across America and the world, it is not doing what is “right” for those children; it is doing what is totally and utterly wrong for them.

Actually, such “morality” is without any moral foundation whatsoever. It’s not based on any natural or biological law, nor does it follow any rational or scientific line of reasoning. This helps to explain why it is having some difficulty in achieving its objectives. Undoubtedly many Whites preach the cause of miscegenation, and many have put it into practice. But, revealingly, the numbers in the latter camp are still much smaller than in the former.

Some of the Whites who advocate race-mixing are obviously unhealthy in a genetic sense, and mentally ill as opposed to spiritually sick. The person who wrote to his local newspaper recently stating his frustrated wish to have five per cent Black blood in his ancestry so as to blend in with what he considers the ideal American racial composition, may be an example.

In any case, in instances such as these miscegenation could even be considered a tool of natural selection in weeding such people out of the White gene pool.

For the majority of Whites who advocate miscegenation, however, their sense of righteousness in espousing it is nothing more than a manifestation of trendiness: of wanting to feel and appear fashionable.

The Cruise-Kidman Family

Take, for example, the case of the young Hollywood couple Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Both appear to be healthy and physically attractive specimens of Aryan humanity. Yet they have recently adopted a Black child and actively collaborated with the Jewish media in publicizing it as a fine and noble deed which has helped the cause of human and societal “progress.” There is nothing biologically wrong with this couple; they’ve just gone out of their way to make a fashion statement. And the adopted child is nothing more than a fashion accessory for their symbolic commitment to the idea of miscegenation.

Indeed, it is revealing that for all their fashion consciousness, Cruise and Kidman chose to marry each other rather than non-Whites: they chose to adopt a non-White child rather than to create one. Even they, therefore, whether conscious of it or not, are evidence that most Whites are not yet putting the idea of miscegenation into practice — regardless of the lip service which they might feel compelled to give it.

A recent study of miscegenation statistics by Jewish academic Douglas J. Besherov, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, seemed to give some credence to this view, although the report highlighted some very disturbing trends. These included a tripling of marriages between Whites and Blacks since 1970, and a sharp increase in marriages between Whites and Asians or Hispanics. The U.S. Census Bureau counted about 150,000 interracial marriages nationwide in 1960. By 1990 that number grew tenfold to 1.5 million. In 1994 it was estimated at more than 3 million.

Equally alarming was the statistic that 35.4 percent of White women married to Black men said they planned to have children, a higher proportion than the 29 percent of White women married to White men who said they wanted children. This is on top of a four-fold increase in mixed-race births since 1970, although not all of these involved a White parent.

Angelina Jolie and family

Such trends are obviously ominous and potentially catastrophic by pointing in the long term to the biological extinction of White America. In the short term, however, from the perspective of those of us trying to prevent such a nightmare from unfolding, they do provide at least some grounds for optimism and opportunity. Despite 30 years of Judeo-Christian brainwashing, over 90 per cent of Whites are declining to transgress what Douglas J. Besherov admits is American society’s “last taboo.”

Similarly, despite the efforts of [Jewish] Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH, now retired), who in 1994 introduced the Multiethnic Placement Act in the Senate in an effort to bring about an increase in transracial adoptions, most Whites appear still to prefer to adopt White babies, and most non-Whites still prefer to adopt non-White babies. Such attitudes, moreover, appear to be hardening in spite of the Clinton administration’s attempts to legislate against them.

The Cruise-Kidman adoption, for instance, was condemned by the National Association of Black Social Workers on the grounds that transracial adoptions amounted to racial and cultural genocide.

Undoubtedly an important factor in this situation has been the growth in tensions that has accompanied the transition to a multiracial society. As racial and ethnic identification has become more relevant in people’s lives, the resulting racial polarization and intensified group solidarity have mitigated somewhat against the idea of interracial mating. It seems clear, for example, that the O. J. Simpson trial served the useful purpose of intensifying both White and Black racial consciousness and of discrediting the idea of miscegenation.

Reason number 4,117,388 against miscegenation

One hopeful sign of this was the fact that Hulond Humphries, a White high school principal in Wedowee, Alabama, who was ousted from his position in 1994 for threatening to cancel the spring prom if interracial couples turned up, recently won an election runoff for superintendent of schools.

As with the race question in general, many Whites — for the moment at least — seem to be carrying around with them two conflicting value systems in relation to race-mixing: the one they publicly purport to hold and the one they actually live their private lives by. While the former is artificially created and only maintained by continuous external conditioning, the latter arises from instinct, which is genetically ingrained.

Thus, although race-mixing propaganda may have been purposefully designed to appeal to the subconscious and to avoid encountering rational faculties, it has inevitably come up against subconscious genetic realities which are not easily influenced by alien attempts at behavioral modification. Consequently, while it has been relatively easy to bring about widescale spiritual sickness and confusion, it has been much more difficult to implement widescale biological amalgamation.

Such a situation, however, will not last forever. History is full of examples of artificial and destructive moralities triumphing over the natural order. Despite its setbacks, the cult of miscegenation has spread substantially over the last thirty years and will continue to do so. Current trends continue to point to the most fundamental and inescapable reality which confronts us today: the White race stands on the precipice of biological extinction.

And one thing is certain: as the strains and tensions of this multiracial society increase in the coming years, so the campaign to destroy us through racial mixing will intensify. For this reason alone, regardless of increased racial polarization, the false morality of miscegenation will not disappear naturally. The circumstances of racial chaos will help us, but only organized and radical action on our part will achieve the vital necessity of a complete and decisive separation of the races and the final destruction of the morality of death.

Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, b. 1935

Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, the enfant terrible of modern or post-war German cinema, was born in 1935 of vaguely upper class stock. His father owned landed estates in Eastern Germany before the war and his son lived in Rostock until 1945.

Syberberg’s doctoral thesis — very much in the Germanic tradition — concerned the notion of existentialism or the absurd in Durrenmatt’s drama. He himself seems to have been influenced by two vast and yet ‘monstrous’ paradigms: these were Brecht’s notion of epic theatre and Wagner’s idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk — the total art-work.

Without doubt, his seminal achievement has to be Hitler: A Film from Germany (Our Hitler) which appeared in 1978. Although Syberberg was to later furnish a retrospective and documentary feel to his ideas in a non-fiction treatment, The Ister, in 2004. It comes across as a companion piece or dialectical counter-point to the previous work. It’s definitely not a mea culpa.

Hitler — ein Film aus Deutschland ran to 442 minutes and happened to be co-produced by the BBC (somewhat paradoxically). It starred Heinz Schubert and had no definite plot other than an intriguing series of tableaux. In a different set of circumstances (or primarily dealing with variegated meats) many would have found it avant-garde or occult. Its matter proved to be episodic, mannerist, arcane, and dream-like. Syberberg, its director, made extensive use of rear projection amid an orgy of declamation, dramaturgical feel, and topical onrush. Tropes are introduced, not like Natalie Sarraute, but after the fashion of a flickering magic camera or F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu in 1924. (A film which came to be suppressed by the German authorities owing to copyright tiffs.)

The first part deals with the issue of Hitler’s personality cult; it’s dark, deliberately baroque and romantic in its aesthetic. It is quite clear that Syberberg wishes to plunge headlong into the thicket of what George L. Mosse called Nazi Culture; that’s to say, the volkish underpinnings of German ‘irrationalism’ in the nineteenth century. National Socialism emerged out of this heady stew, but contemporary Germany has repudiated it or deliberately buried this memory. It allows itself the backward glance of Elias Canetti’s Auto-da-Fe when spliced with Henze’s agit-prop.

The second part of this monumental piece of cinema (which is almost as long as Gance’s silent Napoleon from the ‘twenties) explores Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century in every sense.

The film’s third section deals with the Shoah and Himmler’s various attitudes towards it — the latter very much seen in vignette.

Whereas the epic’s fourth quartet — sign-posted as “We Children of Hell” — consists of a personal appearance by Syberberg as the director. This is by no means either solipsist or Hitchcock-like, merely a desire to intrude an authorial and personal insistence. Having done so, he strides around with a large Hitler puppet (ventriloquism originated in Germany) and enters into debates over the bitter harvest of German romanticism and the plight of artists in the federal republic.

What does Hans-Jürgen Syberberg hope to achieve by means of this activity? Well! his enormous filmic canvas sets up a challenge to every known rule of Hollywood cinema. Whereupon the work’s visual Weltanschauung also happens to be partly French, being strongly influenced by Henry Langois’ set designs. Likewise, the fact that the work’s stasis or static vortex involves one location — one set — brings it very close to Derek Jarman’s Caravaggio in Latin.

Influential critics pontificated about its significance upon arrival, but neither Susan Sontag or Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe could hammer out definite conclusions. Most of them miss the fact that the clue to this piece lies in its visualization: its medium is truly the message in terms of Marshall McLuhan’s hectoring.

For the film’s visual language exemplifies its deeply romantic, roseate, ethereal, Germanic race soul, anti-modernist, dream-like, oneiric, and Wagnerian climacteric. It happens to be deeply fascistic but purely on an auric or eye-sensitive level; at once happening to be lit up by a post-modern mantra. The film comes across as heroic in its anti-heroic indeterminacy.

Superficially — and with the objective part of the mind — Syberberg appears to be opposed to what Moeller van den Bruck called The Third Empire. But not really . . . since, if we enter into back-brain subjectivity, then we are dealing with a fantasy or phantasmagoria which mourns the fact of Germany’s defeat. What Syberberg is doing literally confuses the rational, practical and political mind (perforce). For, by virtue of adopting an apodictic structure, he can remain aesthetically entranced while preserving a strict ideological neutrality.

Like the Australian effort Romper Stomper, this film is ultimately neutral and neither for or against — at the level of the journalist’s page. In reality, such a transgression proves to be deeply blasphemous under Bonn’s republic . . . if we conceive of Adenauer’s construction as a second Weimar.

Moreover, the inner methodology of Syberberg’s attitude can be seen in various articles –- one in particular, “Spiritual Reactionaries after German Reunification” by Diederichsen and Cametzky, springs to mind. Likewise, Syberberg sought to clear up any confusion with his own polemic — Vom Ungluck und Gluck der Kunst in Deutschland nach dem letzten Kriege (On the Misfortune and Fortune of Art in Germany after the last War, 1990). This contained a strong attack on Bonn’s philo-semitism.

Michael Walker, the editor of Scorpion magazine and by then a German citizen, warned that Syberberg faced ‘un-person’ status as a result. For his filmography has little real appeal either on behalf of NDP supporters or contemporary liberals. In this overall regard, his visualization might be considered to be a splicing of Caspar David Friedrich and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. It’s not a tabernacle of the ruins, a la Wolfgang Borchert’s stories about the “year zero” of 1945, but an aesthetic Germanicism which remains cool, cynical, acidic, upper class, and even ‘subversive’.

Hitler: ein filme aus Deutschland appears to be “anti” on the surface of its discontinuous images; themselves a kaleidoscope of Cranach, Pacher and Kraceur’s over-flowing The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Yet the inner or sub-conscious mind that directs this movie proves to be spiritually, not factually, revisionist in character.

His earlier cinema history testifies to this. For example, his first effort — Romy, Anatomy of a Face (1965) — deliberates on a classic German actress’ profile. It is an exercise in phrenology which concentrates on Romy Schneider. Whereas his second example in 1966 deals with the aged actor Fritz Kortner — a star of German theater earlier in the twentieth century who specialized in one event: Shylock’s eternal scream of vengeance. Syberberg described the rushes for such an epiphany as ‘superhuman’.

You can view Hitler: ein film aus Deutschland for free online at www.syberberg.de.

From http://www.jonathanbowden.co.uk/

Boldly going where no man has gone before: television's first interracial kiss on "Star Trek"

When most people see whites dating non-whites, the immediate assumption is that there is something wrong with the white. Usually the defects are obvious. We know why a homely or obese white woman is sleeping with blacks or Mexicans: they are willing to overlook her faults because she is white. We know why a geeky, acne-scarred white man gravitates towards Asians: they are willing to overlook his faults because he is white (and of course the aliens are angling for green cards and money as well).

And what about attractive whites who date non-whites? In recent years, more and more white men who are not obvious losers are dating Asians. But according to the conventional wisdom, they probably have hidden physical or psychological defects, such as a self-esteem problem. (Seems pretty reasonable to me.)

Race-mixing is sold as an expression of progress in racial equality: fair Romeos will no longer be separated from their dusky Juliets by the antiquated prejudices of their parents’ generation. But the ugly truth is that race-mixing usually presupposes racism and racial hierarchies. The whites feel that they are dating or marrying down, and the non-whites feel that they are dating or marrying up.

Chris Pine, the new Captain Kirk

White losers are attracted to marrying down, because they feel that their grateful partners will overlook their flaws for the privilege of marrying into a superior race, and their non-white partners think the same thing: they could never get a normal white, but they are willing to take up with a subnormal one, because they want to marry into a superior race.

An allied attitude is that non-whites can’t be blamed for wanting to date or marry whites. Their racial betrayal is seen as a completely healthy impulse. The attitude is: “Who could blame black men for pursuing white women? Have you seen black women?” “Who could blame Asian women for wanting to date white men? Just look at Asian men!” (Everybody also knows that Asian men and black women are the big losers in the inter-racial dating game.)

Alan Tudyk & Gina Torres in "Firefly"

These are not, moreover, the attitudes of hardcore racists alone. Virtually everyone believes this, white and non-white, race-mixers included. I hold these views, even though I know that there are obviously some cases in which they are not true. (There is enough interaction between the races now that perfectly normal people can form friendships that turn into romances.) But the attitudes persist, because they are what Burke calls “wise prejudices”–based on past experience, repeatedly confirmed by new experiences, and therefore handy heuristic assumptions to maintain when visiting the Bay Area.

But even though everyone believes that white race-mixers are defective, nobody really talks about it. Even the diversity police who obsessively try to expose every other instance of hidden racism, real or imagined, remain silent. I suspect they are silent because they know that a widespread discussion of this attitude would inhibit race-mixing, and they don’t want to do that.

Nathan Fillion in "Firefly"

White race-mixers may know they are defective, but they think that others do not divine this fact when they parade their non-white paramours in public . If they knew that others saw them as defective, they might not be so enthusiastic about race-mixing. This is especially true of otherwise attractive and normal-looking white race-mixers, who would not be suspected of having hidden flaws if they did not advertise them by pursuing non-white sexual partners.

There has been a certain normalization of white men dating Asians. Because feminism has made so many otherwise attractive white women into bitches, it is easy to understand why perfectly normal white men are tempted to settle for Asian women, as they seem to be more feminine, submissive, and oriented toward home and family.

But even those who defend whites dating Asians as a normal and healthy reaction to a sick society, will immediately assume that there must be something wrong with a white man who dates a black woman. Even the most delirious Yellow Fever victims balk at that.

Hence the normalization of white male/black female pairings has emerged as an identifiable action item on the agenda for white genocide.

Kandyse McClure & Jamie Bamber in "Battlestar Galactica"

For a long time, such parings were quite rare in television and the movies. It seemed easier to sell images of black men as wise mentors, crime fighters, scientific geniuses, US Presidents, and God, than black women as attractive sexual partners for normal, non-defective white men.

Yes, there was the famous kiss between Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and Lt. Uhuru (Nichelle Nichols) in the original Star Trek series, but Kirk was under alien influence. Yes, there was race-mixing in Mandingo (the Marquis de Sade meets Uncle Tom’s Cabin), but the white race-mixers were explicitly shown to be physically and psychologically defective. The same is true in Roots. Yes, there was the neighbor across the hall in The Jeffersons. But he was a dweeb. James Bond, of course, is one of the earliest white miscegenators on the big screen, but we assume he is closing his eyes, holding his nose, and thinking about England. And when Bond marries, he marries a white woman.

But in recent years, there has been a trend towards pairing white Alpha males with black women. Not just normal white males, but superior white males. Heroic white males. Winners, not losers.

Rosario Dawson as Alexander's queen Roxane

The first time this struck me was in Oliver Stone’s 2004 film Alexander, in which Alexander the Great (you can’t get more Alpha than Alexander the Great), played by Colin Farrell, is paired with the mulatto Rosario Dawson, who is cast as Roxane, Alexander’s queen. (The historical Roxane was the daughter of a Persian aristocrat. She was reputed to be one of the most beautiful women in the Empire. She was probably as Aryan as Alexander himself.)

Then there is Joss Whedon’s superb but short-lived 2002 science fiction series Firefly, in which starship pilot Hoban Washburne, played by the very Nordic Alan Tudyk, is married to Zoë, a black Amazon with grotesquely large lips played by Gina Torres. The character of “Wash” is something of a dork, and he is not the captain of the ship, so he is not the real Alpha. The captain, Malcolm Reynolds (played by Nathan Fillion) is a true Alpha male, and his romantic interest is a white woman, Inara (played by the beautiful Morena Baccarin). But in one episode he is shown lusting after Zoë as well.

In another science fiction series, the new Battlestar Galactica, Alpha male Lee Adama, played by the Nordic Jamie Bamber, marries green-eyed mulatto Dualla, played by Kandyse McClure. (Admittedly, the character is punishing himself and the white woman woman he really wants to marry. But he could have punished himself with another white woman.)

Jamie Bamber with his real family

Finally, in the new Star Trek movie, the Alpha male, Captain Kirk, played by the Nordic Chris Pine, is shown lusting after a black woman and even a green woman–but never a white woman. (This essay originally began as a review of Star Trek, but I have nothing to add to Jonathan Pyle’s superb Occidental Observer essay “Star Trek and the Multiracial Future.”)

I am sure that many other examples can be provided.

Why is Hollywood portraying white Alpha males pursuing and even marrying black women? Because they want the Beta males, the Gamma males, and everybody else down to the Omega males, to follow them down the path to white racial extinction.

The people who create these movies–the directors, the writers, the producers, the casting directors–are not artists. They are abortionists. They are aborting the whole future of the white race. And they are not doing it by accident. We know this, because so many of them are Jews, who are constantly reminded from birth that marrying out leads to extinction for them, and they know that goes for us too. (The fact that many of these Jews marry out make them even worse. It means that they are committing genocide against their own people as well as ours.)

When the white nationalist movement can mobilize the numbers, the idealism, and the physical courage evoked by the anti-abortion movement, then I will stop fearing for the future of my race. And even then, it will take a full-blown revolution, not merely a constitutional amendment, to save us.

Charles Bolden

I don’t think my previous column could have been more timely. Titled On the Visual Displacement of the White Race, it appeared May 15. One week later, major news media reported that President Obama had chosen a former astronaut and Marine general to lead NASA.

This move certainly bolsters my point about the displacement of White men in positions that combine excellence in both technical innovation and high status: aeronautics. I showed an ad that Microsoft ran in The Atlantic Monthly — two pages with an unmistakably clear message: White males need not apply to future rocket programs, as engineers or astronauts. The future in this field—as the photo shows—belongs to the usual multicultural hopefuls—women, Hispanics, Asians and most particularly Black males.

The nominee for NASA administrator is Charles Bolden, who has four shuttle missions under his belt, including two as mission commander.

Interestingly, Obama chose a White woman as Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver, blocking out any White men at the very top of America’s space program. This comes in stark contrast to the historical make-up of all levels of NASA going back to the 1950s. The Gemini and Apollo programs were essentially White male preserves, from the Mission Control Specialists to the astronauts themselves. . . . More

The cover of Craig Bodeker's "A Conversation about Race"

“A Conversation about Race” is a film by Craig Bodeker concerning some silly but insidious misconceptions (or misconceptualizations) concerning “race” and “racism” that have become a standard aspect of Western ideology. The film, available as a DVD, was wonderfully reviewed by Greg Johnson in The Occidental Quarterly, and is a good counter to “political correctness.” I wish I had had it before retiring from teaching (e.g., a course in ethnic relations) as a tool for highlighting the “disconnect” between today’s conventional thinking about “race” and “racism”, on the one hand, and modern scientific conceptualizations and common sense, on the other. But there may be a minor problem with the film as a stand-alone educational device — and I’m here corroborating what Edmund Connelly noted earlier in TOO.

Like Connelly, after viewing it, I immediately bought nearly a dozen copies to send to friends and relatives. I assumed that after viewing it they would all cease writing off their father (or uncle, etc., as the case may be) as a right-wing bigoted kook and move to a higher plane of understanding race and other human relations!! . . . More

The multi-racial world of "Star Trek"

The new Star Trek movie, directed by J. J. Abrams, raises interesting questions about the future of multiculturalism. The film sends two strong messages:

1) Diversity is normal. As in the original television series, the cast of characters is a menagerie of distinct races and cultures: Kirk, a White man from rural Iowa; Scotty, a Scotsman with a heavy Scottish accent; Chekhov, a Russian with a heavy Russian accent; Sulu, an Asian; Uhura, a African-American; and Spock, a super-smart, green-blooded Vulcan. The producers of Star Trek assume that in the year 2248 (239 years in the future), people will still exhibit distinct racial, cultural, and linguistic traits. Non-Whites are depicted as no less competent and no less likely to hold positions of authority than White people, and diverse workforces on spaceships are highly functional.

2) Interracial relationships are normal. All of the sexual/romantic relationships depicted in the film are interracial except for one (Kirk’s father and mother). Kirk, apparently, is sexually attracted only to non-Whites and non-humans. Interracial relationships are depicted not only as common, but as unquestionably right. Spock, who has a Vulcan father and a human mother, reacts emotionally to nothing except criticism of his mixed parentage. In a poignant moment in the movie, Spock’s father teaches him that one’s choice of a mate should be based more on “love” than on “logic” — or genetic similarity, we can assume. Spock himself has a black romantic partner in the movie.

I wonder how many viewers perceive the incompatibility of these two messages. Star Trek’s fictional world is set 10 generations in the future. It’s a world where technology has eliminated geographical barriers, where people live and work in well-functioning, diverse environments, where interracial relationships are normal, and where any social controls against exogamy are considered morally wrong. In such a world, the races and cultures would have had plenty of time to blend together. . . . More

I often ask…

Where have our heroes gone? At one time, we could find them among us, always visible when danger appeared. They were bigger than life, incredible looking, noble-minded and respectful of all that was good and decent. They were part of a world that honored beauty, skill, and fair play. They were our European-American brethren.

I also ask…

Where are the good stories? At one time, we could discern right from wrong because stories promoted truth, justice, and liberty. The world felt good when they ended happily, or inspired us to overcome when they did not. They made us want to be better people and live in a better world. A world built by our European-American brethren.

At one time, we lived in hope that the American dream was possible, that we could achieve greatness, and find peace, love, and happiness. The dream required hard work, honesty and humility, but it was within reach. Our founding fathers and ancestors proved it could become real.

In recent decades, Hollywood has been killing our heroes, our stories, our dream — and all else that we have traditionally worshipped and valued. But these ideals are not quite dead. Our heroes and stories can rise from the ash heap. The American dream can be restored, if we will only fight for it! . . . More

As the opening date for the release of director Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ approached in 2004, media-orchestrated anti-Christian hysteria reached a crescendo, Jewry sputtered with rage and clamored for censorship, and organized Judeo-Christians ran interference for the world’s most privileged, brutal, and censorial ruling group. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops rushed into print a booklet expressing the now-familiar cringing Catholic servility to Jews, which it mailed to parishes throughout the land. The self-righteous bishops apparently viewed rank-and-file Catholics as latent anti-Semites liable to rush out of the theater and stage one of Abraham Foxman’s imaginary pogroms.

The furor was reminiscent of the long-forgotten Jewish attempts to censor legendary director Cecil B. DeMille’s silent film classic The King of Kings (1927). (Not to be confused with bisexual Wisconsin-born German-American director Nicholas Ray’s identically-titled 1961 film, sarcastically known in the anti-Christian trade as I Was a Teenage Jesus.)

DeMille (1881-1959), an enigmatic figure, is typically misperceived as a Christian conservative. As recently as 1990 University of Southern California history professor Kevin Starr incorrectly wrote in Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990): “Producer Cecil B. De Mille [sic], an Episcopalian of Anglo-Dutch descent in an industry dominated by Eastern European Jewish immigrants, came as close as anybody to bridging WASP Los Angeles and Jewish Hollywood . . . [T]he oligarchy allowed De Mille through the barriers that had kept (and were still keeping) other Hollywood magnates from social acceptance. His daughter Cecilia, an ardent equestrienne, became prominent in the Junior League of Los Angeles, and De Mille received invitations to the better clubs” (pp. 98-99).

Even in his own day it was not widely known that DeMille was in fact half-Jewish.

DeMille’s father, Henry Churchill de Mille, was an Episcopalian clergyman of Dutch descent who wrote several successful Broadway plays in collaboration with Jewish playwright (later producer) David Belasco. Belasco was described as follows in Henry Ford’s classic The International Jew (1921):

Belasco’s theatricalism helped to this end. He is an actor off, as well as on the stage. He affects the pose of a benevolent priest, and dresses the part, wearing a priestly collar, with clerical vest and coat. Although of Portuguese-Hebraic origin, Belasco dresses after this manner to honor, as he says, a tutor of his early days. [Henry de Mille?] Anyway, the costume is very effective, especially with the ladies. He has a tremulous, shy way about him, and he sits in his sanctum with the lights so arranged that his priestly face and splendid shock of silver hair seem to rise out of an encompassing and shadowy mystery. It is very effective—very effective. One woman declared, after being admitted to the presence and gazing on the face that rose out of the shadows into the light—“I have a better understanding of the divine humility of Jesus Christ since I have been privileged to meet Mr. Belasco.”[1]

DeMille’s mother was a well-to-do Jew from England named Matilda Beatrice Samuel. In his 465-page Autobiography (Cecil B. DeMille, Autobiography, ed. by Donald Hayne [Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959]), DeMille goes into minute detail about his paternal Dutch ancestors, but maintains complete silence about his maternal ancestors, never even identifying his mother as Jewish. Describing his parents’ marriage, he in fact calls “Tillie” Samuel a “slim, bewitching English girl” (emphasis added), “dark-eyed, vivacious, different somehow from . . . American girls.” He also notes that his mother’s—not his father’s—family opposed the marriage. However, DeMille seems to have had more affection for his white father than for his Jewish mother, and adopted the former’s watered-down Episcopalian religiosity (as had Tillie Samuel).

Cecil DeMille had a casual attitude about sexual relations within marriage. “DeMille maintained a house for his wife, Constance [nee Adams—the daughter of an American judge], and his children, and had a ranch called Paradise, where he stayed on weekends with [his white screenwriter Jeanie] Macpherson, and later his other mistresses.” Jeanie Macpherson wrote the screenplay for The King of Kings. DeMille’s adopted son, Richard de Mille (the natural son of Cecil’s brother, Hollywood director/screenwriter William C. de Mille and one of William’s scriptwriters, Scottish-born Lorna Moon), wrote, “In 1946 I went with him [Cecil] to the hospital to visit Jeanie Macpherson a few days before she died. He held her hand and told her they would surely meet in the next world. She murmured that they would.” http://www.moviediva.com/MD_root/reviewpages/MDDynamite.htm

Cecil DeMille’s Christianity was as casual as his marital vows. He stated, “I am an Episcopalian” (Autobiography, p. 299), and had an Episcopalian funeral. The director’s “Episcopalianism” closely resembled Unitarianism. It was ecumenical, universalist, trans-denominational, trans-racial, and characterized by cloying philo-Semitism. He refers, for example, to “. . . Rabbi Abraham Shusterman of Baltimore, whose prayer at a luncheon made the Divine Presence almost tangible in the room. . . .” (Autobiography, p. 434). He invoked Protestantism, Judaism, and Catholicism as if they were three aspects of a single faith. He spoke highly of Mormonism, but warmly embraced exotic foreign religions as well. “[A movie] I wanted very much to make, and still do, was a story around the theme of unity, the unity of all mankind and the unity of man with nature and with God. I have never found a suitable story that would portray this theme” (Autobiography, p. 263).

Again: “I am not a regular church-goer. . . . To me, prayer is contact of the human mind with the Divine Mind, and that is possible anywhere, perhaps more possible in solitude than in a crowd. As I conceive of God, He is that Mind behind the universe we see, of which our minds are like small reflecting sparks struck off; and that Mind is always there, ready for us to touch and draw upon and reflect in our own minds more and more” (Autobiography, pp. 433-4).

DeMille’s version of “Christianity” carried over into The King of Kings, yet nonetheless threw organized Jewry into a frothing fit. Shooting for the film opened with a short prayer service in which representatives of more than thirty religious sects and beliefs participated, including Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—in the America of 1927! (Autobiography, p. 279).

At the time, DeMille wrote: “Not only all the religions believed in by European peoples and Americans were represented, but also the Buddhist and Mohammedan faiths. . . . [T]he motion-picture medium possessed the power to carry the story of Jesus to millions who might not otherwise be sympathetic to it, or who would find difficulty in grasping it because of racial or linguistic reasons.” “I am not referring only to those who are termed Christians. The fundamental truths brought out through the ministry of Jesus cannot be confined to belief, race, nationality or social position. . . . His ideals apply to all of us. Thus it is our earliest desire to offend no one’s religious beliefs, but to benefit uncounted millions of the world’s population by telling of the Ministry, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus—the greatest story ever told.”[2]

No matter. According to a review in Boxoffice Magazine (June 2000):

In 1927, Cecil B. DeMille was editing King of Kings, his drama about the life of Christ. He’d gone to extraordinary measures to satisfy many points of view, including having Catholic priests and Protestant ministers on set at all times. But Jewish groups such as B’nai B’rith were upset by the crucifixion scene, which they believed was depicted inaccurately and insensitively, in a manner that would inflame anti-Semitism. In response to their criticism, a defiant DeMille responded, “Those Jews who are raising these rather violent [emphasis added] objections would crucify Christ a second time if they had an opportunity.” The Hays Office stepped in and, with the power of the industry’s Production Code behind it, negotiated minor cuts in the film. As released, King of Kings incited little Jewish protest, nor the expected anti-Semitic riots in Eastern Europe.

“The expected anti-Semitic riots in Eastern Europe.” Just as Gibson’s film didn’t spark Foxman’s projected pogroms by white Christians exiting movie theaters after viewing The Passion of the Christ. Jews and governments harbor—or purport to harbor—bizarre notions of white people.

Jewish author Felicia Herman writes:

In the late 1920s several Jewish organizations and communal leaders criticized Cecil B. DeMille’s The King of Kings (1927), a filmed passion play, for what they believed was the film’s antisemitic caricatures of the Jewish high priest, the Pharisees, and Judas Iscariot, as well as the film’s presentation of the Jewish role in the crucifixion—all common elements of passion plays that Jewish leaders believed were even more dangerous when they appeared in a high-profile, big-budget motion picture. In response, the MPPDA [the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association—the Hays office] asked B’nai B’rith, whom it perceived as the representative of American Jewry, to become the official Jewish consultant to the industry. B’nai B’rith turned this duty over to the ADL.[3]

Whites should likewise internalize the lesson that anti-white hatred is dangerous when depicted in high-profile, big-budget motion pictures and television programs.

In reality, of course, the Jewish attack was vicious and unrelenting. DeMille, never forthright on the subject of Jews, mentions that H. B. Warner, the actor who portrayed Jesus, was shadowed in his off-hours during the film’s production and post-production period. The implication is that organized Jewry hired private detectives to dig up dirt on “Jesus” that could be used, via the media, to discredit the film in the public mind.

In his Autobiography, DeMille goes to absurd lengths to demonstrate the purity of his motives. He cites a rabbi who gave sanction to the film. He writes that father and son actors Rudolph and Joseph Schildkraut “were Jewish. They suffered for playing the roles of Caiaphas and Judas in The King of Kings. They had taken the roles as artists, with no thought of creedal prejudice. Then they were caught in the wash of opposition to the film, and condemned by some of their fellow Jews as traitors” (Autobiography, pp. 282-83).

Just think if Jews had to suffer real traitors like George W. Bush and John McCain—literally millions of them, big and small! Then they’d learn what true suffering is.

Although he was half-white, it was the Jew in DeMille that won out. He tells of a German Lutheran who saw The King of Kings in 1928 and was so moved by it that he became a pastor. The man eventually had a parish in Prague, and in his congregation was a Jewish convert to Christianity, a doctor, “who was promptly thrown into a concentration camp” when Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia. The Jew’s courage so enraged Gestapo officers that they beat him with an iron rod so that his arm had to be amputated. Then one Gestapo officer beat the Jew’s head against a stone wall “until the blood was streaming down his face,” held a mirror in front of him, and said, “Take a look at yourself. Now you look like your Jewish Christ.” The noble Jew “raised up the one hand he had left and with his last dying breath said, ‘Lord, never in my life have I received such an honor—to resemble You.’” The Gestapo officer, struck dumb by such saintliness, was so wracked by guilt that he thereafter secretly assisted the escape of hundreds of Jews. But for The King of Kings, “350 Jewish children would have died in the ditches” (Autobiography, pp. 283-84).

Despite such BS, it is clear that even after three decades the Jewish hatred DeMille had had to endure still rankled:

What was harder to comprehend and cope with was the organized opposition [emphasis added] of certain Jewish groups to the filmed history of the greatest Jew who ever lived. Certainly one can understand and sympathize with the sensitivity of Jews to the lie that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for the death of Jesus. Well aware of that, and of the awful consequences which have followed historically from the propagation of that lie, we went to great lengths in The King of Kings to show that the Jewish people of Jesus’ time followed and heard Him gladly, that His death came at the hands of a few unrepresentative, corrupt [Jewish] religious leaders and the cowardly and callous Roman government. Still, the opposition to the picture mounted, in some places to disheartening and alarming proportions. I am not going into a detailed account of how the story of Jesus of Nazareth was banned [by organized Jewry] from the screens of certain American cities. The painful documentation is in my files. Some day, when men learn to discuss religious prejudice dispassionately [meaning Jewish prejudice included], some historian of motion pictures or of American folkways may publish it. I will not. (Autobiography, p. 282)

So the true story of Jewish skullduggery and brutality surrounding the making and exhibition of The King of Kings remains a closely guarded secret to this day.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

See also:

Felicia Herman, “‘The Most Dangerous Anti-Semitic Photoplay in Filmdom’: American Jews and The King of Kings (DeMille, 1927),” Velvet Light Trap 46 (Winter 2000): 12-25.

I am glad I did, because Twilight is an excellent movie: beautifully filmed, artfully-directed, well-acted, with a gorgeous cast and scenery, and very good music. But most importantly, although it is decked out in the usual Semiticially correct Hollywood cliches, the overall message and impression of Twilight is quite subversive of Hollywood’s agenda. This is particularly interesting since it is directed at young adults, who are the main targets of Hollywood’s pro-feminist and anti-white propaganda.

Twilight begins with Bella Swan (played by Kristen Stewart) leaving her mother in sunny Phoenix to finish out her Junior year in High School with her father in Forks, Washington. Located on the Olympic Peninsula, Forks is blanketed almost year-round by clouds, fog, and rain.

Bella is a lovely brown-eyed brunette with an exceptionally fair complexion, which gives her a somewhat “Goth” look, although for all I know this analogy is hopelessly dated. Even her name connotes white beauty, for bella is Italian for beautiful, and swans are archetypically white and graceful.

Despite her “Goth” look, Bella is not merely a moody and maladjusted teen with morbid tastes. She is a remarkably mature, intelligent, bookish, and sensitive girl who studied ballet and knows something about classical music.

For a small town in Washington State, Forks has an implausible number of non-whites. The only non-whites who really fit in this setting are the local Indians, who are on quite friendly terms with Bella and her father, the local police chief. (Out West in the real world, Indians are overrepresented among criminals and tend not to have warm relations with policemen.)

The students Bella meets are a friendly enough bunch, but they seem immature and one-dimensional compared to her. Bella’s attention, however, is immediately drawn to Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson). Tall and handsome, Edward like Bella is a brown-eyed brunette with a fair complexion. It looks like makeup, and I am sure the effect is achieved by makeup and lighting, but in close-ups one can see blue veins beneath his skin. Edward’s parents Carlisle and Esme (played by Peter Facinelli and Elizabeth Reaser) share Edward’s pallor. Strangely, it is also shared by Edward’s four foster siblings: Emmet and Rosalie (played by Kellan Lutz and Nikki Reed) and Alice and Jasper (played by Ashley Greene and Jackson Rathbone), who to add to the weirdness, also seem to be romantic couples.

Edward is obviously as attracted to Bella as she is to him. But he also resists this attraction and flees Bella, which only increases her fascination. She begins to notice strange things about Edward. His eyes change color; his skin is ice cold; he is astonishingly fast and strong; and he and his entire family disappear on the rare days when the sun shines in Forks. . . . You see where this is leading.

The Cullens are vampires. But there is a twist. They do not want to be monsters. Although they have a strong craving for human blood, they resist it and feed on animals instead. As they put it, they are the vampire equivalent of vegetarians. But resisting the hunger is hard, so they are forced to remain aloof from normal people. Edward, however, is in love with Bella. Hence an exquisite conflict: how can he get close enough to love her without succumbing to the temptation to eat her?

I will say no more about the plot of Twilight. Suffice it to say that the romance of Edward and Bella is fascinating: emotionally and morally complex, beautifully acted and directed, and just plain hot. But, remarkably, all of this is portrayed without resorting to depictions of nudity and sex.

Aside from the absurdly multi-racial cast of bit-players, the heart of Twilight is deeply politically incorrect in three ways.

First, the heroes of Twilight are two very unusual teenagers. Edward and Bella are intelligent, thoughtful, well-mannered, serious-minded, and cultured. This is not surprising in the case of Edward, who has lived for more than a century. But Bella really is a teenager. Twilight does not mock manners and refined tastes as stuffy, snobbish, and old-fashioned. It displays them in their full beauty and shows that they are consistent with being young, fun-loving, and sexy. This is remarkable message for a movie aimed at a young audience.

The second politically incorrect feature of Twilight is the movie’s aesthetic of whiteness. One does not need slogans like “White is Beautiful,” because it is so obvious. But while the cultural establishment exploits the white racial aesthetic, it also undermines it, particularly by promoting the ideas that tanning is beautiful and healthy-looking while having a fair complexion is ugly and unhealthy looking. (Of course a corpse-like pallor does look unhealthy, but a fair complexion that is rosy and pink with health obviously does not. Tanning, as Socrates pointed out, does not make people healthy; it merely adds color to the sick and the healthy alike, allowing one to mask one’s sickliness.) Promoting tanning is the cosmetic equivalent of miscegenation: it replaces distinctly white characteristics with non-white ones. (One can, of course, lose one’s tan, but not the skin damage that comes with it. Miscegenation, however, is forever.)

Bella and the Cullens are, of course, a whiter shade of pale. Too white to really be healthy. But nonetheless, they force you to confront just how beautiful palefaces can be. They look like they have stepped out of old paintings from the days when people valued fair complexions and tried to preserve them. Of course all the actors have fine features, which is the bedrock of beauty no matter what the skin tone. But their fair skin, especially combined with dark hair and eyes and red lips, makes their faces astonishingly expressive in the most subtle ways. (Twilight promotes a white aesthetic, but not a blonde-haired, blue-eyed one, since these contrast less strikingly with fair skin.) Facial expressiveness is a matter of contrasts, and the fairer the complexion, the wider the range of contrasts that can be observed, from the most subtle blush to the most marked expressions of fear and anger. (This, by the way, is why Blacks rely so heavily on their eyes and teeth to express their emotions, since these contrast most sharply with their complexions.)

The third way in which Twilight is politically incorrect is that the whole thrust of the movie is deeply anti-feminist. In one scene, Bella tells one of her racially indeterminate schoolmates that she should ask a guy to the prom rather than wait for him to ask her, because she is “a strong, independent woman.” This strong, independent woman takes Bella’s advice and gets the date she wants: a flamboyantly effeminate Chinese wimp. Together, they are the feminist establishment’s ideal androgynous couple, and nobody in his or her right mind would want to emulate them.

Bella, however, is not interested in the nice, non-threatening boys in her high school. She only has eyes for Edward, because she senses that he has powerful emotions that he is struggling to keep in check. She is attracted to him because he is dangerous. But even when she unravels Edward’s secret, she is not dissuaded from pursuing him, but instead is even more fascinated.

There is a remarkable exchange between Bella and Edward once they openly acknowledge that he is a vampire. He says that she should flee from him. He is the most dangerous predator in nature. Everything about him is designed to attract her: his looks, his voice, his smell. But if she tried to run away from him, he could outrun her. If she tried to fight him off, he could overpower her. It is only the strength of his will and chivalrous instincts, and his desire for a deeper and longer-lasting form of union, that protects her.

Bella is no Buffy the Vampire Slayer, no Xena: Warrior Princess. Edward makes her feel anything but strong and independent. That is what makes him so irresistible. But he does make her feel deeply feminine, and deeply powerful in a different way. For Edward, despite all of his strength, is incomplete, and as a woman Bella possesses something that has made this fierce and formidable killer helplessly in love with her. Yet loving her does not emasculate him, and this is good, because the same strength and capacity for violence that could rape and kill her allows Edward to go on to save Bella from being raped and killed by others.

Edward’s potential for violence and the chivalry that holds it in check  may be heightened by his vampire nature, but there is nothing supernatural about them. Edward Cullen is what in decades past was known as a red-blooded American male. Bella too is a classic figure from fiction: a damsel whose awareness of her physical weakness and vulnerability only heightens her sense of a woman’s true strength.

Of course for decades now the popular culture has worked to emasculate men and masculinize women: to turn men into the non-threatening males Bella spurns and to convince women that strength lies in casting aside all distinctly female roles and competing with men in traditionally male pursuits (or drive their men crazy in trying).

It is a testimony to the power of this propaganda that true manliness can now appear only in the guise of a monster. It is a testament to the even greater power of nature that women find the monster irresistible nonetheless.

David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence (New Line Cinema, 2005) is truly a superb movie, with a tight and economical script (the whole story is told in 96 minutes), a remarkably subtle and gripping performance by Viggo Mortensen (his best ever, in my opinion), excellent performances from the rest of the cast, and an unostentatiously elegant directorial style (unmarred by the middlebrow pretentiousness and penchant for the juvenile and repulsive that ruin most of Cronenberg’s movies).

The hero of A History of Violence is Tom Stall, played by Viggo Mortensen. As the movie opens, Stall is portrayed as very much a White everyman. He is a family man with a wife (Edie, played by Maria Bello) and two children (Jack, played by Ashton Holmes and Sarah, played by Heidi Hayes). He lives in Millbrook, Indiana, a small, apparently entirely White town in the Midwest. (Only one black appears, a TV news reporter from out of town.)

Tom is middle class, but a little above middle, as he owns a small business (a diner, where he mans the counter, coffee-pot, and cash register) and his wife Edie is a small-town lawyer. Both Tom and Edie wear crosses around their necks, which are clearly visible in several scenes, so it is impossible to mistake them for anything but Christians.

Like a lot of American men today, Tom is a bit of a wimp. Physically, he is not soft or effeminate, but fit and manly. Yet his manner is hesitant and self-deprecating, his speech laconic and soft, his voice sometimes high-pitched and pleading. His wife, by contrast, is articulate, outspoken, and confident. In many scenes, she does the talking for Tom. Tom is sexually passive while his wife is sexually aggressive. In a rather subtle touch, throughout most of the movie Tom cannot get his masculine pickup truck to start, so his wife drives him to work in her maternal station-wagon.

The Stalls’ teenage son is a bit of a wimp too. Like his father, he has an athletic physique and athletic ability, but not an athlete’s self-confidence. He is bullied by some jocks, who call him a “fag,” and he replies only with sarcasm. His verbal self-confidence comes from his mother the lawyer.

But we see there is more to Tom than meets the eye when two thugs hold up his diner at closing time. (The robbers have already been established as sadistic killers.) When it becomes apparent that they want to take more than just money, Tom, in a thrilling, cathartic explosion of violence, kills them both.

Immediately, Tom is hailed by the news media as a hero, but he shuns the acclaim and attention in his soft-spoken, self-deprecating manner. He just wants life to go back to normal. Unfortunately, some people just won’t let him.

A few days later, when the diner has reopened, three well-dressed but sinister out-of-towners drop by. The leader, Carl Fogarty (played by Ed Harris), has a hideously scarred face. Fogarty insists that Tom Stall is actually named Joey Cusak, that he is from Philadelphia, and that they have met before. Tom, somewhat flustered, denies their allegations. Then Edie steps in and tells them firmly to leave.

Once the trio departs, Edie calls the Sheriff, who pulls the men over and tells them to leave town. Then he looks into their identities. They are gangsters from Philadelpia with long criminal records. Suspense mounts as Fogarty and his men stalk and menace the Stall family. Fogarty tells Edie that Tom was involved in organized crime (his brother Richie Cusak is a big mobster), that Tom has killed before, and that it was Tom who scarred his face and blinded him in one eye.

Meanwhile, Jack Stall, no doubt imitating his father’s heroism in the diner, decides to fight back against the bullies who have been picking on him. He is suspended and sent home from school. Tom first rebukes his son for using violence. He tells him that in their family they do not solve problems by hitting people. Jack hurls back, “No, in this family we kill them.” Stung, Tom slaps Jack’s face, and Jack storms out of the house.

Jack returns a while later as a hostage of Fogarty and his men. Fogarty offers to trade Jack for his father. He tells Tom that he wants to take him to Philadelphia and on a ride “down memory lane.” Both destinations sound ominous.

Tom complies long enough to secure Jack’s release. Then he fights. Tom handily kills Fogarty’s two goons, but is wounded by Fogarty. As he lies on the ground, Fogarty towering over him about to deliver the coup de grâce, Tom says that he should have killed Fogarty back in Philadelphia when he had the chance. So Tom is Joey after all. But before Fogarty can fire, he is felled from behind by a shotgun blast. It is Jack. He solved the problem, Stall style.

Edie and Jack are naturally horrified to discover that Tom Stall is really Joey Cusak, a mob-connected killer. Jack responds with more smart talk. Edie’s reaction runs the gamut from retching (the only scene that really rings false) to weeping and screaming to standing up for her husband when the Sheriff begins asking questions.

Tom, for his part, makes it clear that he did more than merely change his name. It was a process of psychological death and rebirth. He says he went out to the desert (symbolically a place of purification) and killed Joey, and he was only fully reborn when he married Edie. This is a very significant point, for the whole film dwells on the contrast between bands of unmarried men and married men with families, and what makes possible the transition.

But everyone, including Tom himself, has reason to be glad that Joey was not killed off in the desert. It is Joey who saved the customers and staff of Stall’s diner. It is Joey who saved the Stall family from Fogarty. It is also Joey who gave Jack the strength to stand up for himself and his family, even to the point of killing Fogarty.

Edie, moreover, finds Joey sexually attractive. When a heated argument turns suddenly violent, Edie finds it arousing. Although it is Edie who first turns the tussle in a sexual direction, overall the scene reverses the couple’s earlier lovemaking, where Edie is active and Tom passive. The scene is psychologically plausible, totally politically incorrect, and just plain hot. But in the end, Joey still spends the night on the couch.

Joey is awakened by a phone call from his brother Richie, who asks him to come to Philadelphia. The alternative is that Richie come there, which would endanger the family. So, in the dead of night, Joey gets in his pickup truck (which he can now get started) and heads to Philadelphia.

The climax of the movie is the meeting of Joey and Richie (in a reptilian portrayal by William Hurt) in a posh suburban mansion. We learn that Joey fled Philadelphia after savagely beating Carl Fogarty and killing some of his men. Fogarty was a “made man” in the mob, so Richie’s own career was impeded by his brother’s impulsive violence. (As Joey points out, however, Richie seems to have done well for himself anyway.)

The bulk of their conversation deals with family.

First, Richie makes it clear that monogamy holds no charms for him. He can’t see how one woman can make him want to give up all the others. Joey, however, understands. It is how he was transformed from “Crazy Joey,” the ultra-violent outcast from his own criminal Männerbund, into a responsible family man who would not only live beyond his violent youth, but beyond his own death through his children.

Second, Joey explains that he fled Philadelphia after beating Fogarty because he thought Richie would choose career over family, avenging Fogarty rather than protecting his brother. Richie admits that he was right.

Joey seems fully cognizant that no matter how much he has changed (and it was less than he thought), his brother has not changed at all. Still, Joey’s hope that he can mend his relationship with his brother is touchingly palpable. But when Richie reminisces about the time he tried to strangle Joey in his crib and then adds as an aside, “I guess all kids do that,” the effect is slightly comical but so inhuman that it makes a mockery of Joey’s hopes.

When Richie signals to one of his henchmen to strangle Joey, there is another explosion of violence, leaving Richie and four henchmen dead.

The movie ends with Joey’s return home at dinner time on a dark autumn evening. The scene is tense. No words are spoken. But the tension begins to ease when Sarah sets a place at the table for her father. He sits down, the circle mended, and Edie slowly raises her eyes to look into Tom’s.

We are left with some hope that Tom is finally free of his past, that his family is safe, and that they will find a way of living with Joey rather than trying to bury him again in the desert.

A History of Violence is a meditation on the inherent connection between manliness and the capacity for violence. The movie clearly shows the necessity of domesticating wolf packs of young violent males (the bullying jocks, the two wandering killers, the Philadelphia mafia) who struggle to establish dominance hierarchies and egg one another on to challenge authority, transgress boundaries, and use and discard females. Unless such young men can form families and follow laws, society—and much of the human race—will perish.

But what sets A History of Violence apart, and makes it a remarkable movie, is that it also shows that we must civilize young men without emasculating them, because the masculine capacity for violence is also what protects the family and social order from unattached, predatory males. It is strong, responsible, manly men—not Hollywood’s ball-busting female cops, cat-suited karate girls, and other silly “strong women” clichés; not academia’s sensitivity training, candlelight vigils, and feminist scolds—that are the true bulwark of civilization. This is hardly the sort of message delivered by most movies today.

I highly recommend A History of Violence. It is a pro-family movie that you definitely will not want to show the whole family.