A few observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Dr. House: A Medical Sherlock Holmes

I like to look beyond—or, if you will, behind—the “surface” of entertainment by trying to learn a little about the people and institutions responsible for creating it. Doing so enhances my viewing experience.

Without question, information about celebrities and entertainment technology is far more abundant than reliable information about the business and production aspects of the entertainment industry. Informative corporate histories and biographies are sparse compared to the thousands of books, articles, documentaries, and reviews available about celebrities, movies, TV programs, music groups, and so on.

But even learning about the latter is helpful. Let me provide an example by looking into the backgrounds of some of the cast members of the popular Fox television series House, M.D., a Dr. Kildare retread I started watching sporadically a few weeks ago. It stars an actor named Hugh Laurie as the brilliant but irascible Dr. House. House leads a team of physicians who solve impossible medical mysteries at a metropolitan New Jersey hospital. Although the show has been around for awhile, I had not seen it. Because none of the cast members were familiar to me, I set out to learn a little about them.

House was created by Canadian-born TV writer/producer David Shore: “Shore is the oldest of three brothers who grew up in what he called ‘a typical Reform-type Jewish household.’ He had his bar mitzvah at London’s [in Ontario, Canada] Conservative synagogue, Congregation Or Shalom. He now belongs to a Conservative synagogue in L.A., and his brothers, twins two years his junior, are Aish HaTorah rabbis in Jerusalem.”

Hugh Laurie was raised a Scottish Presbyterian, though born in England. His father was a medical doctor who won an Olympic gold medal in rowing in 1948. Laurie adopts an American accent for the show, which is not his natural way of speaking.

Laurie and Jewish homosexual Stephen Fry, who have known each other since their college days at Cambridge, partnered as a British comedy team for many years. (Fry is the son of a Jewish mother and an English father.) Joint projects included the British TV comedies Blackadder, starring Rowan Atkinson, and Jeeves and Wooster, in which Fry played Jeeves and Laurie played Bertie Wooster. Fry, who considers Laurie his best friend, was the best man at Laurie’s wedding in 1989, and is the godfather of Laurie’s three children.

The two . . . ah . . . individuals also worked frequently with British Jewish comedian Ben Elton (Jewish father, English mother).

Omar Epps & Olivia Wilde: The Race-Mixers

A conspicuous feature of the television series is a plot thread involving unsubtle propaganda in the form of an interracial sexual relationship between two team members, a beautiful white female doctor (actress Olivia Wilde) and a coal black Negro doctor (Omar Epps).

Olivia Wilde (“Wilde” is her stage name), believe it or not, is the real-life granddaughter of Communist Irish journalist Claud Cockburn (in Homage to Catalonia [1938], George Orwell criticized Cockburn for being under the control of the Communist Party), niece of journalists Alexander and Patrick Cockburn, and daughter of journalists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, both prominent anti-Zionists. Father Andrew co-edits the newsletter CounterPunch and its associated website CounterPunch.org, for which he and his brothers also write. The publications have frequently been attacked as “anti-Semitic” despite their large stable of Jewish writers. They publish a great deal of useful independent journalism and commentary, including the unique work of maverick conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts.

House’s love interest on the show is played by Lisa Edelstein, a Jewish actress who, it turns out, played George Costanza’s “Risotto Girl” in the old Seinfeld TV series. Due either to maturity or clever camera work and makeup, she looks far more alluring in House than she did when she was younger and skinnier. In Seinfeld she wasn’t attractive at all. Her character is named Dr. Lisa Cuddy, and in the episodes I saw was not depicted as Jewish.

There is also a Jewish doctor on House’s team for whom House displays little respect. He is played by Jewish actor Peter Jacobson, the son of prominent Chicago news anchorman and TV personality Walter “Skippy” Jacobson.

Jesse Spencer: The Aesthetic Bait

Another team member is played by an actor named Jesse Spencer, who was born in Australia in 1979. According to Wikipedia, his parents have an interesting background:

Jesse Spencer was born in a pub in Melbourne, Australia. He has two brothers, Tarney (an oculo-plastic surgeon) and Luke (an orthopaedic registrar), and a sister, Polly (currently an intern in medicine). His parents Robyn and Rodney Spencer are the founders of the Australians Against Further Immigration political party and have run several times as candidates in federal and state elections for that party and for One Nation.

The fact that Spencer’s parents hold unusual views is intriguing, but tells us nothing about what Spencer himself thinks. Families are no longer significant determiners of attitudes and beliefs. Even in healthier times children—especially adult children—were not mirror images of their parents.

Of course, in a nation of deep-dyed “anti-racist” racists, there’s always an element eager to visit the “iniquity” of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation—as witnessed here. The anonymous perpetrator of this libel exhibits the alien psychology of a non-white. The activity of Spencer’s parents is an obscure bit of information about a little-known actor, and such a twisted take on it represents a bizarre—if all too familiar—mentality. To treat even a known opponent of genocidal immigration in such a manner, much less his child, is psychopathological.

So what does all of this signify? That the white star is a homosexual-loving slob that gives the finger; that the Negro wins the model-sexy white girl; the white girl chooses the black; the Jewess gets the white star; and Jessie Spencer—well, he’s just a nice blonde guy with a passive expression in his grey-blue eyes?

Not really. As contemporary television series go, House is not bad. It’s watchable.

Of course, the obtrusive racism typified by the Epps-Wilde pairing is grating and insulting. It is no accident, but rather a deliberately calculated move to achieve a known effect. We understand what the producers’ agenda is. It slips into mainstream entertainment a watered down version of the “Blacks on Blondes” pornography produced by “the other Hollywood”—itself a multibillion dollar industry (organized prostitution) maintained by the same legal system utilized to deprive whites of freedom of speech and association.

In historical white societies, interracial mating, which was rare, almost always involved white men with black women; any offspring were classified as non-white. Today the situation is reversed; such matings overwhelmingly involve black men with white women. This demonstrates loss of white racial dominance—but not to blacks.

The actors, entertainers, and celebrities chosen to convey the messages encoded in entertainment products are important for the subconscious aesthetic, racial, and social representations they are selected to transmit to impressionable audiences. They must connect on a primal level with target audiences.

Ignoring the element of luck (which, of course, is a factor), a complex assessment by production executives of physical appearance, demeanor, mannerism, personality, and charisma is what elevates the careers of successful entertainers. Energy, determination, and professional talent are also required. Finally, “the talent” must possess the capacity to thrive in a Jewish-dominated environment that is bare-knuckled, callous, fraught with pitfalls for the careless or unwary (sex, drugs, money, bad publicity) and not infrequently violent.

Learning something about such people, and looking at their world through the same set of lenses the David Shores of the world use, gives us a little insight into those among us who have gone wrong, as well as who among us is not really “us” at all.

Ten years ago, I lived in, and worked from, a one-bedroom flat in East Finchley, London. I had a large, rectangular living-dining room area, part of which was my office. My day would begin with the arrival of the postman before 9 in the morning, which brought packets with CDs and orders from customers; it would continue with the daily processing of orders, answering of emails, and preparation and mailing of packets; and it would end with research and development work.

At 7pm, however, I stopped and switched on the television — invariably to watch the news. And from that time on, until I went to bed, and interrupted only by occasional bouts of guitar playing, I would remain seated or lying down on the sofa, in front of the television, watching show after show — anything ranging from the mildly entertaining to the least tedious of whatever was on offer. On Fridays I stayed up later than usual (watching television), and on weekends I switched the device on even earlier, and remained hypnotized by the screen into the wee hours of the morning. I calculate that between 1994 and 2001 I averaged over 7 hours per day, 50 hours per week, 2,548 hours per year, and 17,836 hours in total — a PhD takes approximately 7,300 hours to complete.

Fortunately for me, I was not entirely unproductive during this time: between 1995 and 1998 I composed three albums, drew many album covers, and taught myself high-end computer programs; I also weight trained three times a week, had girlfriends, and found time to read a fair number of cognitively-stimulating books. (The latter included Tipler and Barrow’s The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Roger Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind, Preston’s Franco, Coveney and Highfield’s The Arrow of Time, plus some classic fiction.)

However, since the Summer of 2002, when I put an end to my TV addiction, I have often asked myself: How much more could I have accomplished in my 20s, had I not wasted so much time on an ultimately unrewarding and unproductive activity? And: How much better prepared I would have been to meet the challenges of the dystopian future I anticipate in my novel Mister (a future that is coming) had I spent that time learning about whom and what is behind the world I live in, instead of remaining submerged in (and distracted by) the feel-good fictions that have been designed to conceal them. . . . Read the whole article.

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 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

From Vanguard News Network, March 22, 2003

Real killer Chante Mallard

The problem is, the real killer wasn’t a White man at all. It was a run-of-the-mill, dime-a-dozen, Black woman: 25-year-old Chante Mallard. A nurse’s aid (!) who was drunk and high on Ecstasy when she plowed into Gregory Glenn Biggs, a 37-year-old White man, with her car. The details of the real story, too, are even more horrific than CSI‘s version.Mallard didn’t merely ignore Biggs’s pleas for help once she had driven him home and concealed him in her garage. She went inside her house, ate Doritos, and had sex with her Black boyfriend, all to the morbid soundtrack of Biggs’s desperate moans. Once Biggs bled to death — two days later — Mallard’s boyfriend and his brother dumped the body. Chante Mallard was caught after she laughed about the killing three months later at a party. Her friend Maranda Daniel recounted, “Shantae [sic] giggled when she said, ‘I hit this White man.’”

Real victim Gregory Glenn Biggs

How does such a heinous Black crime get pawned off on Whites, and why? It’s easy to understand the transformation from reality to media representation once one knows the middlemen involved, as per the credits: “Written by Josh Berman & Andrew Lipsitz; directed by Kenneth Fink; produced by Jerry Bruckheimer Productions.”

Negro cavorts after crushing the skull of white truck driver Reginald Denny. Not a hate crime, declare the courts.

These recent acts of tribal savagery find precedent in the 2001 Black-on-White “love crime” of White 20-year-old Kris Kime, who was beaten to death in Seattle by a mob of Blacks for daring to rescue a White woman from this same mob. Also in the April 29, 1992, attack on 36-year-old White man Reginald Denny, who was pulled from his truck and beaten nearly to death by a Black mob because he was White. Caught on video, the Black attackers danced and cheered as they took turns smashing Denny’s head with bricks. Denny lived — with a crushed face and severe brain damage.

Again, “Bloodlust” pays God’s Self-Chosen middlemen many shekels to translate reality into bite-size morsels of easily swallowed semitical correctness: “Written by Josh Berman & Carol Mendelsohn; directed by Charlie Correll; produced by Jerry Bruckheimer Productions.”

CSI Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and friend

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