300
Roosh V
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
I just saw the movie 300, which had an awful rape scene—it didn’t arouse me at all. Real-life rape is brutal, horrible, and something I don’t believe in, but I dig it in movies and porn where the fake rape is a symbol of male domination. Here is what makes a good rape scene:
(Review Source)
Brett Stevens
exponentiation ezine: issue [5.0:culture]
(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)

[1]2,316 words

Question: How does a card-carrying Marxist and strident anti-monarchist become an overnight enthusiast of the British royal family? The answer is embodied by washed-up British demagogue and closeted Muslim George Galloway, whose newfound interest [2] in the conjugal affairs of Buckingham Palace came about because of Meghan Markle’s racial makeup. Mixed-race romanticism has come a long way in the UK, and it’s now a phenomenon far deeper than just the contortionist genuflections of white knights before Nubian nuptials.

In theater and cinema – where all fairy-tales come to life – diversity is being peppered in at unprecedented levels, with peculiar focus on casting colored people in the roles of white historical figures. The concept of the “black Viking” once referred to in jest is now a casting-couch formality for major production houses. It’s certainly no coincidence that in the Thor blockbusters, none other than Idris Elba was thought optimal for the role of Heimdall (known in Norse mythology as the whitest of all the gods). Or take the BBC television series Merlin, for which no better candidate than Guyanese-English actress Angel Coulby could be found for the lead role of Guinevere (whose Welsh etymology, Gwenhwyfar, means fair or white enchantress). Dare we anticipate a body-positive Rastapunzel to grace the silver screen next?

Color-blind casting stopped being progressive somewhere around the turn of the century, and in its place “color-conscious” policies became the norm – prefaced of course by Marxian platitudes about the need to be inclusive and represent the changing face of Britain. In reality, color-conscious casting is a vindictive act of domination and humiliation. This is how the establishment trolls: in the real world and right in your face. Of course, execs would never dare engage in race-bending for any significant non-white historical figure, like Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Confucius, and yet the BBC pretends [3] that “whitewashing” in Hollywood is the greater problem.

Luckily, the BBC has no connections to Hollywood at all, and so commission their social justice surgeons to perform a “race lift” on almost all of their productions of European epics and historical reenactments. This year’s blockbuster miniseries, Troy: Fall of a City [4], is set in the thirteenth century BC, but producers dunked Ghanaian-Briton David Gyasi into Troy’s melting pot as Achilles anyway, while Nigerian-born Hakeem Kae-Kazim was anointed for the role of King of the Gods, Zeus, in what is a long-running tradition of blacks portraying oracles of infinite wisdom (cf. Morgan Freeman, Lawrence Fishburne).

Nothing is sacred any more – and that includes the memory of fifteenth-century martyr and saint Joan of Arc, whose latest incarnation on Broadway features black American Condola Rashad [5] in the lead role. Over in France, protesters [6] are certainly aware of the lineage and legacy of Joan of Arc; her statue in Paris was recently used as a guilt-totem by the Black African Defense League (a group presumably controlled by the same people behind the Jewish Defense League and the English Defense League). The group blamed “the country of Joan of Arc” for the fact that widespread slavery has returned to Libya, though why these “Black African Defenders” are stationed in France to begin with remains a mystery.

Another of Heritage France’s archaic figures to have his image charred is pre-Christian gladiator Oenomaus, portrayed in the Spartacus franchise by Ghana-born actor Peter Mensah (no relation to the high-IQ society). The actor also starred as a Persian messenger in the 300 film series. Giving Roman Gaul or Zoroastrian Persia an interracial panache has never been so much fun, though it’s certainly no longer about “breaking barriers” as much as it is doubling down – no matter how many thumbs down are given.

The upcoming 2018 Robin Hood remake [7] will feature the sassy Jamie Foxx as Little John, apparently because scriptwriters have turned Robin’s right-hand man into a Moorish commander (not black, but at least from the same continent). This comes after a BBC version [8] of Robin Hood reinvented the pallid and rotund monk Friar Tuck into a black martial arts supremo. Because for liberals, robbing from the culturally rich and giving to the culturally poor in the name of inclusivity is a perfunctory gesture, and the comical character upgrades add some stimulating flair to their normievision experience.

For decades, blacks have demonstrated an indecorous readiness to take these handouts, being underprivileged in heritage and history as they are. Authentic black history from the homeland is confined to oral incantations of trivial tribal conflicts and animistic parables; their real history begins with the arrival of white and Semitic civilization, which understandably skews their storied inheritance toward one of inequity and tragedy. As a result, many turn to surrogate histories that are deeper and more affirmative, no matter how untrue. Take the Black Israelites, Black Athena movement, or Wakanda. But affirmation is increasingly turning into aggression, as blacks and their allies give white male statues [9] and paintings [10] their eviction notice, while LARPing power fantasies as Founding Fathers in the hip-hop musical Hamilton [11].

With the Kultursraum thoroughly permeated by diversity politics and miscegenation fetishism, more formal institutions for social engineering are pushing a rather subversive program of empirical distortion and slick propaganda. Universities are replete with activist scientists, because most dissident scientists standing on the wrong platform don’t get to board the tenure and grants gravy trains. Take this year’s “Cheddar Man” saga: politically motivated agitprop if ever there was. The transracial mugshot spread like wildfire in the mass media, while the scientific back-peddling [12] that followed rolled in like tumbleweed. The claims were total conjecture due to key genetic loci missing from the data, but the project’s carefully managed fermentation succeeded in its ulterior purpose of yet more undermining of British identity and furthering the idea that whites are not indigenous to anywhere. The caliber of scientists involved was telling from their incendiary rhetoric. Archaeologist Tom Booth spoke [13] of “a lot of disappointed white supremacists” and “imaginary racial categories.” Marxist biologist Yoan Diekmann denied [14] the connection between Britishness and whiteness as “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change.” Politically correct [15] Harvard geneticist David Reich was also involved (and is the third Reich in his family to infuse [16] strong Jewish consciousness into his vocation).

The broadcaster of the Cheddar Man special, Channel 4, also aired a documentary [17] in 2009 entitled Is it Better to be Mixed Race? in which it was argued that hybridized people were superior due to hybrid vigor. The presenter – who called monoracial people “inbred” – was a geneticist of Indian ancestry, though had a half-white child who, funnily enough, had reservations about the benefit of being mixed. The documentary was inspired by the world’s leading miscegenation advocate, Alon Ziv (another Jewish-American), author [18] of Breeding Between the Lines: Why Interracial People Are Healthier and More Attractive. Should public television in Britain ever wish to explore an alternative to the diversity-superiority proposition, they may wish to consult Dr. Andrew Joyce’s clinical overview [19] of the deleterious trade-offs and limitations, such as the obvious unsustainability of miscegenation.

Just how many people are falling for the junk science and historical revisionism cannot be known, but it’s only likely to grow in appeal for the rapidly increasing mixed-race population and migrant communities, some of whom have cognitive dissonance about their role in Britain’s changing face. Meanwhile, white children too are being fed blackwashed visions of Britain’s history, thanks once more to the BBC, as well as the overhauled [20] school syllabus. This isn’t just changing the fabric of society, it’s excavating the bedrock, and every tool of propaganda will be harnessed, be it Cheddar Man today or Parmesan Boy tomorrow.

[21]

We wuz Romans, Celts, and Normans (BBC Teach)

The strong suit of the “diversity” lobby is still, without question, professional sports. This adrenaline siphon and tribal-instinct proxy for the masses manages to endear the most immodest of aliens – for no reason other than they wear the right colors (for the right price). Sport and politics should not be mixed – unless of course it is to promote diversity, immigration, and globalism – which is exactly what happened during the recent World Cup. It’s rather predictable from journalists with names such as Sunder Katwala [22] or Ed Aarons [23], but not so much from Gareth Southgate, the coach for England, who felt obliged to signal [24] his team’s diversity in representing modern England. It’s not clear how diversity affects Southgate’s on-field tactical management (does the 4-5-1 change to a 9-1-1?), but one thing that is known about the team’s cohesion is that the same players as juniors in 2015 failed the lunchroom test [25].

[26]

The only other team to eclipse England’s silhouettes in the multicultural limelight was the team representing France, and with a record diversity quotient of 0.78 it’s no wonder Les Bleus were fêted on queue by Manhattan-based Vox [27], London’s New Statesman [28], and The Washington Post [29]. These days, France’s players no longer look like Gauls, as one former American president said to a chorus of laughter [30].

Every great sporting event needs a triumph-against-adversity fairy-tale, so with the global press determined to ignore the success of small and homogeneous Croatia, it was the same old yarn about the boys from the banlieues overcoming racism and poverty (in that order) for the glory of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Most people recognize this to be a total charade, since the country’s urban rioting, crime, and ethnic animus failed to go on strike (not even for the duration of the World Cup). In reality, most of the “boys from banlieues” sponsored through prestigious soccer academies actually elect to play for other countries, because their understanding of fraternité is somewhat different from liberal phantasma. As France-born Cameroonian star Benoit Assou-Ekotto confessed [31], “I have no feeling for the France national team; it just doesn’t exist.”

For loyalists, though, there isn’t really a resolution to their lachrymose backstories, either. They may have enriched themselves, but the banlieues live on. They’re not known for giving back to the community, but then again there may not be much they can do to change things, anyway. Resource management and moderation appears not to have adequately infused into all corners of the Francophone world. The Senegal-born former captain of the French squad, Patrice Evra, alleges [32] that he is forced to play well past the age of retirement in order to support his twenty-four siblings – though with the millions he is earning at Manchester United and Juventus, he should probably have been able to budget for the brood by now.

True devotees of the world game and anyone to the right of soulless globalism were only ever going to see virtue in one team’s triumph at the World Cup – Croatia – the sole nation-state that had a chance of winning and whose victory would have been a genuine triumph of the underdogs. To put things in perspective, there are twice as many people of African descent in France as there are Croats in Croatia. Resisting the “free trade” of human capital seems all the more honorable for a country whose population has shrunk every year since independence in 1991. It is unique teams like Croatia, Iceland, and Japan that provide contrast and meaningfulness to international manifestations. If teams are themselves inter-national, be it the Colonial All-Stars of Franzania or other Euro-hodgepodge, it can only encourage a futile race to the bottom.

Under the circumstances, there was no graceful way that France could win the World Cup. And yet the final managed to coat their immoral victory with just a little more tar. France’s first goal was practically stolen by greasy-feet Antoine Griezmann, who took a dive in a shameless act on par with the spitting [33] and sideline urination [34] of vibrant characters from tournaments passed. Either incompetence or corruption from the referee gifted France their second goal as well, bestowing the lead to the side that was inferior for the natural course of the game. Salty grapes, you might say, but pundits were in solid agreement about the travesty, Peter Schmeichel [35] to ESPN [36].

[37]

In the 1990s, a somewhat terse Russian official was quoted [38] as saying that in twenty years’ time, France would become “a colony of its former colonies.” Ironically, that same official had to hand the World Cup trophy to the French team in Moscow – such are the duties when you become President of Russia. France may as well revel in undue euphoria and brandish their gold for now, because in another twenty years, the trophy could well be pawned in for riyals or smelted for grillz. The country cannot even celebrate in a civilized manner: 292 people were arrested, 2 were killed [39], and others simply engaged in some smash-and-grab retail therapy [40].

Imperial rump states like France and the UK have become such dire advertisements for colonial-blowback and simmering discord that defining moments on the world stage have come to be characterized [41] as bringing “relief” rather than ecstasy. Everyone from the police to the lunch-lady have to walk on eggshells lest prison riots or another round of London riots resume over some drug dealer-of-color [42] who is shot.

State propaganda will continue to stream diversity soapies and symphonies for all the open-minded naiveté that’s left to be harvested from whites – but for minorities, appeasement really isn’t necessary at this point. They are not here for a seat at the round table; nor to partake in the curation of English folklore, Norse mythology, or French cuisine; nor to rally around a communal soccer trophy (though they are ready to take a trophy wife or two). Mosques are springing up all over Western Europe, now even brazenly named [43] for the invaders who previously failed to conquer the continent.

Such is the gruesome Faustian fulfillment of Western multiculturalism and multitolerantism. There is no multi anything in the long run; just absorption or replacement. The enfeeblement of Europeans’ pedigree and their civilization follow like a horse and carriage, and once complete, all that will remain of European man is a mule-like economic unit. A hardy but docile beast-of-burden – sterile, if not denatured – and toiling for the excesses of hostile foreign masters.

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)

[1]2,403 words

Czech translation here [2]

Still mourning the loss of Breaking Bad [3], I have been searching for several years for another series to follow religiously – without success. Now and then I try a few episodes of something, only to be reminded in yet another way of the depth of the doodoo we are sunk in. House of Cards, American Horror Story, True Blood, and, yes, even The Vampire Diaries – I tried them all. Only to say to myself midway through the third or fourth episode, “why am I watching this garbage?” Only Better Call Saul [4] has not disappointed me, though the episodes are doled out in an eyedropper, and they are really a pale shadow of Breaking Bad.

Sharing my woes with a heathen friend, he suggested I watch the History Channel’s Vikings. “It’s great!” he said. “Odin shows up in the first episode.” For those geezers who still think of the History Channel as running nothing but documentaries (usually on Hitler, thus at one time earning it the nickname “the Hitler Channel”), this went the way of the “arts” in A&E (the one-time “Arts and Entertainment” channel). No longer A, only E. Vikings is a dramatic series chronicling the adventures of Ragnar Lothbrok, a character drawn from the Icelandic sagas, who was most likely an actual historical figure who lived in Denmark in the ninth century.

It took me awhile to get into Vikings. I watched the first episode and, yes, there he was: Odin combing a battlefield for slain warriors. We see him through our hero Ragnar’s POV (point of view), so it is not clear whether he is really present, or only imagined. I had to admit I was intrigued, but things went rapidly downhill. In a later scene, a murderer is judged by the local Earl and sentenced to have his head lopped off with an axe. But the Vikings didn’t do that! They banished (or “outlawed”) murderers. Did nobody on this show bother to google how the Vikings punished criminals? Do they have no technical advisor?

A later scene was worse. The villain of the piece (for the first season) is Earl Haraldson (Gabriel Byrne), who is paranoid and always imagining usurpation. He is married to the sexy, conniving Siggy (Jessalyn Gilsig), who seems to push the Earl to greater and greater follies. In order to expose a possibly disloyal underling, the Earl actually invites the man into bed to make love to Siggy. When, after considerable hesitation, he accepts the offer Haraldson has him killed. At this point I felt I had come to the place at which I usually arrive in watching recent programs: the place where things just don’t feel right. (Later on, I’ll give a reason why so many programs today have such moments.) Have you had this experience watching today’s TV? What was the point of the scene? Just to show that Haraldson and his wife are bad and also a little mad? Was it to introduce something kinky? This is a recurring problem with the show: characters are continually doing things that are perverse – and that often make no real sense.

After this strange scene (which made me want to stop watching the series entirely) one expects some big, showy villainy from Haraldson. But all he really does is oppose Ragnar’s plans to sail west and search for new lands to exploit, partly because he fears Ragnar becoming too popular, partly because he is just a fuddy duddy. This conflict gives season one all the depth and complexity of those ABC Afterschool Specials I grew up with as a child in the 70s. It is a relief when Earl Haraldson is finally killed off, at which point Ragnar becomes Earl and the series becomes more interesting.

Ragnar is played by Australian actor-model Travis Fimmel. His performance is generally compelling, if sometimes rather too quirky and over the top. In the first season he is a family man, and his wife Lagertha (played by Katheryn Winnick) is a strong presence. The writers have drawn elements from the sagas in developing these stories, and invented much else. Predictably, they glory in the fact that Viking lore is filled with depictions of tough, strong Amazonian women. And, predictably, the writers present as fact what was almost certainly fiction. Lagertha is an appealing character, but after a season she is pushed out by Ragnar’s new love Aslaug (Alyssa Sutherland), the daughter of Sigurd (here the writers are faithful to the saga literature, and one wishes they would be more so). In what seems an abrupt move at first, but turns out to be wise, season two shifts a couple of years into the future. Lagertha returns as an Earl in her own right, and as a more interesting character. She brings with her Bjorn, Ragnar’s son, who now looks like a man in his 20s, whereas in the first season he looked all of ten. (Apparently Vikings grow very fast. Must be the skause [5].)

From this point on, the plot twists and turns. The Vikings raid. Form alliances. Break alliances. Fight amongst themselves. There is conflict of all kinds, and the series is seldom predictable. But here I must touch on one of its greatest flaws: this unpredictability is often due to plot twists that seem breathtakingly arbitrary. A continual problem is characters doing things that are, well, out of character. One wants characters that are interesting and complex, but one also wants their actions to make sense. In Vikings, too often the writers seem to be continually changing their minds about what sort of person they want to depict. Characters start off good, then turn bad, then turn good again, then turn bad (or the reverse: from bad to good to bad and back to good again).

Ragnar’s brother Rollo (Clive Standen) starts off a stalwart sort (though he is in love with Lagertha), then becomes so resentful of Ragnar he betrays him (in what is a rather implausible plot twist). Despite this, he is welcomed back into the fold, proving himself loyal, but eventually becomes a s**t again. This is particularly true after his wife Siggy dies. Now, you will recall that Siggy was the wife of Earl Haraldson. She marries Rollo after Haraldson dies. At first, she is portrayed as malevolent and power hungry, then (after marrying Rollo) she becomes a devoted wife who helps take care of Aslaug’s children, then she schemes against Ragnar again, then she saves Aslaug’s children from drowning only to be drowned herself. You see, when the writers can’t figure out what else to do with a character, they simply kill them off. In season one, Ragnar and Lagertha have a young son and daughter. After failing to find any way to make the daughter interesting, the writers kill her off via a convenient pestilence that sweeps the village, also eliminating a number of other superfluous characters.

The most egregious example of this sort of thing is what happens to poor Athelstan (George Blagden) a monk Ragnar picks up when he sacks the monastery at Lindisfarne (yes, that one). Ragnar carries Athelstan back to Denmark as a slave. In one of the series’ many I-can’t-believe-they’re-actually-doing-this-cause-it-just-doesn’t-feel-right moments Ragnar invites the pious Athelstan to have a threesome with him and Lagertha. Athelstan declines. Once more, I almost stopped watching at this point. A Viking letting a slave screw his wife? Really? Again, one wonders what is going on here. Did the writers just think they needed to introduce (something else) kinky? Did they need to find an excuse to expose Travis Fimmel’s overexposed torso? (He was a Calvin Klein model.)

Much to my surprise, Athelstan actually turns into an interesting character. A pious Christian, he becomes fascinated by the Vikings and their gods, and it eventually seems as if he intends to renounce his faith. In one episode, Ragnar and family travel with Athelstan to the pagan temple at Uppsala. There’s an imaginative attempt here to try to recreate what the temple might have looked like (complete with the idols of Odin, Thor, and Freyr, and the gold chain surrounding the whole thing). I think this was the first episode I really enjoyed. Though there were problems here too, including the introduction of mutant-looking priests à la 300. Oh, and then everyone takes mushrooms and fucks everyone else.

Athelstan’s conflict is interesting, and his character is effective because we ourselves are outsiders looking in at Viking society. We can identify with him. We too are steeped in this Judeo-Christian gruel and conflicted over it, and strongly attracted to pagan ways. Additionally, a strong friendship blooms between Ragnar and Athelstan that actually manages to be halfway affecting. Matters heat up when Athelstan begins having full-blown visions, and even stigmata. Finally, he seems to renounce paganism and throws his arm ring (a gift from Ragnar) into the bay. (This scene inspired me to finally order an arm ring from Grimfrost [6].) But just when things seemed to have gotten really interesting with Athelstan – the writers kill him off.

Speaking of stigmata, something weird is going on in this series with the whole Christian thing. On one level, there is very clearly a strongly anti-Christian element in Vikings, and frankly it’s offensive. Don’t get me wrong: I’m a pagan and strongly anti-Christian. But I am an intelligent anti-Christian. The perspective of the writers on this show is really not that of pagans (of course), but of liberals. Christians are depicted as befuddled, hypocritical, brutal, and, above all, sexually uptight. Now, all of that is true – but the liberal perspective is that this is all there is to Christianity. Thus, by contrast the Vikings are depicted as wild, carefree, and sexually liberated. Yes, it’s really as dumb and ham-fisted as that. As my aforementioned heathen friend put it to me, they hate the Christians because they had standards, and love the pagans because they think they didn’t have any. In short, the Christians are hated for the one good thing about them.

Athelstan’s stigmata result from an episode where he is captured in England and crucified by the Christian authorities in Wessex for being an apostate. Yes, you read that correctly: they crucify him. Trouble is, of course, the Christians didn’t do that. They had it done to them. Once again, somebody failed to consult Google, or to phone up a college professor. Folks, we are dealing with some very badly educated people here. And this is, in general, the problem with television drama today. It is now being produced by a generation that went to school after the schools got really, really bad. Especially the top-drawer schools that a lot of Hollywood writers graduate from. History to them is a cartoon show. Christians, boo! Uptight; can’t f**k; crucify people . . . or something. Pagans, hurrah! Take shrooms . . . maybe; drink and make merry; f**k a lot and aren’t picky about it.

Athelstan is saved from dying on the cross by King Ecbert of Wessex (Linus Roache, in what is initially a fine performance). Ecbert is another disappointing character. At first, he is quite interesting: a Christian king fascinated by paganism, who keeps a hidden collection of Greek and Roman artifacts. He is complex and sympathetic. But apparently the writers got bored with that, because at a certain point they turn him into an outright and unsympathetic villain. In another scene that almost made me turn off the series for good, he presides over the public mutilation of his daughter-in-law, who has been exposed as an adulteress.

Athelstan’s stigmata appear well after his wounds have actually healed, as do his visions. And this rather undermines the writers’ anti-Christian stance. Why are these things happening to Athelstan if Christianity is the bunkum the writers think it is? Or are they happening to Athelstan? Is it all in his imagination? We don’t really get an answer because, of course, he’s killed off. So how do we make sense out of this? The answer is that we don’t, because none of it really makes any sense.

This is a series written by a committee of tyros with heads full of half-baked ideas about history, and even less-baked ideas about how to put together a drama. One imagines them somewhere in some antiseptic conference room writing the show by free-associating ideas hastily scrawled on a dry erase board and post-it notes. “I know, let’s have Ragnar invite Athelstan for a threesome!” “I know, let’s reveal that Count Odo is into S&M!” (Another disappointing character development, best not discussed any further.) This is the generation of writers that brought us Lost, my friends. I’m sure they think the arbitrary twists they keep pooting forth are “clever.”

The writers of Vikings are exactly the sort of people Paddy Chayefsky warned us about in Network. In that film (my second favorite, after Fight Club) William Holden says of Faye Dunaway, “She’s TV generation. She learned life from Bugs Bunny.” You see, once upon a time TV was written by people who hadn’t grown up learning everything about the world from TV. Once upon a time it was written by people who read books, and got their hands in the dirt, and suffered through the Depression, and fought in wars. And who studied real history, not the politically correct, cartoon pablum that passes for history in universities today – taught by professors who learned life from Bugs Bunny. The generation of writers working in Hollywood these days – like the younger folk of the nation generally – are peculiarly and disturbingly detached from real, authentic human emotions, ignorant of human psychology, clueless about the past, and untouched by any feelings of awe or reverence.

Perhaps the kindest thing I can say about Vikings is that it is better than Game of Thrones (which I find unwatchably cheesy and dumb). As I mentioned, I came to the series rather late, and only just finished watching the third season. I will surprise my readers by saying that, yes, I will keep watching – in spite of the fact that I have been warned that eventually Ragnar gets a Chinese girlfriend (bound to happen: the humanoids who make this show couldn’t tolerate an all-white cast for long). I find the character of Ragnar interesting, and seeing Viking life re-created (no matter how imperfectly) is irresistible. I will take whatever crumbs I can get. Besides, season four of Better Call Saul isn’t scheduled to air until September.

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)

Trevor Lynch
Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
Edited by Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012
200 pages

Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [1]

Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist readings of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist readings of The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix Trilogy, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino’s long decline.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies establishes its author as a leading cultural theorist and critic of the North American New Right.

“Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

 – Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique, from the Foreword

“Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. Lynch offers profound and original insights into more than 30 films, including Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy, and Scorsese’s Gangs of New York. These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

– Edmund Connelly

 “The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

– F. Roger Devlin, author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or a Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

– Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

 “Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

– James J. O’Meara, author of The Homo and the Negro

CONTENTS

Foreword by Kevin MacDonald • iii

Editor’s Note by Greg Johnson • vii

1. Introduction: Why I Write • 1

The Lord of the Rings
2. The Fellowship of the Ring • 7
3. The Two Towers • 11
4. The Return of the King • 18
5. “The Scouring of the Shire” • 22

Christopher Nolan
6. Batman Begins • 27
7. The Dark Knight • 31
8. The Dark Knight Rises • 42
9. Inception • 54

Guillermo del Toro
10. Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, & Pan’s Labyrinth • 57
11. Hellboy • 63
12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army • 68

Quentin Tarantino
13. Pulp Fiction • 73
14. Kill Bill: Vol. I • 97
15. Inglourious Basterds • 102
16. Django Unchained • 109

The Matrix Movies
17. The Matrix Reloaded • 115
18. The Matrix Revolutions • 121

The Twilight Saga
19. Twilight • 126
20. New Moon • 131
21. Eclipse • 134
22. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 • 138
23. Breaking Dawn, Part 2 • 143

The Millennium Trilogy
24. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo • 145
25. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Remake • 149
26. The Girl Who Played with Fire • 152
27. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest • 156

Violence & Redemption
28. 300 • 159
29. Gangs of New York • 163
30. A History of Violence • 168
31. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters • 173
32. The Baader-Meinhof Complex • 185

About the Author • 190

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
WarriorStele

[1]1,707 words

Nigel Rodgers
The Complete Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece [2]
Lorenz Books, 2014

“Western civilization” is certainly not fashionable in mainstream academia these days. Nonetheless, the ancient Greek and Roman heritage remains quietly revered in the more thoughtful and earnest circles. Quite simply, virtually all of our social and political organization, to the extent these are thought out, ultimately go back to Greek forms, reflected in the invariably Greek words for them (“philosophy,” “economy,” “democracy” . . .). Those who still have that instinctive pride of being European or Western always go back to the Greeks, to find the means of being worthy of that pride.

Thus I came to the Illustrated Encyclopedia produced by Nigel Rodgers. Life is short, and lots of glossy pictures certainly do help one get the gist of something. Rodgers does not limit himself to pictures of ancient Greek art, though that of course forms the bulk. There are also photos of the sites today, to better imagine the scene, and many paintings from later epochs imagining Greek scenes, the better show Greece’s powerful influence throughout Western history. The Encyclopedia is divided into two parts: First a detailed chronological history of the Greek world, second a thematic history showing different facets of Greek life.

The ancient Greeks are more than strange beings so far as post-60s “liberal democracy” is concerned. Certainly, the Greeks had that egalitarian and individualist sensitivity that Westerners are so known for.

Many Greek cities imagined that their legendary founders had equally distributed land among all citizens. As inequality and wealth concentration gradually rose over time, advocates of redistribution would cite these founding myths. (Rising inequality and revolutionary equality seems to be a recurring cycle in human history.)

Famously, Athens and various other Greek cities were full-fledged direct democracies, a kind of regime which is otherwise astonishingly rare. This was of course limited to only full male citizens, about 10 percent of the population of this “slave state.” (Alain Soral, that eternal mauvaise langue, once noted that the closest modern state to democratic Athens was . . . the Confederate States of America.)

The Greeks were individualists too, but not in the sense that Americans are, let alone post-60s liberals. Their “kings” seem more like “chiefs,” with a highly variable personal authority, rather than absolute monarchs or oriental despots.

In all other respects, the Greeks were extremely “fash”: misogynistic, authoritarian, warring, enslaving, etc. One could say that, by the standards of the United Nations, the entire Greek adventure was one ceaseless crime against humanity.

The most proto-fascistic were of course the Spartans, that famous militaristic and communal state, often idealized, as most recently in the popular film 300. Sparta would be a model for many, cited notably by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adolf Hitler (who called the city-state “the first Volksstaat). Seven eighths of Sparta’s population was made of helots, subjects dominated by the Spartiate full-time warriors.

The Greeks generally were enthusiastic practitioners of racial citizenship. Leftists have occasionally (rightly) pointed to the fact that the establishment of democracy in Athens was linked to the abolition of debt. But one should also know that Pericles, the ultimate democratic politician, paired his generous social reforms with a tightening of citizenship criteria to having two Athenian parents by blood. (The joining of more “progressive” redistribution with more “exclusionary” citizenship makes sense: The more discriminating one is, the more generous one can be, having limited the risk of free-riding.)

In line with this, the Greeks practiced primitive eugenics so as to improve the race. The most systematic in this respect was Sparta, where newborns with physical defects were left in the wilderness to die. By this cruel “post-natal abortion” (one can certainly imagine more human methods), the Spartans thus made individual life absolutely secondary to the well-being of the community. This is certainly in stark contrast to the maudlin cult of victimhood and personal caprice currently fashionable across the West.

Athenian democracy was also known for the systematic exclusion of women, who seemed to have had lives almost as cloistered and private as that of pious Muslims. The stark limitations on sex (arranged marriages, the death penalty for adultery) may have also contributed to the similar Greek penchant for pederasty and bisexuality. Homosexuals were not a discrete social category (how sad for anyone to make their sexual practices the center of their identity!). Homosexual relationships, in parallel to wives, were often glorified as relations of the deepest friendship and entire regiments of male lovers were organized (e.g. the Sacred Band of Thebes [3]), with the idea that by such bonds they would fight to the death.

To this day, it is not clear if we have ever matched the intellectual and moral level of the Greeks (and I do not confuse morality with sentimentality, the recognition of apparently unpleasant truths is one of the greatest markers of genuine moral courage). Considering the education, culture (plays), and politics that a large swathe of the Greek public engaged in, their IQs must have been very high indeed.

Some argue we have yet to surpass Homer in literature or Plato in philosophy. (In my opinion, our average intellectual level is clearly much lower and our educated public probably peaked in consciousness and morality between the 1840s and 1920s. Our much superior science and technology is of no import in this respect, we’ve simply acquired more means of being foolish, something which could well end in the extinction of our dear human race.)

Homer’s influence over the Greeks was like “that of the Bible and Shakespeare combined or to Hollywood plus television today” (29). (Surely another marker of our catastrophic moral and intellectual decline. Of course, in a healthy culture, audiovisual media like cinema and television would be propagating the highest values, including the epic tales of our Greek heritage, among the masses.)

Homer glorified love of honor (philotimo) and excellence (areté), a kind of individualism wholly unlike what we have come to know. This was a kind of competitive individualism in the service of the community. They did not glorify individual irresponsibility or fleeing one’s community (which, to some extent, is the American form of individualism). If the hoplite citizen-soldiers did not fight with perfect cohesion and discipline, then the city was lost.

Dominique Venner has argued [4] that Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey should again be studied and revered as the foundational “sacred texts” of European civilization. (I don’t think the Angela Merkels and the Hillary Clintons would last very long in a society educated in “love of honor” and “excellence.”)

Plato, often in the running for the greatest philosopher of all time, was an anti-democrat, arguing for the rule of an enlightened elite in the Republic and becoming only more authoritarian in his final work, the Laws. Athenian democracy’s chaos, defeat in war with Sparta, and execution of his mentor Socrates for thoughtcrime no doubt contributed to this. Karl Popper argued Plato, the founder of Western philosophy, paved the way for modern totalitarianism, including German National Socialism.

The Greek city-states were tiny by our standards: Sparta with 50,000, Athens 250,000. One can see how, in a town like Sparta, one could through daily ritual and various practices (e.g. all men eating and training together) achieve an incredible degree of social unity. (Of course, modern technology could allow us to achieve similar results today, as indeed the fascists attempted and to some extent succeeded.) Direct democracy was similarly only possible in a medium-sized city at most.

The notion of citizenship is something that we must retain from the Greeks, a notion of mutual obligation between state and citizen, of collective responsibility rather than the selfish tyranny of ethnic and plutocratic mafias. Rodgers argues that polis may be better translated as “citizen-state” rather than “city-state.” The polis sometimes had a rather deterritorialized notion of citizenship, emigrants still being citizens and in a sense accountable to the home city. This could be particularly useful in our current, globalizing age, when technology has so eliminated cultural and economic borders, and our people are so scattered and intermingled with foreigners across the globe.

The ancient Greeks are also a good benchmark for success and failure: Of repeated rises and falls before ultimate extinction, of successful unity in throwing off the yoke of the Persian Empire (with famous battles at Thermopylae and Marathon . . .), and of fratricidal warfare in the Peloponnesian War.

The sheer brutality of the ancient world, as with the past more generally, is difficult for us cosseted moderns to really grasp. Conquered cities often (though not always) faced the extermination of their men and the enslavement of their women and children (often making way for the victors’ settlers). Alexander the Great, world-conqueror and founder of a still-born Greco-Persian empire, was ruthless, with frequent preemptive murders, hostage-taking, the razing of entire cities, the crucifixion of thousands, etc. He seems the closest the Greeks have to a universalist. (Did Diogenes’ “cosmopolitanism” extend to non-Greeks?) The Greeks thought foreigners (“barbarians”) inferior, and Aristotle argued for their enslavement.

The Greeks’ downfall is of course relevant. The epic Spartans gradually declined into nothing due to infertility and, apparently, wealth inequality and female emancipation. Alexander left only a cultural mark in Asia upon natives who wholly failed to sustain the Hellenic heritage. One Indian work of astronomy noted: “Although the Yavanas [Greeks] are barbarians, the science of astronomy originated with them, for which they should be revered like gods.”

One rare trace of the Greeks in Asia is the wondrous Greco-Buddhist statues [5] created in their wake, of serene and haunting otherworldly beauty.

The Jews make a late appearance upon the scene, when the Seleucid Hellenic king Antiochus IV made a fateful faux pas in his subject state of Judea:

Not realizing that Jews were somehow different form his other Semitic subjects, Antiochus despoiled the Temple, installed a Syrian garrison and erected a temple to Olympian Zeus on the site. This was probably just part of his general Hellenizing programme. But the furious revolt that broke out, led by Judas Maccabeus the High Priest, finally drove the Seleucids from Judea for good. (241)

No comment.

[6]

There is wisdom: “Nothing in excess,” “Know thyself.”

So all that Alt Right propaganda using uplifting imagery from Greco-Roman statues and history, and films like Gladiator and 300, and so on, is both effective and completely justified.

 

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
athena3-recovered-recovered

[1]1,792 words

Aristokratia III: Hellas
Edited by K. Deva
Manticore, 2015

Having previously devoted previous volumes to Nietzsche and to Evola, for its third incarnation, “Hellas,” Aristokratia seemingly pauses to reflect on itself: what are arête, hoi aristoi and aristokratia?

Divided in three sections, the first bears the sacred name itself, Hellas.[1] Reviewing the recent issue of TYR, [2] I said that it was “not afraid to lead off with big guns blazing,” The same can be said of this volume, which leads off with an essay of some 60 pages by Gwendolyn von Taunton: “What is Best in Life? The Pursuit of Excellence and the Aristocratic Principle,” no less than a history of the notion of the good life, and how it has interacted with the parallel notion of aristocracy, from pre-Homeric warriors through Aristotle and, with a bit of jump, Nietzsche. As we’ve come to expect from GvT, we find wide-ranging but up-to-date reading combined with a knack for remarkable and succinct formulations. Along the way, we find the intriguing idea that the real crime of Socrates was that he

Created a new form of aristocracy that was both palatable to the public and the old aristocracy . . . a workable standard that was to be a form of government based on morality and arête [which] negates not just Athenian democracy but the foundation of modern political science as we understand it today.

Rather than democracy, where “everyone believes they are entitled to an equal quantity of power simply by virtue of their existence,” or aristocracy as the Athenians understood it, based on money, power, or bloodline, this is “an aristocracy based on intelligence, wisdom and education,” rule by “an educated and intelligent elite which bypasses the idea of ‘class’.”

The essay ends with some sad thoughts on modern democracy, where virtue has fled and the “structure is inverted,” with an oligarchy seeking benefit from, rather than benefiting, the people. Though framed in general terms, the American, faced with the likely choice of another Clinton or another Bush, can only agree with our Australasian author that

The majority of voters in modern democracies are faced with a single choice: which of the two candidates is the least reprehensible. It is not even a true democracy, but a self-perpetuating dynasty where two parties reign unchallenged, and only the public figureheads change.

As presented by von Taunton, we could even say Socrates was the first practitioner of what’s come to be called metapolitics, eschewing the futility and danger or personal action in favor of re-educating a critical mass of the young. So it’s appropriate to find Counter-Currents own meta-politician, Greg Johnson, here as well, sharing with us the transcript of a lecture on wisdom, the good life, and the role of politics, which he delivered to some no doubt worthy and grateful students.

There follows a series of meditations on Classical themes with relevance to our own age, such as Matthew Raphael Johnson’s “The Platonic Ontology of Justice: Crafts, the Forms, and Political Leadership” — which manages to bring René Guénon and Wilfred Sellars into juxtaposition—as well as Michael Millerman’s “Herodotus on Oracles, Dreams, and Gods,” and Brett Stevens on “Plato and the Divine.”

Mark Dyal’s “Lycurgus and the Creation of the Spartan Warrior State” gives us a calm and positive account of the unique society of eugenics and hardships that lay behind the movie 300, including the interesting point that this non-family values world held women in greater esteem than did Athens.

Colin Liddell addresses the vexed question of “why did the Christians win?” in “Apollonius of Tyana and the Alternative Empire,” and reaches the perhaps counter-intuitive but instructive answer that, ill-educated and fanatical as they were, the Christians, unlike the Mithraists and other candidates, offered the Empire what it needed: a new bureaucracy, ready to step in and take over, a new aristocracy or “alternative elite.”

This symbiosis between a slave religion of passive, feudal obedience and occasional Dionysian frenzy, and the dull rationalism of bureaucratic militarism, was in its own way, a blind quest for a Nietzschean synthesis, but at a much lower level than the one that had launched the empire.

By limiting itself to the monarchical idea of the philosopher king, rather than a redeeming aristocracy, Apollonianism proved to be a non-starter; but Christianity fared little better, proving itself to be a dead end in terms of saving the empire, which survived its re-sacralization by little over a century.

After all this Hellenism, Aristokratia modules into a new section, “Aristos,” which examines our modern world and what it lacks: aristocracy. Alexander Jacob, author of many distinguished works on Aryan themes, provides two essays; the second entitled “The Bourgeoisie, Protestantism and the Protocols: The Anti-Democratic Thought of Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Barone Giulio Cesare Evola” – which, taken along with Edwin Dyga’s “Transcendence and the Aristocratic Principle: ‘Throne And Altar’ as Essential Criteria for Civilization and National Particularism; Defence against Demotic Tyranny”—not only perform the laudable service of making better known the unjustly neglected work of der Ritter, but suggest ways that his somewhat more finely grained analyses of European religion and politics may provide a more hopeful, or just more practical, alternative to the Baron’s pessimistic view of the options open to us in the Kali Yuga.

On the other hand, Timotheus Lutz, in “Mircea Eliade’s ‘Traditionalism’: Appearance and Reality,” subjects the Romanian academic’s opinions on the Sicilian baron to scrutiny, and finds them quite unfounded, even puerile, concluding with a passage of almost Schuonian intellectual hauteur:

It could be said figuratively that if one who comprehends and adopts the traditional perspective can be said to have a view from the peaks that allows the most complete survey, then Eliade could be describes as not having completed the ascent, his vision being obscured by clouds above or distracted by objects lying along the path to the summit. If he could see individual rocks on the path more closely, we must remember that the view from [the] summit is still the most important.[2]

In “The Beauty of Monarchy” Brett Stevens succinctly presents a dozen or so reasons for the superiority of monarchy to over the system of “public image manipulation” we call democracy. He also addresses the usual objects, such as how it could avoid a “bad king” and how it could arise; the key to both is that monarchy arises out of a “mesh of aristocracy,” the natural leaders of any society (about five percent, as Colin Wilson would say) who, if they were to agree on the need for aristocracy would naturally bring the rest of society along with them, as they always do, and would continue to guide and correct the monarch.

Again, we see the importance of metapolitics for developing or preserving aristocracy.[3] This might be best read alongside John Maelstrom’s more practical, but still visionary, “The Great Initiative,” subtitled “An Experiment in Building Aristocracy from Nothing.”[4]

And speaking of “nothing,” a surprising guest here is Keith Preston, anarchist. I say “surprising” because, isn’t the anarchist against government, hierarchy, aristocracy? In “Nietzsche the Visionary: A Reflection on the Nature of a Civilization Guided by Nietzschean Values,” Preston argues that with the collapse of the eminently non-Nietzschean, non-aristocratic societies of democratic modernism, the natural social bodies now “smothered” by the Leviathan State will reassert themselves, and natural aristocrats will come to the surface, leading by ability, not birth or wealth; exactly the aristocratic ideal that von Taunton expounded from Socrates and Nietzsche, combined with the Catholic subsidiarity of Kuehnelt-Leddihn.[5]

After “Hellas” and “Aristos,” Aristokratia III turns to “Sophia” in the form of a short section of book reviews. Here again Gwendolyn von Taunton leads off, with a consideration of Lovecraft’s self-published journal The Conservative as a chance to get to know the man himself; readers might enjoy comparing this to my own humble effort.[6]

On that same personal note, I must confess that when it comes to Azsacra Zarathustra, whose work seems to be Aristokratia’s unique discovery and project, I have never been able to really “get it.” This time around, Conor Wrigley’s review of Zarathustra’s TDAS: The Spiritual Weapon of Revolution, along with his own article, “The Great Forest of the Overman: Dismantling Illusion From Within,” which compares Zarathustra’s “Overman-beyond-man” with Jünger’s “forest rebel,” convinces me that there’s something here, and I’d better start getting with it, beginning perhaps with his essay here, “Freedom of the Overman: Revolutionary Language of the Overman Par Excellence.”[7]

Like the previous volumes, Aristokratia III does not ignore the need to present intellectual beauty in a form of physical beauty. From the full color photo of the statue of Pallas Athene that graces the cover, to the typography, binding, layout, proof-reading, and carefully chosen line drawings and chapter “slugs” within, Aristokratia III is a triumph of the art of book production.

It can truly be said that everything here demands close and repeated reading, both for personal spiritual development (or Bildung) and for metapolitical and even practical use. As Coleridge said there was an essential poetry, that to which the reader returns with the greatest pleasure, so this is an essential collection for anyone on the alt-Right.

Notes

1. As one of Hermann Hesse’s typically oppressed schoolboys sneers, “And our dormitory is named ‘Hellas’! All this classical stuff is a big fake. If one of us tried to live a little like a Greek he’d be out on his tail.” Beneath the Wheel (Picador, 2003), p. 75.

2. Evola (Meditations on the Peaks), Coomaraswamy (“Paths that Lead to the Same Summit [3]”), and Pink Floyd!

3. On a related cultural point, V. Caine’s “Zombies vs. Vampires: Expressions of Socio-Political Fears in Horror Film” considers how the vampire, once the avatar of an undead European Catholic aristocracy whose return terrified the shopkeepers of Great Britain, has been replaced by the zombie, image of our amorphous hordes of brainless, democratic consumers, and the vampire now embodies “power, beauty and culture.”

4. “I have founded my affair on nothing” – Goethe, but also the motto of Stirner’s The Ego and His Own. We see too little practical approaches to the likely collapse of society from an alt-Right or “White Nationalist,” rather than merely “survivalist” or hysterical “prepper” perspective; see Claus Brinker’s review of Piero San Giorgio’s Survive—The Economic Collapse: A Practical Guide (Radix/Washington Summit Publishers, 2013).

5. As the Situationists, the aristocrats of ’68, told us, “Beneath the pavement, the beach.”

6. “The First Steampunk: H. P. Lovecraft’s The Conservative,” here [4].

7. Zarathustra’s “dismantling of all illusions from within,” and his transcendental vector, (Lutz’s peaks not obscured by clouds) put me in mind of Emericus Durden’s much more conventionally written but equally strident Aiming Higher Than Mere Civilization: How Skeptical Nihilism Will Remind Humanity Of Its Long Forgotten Purpose (Radical Academic Press, 2014), which I recently reviewed here [5].

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Casa Pound

[1]2,417 words

Translated by Adam D. Smith

“With usura hath no man a house of good stone,” wrote Ezra Pound in Canto XLV. “Usura” is symbolic of the culture destroying, hostile, and inhumane reign of interest, capital, and the banks. Pound also said: “A man can inhabit one house, also another, but a third is capital with which he wants to earn money.”

“Contro ogni Usura,” “against all forms of usury,”[1] is hand painted in large letters on the banner that was unfurled on the façade of a vacant six-story house in Via Napoleone III, No. 8 in the center of Rome. Next to a half dozen Tricolore flags was a flag with a stylized tortoise on a black background. Another banner declared the building baptized “Casa Pound.” The house was occupied by a group of young men in a blitz maneuver. Shortly afterwards, in the city quarter, a flyer with the following declaration was distributed: “We have occupied a building that stood vacant for years. We have given the house to twenty families. We are Italians. We are not social outcasts. We are workers, students, mothers, and fathers.”

Social pathos, anti-capitalist rhetoric, national symbolism – the occupiers come out of Rome’s militant radical Right scene, and make no secret of their convictions: they are “neither Left nor Right,” but simply “Fascista.” (A variation is the ironic amalgam “Estremocentroalto” – “extreme high center.”[2].) The exposed heads of Casa Pound belong to mentor and co-founder Gabriele Adinolfi, who in the 1970s was an active member of the group Terza Posizione which was closely linked to the “black terror,” and man of action Gianluca Iannone, born in 1973, a bearded tattooed giant who cultivates an image of a rough biker and additionally holds cult status as head of the hard-core band Zetazeroalfa. Casa Pound’s network also includes the bookstore “Testa di Ferro” (Head of Iron), “Cutty Sark,” the “most hated pub in Italy,” and “Area 19,” an abandoned train station concourse in Monte Mario behind the Foro Italico Olympic complex built under Mussolini.

[2]

Within the ambit of Casa Poundism a political style has developed which has brought a fresh wind into the extreme Right. This success owes itself not in the least to adept self-marketing. The memorable logo of Casa Pound, a tortoise, has become a brand mark just as notorious as the Celtic cross or the fasces. For a dedicated fascist movement the choice of a peaceful, defensive and torpid animal is at first surprising. However, the symbolism exhibits a poetic soundness. The tortoise carries her house on her back, she cannot be pulled out, and at the same time she is mobile and strong. A second look reveals that the symbol has a concealed warrior connotation: it plays on the ancient Roman military formation “Testudo” (tortoise), in which the closely aligned shields transformed the troop into a human tank: the precise octagon of the stylised tank and the inwardly directed arrows point to an intellectual organising principle and spiritual concentration. Consequently, those in charge of Casa Pound, despite their anarchic gestures, sharply differentiate themselves from the style of Left-wing occupied houses: order, cleanliness, and aesthetics play just as an important role as the strict ban on weapons, drugs, and prostitution.

[3]In the meantime, there are corresponding Casas, among others, in Milan, Bologna and Naples, all cities where the Black Shirts sometimes meet violent resistance. The anger of the Left probably arises from the indignation that the Right are now fishing in their waters. This includes active solidarity with the socially underprivileged and the expression of sympathy for oppressed peoples such as the Tibetans, as well as the fight against privatization of education and health care and radical demands for government-guaranteed housing rights for all Italian families. In April 2009, after the large earthquake in the Abruzzo region, volunteer assistance was rallied under the slogan “Let’s rebuild Italy.” In line with this, political recruitment takes a back seat: the twenty resident families of Casa Pound indeed come, for the most part, from the environment of the Right, but there exists, according to the organizers, no required profession of ideological commitment.

Women are also specifically addressed, for instance the “Time to be a Mother” initiative, which advocates for the rights of single mothers. Increasing mass immigration to Italy since the 1990s is, in the affinitive publications, primarily seen under the aspect of a “critique of globalization”: capitalism needs cheap labor and tries to conceal this exploitative strategy with multicultural rhetoric. Coloured activists also occasionally appear among the militants, the in-house legends include the story of a pizzeria, owned by an Egyptian, which was trashed by Antifa members who had their eye on Gianluca Iannone — who, as a consequence, supported the renovation of the restaurant through a benefit concert.

[4]

So, in the middle of the “multicultural” Esquilino district, in an almost exclusively Chinese inhabited street, tolerated by the police and the city council, an institution arose, which has had a practical as well as a symbolic impact. It stands for a philosophy of localization as well as for a social utopia and functions as a centre for political and cultural activities. Monthly lectures on a wide array of topics are held, for which regular guests are obtained through intelligent networking, people who are as far away from the scene as possible, such as Nicolai Lilin, author of the bestselling Siberian Education. A representative of the Left even came to a Che Guevara theme night, another time Valerio Morucci, former member of the Red Brigade and one of Aldo Moros’ kidnappers. They strive to do justice to the slogan, “Casa Pound – Where the discussion is free” without giving up the pronounced self-positioning. So the hallways and the round-the-clock occupied offices are decorated with slogans such as “Begin to believe! Start to fight!” and with paintings in the military style of the Mussolini era.

While the social revolutionary program can be seen to be in line with the early and late forms of Fascism (the “Social Republic” of Salò), the adoption of Left-wing procedures such as the self-authorized establishment of “centri sociali” (social centres) is a relatively recent phenomenon. Already in December 1990 members of “Fronte della Gioventù” occupied a house in the Roman district of Monteverde; in 1998 the “PortAperta” in San Giovanni was opened. When in July 2002, once again in Rome, “Casa Montag” was proclaimed, an unheard voice announced itself. “Montag,” the hero from Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, is a “fireman” in a future city, where the possession and reading of any kind of book has been forbidden. The “fire department” is under duty to destroy all books, but Montag begins to secretly collect and read the banned goods, until he himself turns into a rebel. While totalitarian societies are usually covered with the term “fascism,” the “non-conforming” militants turn the tables: the rebels against the thought police, individual freedom is now on their side. From this time on, the cipher “451” has consistently appeared in Fascist demonstrations – occasionally, increasing the paradox even more, upon a white circle on a red background, visually bringing to mind the flag of the NSDAP.

Casa Montag follows Casa Pound in that their given names reveal a similar sophisticated base structure. The entrance hall of the house is designed as a kind of pop-art hall of fame, where the names of all those valued as inspiration are painted on the wall in colourful letters. The company of cited minds forms an astonishing array. Alongside obligatory icons of European fascism such as D’Annunzio, Evola, Codreanu, Mosley, and Degrelle you will find a wild jumble of names like Saint-Exupéry, Jünger, Majakowskij, Kerouac, Bukowski, Stirner, Tolkien, Orwell, or Leonidas. Ian Stuart, head of Skrewdriver, is represented just as much as Hölderlin, the Indian chief Geronimo, and the comic characters Corto Maltese and Captain Harlock. With the exception of Walter Darré you won’t find any National Socialists. However, Ernst Jünger enjoys a high status amongst the scene: In Autumn 2009, distributed posters that bid farewell to a deceased comrade with a Jünger quote were to be seen in Rome right across the Esquilino district and neighbouring areas all the way to the Colosseum.

The gallery of heroes continues in the stairwell, which is exclusively dedicated to distinguished women: visual artists such as Camille Claudel and Tamara de Lempicka, poets such as Ada Negri and Sibilla Aleramo, film diva Luisa Ferida (who was murdered by communist partisans), Leni Riefenstahl, as well as sportswomen and female pilots. You will also find a similar eclectic selection amongst the products of Testa di Ferro. There T-shirts and badges are offered for sale whose motifs range from Yukio Mishima to football legend George Best. And films such as Fight Club, 300, Clockwork Orange, and Pulp Fiction consistently come up as central references.

In the headquarters, the fostering of icons culminates in an annotated collection of rare photos from the life of Ezra Pound. The American avant-gardist belongs to the group of great minds who were drawn to Fascism. Pound had settled in 1924 in Rapallo and, during the Second World War, gave anti-Semitic tinged propaganda speeches against the Allies, who he regarded as stooges of “loan capital.” After the war he was charged with high treason and subjected to degrading treatment, culminating in a 12-year-long detention in a psychiatric hospital.

However, for the majority of scene adherents it probably suffices to know that Pound was “the poet against usury” and an admirer of Mussolini. The complicated esotericism of his Cantos is notorious even among literary-minded readers, and the same applies to Julius Evola, who has been made into a cult figure within the scene. The more decisive ideological sources might instead be the lyrics from Zetazeroalfa and other “Musica Alternativa” bands. The audience of the several day long festival celebrating 5 years of Casa Pound in Area 19 in June 2009 was dominated by the approximately 80 percent proletarian skinhead and hooligan types present, who are commonly associated with the extreme Right. Provocative tattoos and shaved heads are a must, as well as a very select array of T-shirt designs. This seems to be representative for the scene as a whole, even if a considerable proportion, via the student organisation Blocco Studentesco, comes from the middle-class. Here is, admittedly, another connection with historical Fascism: an emphasis on the physical, vitalism, male gangs [Männerbünde], the agon, and even violence. As an outlet, for example, the ritual of “Cinghiamattanza” (roughly, “going nuts with a belt”) is used, based loosely on DAF’s “Alle gegen Alle” in which one plunges shirtless into a wild brawl with belt straps (the buckle is prohibited).

Also the popular, to some extent amalgamated with rock romanticism (“liberi, belli, ribelli” – “free, beautiful, rebellious”), Squadristi iconography with its death-heads, black flags, and Decima MAS daggers and roses, underscores the ambiguous “Bad Boy” image, which is especially appealing to young men as well as women, and is a hindrance to them becoming part of the mainstream – because for the Left it is of course easy to categorically portray the scene as a group of thugs. Despite the considerable leeway in comparison to Germany that Rightists and even (the at least officially banned) Fascism in Italy can lay claim to, “Political Correctness” also has the upper hand here. The photographic book OltreNero from anti-fascist journalists Allessandro Cosmelli and Marco Mathieu, which initially resulted from a close collaboration with Gianluca Iannone, rendered the scene in stylish black and white photographs, in a light as much alluring as abysmally repellent and emphasised their sub-cultural character as well as an aura of violence. Iannone saw this representation as distortive and one-sided and, as a result, fell out with the authors.

The question concerning the actual ideology of the Fascism of the Third Millennium is not easy to answer. Despite all the assertions not to be pulling a nostalgic number, the emotional core of the movement is still just as focused on the heroic stories of yesteryear: D’Annunzio’s Fiume, the march on Rome, Futurism, the legend of the Squadristi, the Republic of Salò and the “black heart” of the “lead” ’70s, when in Italy a bloody, secret service-infiltrated war of terror flared up between Left and Right wing extremist groups. It is unclear what concrete form this envisioned “modern” fascism should have, the more so as dialogue with other milieus is actively sought out and “cross fronts” are not excluded. What remains is primarily the rhetoric of the act and the precedence of activism over ideological conformity, as well as the maintenance and creation of icons, and a non-conformist attitude to life.

Telling in this regard is the August 2009 editorial from the in-house magazine Occidentale. One of the most successful Casa Pound coups of the year was the widespread public posting of placards, which exhibited in pop-art style the 1980 deceased Left-wing songwriter Rino Gaetano, bearing only the infamous tortoise logo without any written commentary. In the editorial, the author explained, “Why it is just for Casa Pound to celebrate Rino Gaetano.” One must by no means be Left-wing to admire the free and vital spirit of Gaetano’s songs. In them you can find everything that Casa Pound stands for: “The love of everything that views the world with irony; poetry, provocation, freedom, justice.” One should not focus on the past, “D’Annunzio, Marinetti, Jünger, Evola, even Mussolini” were at the forefront of their times and believed: “No romantic escapism, no doomsday hysteria. Will, deeds, joy, freedom. That is what counts.”

Translator’s Notes

1. It is also possible to translate this as being against all usurers. Mr. Lichtmesz’s original German takes this line.

2. The translator would like to thank Mark Dyal for providing the following summary of this concept:

Estremocentroalto takes its cue from the revolutionary socialist origins of Italian Fascism. As Estremo (extreme), it takes the radical counter-modernism of the true right and the popular sociality of the interwar left, while embracing what is extreme and Italian about both: aggression, passion, and total commitment. It seeks to be Centro (center) so as to be absolutely relevant and central to all aspects of Italian life. Casa Pound, as part of the contemporary social right, embraces politics, philosophy, and art from the perspective of Italian ways of life. Thus, it embraces the piazzas, cuisines, bars, and normalized forms of Italian social interaction, but always from an extreme position. Finally, Casa Pound seeks to be Alto (high) in consistently rejecting the banality of Americanized pop culture, seeking instead to remake the natural seriousness of Italian beauty, life, and creation.

German original: http://www.sezession.de/18102/casa-pound-2.html [5]

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
LynchCover2

[1]Trevor Lynch
Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
Edited by Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012
200 pages

We are pleased to announce that Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is now in print in Europe and Australia, where orders are now being filled. In the US, the books are being printed and will be shipped out to purchasers as soon as we receive them. 

Hardcover: $35 

Quantity:  

Paperback: $20 

Quantity:  

Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

Nook E-Book: $5.99 [3]

Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist readings of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist readings of The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix Trilogy, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino’s long decline.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies establishes its author as a leading cultural theorist and critic of the North American New Right.

“Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

 – Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique, from the Foreword

“Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. Lynch offers profound and original insights into more than 30 films, including Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy, and Scorsese’s Gangs of New York. These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

– Edmund Connelly

 “The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

– F. Roger Devlin, author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or a Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

– Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

 “Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

– James J. O’Meara, author of The Homo and the Negro

CONTENTS

Foreword by Kevin MacDonald • iii

Editor’s Note by Greg Johnson • vii

1. Introduction: Why I Write • 1

The Lord of the Rings
2. The Fellowship of the Ring • 7
3. The Two Towers • 11
4. The Return of the King • 18
5. “The Scouring of the Shire” • 22

Christopher Nolan
6. Batman Begins • 27
7. The Dark Knight • 31
8. The Dark Knight Rises • 42
9. Inception • 54

Guillermo del Toro
10. Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, & Pan’s Labyrinth • 57
11. Hellboy • 63
12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army • 68

Quentin Tarantino
13. Pulp Fiction • 73
14. Kill Bill: Vol. I • 97
15. Inglourious Basterds • 102
16. Django Unchained • 109

The Matrix Movies
17. The Matrix Reloaded • 115
18. The Matrix Revolutions • 121

The Twilight Saga
19. Twilight • 126
20. New Moon • 131
21. Eclipse • 134
22. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 • 138
23. Breaking Dawn, Part 2 • 143

The Millennium Trilogy
24. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo • 145
25. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Remake • 149
26. The Girl Who Played with Fire • 152
27. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest • 156

Violence & Redemption
28. 300 • 159
29. Gangs of New York • 163
30. A History of Violence • 168
31. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters • 173
32. The Baader-Meinhof Complex • 185

About the Author • 190

Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

Nook E-Book: $5.99 [3]

Hardcover: $35 

Quantity:  

Paperback: $20 

Quantity:  

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
LynchCover2

[1]Trevor Lynch
Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
Edited by Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012
200 pages

We are pleased to announce that Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is now available as a Kindle and E-Book. It should be available as a Nook E-Book this weekend.

Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

The paperback and hardcover editions will be released  February 28, 2013 and are available for preorder:

Hardcover: $35 

Quantity:  

Paperback: $20 

Quantity:  

Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist readings of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist readings of The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix Trilogy, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino’s long decline.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies establishes its author as a leading cultural theorist and critic of the North American New Right.

“Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

 – Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique, from the Foreword

“Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. Lynch offers profound and original insights into more than 30 films, including Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy, and Scorsese’s Gangs of New York. These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

– Edmund Connelly

 “The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

– F. Roger Devlin, author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or a Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

– Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

 “Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

– James J. O’Meara, author of The Homo and the Negro

CONTENTS

Foreword by Kevin MacDonald • iii

Editor’s Note by Greg Johnson • vii

1. Introduction: Why I Write • 1

The Lord of the Rings
2. The Fellowship of the Ring • 7
3. The Two Towers • 11
4. The Return of the King • 18
5. “The Scouring of the Shire” • 22

Christopher Nolan
6. Batman Begins • 27
7. The Dark Knight • 31
8. The Dark Knight Rises • 42
9. Inception • 54

Guillermo del Toro
10. Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, & Pan’s Labyrinth • 57
11. Hellboy • 63
12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army • 68

Quentin Tarantino
13. Pulp Fiction • 73
14. Kill Bill: Vol. I • 97
15. Inglourious Basterds • 102
16. Django Unchained • 109

The Matrix Movies
17. The Matrix Reloaded • 115
18. The Matrix Revolutions • 121

The Twilight Saga
19. Twilight • 126
20. New Moon • 131
21. Eclipse • 134
22. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 • 138
23. Breaking Dawn, Part 2 • 143

The Millennium Trilogy
24. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo • 145
25. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Remake • 149
26. The Girl Who Played with Fire • 152
27. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest • 156

Violence & Redemption
28. 300 • 159
29. Gangs of New York • 163
30. A History of Violence • 168
31. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters • 173
32. The Baader-Meinhof Complex • 185

About the Author • 190

Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

Hardcover and Paperback Release Date: February 28, 2013

Hardcover: $35 

Quantity:  

Paperback: $20 

Quantity:  

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)

1,024 words

[1]Watchmen [2] is the greatest superhero movie of all time, and when it was released, its director Zack Snyder was poised to follow Christopher Nolan into the first rank of directors working today. But instead, he has directed an ever worsening series of turkeys: Sucker Punch [3], Man of Steel [4], Batman v Superman [5], and now Justice League, which is one of the worst movies I have ever seen: derivative, dumb, and dull. An assault on the senses and an insult to the intellect. It is also one of the most expensive movies ever made, costing an astonishing $300 million. It is really rather amazing that a director of Snyder’s proven talent, with a solid cast and a $300 million budget, could not have turned in a better movie. Clearly, there’s a lot of rot and a lot of ruin still left in Hollywood, and the sex scandals are just the beginning. 

Justice League is a critical and commercial flop. Some people are trying to deflect the blame onto Warner Bros. and Joss Whedon. It turns out that earlier this year, Snyder’s 20-year-old Chinese adopted daughter, Autumn, committed suicide. (Snyder had eight children, four natural and four adopted.) Snyder took some time off to be with his family, and Warner Bros., which deemed the movie too long and too dark, brought in Joss Whedon for rewrites and reshoots. The problem, however, is not with Whedon’s superficial changes but with the basic script, which is utterly derivative, and with the characterization, which is laughably shallow.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. In remotest antiquity, a dark lord from another world named Steppenwolf (hold your laughter) tried to conquer the world with the aid of three magical “Mother Boxes” and an army of zombie-cyborgs called parademons. However, the races of the earth — the Olympian gods, Amazons, Atlanteans, and men — came together in an alliance to defeat him. The Mother Boxes were wrested away from Steppenwolf, who vanished. The Mother Boxes, which only worked in tandem, were then separated and placed in the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the kings of men.

After untold thousands of years, however, the death of Superman somehow reactivated the mother boxes, which called Steppenwolf back to earth. Of course, this is a ridiculously arbitrary plot turn, since Superman was only a recent arrival on earth, which raises the question of what kept the Mother Boxes “sleeping” for the untold millennia before his arrival. But never mind. The dark lord Steppenwolf is back with his parademons searching for the magic Mother Boxes that will allow him to conquer the world. To stop him, a league must be created, bringing together an Atlantean (Aquaman), an Amazon (Wonder Woman), and several humans, including Bruce Wayne/Batman, Barry Allen/Flash, and Victor Stone/Cyborg.

Yes, thus far, it is just a retelling of The Fellowship of the Ring.

But the combined efforts of the Justice League are still not enough to defeat Steppenwolf, so a deus ex machina is required. Thus they use one of the Mother Boxes to resurrect Superman, who whooshes in to save the day. There are lots of CGI battles, which basically feel like being trapped inside a pinball machine, and finally Steppenwolf is sent packing, no doubt to return some day when bidden by the dark lords of Hollywood to harvest more shekels from the goyim.

OK, OK. But aren’t there are only so many plots? And can’t a derivative plot still be salvaged by interesting characters and dialogue? This is true, but Justice League fails there as well. We have already been introduced to Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. Thus all Snyder really needed to do was breathe some life into Aquaman, Cyborg, and Flash. And what a lousy job he does. Aquaman is the most one-dimensional character of all. He is covered with tattoos, has long hair, and swigs whiskey from a bottle. So we know he’s badass. He’s angry at his mommy. He likes to help people for some reason, but thinks he does it best alone. Cyborg is a black man with a stratospherically high IQ which he inherited from his black scientist father. No regression to the mean in this universe. And Flash, just like Lex Luthor in the last movie, is a shrimpy, neurotic, fast-talking, cowardly Jewboy. (What’s Zack Snyder trying to tell us?) There’s no depth, nuance, subtlety, or humanity in Justice League, just plastic robots, batteries not included. The established characters also seem hollowed out and flattened. But with no human beings at its core, the movie’s CGI battle scenes become a tedious, emotionally uninvolving assault on the senses.

One of the running theses of my career as a movie reviewer is that someone in Hollywood is reading anti-modern, Traditionalist Rightists and recognizes that we represent the most fundamental negation of liberal humanism and thus the perfect supervillains. Justice League nods in this direction at the beginning when Wonder Woman foils a group of white “reactionary” terrorists who want to blow up the Old Bailey in London. Also, under the opening credits, which are a montage of social chaos after the death of Superman to a cover of Leonard Cohen’s “Everybody Knows,” we see a white man with shaved head menacing a shopkeeper in a hijab and her child. But like everything else in this film, even this feels perfunctory, phoned-in, and fake.

I hope the failure of this movie and the suicide of his daughter will cause Zack Snyder to take some time away from Hollywood to rethink his career. The great weaknesses of his recent films have been plot and characterization. His best films, 300 [6] and Watchmen [2], were based on classic graphic novels, and from that high starting point, he actually improved upon them, both in terms of visualization and plot. But Snyder’s career since then seems almost like a controlled experiment to establish that all the directorial and technical wizardry in the world can’t make a compelling movie if the plot and characterization are lacking, nor can brand-loyalty and PR-puffery turn it into a success.

The fact that Justice League has bombed is proof that there is still some justice in the world.

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)

[1]4,702 words

Watchmen is one of the most thoroughly Right-wing, even fascistic works of recent popular culture, despite the right-thinking Leftism of the creators of the original graphic novel, Alan Moore, who wrote the story, and Dave Gibbons, who illustrated it—and of Zack Snyder, who directed the movie adaptation, which to my mind is the greatest superhero movie of all time, a movie that not only does justice to the original novel but actually improves upon it in fundamental ways.

Watchmen was not a Leftist parody of the Right that went off mark. Moore is too good a writer to fail in a big way. When Moore engages in parody, such as his sendup of Far Right Cold War journalism in The New Frontiersman, he hits the mark nicely.

Snyder also introduces elements of satire into the movie’s treatment of Richard Nixon. In the graphic novel, Nixon is portrayed as a lonely, dignified, and thoughtful figure who rejects rash decisions. (This is quite telling in itself.) The movie takes us into Dr. Strangelove territory, but it gives Nixon such great lines—contemplating the nuclear destruction of the Eastern Seaboard: “The last gasp of the Harvard establishment. Let’s see them debate their way out of nuclear fission”—that we find ourselves laughing with him, not at him. But Snyder’s treatment of the main characters follows Moore in being serious, not satirical.

Thus the Right-wing flavor of Watchmen is a product of design, not accident. At heart, it is a gallery, not of Right-wing caricatures, but of complex and compelling characters with a range of far-Right outlooks. These characters are placed in an extraordinary plot driven by fundamental moral and political, and even metaphysical and religious, conflicts. With its archetypal characters and high-stakes plot, Watchmen is a 19th-century Romantic novel disguised as a comic book. 

The Setting & Back Story 

The main events of Watchmen take place in October and November 1985. They are set primarily in New York City, in Antarctica, and on Mars, within an alternative history in which Richard Nixon has been President since 1968 and superheroes, called “Watchmen,” actually exist.

There are two generations of Watchmen.

The First Generation

The Watchmen began in 1938 as eight individual costumed crime-fighters, six men and two women. In 1939, they teamed up and were referred to collectively as “Minutemen,” after the rapid-response partisan militia of the American Revolutionary War. These superheroes were physically fit and public-spirited but otherwise ordinary individuals who donned masks and costumes to fight crime.

Five of them play little or no part in the graphic novel and movie: Silhouette (a lesbian who was murdered with her lover), Captain Metropolis (Nelson Gardner), Hooded Justice (missing in 1955, presumed dead), Dollar Bill (killed by bank robbers when his cape got caught in a revolving door), and Mothman (confined to a mental hospital). (Zack Snyder, who is a brilliant silent movie director, shows these stories under the opening credits of the film.)

Three first-generation Watchmen play important roles in the graphic novel/movie: Nite Owl (Hollis Mason), Silk Spectre (Sally Jupiter), and The Comedian (Edward Blake), all of them in their late 60s at the time.

The Minutemen rapidly fell apart. The Comedian was expelled in 1940 for trying to rape Silk Spectre. He went on to fight in the Second World War and after the war became a government “black ops” specialist who, among other things, assassinated John F. Kennedy from the grassy knoll near Dealey Plaza. Silhouette was murdered in 1946; Dollar Bill was gunned down around the same time; then, in 1947, Silk Spectre quit to have a family. In 1949, the Minutemen officially disbanded as a group, although some members continued to fight crime on their own.

The Second Generation

Despite their failure, the Minutemen did inspire a second generation of Watchmen, which formed in the late 1960s under the name Crimebusters. In the novel, they are called together by Captain Metropolis (Nelson Gardner), thus establishing a link with the first generation. (Gardner was to die in a car accident in 1974.) In the movie, they are convened by Ozymandias (Adrian Veidt). The Comedian also returned to costumed crime-fighting. Silk Spectre’s daughter Laurie took over her mother’s identity. Dan Driberg replaced Hollis Mason as Nite Owl. And three new personas emerged: Ozymandias, Rorschach (Walter Kovacs), and Dr. Manhattan (Dr. Jon Osterman).

The second generation of Watchmen includes some genuine superheroes. Although the Comedian, Rorschach, and Silk Spectre are all-too-human vigilantes dependent on will and athleticism, Ozymandias and Nite Owl have to some extent transcended human limitations, Veidt through physical and mental exercises which made him the smartest man alive and fast enough to catch a bullet, and Dreiberg primarily through technology which he could afford to develop because of the money left to him by his father, a wealthy banker. (Nite Owl, therefore, resembles Batman in more than just the costume.)

Dr. Manhattan, however, is a true superman. He is virtually indestructible and can see the future, mold matter with the power of thought, and transport himself and anything else instantaneously over great distances.

The second generation of Watchmen operated for about a decade, and they were more than just crime-fighters. The Comedian walked out of the initial meeting because he saw little point in fighting crime in a world menaced by nuclear war. But he involved himself anyway, because his objections were taken seriously by both Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias. Instead of being mere vigilantes trying to save New York, they began to think geopolitically about saving the whole world. The high point of their operations came when Dr. Manhattan intervened to win the Vietnam War for the United States. (The Comedian came along for laughs.)

But only a few years later, in 1977, public opinion had sufficiently turned against the Watchmen that the US Congress passed the Keene Act banning costumed vigilantes, and Nixon signed it.

In the eight years from the Keene Act to the opening of the story in 1985, Adrian Veidt (whose true identity was already known before the Keene Act) focused on building up a multi-billion dollar business empire. Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian returned to doing secret work for the government, the former in research and development, the latter in black ops, knocking over Marxist republics in Latin America. (Nixon also has the Comedian keep tabs on the former Watchmen.) Laurie Jupiter went on the government payroll as Manhattan’s lover. Dan Dreiberg went into retirement, never revealing his true identity. Rorschach, however, remained active, but entirely outside the law.

The Plot

My primary focus is on the cast of Watchmen as a gallery of Right-wing archetypes. But before I deal with the characters in greater depth, I must sketch out the plot.

Both the novel and the movie open with the murder of Edward Blake by an unknown assailant. Rorschach investigates and discovers that Blake was the Comedian. Rorschach then breaks the news to the other members of his fraternity—first Dreiberg, then Veidt, then Jupiter and Manhattan—warning them, also, that they might be targets. (In the movie, Dreiberg warns Veidt.)

When Rorschach observes the former supervillain Moloch paying his respects at the grave of the Comedian, he tails him to his apartment and forces him to talk. Moloch reveals that he has terminal cancer. He also reveals that Blake broke into Moloch’s apartment, drunk and weeping, and told Moloch that he had discovered a terrible conspiracy involving Dr. Manhattan, Janey Slater, and Moloch himself. But Blake never mentioned the details or who was behind the conspiracy. A week later, he was dead, apparently silenced by the conspirators before he could talk.

Meanwhile, Dr. Manhattan’s relationship with Laurie is fraying as he becomes increasingly detached from the human condition. Laurie walks out and goes to Dan Dreiberg, Nite Owl II, for company. Reminiscing about their crime-fighting days, they walk through a dangerous area looking for trouble and end up in a fight with members of a gang, the Knot Tops, whom they trounce.

That same evening, Dr. Manhattan goes on Nightline and is accused on live television of giving cancer to his former lover Janey Slater, his friend Wally Weaver, and other associates. Enraged, Manhattan teleports himself to Mars. The Soviets take advantage of the absence of America’s ultimate deterrent to launch an invasion of Afghanistan, setting the United States and the USSR on the path to nuclear war.

Rorschach’s theory that someone is targeting the Watchmen receives further confirmation when a gunman tries to kill Adrian Veidt. The gunman, however, swallowed a cyanide capsule before he could be compelled to reveal who was pulling his strings. Then Moloch was murdered. Rorschach was framed for the crime and arrested, but he is rescued in the middle of a prison riot by Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II, who have grown closer, begun a sexual relationship, and returned to crime-fighting.

After the prison break, Manhattan teleports Laurie to Mars, where she tries to persuade him to return to Earth to prevent an imminent nuclear war. Meanwhile, Nite Owl and Rorschach investigate Roy Chess, the gunman who attempted to kill Veidt. They eventually discover that Chess, Moloch, and Janey Slater all worked for Pyramid Transnational, and that Pyramid was secretly owned by Adrian Veidt himself. They also discover a psychological profile on Manhattan that makes clear that Veidt was behind an elaborate plot to drive Dr. Manhattan to sever his ties with humanity, the success of which had brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. They immediately depart for Veidt’s Antarctic research center (a kind of Fortress of Solitude) to get some answers.

Veidt reveals that he has engineered Manhattan’s exile not to start a nuclear war but because Manhattan is the only person who could foil Veidt’s plans to stop it. At this point, the plots of the graphic novel and the movie diverge significantly. In the graphic novel, Veidt destroys New York City by faking an attack by a huge squid-like monster of apparent extraterrestrial origin. In the movie, he destroys a number of cities with explosions that bear the energy signature of Dr. Manhattan. In both cases, the result is that the United States and the Soviet Union call off their war and unite to face a greater threat: extraterrestrial invasion in one case, Dr. Manhattan in the other. In both the novel and the movie, Manhattan and Laurie return to Earth too late for him to do anything to stop it.

As a Lovecraftian, I am, of course, a sucker for tentacles. But I have to admit that the climax of the movie is far more elegant.

First, it provides a more plausible motive for driving Dr. Manhattan off the planet. Veidt had already successfully prevented Manhattan from seeing through his plot by creating tachyons, which obscured his vision of the future. Thus Veidt had no need to send Manhattan to Mars—as if such a piddling distance would matter to Manhattan anyway.

Second, the movie’s climax heightens Manhattan’s heroism. In the novel, Manhattan, Dreiberg, and Laurie agree not to reveal what Veidt has done, because to bring Veidt to justice would undo the unity he created and set the world back on the path to war. In the movie, however, Manhattan does more than just keep Veidt’s secret. He also takes the blame for Veidt’s crimes. Thus he plays a unique and supreme role in saving humanity by accepting, like Christ, the role of the scapegoat for the sins of others.

The dénouement of both the book and the movie are essentially the same: Rorschach refuses to keep Veidt’s secret, so Manhattan is forced to kill him. Manhattan then leaves Earth forever, perhaps to create life on another planet. The threat of nuclear war having passed, New York rebuilds (with Veidt Industries profiting handsomely). Dreiberg and Laurie decide to marry. And Rorschach’s diary, which tells the whole story up to his departure to Antarctica, when he dropped it in the mail, is fished out of the crank file at his favorite Right-wing periodical, New Frontiersman, bringing the story back to its beginning.

Principal Characters: First Generation 

Nite Owl I (Hollis Mason)

Hollis Mason’s primary role is as chronicler of the first generation of Watchmen and as a murder victim.

According to Mason’s memoirs, which are excerpted in the graphic novel, the Minutemen were called “fascists” and “perverts,” and there was an “element of truth in both those accusations,” although “neither of them are big enough to take in the whole picture.” In particular, Hooded Justice was heard “openly expressing approval for the activities of Hitler’s Third Reich,” while Captain Metropolis “has gone on record making statements about black and Hispanic Americans that have been viewed as both racially prejudiced and inflammatory.” As Mason sums it up, “Yes, we were crazy, we were kinky, we were Nazis, all those things people say.”

But, he adds significantly, “We were also doing something because we believed in it. We were attempting, through our personal efforts, to make our country a safer and better place to live in.”

This is an important point to bear in mind, for in mainstream comics, Right-wing political views are not the mark of superheroes, but of supervillains. Even the most macho vigilante scofflaw, like Batman, still has to pay lip-service to humanistic, egalitarian morals. But in the Watchmen universe, Right-wing superheroes are still superheroes. Indeed, as we shall see, they are the only kind.

Mason is killed by a gang known as the Knot Tops in retaliation for a beating meted out to their members by Nite Owl II (Dreiberg) and Silk Spectre II (Laurie Jupiter). (The gang members either don’t know or don’t care that there are two Nite Owls.) Dreiberg feels great guilt for Mason’s death, because he and Jupiter sought out the confrontation as they edged themselves toward resuming crime-fighting. 

Silk Spectre I (Sally Jupiter)

Sally Jupiter (born Juspeczyk) was a model turned crime-fighter. As one might suspect, she was no demure little flower. She drank and cussed with the guys, and also slept with some of them. Sally’s principal role in the plot is not, however, as a crime-fighter, but as a mother. The Comedian was drummed out of the Minutemen for trying to rape her. But later they had consensual sex (while she was married to her agent), producing Laurie (Silk Spectre II).

The Comedian (Edward Blake)

Edward Blake is one of the most enigmatic characters in Watchmen. He is called the Comedian because he wears a mask of cynicism and irreverence. He is capable of cold-blooded brutality and sadism. At first glance, he seems to be a sociopath. Ozymandias characterized him as “practically a Nazi.” But the Comedian is no Joker. Blake has a conscience. When he discovers that Ozymandias is committing crimes far more terrible than anything he has done, he is horrified and distraught and tries to confess to Moloch, one of his old foes.

Blake, moreover, is not just a cynic. He is best understood as a disillusioned idealist. Blake loves America. But he is a political realist enough to know that America has enemies, foreign and domestic, who must be killed. He knows that maintaining law and order sometimes requires going outside the law. Thus he is capable of assassinating President Kennedy and killing countless Communists in Vietnam and Latin America, and probably a lot of innocents who just got in the way.

But at some point, Blake lost his faith in America. Since he began as a conservative American, Blake surely saw liberalism as a decadent deviation from American ideals. But Blake had changed his views by the time of the police strike and riots of 1977, which were followed by the Keene Act, all of which sprung from a Left-liberal rejection of vigilantism.

The Comedian realized that liberal decadence was not a deviation from American principles, but their fulfillment. Exasperated by the ingratitude of the rioters, Nite Owl II asked the Comedian, “Whatever happened to the American dream?” To which the Comedian responded: “It came true.” America had been a giant joke after all, and the joke was on him.

Principal Characters: Second Generation 

Rorschach (Walter Kovacs)

Rorschach is the narrator of Watchmen. We see the story through his eyes. Veidt creates the conspiracy, and Rorschach’s investigation creates the plot. Rorschach also has the best lines in Watchmen and is by far the most popular character.

But he is also deeply problematic, for as his origin story makes clear, he is a hero out of the most unheroic of motives: ressentiment. The son of a prostitute, young Walter Kovacs suffered from abuse, neglect, and scorn. He was placed in a juvenile home at the age of 11, after savagely attacking two older bullies. Walter’s anger and embitterment give rise to a powerful desire to punish, both others and himself. Thus he adopts an absolutist, objective, black-and-white moral code which he applies without mercy or compromise.

Rorschach became a masked vigilante in 1964. He teamed up with Nite Owl II to fight crime. In the late ’60s, he joined the “Crimebusters” group. Rorschach was known for roughing up criminals, but he delivered them to the police alive. But America’s increasingly soft and liberal criminal justice system could no longer be trusted to mete out justice, so in 1975 Rorschach began killing criminals, starting with Gerald Grice, who had kidnapped a little girl, Blair Roche, butchered her, and fed her to his dogs.

Rorschach’s excesses were surely a factor that led to the Keene Act, banning masked vigilantes altogether. The other Watchmen retired or went to work for the government, but true to his uncompromising code, Rorschach remained in the fight. Thus Rorschach was on the scene after the Comedian’s murder, and his investigation brought the other Watchmen back into action.

But this same uncompromising character leads to Rorschach’s death in the end. After Ozymandias has used mass murder and trickery to pull the world back from the brink of nuclear war, Rorschach vows to tell the world. He is so wedded to punitive moral absolutism that he prefers that justice triumph even though the world might very well perish.

When Dr. Manhattan offers Rorschach the choice of silence or death, he chooses death. Rorschach’s attachment to principle seems admirable. But the root of his attachment is ultimately a punitive bitterness and spite that turns suicidal when Manhattan blocks him from unleashing it on the world. 

Nite Owl II (Dan Dreiberg)

At first glance, there is nothing particularly Right-wing about the character of Dan Dreiberg, who became Nite Owl II. But the mere fact that he is a costumed vigilante in the first place should rate rather high on the F-scale. Thus I would argue that all costumed superheroes should be treated as de facto Right-wingers in the absence of any express allegiance to liberal humanism, which is entirely absent in Dreiberg’s case.

Dreiberg and Laurie Jupiter are drawn together because they were the only two Watchmen who actually retired into private life after the Keene Act. Rorschach went rogue, the Comedian and Dr. Manhattan went to work for the government, and Ozymandias became a publicly-traded commodity.

Although both of them deny it, they very much miss “the life.” Laurie resents being reduced to Manhattan’s consort, for which she receives a government paycheck, although it turns out that her principal role in the plot is not as an independent agent but as the object of Manhattan’s affections.

If Laurie’s retirement reduces her to a sexual companion, Dreiberg’s has reduced him to sexual solitude and impotence. Laurie and Dreiberg are first drawn together by loneliness and nostalgia, but they can conquer their discontent only by inching back into crime-fighting. After their dust-up with the Knot-Tops, Laurie moves their relationship in a sexual direction, but Dreiberg is impotent. He only recovers his sexual potency after a full-fledged return to superherodom, right between saving people from a burning tenement and breaking Rorschach out of jail.

The character of Dan Dreiberg is a combination of Bruce Wayne (Batman) and Clark Kent (Superman). Nite Owl II’s costume looks like Batman’s, more so in the movie. Also, like Batman, Dreiberg is independently wealthy and uses his wealth to create technology that helps him transcend his human weaknesses.

Like Clark Kent, Dreiberg has a bespectacled, nebbishy persona, complete with spit curls. But in the graphic novel, Dreiberg is far more Jewish than Superman. Indeed, with his hook nose, ’berg name, and banker father, he is almost explicitly Jewish, but not quite.

There is, however, nothing distinctly Jewish about Dreiberg’s psychology as written by Moore. Dreiberg is earnest, not ironic. His psychological emasculation is not rooted in an overbearing mother or some other mind-twisting childhood trauma, but in the adoption of an emasculating lifestyle. Thus in the movie, Zack Snyder completely Aryanizes the character by casting Patrick Wilson in the role.

As a side note, the graphic novel is filled with Jewish touches. We read an excerpt from Dr. Milton Glass’s book on Dr. Manhattan. Mrs. Hirsch is interviewed by the police after her husband kills himself and their two children. Rorschach’s mother’s maiden name was Glick. Dreiberg is questioned by a detective Fine. Veidt sends a memo to Miss Neuberg. There are also numerous references to the Third Reich, National Socialism, and the Second World War.

Part of this can be explained by the fact that the novel is set mostly in New York City. Another factor, surely, is Moore’s desire to fit into the comic book industry, which has an overwhelmingly Jewish culture due to its principal founders. It may also have been calculated by Moore to somewhat counterbalance the political incorrectness of the novel with a little Semitical correctness, in effect giving it a “neoconservative” character.

Snyder, however, scrubs the Jewishness of the novel from the film, except for Veidt’s description of the Comedian as “practically a Nazi.” Interestingly enough, in 300, Snyder also mutes the strong Jewish-neoconservative nature of Frank Miller’s original graphic novel.[1]

Dr. Manhattan (Jon Osterman)

In 1959, nuclear physicist Jon Osterman was seemingly annihilated in an experiment with an “Intrinsic Field Subtractor.” But he managed to reassemble himself into a being who can see past, present, and future simultaneously and bend matter to his will. The birth of Dr. Manhattan was greeted by the news that, “The superman exists, and he is American.” But Wally Weaver, who was present at Osterman’s death and resurrection, went further, declaring that “God exists, and he is American.”

And indeed, Dr. Manhattan is portrayed as a god, and not just a god, but a savior. Like Osiris and Dionysus, he was killed through dismemberment, then reassembled and resurrected, showing mankind the way to conquer death. Like Jesus, who also died and was resurrected, Dr. Manhattan appears floating in the air in a halo of light.

He is also portrayed as a Hindu avatar of Vishnu, specifically Krishna: muscular, with glowing blue skin, and a circular “bindi” mark on his forehead, which to a Hindu indicates expanded consciousness. He even appears in a lotus position.

But of course Dr. Manhattan does not just look the part of a savior. He actually plays it, saving mankind from nuclear annihilation, by assuming, like Christ, the role of scapegoat for the sins of others, in this case Adrian Veidt. The use of such symbols and myths is part of the emotional power of Watchmen. 

Silk Spectre II (Laurie Jupiter)

Just as Sally Jupiter’s primary role in Watchmen is not as a crime-fighter but as the object of the Comedian’s lust and mother of his child, Laurie Jupiter, Laurie’s primary role is not as a crime-fighter, but as the object of Dr. Manhattan’s affections. Needless to say, this is a very traditional and anti-feminist conception of the true power and proper role of women.

When Manhattan learns that Laurie was produced through the sordid union of Sally and the Comedian, he is snapped out of his estrangement with humanity and resolves to save mankind. This is the crucial moment in the plot, marking the emergence of one of its deepest themes: Love for an individual human being can redeem the whole universe.

If you love someone, you are implicitly saying “yes” to his existence. You are glad of his existence and wish it to continue. Logically, you cannot love someone and wish that the causes of his existence were otherwise, for then one’s loved one would not exist. And since everything in the universe is causally connected with everything else, if you really love someone, you cannot wish that the universe were otherwise. And this is true even though the universe is filled with many things that, in themselves, are terrible.

At the end of the story, this theme is reprised with great emotional power when Laurie is reconciled with her mother. Laurie can forgive her mother because she loves herself, which entails accepting all the conditions that made her life possible, including the union of her mother and the Comedian. Laurie says, “I love you, mom. You always did right by me.” Sally is also reconciled with the Comedian because he gave her Laurie, whom she loves.

Ozymandias (Adrian Veidt)

Ozymandias is the only openly liberal character in Watchmen. He is 46 when the story of Watchmen begins. The hyper-Nordic child of wealthy German immigrants, Adrian Veidt is a self-made superman. He has used meditation and other physical and mental training techniques to become the smartest and fastest man alive. When he was young, he gave his vast inheritance to charity and pursued the life of a costumed crime-fighter, taking the name Ozymandias, a name for the Egyptian Pharaoh and megalomaniac Ramses II. But when the Keene Act forced Ozymandias into retirement, he went into business and became a billionaire in his own right.

Ozymandias is a vegetarian and a pacifist. He is unmarried, and Rorschach thinks he is a “possible homosexual.” In the graphic novel, he is portrayed as beefy and also—despite his gymnastics exhibition—as macho, posturing in victory like a quarterback after a touchdown. In the movie, he is portrayed by the wiry and epicene Matthew Goode, who heightens the character’s liberal do-gooder “vibe.”

Ozymandias is also a materialist who believes that war is caused by the poor seeking wealth and the rich trying to hold onto it. He believes, therefore, that free, unlimited energy will bring about universal abundance and end the Cold War. He is a utilitarian governed by the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. He reckons in terms of human quantity rather than quality. (He believes that anybody can become a superman through the Veidt Technique.)

In short, Ozymandias is a quintessential egalitarian humanist, which is the moral code of virtually every superhero outside the Watchmen universe. But Ozymandias is the only egalitarian humanist in the cast of Watchmen. Ozymandias would seem to be a counter-example to my thesis that Watchmen is a Right-wing comic, were it not for the fact that he is also the villain of the story, the cold-blooded, calculating murderer of millions.

Ozymandias is no less the villain because his scheme worked to prevent nuclear war. Indeed, his scheme to goad Dr. Manhattan into exile brought the world to the brink in the first place. Moreover, he is no less a villain because he in effect uses nuclear blackmail to force the other Watchmen to remain silent, and Dr. Manhattan to kill Rorschach, all in order to keep his secret.

There is a sense in which even Ozymandias is a Right-wing archetype, namely a Right-winger’s archetype of a villain: the egalitarian, humanist, pacifist mass murderer.

Although egalitarian humanists like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are the biggest butchers in world history, within the world of comics, the heroes are always egalitarian humanists, and the villains are always people who reject that morality, e.g., traditionalists, Nazis, fascists, racists, eugenicists, and the like.[2] Watchmen neatly and completely inverts this code. That is why it is the supreme masterpiece of pop fascism.

Notes

1. See my review of 300 [2] in Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies, ed. Greg Johnson, Foreword by Kevin MacDonald (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012).

2. See my reviews of Batman Begins [3], The Dark Knight [4], The Dark Knight Rises [5], Hellboy [6], and Hellboy II [7]in Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies.

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
VenusFlytrap2

[1]7,927 words

Editor’s Note:

The following text is a transcript by V. S. of Tomislav Sunić’s interview with Jonathan Bowden. Click here [2] to listen to the audio. A couple of words have been marked as unintelligible. If you can make them out, please post a comment below.

Tom Sunić: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen! Good afternoon, dear friends! 

This is your host, Tom Sunić, from Croatia and I’m very pleased again to have a good friend of mine and also a good guest. This is Jonathan Bowden. Hello, Jonathan! Can you hear me well?

Jonathan Bowden: Yes. Hello! Greetings from Britain!

Sunić: Listen, Jonathan, I’m very, very pleased to have you on my show for a variety of reasons. What I would like to do today is the following thing. In the first segment, I’d like you first to say a few words about yourself, about your background, and about your political background as well. Then in the second segment we’ll talk a little bit about your literary and artistic accomplishments.

But, let’s first start with yourself, Jonathan. Don’t be too shy. Just tell me what you’ve got, because you have heavy artillery. I’m very pleased indeed to have you on my show.

Bowden: Ha! Yes, well, I’d like to say hello to everyone who might be out there in the ether. I was born in England, in Kent, in the farther southeast of England, the so-called garden of England in 1962. So, I’m sort of 48 now. During almost the entirety of my educated life, liberal ideas of one sort or another, libertarian, center-Left, far-Left ideas have been hegemonic and dominant amongst most educated people in Britain and elsewhere.

It may come as sort of news to people, particularly in the United States, that there is really very little freedom of expression in Britain and in parts of Western Europe about certain key matters. It’s rather ironic because the rest of the world thinks that opinion is free here, and the Second European Civil War (what I call the Second World War) was fought for freedom of expression and so on. Whereas there’s no First Amendment right here, and there are many ways in which discussion is curtailed. I think that’s rather ironic because dictating a discussion indicates that you have something to suppress, when in actual fact most educated and artistic people in England and Britain now are vaguely liberal-minded or, at the very least, they go along with what is called a politically correct mindset.

Now, this has grown up over the last 40 to 50 years in this sort of cultural revolution of the 1960s in Britain and elsewhere across the West. You have a situation now where almost everybody who goes through tertiary and even higher secondary education comes out with a slightly identikit formulation, the same sort of views about certain core issues or the same belief that certain topics are unsayable or are off-limits, particularly about generic inequality, or biological differences between people, or inherent differences between male and female.

Another difference, particularly with American listeners, is the almost complete collapse of Christianity in England and Britain. We, of course, had a state semi-Protestant church for half a millennium called the Church of England. I was baptized in it, I was confirmed in it, as 30 million English people were. Yet, it is largely invisible and is kept alive by the residual liberals in its hierarchy and many of the immigrants from the Third World, via the British Empire, who were given the religion externally and, of course, who still believe in its precepts. You have the paradox that many of the immigrants who are Anglicans now and have come in from the outside are more socially conservative and come from more psychologically conservative cultures than the hierarchy of their own church. But that’s a minor cultural war increasingly on the margins of English life.

But it would be wrong to say that many Judeo-Christian assumptions have gone. They’ve been secularized and have taken a humanist form.

Sunić: I’m [unintelligible], so to speak. How did that affect your formative years? Let’s say 20, 30 years ago when to grammar school and afterwards when you went to university. Can you tell me something about that because, as I understand, the Left back then did not hold such a firm grip on cultural power.

Bowden: Yes, that’s contradictory. I was about 18 coming on 20 when Margaret Thatcher came to power in Britain, and it’s paradoxical that the liberal Left was not so entrenched in establishmentarian discourse then as now, the better part of 30 years on. However, the far Left, by which we mean a sort of Trotskyite, sort of ultra-Left, and sort of Leftish reaches of Communism, which looked down on the Communist Party of Great Britain which was to wind up in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union that partly financed it. They had enormous power at least at the level of the street, by which I mean in campuses they had the power to break the windows of dons who had ideas that they disapproved of particularly in the biological sciences, but also in psychology and culture and elsewhere.

I joined the Conservative Party, which is the equivalent of the Republican Party in the United States, and center-Right Christian Democrat parties throughout Western Europe, when I was about 18. The interesting thing about the Conservative Party is that (1) it ceased to be culturally conservative in a metaphysical sense a long time ago, and (2) it has never understood the cultural struggle that the radical Left has waged inside European societies, which includes Britain and indeed the United States. Conservatism has never conserved anything for about 40 to 50 years, and because it allowed the arts and the media and the academy and much of the clerisy and intelligentsia to be completely penetrated by the ideas of their sworn enemies, you’ve ended up in Britain and elsewhere with this strange hybrid of a Left-wing capitalist society which is the norm across the West.

Sunić: How do you explain that? How were they able? You’re talking, of course, about the Leftists. How did they permeate and infiltrate into the mainstream opinion-making?

Bowden: I think there’s two ways. I think there’s an external or exterior strategy, and there’s an interior strategy. I think the exterior one is by pressure groups, by proselytization, by student militancy, by the militants of today who tone it down to become the dons of tomorrow.

But I think there’s also an internal element. I think many people internalize the idea that Right-wing values, elitist values, values of prior identity, values of belief in hierarchies, and so on were somehow wrong or vaguely immoral or amoral or non-permissible or, in a much more mercenary way, wouldn’t foster one’s career too much in the future. So, the moral uncertainty of certain people, even on the moderate Right, meant that they had partly internally collapsed in relation to a range of ideas.

I also think it’s important to understand that the Left understood that it had lost the battle over the economy several generations back, and since Gramsci in the latter part of the second decade of the twentieth century had been fighting various forms of cultural war primarily against conservative opponents who were increasingly mentally defenseless against them.

Unlike the moderate Left that’s always seen far-Left ideas shorn of Communist politics as a permissible ally, the moderate Right has always seen far-Right or radical Right ideas as part of the enemy mix or an area that they can’t go to. They have this paradox that there were certain very radical conservative, metaphysically and intellectually conservative dons in English life, Maurice Cowling at Cambridge about whom I’ve given a talk somewhere on the internet, and Professor Roger Scruton, who’s still alive. They’re known as deep blue or metaphysical conservatives. They’re the last of a dying breed, if you like. Even they were resistant to the idea of using far-Right ideas against the Left and the liberal Left on campus.

Sunić: Let me just clarify one thing, Jonathan, if you don’t mind. You remember Enoch Powell. You remember what he said, and he was a real promising politician, but nowadays he would be clearly dismissed as a Fascist, an ultra-Fascist. So, basically we’re talking about this semantic distortion (there’s that word that I keep repeating over and over again). What was considered quite decent, normal, mainstream Right in the UK or for that matter in continental Europe 30 years ago, now this is considered an extreme Right.

Bowden: Yes, that’s right. It’s as if you’ve had a shuffling to the Left in all areas, in religion, in the media, in the academy, in the arts, in the general clerisy, even in the sort semi-sciences, the humanistic sciences, and the social sciences, and even in the softer parts of the hard sciences. So, you’ve had a shift to the Left in all areas.

Enoch Powell is an interesting example. Like Nietzsche, who was given a university professorship when he was 24, Powell was given a professorship at the University of Sydney in Australia when he was 24 years of age. Powell could speak 10 European languages.

Sunić: Did you know him personally? Did you ever meet him?

Bowden: I met him towards the end of his life. Like a lot of allegedly dictatorial men, he was extraordinarily short. He used to stand on a box to address meetings. It was concealed behind the podium, you know. He came from quite a long line of sort of Napoleanesque men in various ways.

The irony is that Powell was in many respects an extremely Right-wing liberal. He was at the outermost cuff of the old Tory party. He was very much an economic liberal. Very anti-statist. Very anti-socialist. Some of his values were not far-Right at all, but would be close economically to people like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and the Austrian school. Don’t forget the great reaction in Britain is against the post-war planned welfare state, deficit financing, and Keynesianism, so many fiscal conservatives looked to be in that sort of area and wouldn’t be regarded as radical Right at all.

In certain other areas, Powell was out of grain with what might be called a compassionate society. He was Minister of Health in the 1950s, and you may remember there was a scandal about birth defects with a drug called thalidomide, and he had to deal with that. Though he turned to Christianity in his middle life, the High Church, High Anglican, Anglo-Catholic type of Christianity a bit like T. S. Eliot the poet (and Powell was also a poet actually), early in his life he had been very strongly influenced by Nietzsche, and that certain intellectual implacability influenced Powell throughout his life.

Powell is most famous with the masses for speaking out against mass Third World immigration into Britain in the late 1960s, which catapulted him from obscure Tory ministerial ambition to be somebody that skinheads and football fans and the overwhelming mass of the population had heard of. He then became one of the most significant men in the country because he dared to speak about issues which virtually no one else in the establishment would.

Powell was an outsider in many ways, despite his intellectual accomplishments. He was seen as an outsider. He didn’t attain the leadership of the Conservative Party in and around 1970. He later advocated that people should vote Labour in order to get a referendum on membership of the European Union, the sort of putative federation that exists in this part of the world that Right-wing nativists and nationalistic people across Europe tend to oppose. Not all, but most of them do. He was an Ulster unionist, of course, which got him involved in radical Protestant type politics in relation to the sort of war that people have heard of in Northern Ireland.

But Powell was one of these figures that Britain has grown up in the last 100 years. Joseph Chamberlain at the beginning of the twentieth century, Sir Oswald Mosley in the middle of the twentieth century, and Enoch Powell at the end of the twentieth century who posited an alternative political trajectory for Britain. They were very radical men. They didn’t really have an allegiance to party, and there’s a nationalistic strand to all of them. Powell was a member of the Tory party, a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, he advocated voting Labour at times tactically. Mosley was a member of both the Tory and the Labour parties before he founded the New Party that then became the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. Joseph Chamberlain began in the Liberal Party, then formed his own Liberal Unionist Party, then moved over to the Tories. The Liberal Unionists were probably proto-fascistic in the late years of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century.

Sunić: Excellent. Jonathan, how did it affect your own trajectory, if I can put it that way? Because you had at some point a couple of years ago quite a prominent role as a cultural advisor for Nick Griffin. I don’t want to get into those squabbles and what happened, but could you just give us a rough idea of to what extent Enoch Powell and then Tyndall affected your political trajectory, not intellectual so much?

Bowden: Yes, I mean, politically . . . In some ways the two are combined because the one thing I always thought about conservatism, even very Right-wing conservatism, is (Powell to one side) there’s great cultural aridness there. There’s a strong anti-intellectuality and philistinism in conservatism per se, particularly its British example. You know, philosophy is taught in France from the age of 6. But the British culture, particularly English culture, is strongly pragmatic, strongly non-heuristic, anti-conceptual, practical and pragmatic and utilitarian.

Margaret Thatcher was a scientist, and it showed in the politics, particularly the cultural policies of her government. When you bear in mind that she had as much power as Reagan had in the United States, particularly in the first term, and yet virtually nothing was done with this cultural power. There were a few items, a minor issue about homosexuality, so-called Section 28, and tacit support for White South Africa, but apart from these things, all other institutions, in particular the BBC, were left in the hands of her most ferocious opponents.

Sunić: You mean Leftists?

Bowden: Partly it’s an inability to see where your enemies are and know where they are, and it’s also the absence that many conservative politicians had of what you might call a complete civilizational discourse that led me to look at political tendencies further out, if you like.

Sunić: Sure. Jonathan, let me just focus for a while on your specific case. You are pretty much active. First with the BNP and now you’re the “chief intellectual leader” of the British New Right. So, could you give me some specific details about your political and intellectual trajectory over the last ten years?

Bowden: Yes, in the last twenty actually. In the early 1990s, I was in the accredited Right-wing group on the Right-wing of the Conservative Party, which then called itself the Conservative and Unionist Party, called the Monday Club, which went back to the 1960s and was created by the Marquess of Salisbury who, of course, is related to the aristocratic British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury 70 years before in the last years of the nineteenth century.

The Monday Club, of course, deliberately chose that name so that there would be no far-Right subliminal messages. They first had their meeting on a Monday, so they called themselves the Monday Club, the most neutral name in the world. The Monday Club was a significant organization in the 1970s. By the time I had joined it, it was well and truly dying.

I formed a metapolitical group of my own called Revolutionary Conservative at that time which lasted for a few years and I was also the deputy chairman of quite a notorious group, actually, called Western Goals, which was an extreme anti-Communist and Cold War group. I went through that Cold Warrior phase, if you like, on the Western side. Those groups were quite interesting because they did consist of people from the conservative Right and people from the far Right who rubbed shoulders with each other. It was a sort of reverse alliance of the Second World War, do you see what I mean? It was Right-wing conservatives and far Rightists against Communism.

The interesting thing about the World Anti-Communist League which was the organization that Western Goals was affiliated with was that it contained anti-Communists of every race and type right across the world. It had some very notorious affiliates in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa and that sort of thing.

General Singlaub who was head of the National Security Council under Jimmy Carter came across and gave us a talk once. I like these American generals very much as individuals, because they’re very brave men, But they were warriors and you had to wonder in your inner mind if they really knew what cause they were fighting for. John Singlaub had fought in ten wars across his lifetime. He’d fought for the American Empire, as even he called it privately, all his life. He was a fascinating man. So, just sort of artistically and intellectually and psychologically it’s interesting to meet some of these types who do sort of, partly, run the world. Carter sacked him, of course, because he accused Carter of being soft on Communism.

Then, after the Cold War was basically won, I moved slightly further out and became more and more enamored of cultural struggle. I was in a group called the Bloomsbury Forum, published a few things, and I had a little group of my own called the Spinning Top Club which was sort of a metapolitical group. It was largely a group of friends. Then I became increasingly involved in and around the edge of the British Nationalist Party. I was involved in a break-away tendency from that in some respects called the Freedom Party. Then, in 2003, I joined the BNP and became cultural officer for about four years thereafter. After that, I was in this tendency which I still am chairman of now called the New Right.

Sunić: Jonathan, let me ask you. I hope it’s not too personal of a question. Do you still have contacts with the BNP? Specifically, are you in touch with Nick Griffin?

Bowden: Well no, Griffin and I don’t really get on. But that doesn’t really matter. I still speak at their meetings. I still have some sort of residual cultural influence with them. Lots of people think I’m too Right-wing for the BNP, actually. It’s a great paradox, given that I seem to have started as a conservative. In my own mind, of course, my views have hardly changed. The perception of them has changed a great deal. But my views were always philosophically based and I’m a very unusual British Right-wing thinker in some ways.

Sunić: Very much so. In fact, I was going to point that out to our listeners today that you seem to combine this militant political activism just as much as you are skilled and very much adept at writing excellent pieces and also giving good lectures on Carlyle, on Nietzsche, on Jünger, and we’ll talk about this in our next segment.

But back a little bit to this political life of yours. So, I understand now you don’t have any specific official ties with the BNP, am I correct?

Bowden: That’s right. People announce me as sort of cultural officer and that sorts of thing, but that’s just something that to see at meetings, really. I’ve always seen my role as very similar to that of a Marxist intellectual in reverse. If you take the small parties of the British far-Left. The Left wing never goes anywhere but culturally has been very significant. Of course, you’ve got the Socialist Workers Party and militant Workers Revolutionary Party and these sorts of groups. They would have had Marxist academics and Marxist intellectuals who passed through them, who often weren’t members, who had cultural or metapolitical roles, sometimes critical of the narrow sectarian leadership of such parties, and so on. Intellectuals like the Greek Alex Callinicos in the Socialist Workers Party.

I see myself the other way around. I see myself as a Nietzschean, or sort of post-Nietzschean, who has been in various Right-wing political parties and groups attempting to educate people, attempting to culturalize them to various things, attempting to put things in a broader context, trying to get people to understand that it’s not just about immigration and leaving the European Union. Or, in an American context, it’s not just about the absence of gun control, states’ rights, immigration, who controls the media, and these sorts of issues.

The Right at its best should basically stand for the advance of Western civilization, and that means you have to know something about the civilization that you have to know something about the civilization that you’re attempting to push forward, if you see what I mean.

Sunić: Sure, by all means. We’ll definitely discuss more about cultural hegemony and about some of the artistic works by our friend, author Jonathan Bowden in the next segment. But, Jonathan, let’s get back a little bit to some of those technical issues. I understand there’s a New Right in Great Britain now. I know some people. Our common friend, Troy Southgate, and I understand there are more folks. Do you have some loose structure? Do you guys hold some meetings? Or what specifically is the goal of the British New Right including Troy Southgate? I’m sure you’re in touch with him.

Bowden: Yes, he’s the organizing secretary of the group. In some ways, the New Right is a bigger and better continuation of some of the smaller metapolitical groups I’ve mentioned in the last couple of minutes. It’s gone on for about four to five years now; it’s had about 26 through 30 meetings and a couple of dinners, five magazines. Now that this is very much the internet age, you can speak to 50 to 60 people in a room and tens of thousands of people, if they want, can see the thing or hear the thing later on the world wide web.

The term “New Right” confuses people, of course. It’s a relatively useful term. It’s not as intellectually and culturally coherent in the sense of de Benoist’s French New Right or Steuckers’ Belgian version. It’s a more eclectic group that consists of different and even Old Right tendencies, if truth be told.

Sunić: I’m glad you pointed that out, because I had a discussion on a VoR show with Alain de Benoist about this conceptual problem as to how the New Right is being defined or interpreted or instrumentalized in the UK as opposed to France. This causes friction sometimes, definitely. Go ahead.

Bowden: Yes, it’s partly a Britishness, of course. Many British intellectuals, for example, are uncomfortable even with the word intellectual. So, British intellectual life when it takes a political form tends to be less purist and less sectarian. French and continental intellectuals love tiny little tendencies that are completely pure, and people who can’t stand it leave and form a trajectory of their own. Whereas our group tends to be more of a synthesis. It’s basically a generalized Right-wing philosophical circle which allows freedom of speech particularly in a culture where there is not freedom of speech about quite a lot of salient matters, and you have to be quite careful about the speech that you put forward even within this space.

Also, there’s a general premise. Even for a very ideological group, there’s a streak of English pragmatism to it.  It creates a greater space for people to put forward educated (I believe reasonably highly educated) inegalitarian views. Probably about 5% of it, in truth, would be consonant with GRECE and what they formulate. Probably intellectually, GRECE has had more influence in the United States than it has in Britain.

Sunić: Let me read a little paragraph of yours which I think is very fascinating and which serves almost like a framework for our discussion.

“Politics is just a sideline, you see. Artistic activity is what really matters. As Bill Hopkins once told me, one man sat writing alone in a room can alter the entire cosmos. It is the ability through a typewriter or whatever else to radically transform the consciousness of one’s kind. Cultural struggle is the most interesting diversion of all.”

This is what you said to Troy Southgate. Could you please comment a little bit on that, on cultural struggle, and how you see it exactly from this our contemporary perspective and from the British perspective?

Bowden: I think politics is limited in a way in this era. I think this is quite true when you look at the votes that radical Right parties past the accredited center-Right get. They come up. They go down. I suppose the party in Belgium, Vlaams Belang, once the Vlaams Blok, and Jean Marie Le Pen’s organization in the French fifth Republic, the Front National, have done the best on the Western side of the continent. But even they are partly peripheral, demonized, out of power, and very far away from even having a hand upon the hand that controls the tiller of their respective states.

I think one of the many reasons for this is that the entire culture, with the odd exception that maybe in relation to market economy performance in a liberal way, is stressing humanistic and egalitarian goals. The entire Zeitgeist is against you, or seems to be so. And, therefore, I think that you have to sit as Gramsci and other Leftists did 90 to 100 years ago and work out what can be done to push the culture back in a more organic, more traditional, more elitist, more hierarchical way, however you want to look at it.

Therefore, I think that cultural struggle, particularly in the arts (I think especially in the arts, because I see the arts as the dream space or the sub-consciousness, if you want to use that phrase, of the society.) I think it’s extraordinarily interesting and/or important, and it’s really my fundamental interest to see what can be done in that area.

Situationism is a theory that came out of Surrealism and influenced the Leftist events of May 1968 in Paris and America and elsewhere. Whether you can engage in what they call détournement,  the idea that you can turn around the specificity of the moment, and you can invert in many ways the cultural inversion of the last 40 to 50 years. Is it possible? Liberals would say, “Is it desirable?” But can it be done and in what ways can it be done?

I take an elitist view of culture. I believe that everything comes down from above, and I believe that the spirit is the brain of the mind and the mind dominates the body. But the mind, of course, is only a part of the body. I think rather like Hobbes the great English theorist 400 odd years ago against whom British cultural theory reacted. Hobbes was an authoritarian, an absolutist, a semi-elitist, a non-democrat, and even an atheist in a deeply religious age. So, he was quite a shocking combination. He appalled both the Royalists and the Cromwellians. I’m quite enamored of Hobbes, in a way, who of course is close to the English version of Machiavelli in his doctrine of statecraft.

Hobbes’ idea of the society that is organic and where the mind and the body are integrated influenced me a great deal. I think the contemporary West suffers from an extraordinary mind-body split. And the intelligentsia has gone off and talks to themselves and doesn’t connect to the bulk of people in Western societies at all. There is a degree to which I personally think that if you put into currency ideas and cultural forms which have a primal element, have a primordial element, have in some respect a pagan dimension, I think you can knit the mind and the body back together again.

I also think it’s very important, and something that political people nearly always miss, that rationalism is not enough. I think you move people at a level beneath the mind, physiologically and in terms of the emotions. In fact, the Right is more powerful when it appeals as much to the subconscious as much as the conscious mind. I think an enormous number of people, including the Right’s bitterest and harshest opponents, are slightly subconsciously attracted to it in spite of themselves. That’s why they can never stop talking about it, even from an oppositional perspective.

I do believe in cultural inversion, that you can get into sub-consciousness of the era that you’re in and begin to turn it around. I’m also very aware that movements of the ’20s and ’30s were based upon, in part, a Romantic counter-culture that stretches back to the 1870s if not before. The counter-culture as we perceive it is purely Leftist and comes from the 1960s. I agree with Ezra Pound that the artistic community is like the antennae of the civilization that they’re a part of and that they feel the tremors in the web or in the ether before anyone else. That’s why a lot of twentieth century art is about trauma and alienation and ugliness and neurosis, because that’s what the intelligentsia feel, and that’s what the artistic part of the intelligentsia feel.

I see Right-wing cultural formations everywhere, even though they wear other hats, even though they seem to be denouncing the Right. But you have to view these areas artistically and not completely in a linear or rational way.

Sunić: You mentioned Hobbes. So, how do you actually square away Hobbes now with our modern society?

Bowden: I think British and English theory reacted against Hobbes and English Enlightenment, Scottish Enlightenment thinking is a reaction against him. Hobbes is interesting because he’s so modern. He’s so ferocious and contemporary. It’s amazing to think it’s 400 years ago, but the climactic events of English history, certainly the internal violent events, are 400 years ago. We only ever had one Puritan revolutionary military dictator, and he’s 400 years ago. We’ve only ever had one republic, and that’s 400 years ago.

The elements of Hobbes that interest me are the closest to Machiavelli, but the idea of an organic society where mind and body are synchronized with each other. I think modern culture suffers from an enormous mind-body split, a Cartesian split. About 140-odd years ago, artists and intellectuals began creating totally for themselves and, if you like, divested themselves of the mass of the population and have been talking to themselves partly since. That’s partly a good thing, partly a very bad thing. I think if you can to knit the mind and body back together again in various subtle ways, great changes can occur, but they won’t be immediately obvious.

Artistic activity is extraordinarily important, and the arts are not really, although they appear to be,  from our point of view, completely in the hands of the enemy. I don’t always think that is the case if you view the arts in a different way. I think Rightist ideas, or let’s call them conceptually elitist notions, are ubiquitous even when they’re being traduced and denounced. I think that a different perspective on these sorts of things can lead to turn around. Inversion of the inversion and attacks upon liberal definitions of culture even from within what it’s saying.

But these are very complicated areas and, on the whole, political people have almost no time for this and I think don’t often understand the dynamics of the artistic space, which is why they’ve left it to people who are interested in these areas. And in this era and the one that precedes it, that’s congruent with their most significant opponents.

Sunić: Jonathan, let me ask you one thing which is quite conspicuous, that I come across in your writings quite often. This is elitism. I would certainly appreciate if you could define it a little bit. So, let me just read a sentence of yours.

“A man who possesses an idea or a spiritual truth is the equivalent of 50 men. Every pundit, tame journalist, academic, or mainstream politician is mouthing hand-me-down ideas from a philosopher of yesteryear.”

I just want to make clear that I understand that correctly. So, basically, as I understand, you both reject egalitarianism and economism but, at the same time, just in terms of conceptualizing objective reality, it seems to me that you sometimes use language which is a little bit too arcane, if I can put it modestly.

Bowden: Yes. That particular set of ideas comes in some ways from an artist and a writer who would be regarded as a Leftist: George Bernard Shaw. One of the things I’m interested in is the reclamation of certain people who were once regarded as Left-wing. I think that, although it’s a small amount of mileage, there is a tiny bit of mileage in these very elitist, extremely culturally knowledgeable people of 100 years ago and more who were on the Left then. People like H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw and some, but not all, of the Fabians here; people like Jack London, in a complicated way, in the United States at the same time.

Now, there is a complication with them because increasingly these figures—and Shaw was influenced by both Wagner and Nietzsche and this odd comingling of Marx and Wagner (an interesting synthesis, if you like)—and I personally think these figures are now too White, too Eurocentric, too knowledgeable about the classical world. I think they make the contemporary New Left quite uncomfortable. And there’s a certain energy to their criticism which can be made use of.

William Pierce of the National Alliance, of course, was heavily influenced by Man and Superman and by quite a few of Shaw’s more elitist and dissentient ideas.

Even though I am a pagan and a Nietzschean, even though I wonder if the supernatural actually exists in a factual sense rather than a metaphorical and an aesthetic one, I do believe that the ultimate truth is religious, and the ultimate truth is outside man, and we are not aware of what that ultimate truth may be, and the Western post-Socratic tradition is an opening out to the possibility of that, rather than the declamatory affirmation of what it is.

Sunić: Let me ask you a question. Are you a pagan? Are you a Christian? Are you a religious person? How would you define yourself, if I may ask you that?

Bowden: I would say I was a spiritual person more than I was a religious person. I believe in having what de Benoist calls a sense of the sacred. I am a pagan. I’ve attended pagan events. I am aware that metaphysically objectivist pagans, as I would call them, believe that Odin and Thor and Loki and all the others physically exist in another realm. I’m less certain about that. I don’t mind make-believe. But I personally don’t believe that’s the issue with religion. Religion, to me, deals with emotional rather than normative or factual or empirical truth. Emotional truth is far more powerful and is ultimately what draws the energy of civilizations together, what creates great ecstasies, what creates great waves of creation and destruction, what creates great civilizations and prepares for their fall.

Sunić: OK, Jonathan, where’s the spiritual? You’re talking about the emotional. How about the spiritual aspect?

Bowden: I personally think that the heightened creative energy that comes from emotionally-based rationality reaches the spiritual. But, for me, artistic activity is probably the nearest I get to belief. To me, it’s a form of religious belief.

Just take one example that convulsed contemporary culture quite recently in the United States and all over the world. I went to a Catholic school, but I went as a Protestant, and I’m not a Christian, retrospectively. But Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ, which had an enormous impact all over the world, to me is extraordinarily interesting and is a spiritual as well as a cultural event.

But primarily, it’s an artistic phenomenon of immense power whatever prior system one adheres to.

I don’t think the West has a prior system. I agree with Evola when he was asked, “What is your religion?” He said, “I’m a Catholic pagan.” And I think the West has a dialectic that’s both Christian and pagan fused together.

Sunić: Jonathan, I noticed in your artistic work and also in your prose an almost obsession, if I can put it that way, with the Gothic and the macabre. Why is that?

Bowden: Yes! Yes, I do love the macabre! I think that’s where part of the power in art is. I see politics and art in a slightly occultistic way.

If you attend a far-Right meeting, it’s not a conservative meeting, at all, but many of the views expressed are extremely conservative. I think that Left-wing people are rebels, conservative people are conformists and radically Right-wing people are rebellious conformists.

Sunić: Good point!

Bowden: In the occult, if you like, you have a destructive potentiality, which is the Left, and you have a concrete and stabilizing force, which is the Right, and yet the energy comes from the Left on to the Right to energize it and to reformulate the nature of civilization and its discourse. Therefore, I see, partly, the ultra Right as having certain energies which are drawn from the Left and are purified by the Right and then moves further out because there isn’t room elsewhere on the spectrum for them.

I see the Right as partly demonic, in the sense that Goethe meant, partly Mephistophelian. Although these are dangerous areas, of course, the primal cultural areas are dangerous. The reason that the far Right is vilified and demonized all over the Western world is because it represents the fundamentalist energies of its own culture.

Sunić: This is a fascinating statement of yours, but would you elaborate? Not just for the audience, but for myself as well. Go ahead.

Bowden: In the Islamic world and in the Arab world, you’ve got a lot of these corrupt elites and so on who are aligned with American and, indeed, Zionist power in a strange sort of way to keep Islamism down. And Islamism is seen as their own fundamentalism, their enemy within, the danger, the danger that people will turn to the most fundamentalist current within their society and civilization.

Now, looking at the Western world which is a civilization based upon inverted premises of the Islamic world. The West, in my view, is an anti-theocratic and open-minded civilization, but the idea that because of that we don’t believe in anything is utter nonsense. We have a fundamentalism of our own, and I think it’s the guilty conscience of most Western intellectuals, particularly liberal-minded people in the arts. An enormous number of Western artists and writers and intellectuals, even through reversal and antagonism, were attracted to fascism in the first 30 to 40 years of the twentieth century, and they were often attracted in an emotional way at a level deeper than reason, because they were attracted to the ur-discourses, the foundational and fundamentalist beliefs, classical and yet Romantic combined, of our own civilization.

It’s interesting to note, in relation to modernism for example, many of the early modernists—Eliot, Wyndham Lewis, Marinetti, Céline, Ezra Pound, and so on—were deeply attracted to the extreme Right. They were attracted because they saw in it fundamentalist cultural energies. It’s very interesting that late modernism has been taken up as the pet of the liberal establishment and completely denuded of nearly all of those energies, and it’s ended up in often decadent and squalid vistas that deconstruct almost everything the West is about and laughs whilst the process is going on.

And yet, even in that, I see a reaction against the foundational light, and I see the danger of European intellectuals being attracted to their fundamentalist discourses.

Often with culture you have to make things concrete. For example, take the book about cinema that was written by Lucien Rebatet [actually Robert Brasillach—Ed.] and Maurice Bardèche which influenced Truffaut. Now, Truffaut (half-Jewish director, of course) came to Britain to make his film in English, but the film is completely aesthetically French. French cinema is extremely distinct within Western cinematography. Every different from Anglo-American cinema. This is a film of Ray Bradbury’s science fiction book, Fahrenheit 451, where the books are burnt by firemen and nobody reads because books give people dangerous ideas. Now, the aesthetic of that film is deeply fascistic, and I believe it’s influenced by Rebatet, who knew Truffaut personally. Because fascist theorists in the ’30s, including ex-Communists, were obsessed with cinema.

Why were they obsessed with cinema? Because cinema is the mass art. It is the art of modernity. It appeals to the intellectual and it appeals to the man who’s got almost no mind at all because the images go straight on to his nervous system. It’s an organic form of art that can appeal from the professor at one end to the roadsweeper at the other. Of course, it is the fine art of the modern age. Modernism turned inside the mind because replication of external realities became photographic.

Cinema is the mass medium of modernity. It’s why I’ve made films. It’s also why Communism and fascism were obsessed with cinema and obsessed with control of it. It’s why Hitler wanted Fritz Lang to be head of German cinema after Metropolis in 1939.

Sunić: Excellent point. Jonathan, I know you’ve got an excellent website. I would certainly appreciate if you could just say aloud for our audience exactly the address of your website.

Bowden: It’s www.jonathanbowden.co.uk [The site is no longer online.—Ed.]

Sunić: That’s very easy. You’re everywhere. I see you on Wikipedia and everywhere. I certainly need to alert you, folks. Do listen to our friend, Jonathan. He’s an excellent speaker. I’m somewhat suspicious about your art though, your pictorial art. May I ask just a private question? Why do you actually sort of revel in those distorted figures, those oddly almost degenerate faces of yours? I mean you talk about chthonic art, this primeval feelings that you so often mention in your talks and in your artwork.

Bowden: It’s interesting. Partly because there are savage and ferocious forces in me, and I think you have to be truthful to them when you create. Probably the greatest artist in the Western tradition is Michelangelo. The greatest painter in the Western tradition is Botticelli. And yet, the one who appeals to me most emotionally is Hieronymus Bosch. Modernism is partly a diabolical form of art, and I’m not an aesthetic conservative. I’m partly revolutionary and conservative. On the whole, Left-wing people like my art and Right-wing people like the ideas contained in it but don’t like it. That’s simplistic, but it’s true. I think you have to paint what’s inside you.

The Christian tradition’s quite interesting here because the most aesthetically interesting parts of the Christian tradition are the Baroque magnificence of sort of heavenly ardor, the building on light or the principle of light, the almost Albigensian idea of light cascading upon itself. The Baroque. And the other potentiality is the demonic and the diabolical.

I mentioned Gibson’s film a moment or two ago, and in that film the devil is an androgynous woman. Many people, including certain ultra-Catholics who of course are close to Gibson conceptually, were rather put out by that. But in Christian tradition, because the diabolical can never be known by man, the artist is free to interpret it to a degree with his own imagination.

See, I think the imagination is incredibly powerful, and I think imagination moves people more than reason. I think the reason people are attracted to the radical Right, even though the forefront of their mind says they’re not, is the power that it has, and that power is negative as well as positive. It’s not just beauty. It’s beauty and ugliness combined, synthesized, and even stepped beyond.

So, I suppose my aesthetics are Nietzschean in a way. I’m a sort of Right-wing modern person in some ways. I would like the world to be different than what it is, obviously. But this is where I differ from Evola. Evola said there was three alternatives to modernity: suicide, being a Nietzschean or getting rid of it all and destroying it and returning to absolute Tradition based upon prior metaphysical realities. A part of me wouldn’t be opposed to that, like pagan poets like the American extremist Robinson Jeffers, for example. But at the same time, I think we’re in the modern world, and what you hope to do is turn its own energies in an elitist way.

One of the things that fascinates me is how under the surface images can be used. I once sat and watched the film 300. You know the Hollywood film which is in fact based on a Frank Miller graphic novel?

Sunić: I heard of it, but I didn’t see it.

Bowden: David Duke did an analysis of that film. That’s an anti-Persian, anti-Iranian film. It’s partly, if you want to look at it in this way, a neo-conservative film. If you know what I mean. And yet, if you turn the sound down and you look at it as a tableau of images. It’s sepia tints, which relates to early Renaissance paintings, people like Cimabue and Giotto. It’s images from Leni Riefenstahl. [Unintelligible] without any ideological overlay, just look at the aesthetics of the heroic! Not who we’re supposed to be against, not who we’re supposed to be for, but you just look at the physiological aesthetics of the thing. Images are very powerful and can create different mental states in people.

Goebbels wrote a novel when he was very young called Michael.

Sunić: I read it! Yes.

Bowden: It’s an Expressionist novel, and it’s a sort of Left-Right novel written when he was under the Strassers’ influence. Somebody once asked him, because he was regarded as a Catholic fundamentalist, “What is your view of God?” And he said, “My view of God is an eight-armed idol in darkness with flames around it, dancing girls, and human sacrifice.”

It’s almost Assyrian, isn’t it? And somebody said to him, “Well, my dear doctor, that’s not very Christian, is it?” And he said, “You mistake me, my friend. That is Christ.”

Sunić: Jonathan, well, this is a fascinating discussion that we’ve had and I hope to have you more often here on my show.

Folks, this was Jonathan Bowden, as I said you’ve got to check his website. He’s a great artist, and you can download his books. He’s a man who is quite familiar with Lovecraft. He probably knows him by heart, and Carlyle, but he is a man also of tremendous classical erudition. You can ask him about Marlowe and Shakespeare. He can talk for hours.

Jonathan, it was nice to have you here. We’ll have to go now. We’ll part company, but I hope to catch up with you soon in London. Thank you very much and bye for now!

Bowden: Thanks very much.

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
LynchCover2

[1]Trevor Lynch
Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
Edited by Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012
200 pages

Release Date: February 22, 2013

Hardcover: $35 

Quantity:  

Paperback: $20 

Quantity:  

Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist interpretations of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist takes on The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix TrilogyThe Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino’s long decline.

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies establishes its author as a leading cultural theorist and critic of the North American New Right.

“Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

 – Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique, from the Foreword

“Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. Lynch offers profound and original insights into more than 30 films, including Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy, and Scorsese’s Gangs of New York. These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

– Edmund Connelly

 “The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

– F. Roger Devlin, author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought

Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or a Traditionalist take on The Dark Knight?”

– Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

 “Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

– James J. O’Meara, author of The Homo and the Negro

CONTENTS

Foreword by Kevin MacDonald • iii

Editor’s Note by Greg Johnson • vii

1. Introduction: Why I Write • 1

The Lord of the Rings
2. The Fellowship of the Ring • 7
3. The Two Towers • 11
4. The Return of the King • 18
5. “The Scouring of the Shire” • 22

Christopher Nolan
6. Batman Begins • 27
7. The Dark Knight • 31
8. The Dark Knight Rises • 42
9. Inception • 54

Guillermo del Toro
10. Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, & Pan’s Labyrinth • 57
11. Hellboy • 63
12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army • 68

Quentin Tarantino
13. Pulp Fiction • 73
14. Kill Bill: Vol. I • 97
15. Inglourious Basterds • 102
16. Django Unchained • 109

The Matrix Movies
17. The Matrix Reloaded • 115
18. The Matrix Revolutions • 121

The Twilight Saga
19. Twilight • 126
20. New Moon • 131
21. Eclipse • 134
22. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 • 138
23. Breaking Dawn, Part 2 • 143

The Millennium Trilogy
24. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo • 145
25. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Remake • 149
26. The Girl Who Played with Fire • 152
27. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest • 156

Violence & Redemption
28. 300 • 159
29. Gangs of New York • 163
30. A History of Violence • 168
31. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters • 173
32. The Baader-Meinhof Complex • 185

About the Author • 190

Release Date: February 22, 2013

Hardcover: $35 

Quantity:  

Paperback: $20 

Quantity:  

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)

[1]2,809 words

Dredd is an action movie and nothing more. Fortunately, the creators know this and it is a good action movie, an outright celebration of blood, guts, slaughter, and gore — and a large amount of it is in slow motion. And in 3D.

While such films are rarely the subjects of critical acclaim, they do have political significance. Action movies make the egalitarian Left uncomfortable. Most have no time for the nuances of social critique and moral ambiguity so beloved of the professors infesting Film Studies departments at our major universities. We don’t go to popcorn thrillers and put on 3D glasses to have our deepest assumptions questioned. We are here for escapism and stylistic violence.

As leftist academics well recognize, simplistic action movies tend to reinforce the deeper Aryan archetypes and motifs of Western culture, emphasizing masculinity, duty, and stark conflicts between right and wrong. A strong man takes up arms and defeats an onslaught of lesser beings, saving the community. By following these patterns, even (and especially) the most simplistic action movies can be the most subversive, and are duly recognized by our minders as “cryptofascist [2]” and dangerous.

This is especially true with movies about law enforcement. While Radical Traditionalists have no illusions that contemporary police are anything other than the armed fist of an alien and hostile regime, most street cops spend their time dealing with a never-ending onslaught of black and brown crime. Even when heroes like Frank Castle (The Punisher [3]) confront white mob bosses or the multicultural gangs that only exist in television and movies, both viewers and critics understand the implications of effective and forceful criminal justice would be racist and profoundly inegalitarian. It’s therefore not surprising that movies such as Death Wish or Dirty Harry are often condemned by social critics as objectively fascist [4] and the sheer existence of films such as Harry Brown [5] or Taxi Driver [6] serve as warning signs of deep unrest and impatience with the festering rot of post-Western cities.

Dredd takes the tough cop model to its most extreme conclusion, positing a dystopian future where “street judges” operate as judge, jury, and executioner. While an earlier film treatment starring Sylvester Stallone was widely derided as a disgrace [7] both as a film and to the source material (Rob Schneider [8] costarred for God’s sake), Dredd is a stripped down reboot that stays true to the spirit of the character.

The plot is straightforward. Karl Urban’s Judge Dredd is a street judge, introduced to us while busting a truckload of (multicultural) junkies driving down the busy streets of Mega City One. Predictably, the chase ends with the deaths of all the criminals involved. Upon his return to headquarters, Dredd is instructed to supervise Judge Anderson on a training mission. Anderson is a marginal failure at the academy, but is being given another chance due to her incredible psychic abilities. Responding to the report of a triple homicide, Anderson and Dredd are trapped inside a “megablock” called Peach Trees, a gargantuan apartment complex housing hundreds of thousands of people. The leader of the criminal gang that runs the block, “Ma-Ma,” seals down the entire block and orders the two judges dead. They must fight their way out, through the Ma-Ma clan, every Peach Trees resident looking to gain favor with their criminal masters, and even four traitor Judges in league with the drug lords.

That’s basically it. Where Dredd succeeds is by communicating a great deal about the nature of Mega City One even with a low-budget, stripped-down style. Mega City One contains 800 million souls “living within the ruin of the old world” crammed in an urban sprawl that stretches from Boston to Washington DC. Everything outside is the Great Waste, irradiated from nuclear conflict. In what passes for an introduction, Dredd intones in a voiceover that the city is choking under its own weight, drowning on its own excess. Even as the urban landscape stretches on and on, director Pete Travis succeeds in creating an atmosphere of claustrophobia with all of these people crammed on top of each other like insects.

Mega City One is anarcho-tyranny [9] in action. Drones fly overhead as dispatchers watching video screens track the population. Quick flashes show gangs terrorizing the population and throwing rocks at law enforcement vehicles. Only the Judges fight for “order in the chaos” from the Hall of Justice, a massive, fortified building with a stylized but simplistic eagle lit up against its huge façade. The population does not often encounter the Judges, as “Ma-Ma” initially brushes off their visit to Peach Trees as simply reminding the population that they exist. There is also an element of fear — a woman saved by Dredd early in the film squeaks “Thank you Judge” but seems almost as afraid of him as she was of the criminal.

The society itself is a cultureless wasteland. Fast food and pointless entertainment seems commonplace. People gather around scenes of violence taking pictures with their smartphones, and multiple murders within a shopping complex only briefly interrupts business until the blood can be cleaned away. Although the megablock (only one of hundreds or thousands) is named Peach Trees, nature is completely absent from Mega City One, and none of its residents have probably ever seen an actual peach tree. Unemployment in the Peach Trees complex is at 96% and the vast complex of stores and housing units has that combination of dilapidated poverty and mindless consumption common in the more vibrant neighborhoods of our own thriving democracy.

The corrupt Judge Lex, taunting Dredd as he attempts to kill him, sneers that treason against the “Law” and the “City” means nothing. “You know what Mega City is Dredd? It’s a meat grinder . . . and we’re the hands that turn the crank.” In the comic, bodies are utilized for food, and as Dredd refers to the corpse collecting vehicles as “Meat Wagons” picking up bodies for “recyc” we can assume this is also true in the film universe. Judge Lex is not just speaking in metaphor.

The gangs are appropriately multicultural and diverse, fitting for an overcrowded city where any form of organic culture has long since been eradicated. Even the crude identity of something like the “Latin Kings” can’t work in Mega City One. The Chief Justice is a black woman, just like in Newark, NJ [10], which has no real significance in the movie beyond the almost clichéd “black police chief” motif. Nonetheless, the movie manages to work in some racial subtext. Olivia Thirlby is a brunette actress with clichéd liberal opinions (she’s so daring and unique, she’s a bisexual civil rights hero! [11]) but the movie transforms her into a blonde innocent pursued and threatened sexually by the more vibrant citizens [12] of Peach Trees.

Wood Harris of The Wire plays Kay, one of Ma-Ma’s higher ranking black henchmen whose capture serves as the catalyst for Ma-Ma’s declaration of war. Because he knows the information Ma-Ma is desperate to conceal from the judges, Kay trudges along with Anderson and Dredd the entire movie, giving the filmmakers plenty of time to exploit Anderson’s psychic (and graphic) glimpses of Kay’s black on blonde sexual fantasies.

Lena Headey of 300 and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles steals the movie as Madeline Madrigal (Ma-Ma), a former prostitute who has worked her way up from the bottom, so to speak, to become a criminal mastermind. Ma-Ma controls the distribution of “Slo-Mo,” a drug that allows users to experience reality as if it were moving in extreme slow motion. While pleasurable when taking a bath or listening to music, Ma-Ma and her henchmen also use it for more painful ends, such as giving victims a hit before skinning them alive and throwing them from the top of a building. She runs the entire distribution and production operation from Peach Trees, which she is desperate to keep from the judges. If Kay leaves the building in custody, Ma-Ma’s empire crumbles.

Headey gives a fatalistic [13], moody performance utterly lacking in supervillain posturing and bravura — which is remarkable considering she spends a significant part of the movie threatening people with knives and mowing down an entire floor of people with a chain gun. In this world, this is what she has to do to survive and she simply does what is needed without sentimentality. At the same time, she almost yearns for death, and Headey somehow makes a character deliberately crafted to be ugly and sadistic even sexier [14] than Cercei Lannister. Headey’s ability to make an utter monster charismatic, sympathetic, and even believable takes the film to an entirely new level, even if she isn’t given much in the way of dialogue to work with.

Mercifully, Karl Urban succeeds in giving the kind of portrayal Dredd deserves. The one-liners are flat and unemotional and the helmet (fanboys rejoice) stays on. Relying purely on his voice and his seemingly permanently gritted teeth and rigid jaw, Dredd mows through everything in his path while somehow conveying that he could break at any second if he lost control. He never does.

Mercifully, an utterly unnecessary kiss scene between Anderson and himself in an earlier script was removed as well. Anderson uses her psychic abilities to look into Dredd for a tantalizingly brief moment early in the film and senses “anger and control . . . but behind the control, something else . . .” before being stopped.

Why Dredd is so devoted to his duty and the law and to a city that seems to be rotting all around him is never explained, nor should it be. The mask is the key to Dredd — the simplest of comic book heroes, he’s also the most complex.

In contrast, Anderson wears no helmet, the beneficiary of the Hollywood excuse that a helmet interferes with her psychic powers. This allows both male and females of Thirlby’s own persuasion to gawk at her the entire film, but also allows her to show more emotion and sympathy. She’s the social worker judge, telling Dredd how she herself grew up in a megablock, how there are good people who live there, and expressing the requisite mild disquiet with a justice system that executes people where they stand. She lets one criminal go when she uses her powers to determine he’s been working under duress and unironically declares she wants to make a difference. Dredd intones, “Admirable,” but we can’t tell if he’s agreeing or mocking her. Maybe he doesn’t even know.

One interesting scene of a psychic confrontation between her and Kay suggests that there is steel underneath the pretty blonde head as she literally makes her black antagonist piss himself in terror, but it is left unexplored. Again, this actually works, as Dredd operates best by suggesting there is more going on than what is just in front of us.

It’s an action movie, so it’s not a huge surprise that the main villain is caught and her drug operation destroyed. It’s hard to say whether the world is a better place for all of that. Dozens, if not hundreds of people are killed throughout the course of the film, all so that unemployed and poverty stricken people can’t use a narcotic. That said, the blood is on the hands of the Ma-Ma Clan. The Clan’s actions and the general picture of Mega City One presented suggest that even if Slo-Mo were legal, the gangs would use something else to support themselves. As Anderson learns when she unwittingly meets the wife of a man she has “judged” and killed, even people with families and children in the blocks are gun-toting thugs willing to kill for money and power.

The film’s portrayal of ruthless violence, sadistic torture, and nihilistic destruction of entire communities (such as they are) belie any attempt to deconstruct Dredd as a critique of “law and order.” Dredd plays it straight, though the next film in the series promises to look at the more “disturbing” elements of the Judges’ supposed fascism [15].

While the Judges of the comic are not beyond the law, actually are somewhat accountable [16] to the population at large, and do not administer a totalitarian society, the people do not rule themselves in Dredd’s world. The premise of Dredd is that freedom failed – they tried democracy and it ended in chaos. While left wing critics (and even some writers of the strip) may amuse themselves by “satirizing” American law enforcement by calling them fascists, it doesn’t have the effect they intend on the mass public. Characters such as Judge Dredd are popular precisely because of their fascist tendencies, a sort of double irony that speaks to Americans who don’t understand why the cops can’t just beat the crap out of the junkies on the corner.

Ultimately, the system of the Judges is not democratic nor really fascist, which, after all, are both dependent on mass politics. It is rule by an Order, a system more in line with Plato’s Republic than Mussolini’s New Roman Empire. The Judges hold to a supreme code (the Law) and the Order fights for order within the chaos, barely holding back the city from consuming itself. Nonetheless, even within the Order, there is corruption, as four Judges betray their duty in exchange for money. As Plato described thousands of years ago, mercantile and spiritual values ultimately cannot coexist within a ruling caste. As is mentioned throughout the film, the Judges fighting their own slo-mo defeat to bring order to Mega City One. Rather than simply a function of resources, there is a deeper conflict left unspoken at the heart of their decline. If an esoteric Order is fighting to defend a cultureless, swollen mass of materialistic proles, how can the Judges themselves keep from being corrupted, either by lust for “credits” or cynicism about a meat grinder? Why is Mega City One worth saving?

The two heroes suggest different answers. Anderson, who bitterly states she is not cut out to be a judge during her ordeal, ultimately becomes a street judge at the end of the film, marching out into the city in full uniform. Her experience suggests that she would say saving even one citizen from violence or making a difference to even a small group makes it worthwhile. This is the kind of motivation even modern people can understand and even Radical Traditionalists can say, without judgment, is “admirable,” if not practical or sustainable.

Dredd’s code is different. There’s “rage and control” and Dredd’s proclamations about “fighting for order in the chaos” and his disgust at this awful city and its criminals suggest that he believes in what he’s doing and envisions somehow an orderly metropolis redeemed from the filth. Ultimately, however, that “something else” that keeps him going is the unification of identity and duty. Dredd is not a social worker with a gun, but a Guardian who judges because, as in Plato’s Republic, it is his nature to do so. Driven by rage and his calling, Dredd is akin to Arjuna of the Bhagavad-Gita, who is told, “Fight you will, your nature will make you fight. Your karma will make you fight. You will fight in spite of yourself.”

When cornered with Anderson and told reinforcements are on the way, Dredd chooses attack rather then even tactical retreat. He upholds his ethos – fulfills his karma – even when it’s pointless or hopeless. Alone, hopelessly outnumbered, he flatly announces to Peach Trees, “In case you have forgotten, this block operates under the same rules as the rest of the city. Ma-Ma is not the law . . . I am the law.” It’s beyond reason, and beyond ego, but ultimately, what kind of life (higher and otherwise) exists in Mega City One is upheld by that credo.

So too with this world. Organic culture is ground into the muck of the soulless cities, animals on two legs somehow combine the worst vices of squalor and decadence, and the society is a meat grinder turning people into products. Only a credo and a commitment can allow even momentary transcendence, if not for the entire society, at least for those who choose to accept the challenge. Egalitarians may see Dredd as a satire of law enforcement, but adherents of Tradition can see it as one way men and women can at least attempt to Ride the Tiger of modernity. Perhaps it can be seen as a truly biting satire of a nightmarish mass society that may be inevitable in the face of ever increasing urbanization and social control. Most of all, as we view a society that is transforming into something even worse than Mega City One, perhaps Dredd can be seen as one of the more entertaining forms of inspiration, to walk out of the theater, ponder what defiance we can cling to in the midst of the ruins, and, wearing our own mask over our emotions, pronounce to this sordid society that Judgment Is Coming [17].

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)

[1]7,450 words

Brian de Palma’s 1987 film, The Untouchables [2], from a script by David Mamet, is usually seen as a Hero’s Quest film, like Star Wars (or The Final Sacrifice), or at least an Epic in some way,[1] but I find it more interesting to see it as a film that, probably unconsciously, delineates the re-creation of the ancient Aryan Männerbund.[2]

What is the Männerbund?

Although the study of the Männerbund dates to the 19th century, it was Hans Blüher who first championed its significance, using it first to analyze the German youth movement, the Wandervogel, and later as the key to a non-Freudian, indeed, anti-Freudian, understanding of civilization, especially that of the Aryans.[3] Later, Julius Evola would incorporate the idea in his post-War writings on the origin and possibilities for the rebirth of the Aryan State.[4]

Today, the foremost exponent of the Männerbund is Wulf Grimsson, who has devoted several volumes to it, most recently Male Mysteries and the Secret of the Männerbund,[5] where he delineates the idea thus:

The Männerbund is a system of social ties found in traditional Indo European societies which is very difficult for men living in a modernist (and/or monotheistic) society to understand. . . . Among our Germanic ancestors these groups were composed of sexually mature male youths who under guidance of an elder formed a closed cult or society. They were dedicated to Odin, had special rites of pedagogical training, initiation and esoteric practise and combined the functions of a sorcerer or shaman and a warrior. To appreciate the importance of such a unit is difficult until we realize that the role of the blood brother and the Männerbund was seen as the foundation of Germanic society with the family unit of far less significance. This changes the whole structure of how we see archaic society when we realize that these societies held a virile warrior ethic based in male-male affection superior to family life.[6]

The Männerbund was a unique social and initiatory institution, it stood at the centre of the hierarchy of archaic society offering a path to initiation into the esoteric Mysteries and providing stability to the tribe below it. In comparison to the Third Function of the tribe and family the Männerbund was certainly an outsider institution yet it was this outsidernesss that allowed it to take such a significant role within the traditional hierarchy. It was not swayed by nepotism or by tribal or familial pressures; it was a separate, distinct and unique structure. It had a warrior ethic yet also trained scribes, shamans, rune masters and many others; it combined the First and Second Functions in a very special and profound way…. The bund was Androphilic in practice and focused on the unique bond created by blood brothers. These bonds continued even if a comrade left the Bund, the blood brother was the most significant bond even above that of a wife, family or the tribe. A brother would help another even at the cost of his life. The bond created with a blood brother would last til death, and it is considered by many, thereafter.[7]

One important point Grimsson raises is the value of the Männerbund to a society, like ours, facing seemingly endless crises:

[I]t is an immense loss to our way of life that this structure has all but vanished and it may be that such a system of social ties will be the key to surviving the many catastrophes which are around the corner.[8]

One such crisis is the decay of everyday legal order, despite an evermore massively intrusive government, a situation Sam Francis called “totalitarian anarchy.” Such a situation might be compared, in a limited way, to America, especially cities like Chicago, under Prohibition. As John Kenneth Muir says:

Importantly, not one of these men (especially Ness) declares any fealty to the government’s (wrongheaded) policy of Prohibition. On the contrary, what this foursome defends to the death is the very principle that makes America great: the rule of law. This is the meat of Ness’s inner crisis: can the rule of law be re-established by violating the law?[9]

As Carl Schmitt emphasized, the political is defined by the exception; he is sovereign who can in an emergency declare an exception to the rule of law — and get away with it. However much it may offend the delicate sensibilities of the Liberal, not everything is subject to debate and proper procedure. If it is the law itself that no longer works, how can it be restored legally? No wonder the Tea Party’s costumes freak them out.

Indeed, as Evola emphasizes, only the Männerbund can do so, because it is not only outside the State, as it is outside the family structure, but also prior to it, being the true origin of the State itself.

Beware of Imitations

Since the Männerbund is not a typical subject of “mainstream” discourse, most people are unaware of it, and thus susceptible to fraudulent substitutes. The Untouchables begins with the most flagrant one, the Capone mob.

Far from either creating or restoring the State, the mob is responsible for the collapse of Chicago into violence and anarchy. In real life, Chicago had been horrified by the brutality of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, which is what led to Ness’ assignment, but Mamet wisely ignores this overdone episode and starts the film with a little girl, holding a suitcase which explodes, blowing her to bits along with a non-cooperating pub. As Frankie Five Angels sneers in Godfather Part II, “They do violence in their grandmother’s neighborhood.”

And speaking of Godfather II, the next shot gives us Robert De Niro, playing a very different character than that man of honor, Don Corleone (“I mean, we’re not murderers, in spite of what this undertaker thinks”). Instead, we have a well-fed hypocrite:

Capone: Yes! There is violence in Chicago. But not by me, and not by anybody who works for me, and I’ll tell you why — because it’s bad for business

The only truth in that statement is that Capone is a businessman. In Chicago, the castes have regressed, and now the sudra rules. Capone’s mob (note the word!) is neither a State nor a Männerbund, but, in another loaded phrase, a “criminal enterprise,” which is to say an enterprise, a business, which no longer operates under society’s laws. In contemporary terms, one might cite Wall Street in general, especially the gigantic frauds and outright thefts (MF Global) that have gone entirely uninvestigated, to say nothing of punished. Who indeed is sovereign?

Contrary to the “free market” myth, from Adam Smith to Ayn Rand to Alan Greenspan, business transactions are not a “natural” activity, prior to, and superior to, the State. As seen most recently in the ex-Soviet Union, the collapse of the State does not produce a peaceful society of “capitalist acts between consenting adults” but a gangster’s paradise.[10]

Later in the film, we’ll get a chance to see Capone discoursing on “teamwork” only to wind-up by bashing in a gang member’s skull with a baseball bat. Like Captain Ahab, Capone uses the rhetoric of Traditional honor and leadership, but despite his “charisma and “romantic aura” he is

 . . . not just some fine old warrior-aristocrat who has somehow fallen into the wrong age. Ahab is just such a man as nineteenth century America was producing, a man who could and did ruthlessly exploit the land and the people for his own grandiose, self-aggrandizing ends.[11]

We next meet his presumed nemesis, Elliot Ness, with his wife and children. Well, we know that the family unit isn’t going to be the source of a Männerbund. But when he goes to work, carrying the lunch he wife has made for him, we learn that the Chicago Police aren’t either. They’ve been corrupted, penetrated, as it were, by Capone. His first ridiculously earnest raid — “Let’s do some good!” — is an embarrassing “bust out,” netting him only a shipment of Japanese parasols and a nickname in the press: “Poor Butterfly.” (Even the press is on Capone’s side — during the raid Ness mistakes a reporter for a gangster.)

Ness learns he is not cast as a Hero, this time, but a clown — perhaps Canio in Pagliacci, a bit of which we see Capone enjoying later in the movie — or even a forlorn geisha. He started the day as a little boy, he ends it completely emasculated.

As Jack Donovan says in The Way of Men, while Ness is a “good man,” but he’s not so “good at being a man.”[12] Despite his empty boast, he doesn’t know how to “do some good.” To learn how to be good at being a man, Ness will obviously need a teacher; but as we have seen, the primary method of initiation in the West has been not the teacher as such, but the Männerbund,[13] which also, conveniently, has been the primary means of establishing, and re-establishing, the State.

Ness won’t surrender to, and certainly won’t join, Capone; he won’t go along with the corrupt cops or politicians, or curry favor with the press. To beat them, he can’t join them; he needs to find another group, or create his own.

From Sack Lunch to Blood Oath

“The first and most important feature of groups is the fact that groups are not constituted according to the wish and choice of their members. Groups are constituted by the teacher, who selects types which, from the point of view of his aims, can be useful to one another.” — Gurdjieff[14]

Enter the last honest cop, Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery) who will become the teacher who selects the men who will become known as The Untouchables. Malone is so honest that he’s never risen above beat cop. It’s not clear why Ness trusts Malone to be the last honest cop in Chicago. Connery’s bogus “Irish” accent alone might set bells off.[15]

As we shall see, however, Connery’s character will indeed manifest a shamanic ability to shape-shift. One more clue we have that Malone is on the up and up is that they meet on a bridge.

The sorcerer and warrior are always liminal, while they may enter into the community their values and allegiances set them apart. Sorcerers, shamans and witches in most traditions are often pictured as living at the edge of the village or in forests or caves.[16]

Malone will eventually agree to teach Ness “the Way,” in this case, “the Chicago Way,” which is a kind of karma-yoga in which appropriate, or svadharmic, action is all:

Malone: You wanna get Capone? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!

Malone starts with the first of many tricks and inversions of society’s norms, in this case, both inverting Ness’ oath of duty and tricking him into affirming a new one:

Malone: I’m making you a deal. Do you want this deal?

(Unlike Ness’ wife, who only made him a meal, the characteristic family activity)

Ness: I have sworn to put this man away with any and all legal means at my disposal, and l will do so.

Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?

Ness: Yes.

Malone: Good. ‘Cause you just took one.

At the trial, Ness admits he has “foresworn” himself by eventually being led to choose to hunt Capone with Capone’s own methods, not the State’s.

Now Malone begins to put together the warrior band. But who can they trust in the department?

Malone: If you’re afraid of getting a rotten apple, don’t go to the barrel. Get it off the tree.

The allusion to the Garden of Eden is clear, although we will see that it is Malone’s double, Frank Nitti, who embodies reptilian evil.

The . . . leader [of] any Männerbund must take great care when selecting comrades and develop a preinitiation training program which will weed out those unsuited or unwilling to commit. Such programs should not only be intellectual but include “homework” to prove dedication and “challenges” would-be comrades should overcome. . . . It should be made very clear to any potential comrades the nature of the commitment, that a Männerbund is an Androphilic organization and that no outside relationships are permitted.[17]

First, though, Ness makes his own demand: no married men, even though, as Malone quickly points out, Ness is himself married. Ness doesn’t seem to have quite figured out what will be required of him. When Nitti threatens them with the ironic “It’s nice to have a family,” Ness ships them off the countryside.[18]

Thor curses Starkadr telling him that if undertakes Odin’s requests he will have no children, no individual land or property and be despised by the common folk.[19]

Malone rejects with contempt a recruit who recites the police motto, then insults and strikes another, whose violent but controlled response passes the tests.

Malone: Why do you want to join the force?

George Stone: “To protect the property and citizenry of . . .”

Malone: Ah, don’t waste my time with that b******t. Where you from, Stone?

George Stone: I’m from the south-side.

Malone: Stone. George Stone. That’s your name? What’s your real name?

George Stone: That is my real name.

Malone: Nah. What was it before you changed it?

George Stone: Giuseppe Petri.

Malone: Ah, I knew it. That’s all you need, one thieving wop on the team.

George Stone: Hey, what’s that you say?

Malone: I said that you’re a lying member of a no good race.

George Stone: [He cuffs Stone across the face. As he draws back his arm again, Stone presses a gun under his chin] Much better than you, you stinking Irish pig.

Malone: Oh, I like him.

This is the first racial note in the movie. Obviously there are no blacks on the force, but the ‘racial’ antagonisms are there nonetheless. Between Ness, Malone (with Connery’s confusing Irish-Scot accent) and “Stone” (another blurry shape-shifter) we seem to have an early attempt at what Greg Johnson has suggested:

What is emerging is a generic white American, with a sense of his interests merely as a white… America may be the place where we recreate the original unity of the white race before it was divided and pitted against itself.[20]

Ironically, these men are joining together to enforce Prohibition, which was largely the attempt of small town WASPs (like Ness, whose family is now hiding out in the countryside) to “control” the “thieving wops” and “stinking Irish pigs” of the big cities.

Finally, Ness has already been assigned Wallace, a meek little accountant from Treasury. Physically and professionally, he seems to be the Designated Jew, but nothing is ever made explicit, and so for our purposes we can treat him as White. Ness is still living in ignorance, and does not yet appreciate the value of Wallace, both as man, and as the key to the capture of Capone.

[3]

Wallace epitomizes the role of the geek or nerd, as Jack Donovan describes it:

Advanced levels of mastery and technics allow men to compete for improved status within the group by bringing more to the camp, hunt or fight than their bodies would otherwise allow. Mastery can be supplementary—a man who can build, hunt and fight, but who can also do something else well, be it telling jokes or setting traps or making blades, is worth more to the group and is likely to have a higher status within the group than a man who can merely build, hunt and fight well. Mastery can also be a compensatory virtue, in the sense that a weaker or less courageous man can earn the esteem of his peers by providing something else of great value. It could well have been a runt who tamed fire or invented the crossbow or played the first music, and such a man would have earned the respect and admiration of his peers. Homer was a blind man, but his words have been valued by men for thousands of years.[21]

Or put away Capone by decoding his secret account books.

Ness: We need another man.

Wallace: Mr. Ness? This is very interesting. I’ve found a financial disbursement pattern which shows some irregu . . .

Malone: You carry a badge?

Wallace: Yes.

Malone: Carry a gun.

There are, then four Untouchables. The number four is

[A] code for its related letter in the Elder Futhark which is Ansuz. Traditionally Ansuz is related to Odin but reversed is related to the trickster Loki so the correlation seems correct. The rune also means the Aesir in general and hence the use of this rune emphasizes that Loki has left the community of the gods and become a true spiritual outlaw. Ansuz is related …to Venus. In the community Venus or love holds the family together while in the Männerbund Venus is androphile and focused on individual immortality through sorcery.[22]

Initiation I: “Outsidering” — “Hey. This is the Post Office . . .”

The first rites of Initiation are those which help the comrade consolidate his rejection of the functions of the society around him.[23]

As shamans and sorcerers they must move beyond the tribe and become separate from the rules and regulations of the community. Essentially they become spiritual and social outlaws.[24]

Malone: There’s nothing like vaudeville.

Police Chief: What the hell are you dressed for? Hallowe’en?

Malone: Shut up. I’m working.

Police Chief: Where? The circus?

Malone has shape-shifted into civilian garb, but still uses his beat cop knowledge to strip the mask off another public institution: behind the façade, literally, of the Post Office is one of Capone’s warehouses.

This is the turning point in Ness’ career, and the movie, with Morricone’s soaring theme music underlining it for us. So does the dialog and action, which pound away at the liminal theme: crossing the street, crossing Capone, crossing the doorway.

Malone: Everybody knows where the booze is. The problem isn’t finding it. The problem is who wants to cross Capone. Let’s go.

Ness: You’d better be damn sure, Malone.

Malone: If you walk through this door, you’re walking into a world of trouble. There’s no turning back. Do you understand?

Ness: Yes, I do.

Malone: Good. Give me that axe.

The axe, of course, is a traditional symbol of male power, as well as the root of the fasces symbol.

After making his violent and uninvited entrance, Malone is confronted by a portly thug, or postal worker — once more, ambiguity — who demands his “rights.”

Portly Thug: Hey! This isn’t right! Hey! This is no good! You got a warrant?

Malone: Sure! Here’s my warrant. [Delivers the stock of his shotgun to the thug’s crotch]

Malone: How do you think he feels now? Better . . . or worse?

Malone delivers butt to crotch, the warrior band’s deviant inversion of sodomy, making quite clear that they have gone beyond concern for rights, warrants, and the social good.

Here is the scene, seen, as it were, through Grimsson’s lens:

When I look at the tale I see an initiatory rite, a ritual whereby Loki is becoming a sorcerer. He is ceremonially rejecting his role among the Gods and the tribe [the cops] and becoming a spiritual outlaw. It begins as Loki is refused entry to the feast. This is unusual as Loki as a member of the Aesir would have been invited to such an event even if he sometimes behaves erratically. [Malone as a cop would ordinarily be “in on “the crimes, but he is the one honest cop, whose goody-goody ways are joked about]

He then kills Fimafeng, the name Fimafeng means service [the Postal Service?] and he represents the normal activities of a community such serving, working and feasting. By Loki killing Fimafeng he is making it clear he is going beyond his prior role within the Aesir and within the society.

He enters the hall but Bragi says he is unwelcome. Bragi is the god of poetry and the storyteller of the community [The Post Office?]

Loki’s insults are staged and meant to symbolise him separating from each of the Gods and their functions.[25]

Initiation II: The World Tree — “Many Things are half the battle”

As the initiate moved through the bund other rites were used including the initiation of the world tree which was a form of northern vision quest giving the initiate an experience of the power of the runes. I believe that the Männerbund was also secretly devoted to Loki as Odin’s blood brother and darker rites were used in his honour. These rites included those of shape changing and the techniques of the Berserker.[26]

Ness has sworn a blood oath, joined a Männerbund and crossed the threshold. Now he and the others face further initiations to acquire further powers — shape-shifting, reading the runes, and the fighting skills of the Berserker.

After the successful raid, Ness decides to take the battle to Capone, heading North in an airplane — at time when such flights were rare among ordinary folk, though a common achievement for the shaman — to the Canadian border where a shipment of whiskey (from Joe Seagram to Joe Kennedy, perhaps) is scheduled to be exchanged for cash on a bridge.

Not just a bridge but a border; obviously we are meant to understand this is another, more intense, liminal situation.

Mountie: Thus taking them by surprise from the rear. And surprise, as you very well know, Mr. Ness, is half the battle.

Ness: Surprise is half the battle. Many things are half the battle. Losing is half the battle. Let’s think about what is all the battle.

The Mounties riding in is a film and cultural icon. Here, however, they seem to have forgotten their motto, “We always get our man” and become symbols of careful, bureaucratic procedure, like Canada itself. They are another false Männerbund, mere agents of the State. They’re not corrupt, like the Chicago cops, but they’re not helpful either. Their pudgy “captain” (as Ness mistakenly calls him, as if he were a cop) hands out safe and complacent orders (attack from the rear, for surprise), settling for a safe second best, which Ness rejects with some quiet contempt, preferring to be instructed by his guru:

Malone: Wait and watch.

Ness: Are you my tutor?

Malone: Yes Sir. That I am. [YHVH?]

“Many things” indeed happen in this complex scene, and most of them, I suggest, involve either the acquisition or demonstration of shamanic powers.

This suffering was part of a birth, death and rebirth motif but without the role of the biological female, the male is reborn through the agency of men alone and hence becomes part of a new “family” structure which is of a single sex.[27]

The bureaucratic Mounties’ safe and secret strategy goes awry, creating chaos (from behind, au rebours indeed) in which the men are tested.

Since belonging to Odin means becoming a comrade of the Einherjar (or Odin’s Army), this means the comrade can be taken to Valhalla at any time, and he is considered already dead or literally dead among the living, regardless of whether he literally dies in battle or not.[28]

This condition also creates a unique psychological state for the warrior preparing him for Berserker training, if he is already undead and eternally in Odin’s service then pain and death are minor transitionary stages and nothing to be feared.[29]

Stone is the first and as yet only one of the Untouchables to be shot, thus pierced, but quickly jumps back up; he is either invulnerable, a trickster, or already dead and hence fearless.

The candidate is first given a basic education in ethics and the teachings of the lore. He then withdraws from the community and fasts and undertakes ascetic activities including being pierced with a spear.[30]

Stone however is down long enough to literally infuriate the meek Wallace, who acquires the spirit of the Berserker; shrieking in rage, he rushes the gangsters like Achilles avenging Patroclus, killing several and, when out of shells, resorts to what is now the signature Untouchables method, using the butt of the shotgun to dispatch the last thug.

Ness escapes being run over by diving under the car, a symbolic death, and then, trailing a gangster back to their cabin, himself kills his first man.

Finally, Malone, the Trickster, will use the dead man to fool the captured bookkeeper into agreeing to decode the account books. Only he and Ness know the man on the porch is the one Ness killed earlier; Malone goes outside, picks him up, holds him against the window, pretends to threaten him, sticks his gun in the corpse’s mouth, and blows out the back of his head. The Canadian is horrified by all this violence.

Finding the code has been their ultimate goal, not just stopping a shipment of whiskey. In other words, interpreting the runes. The corpse, pushed up against the window and pinned their by Malone’s pistol, may suggest Odin’s self-hanging to acquire the knowledge of the runes.

 Malone: Translate this ledger for us!

Thug: In hell.

Malone: In hell?! You will hang high unless you cooperate.

And we can also go back to a bit of comic relief, when Wallace, after his Berserk outburst, and to solidify his Outlaw status, helps himself to some of the booze leaking from the truck. The use of socially forbidden intoxicants is a well-known Shamanic, and Tantric, technique; one also may recall Siegfried who drinks the blood of the slain dragon and acquires understanding of the language of the birds.[31]

Sacrifices

As a result of Malone’s capture of Capone’s books, and trick with the corpse having convinced the bookkeeper to talk, Wallace can now prove Capone’s tax evasion. Unfortunately, Nitti manages to kill all three, leaving Ness without his sole witness. Once more, Ness is unmanned.

 Capone: And if you were a man, you would’ve done it now! You don’t got a thing, you punk!

Since none of the “real” Untouchables was killed, it’s hard to see why De Palma kills off half of them. Wallace’s death is particularly unmotivated; in the language of Internet movie discussions, they all seem to have the Stupid Ball at this point — ironic, since Wallace is presumably the smart guy. It may be just cinematic: create conflict, pare down the cast to focus on Ness, etc. Or what?

The Untouchables has been a fairly “PG” film up to this point: no ears cut off, no gangsters being carved up in trunks, no exploding heads, the obsession with which Scorsese seems to be satirizing at the end of The Departed (which also involves a main character killed in an elevator by a rogue cop). Starting with Malone’s shooting the corpse in Canada, blood starts to flow; in Malone’s case, ridiculous amounts, as befitting the importance of his character.[32]

The only sense I can make out of them is that both deaths are sacrifices, part of some kind of ritual. Wallace, having already made his point about Capone’s tax liabilities, is expendable. Malone’s death seems to be some kind of payback or “boomerang” from the etheric realm for his corpse shooting stunt.[33]

Thus we don’t have to rack it up to stupidity. When Nitti fools Malone with the decoy killer (few people who quote it remember that Malone’s “Just like a wop, bringing a knife to a gun fight” line is followed by his being cut apart by a machine gun) it’s psychic payback for the corpse stunt. Malone, like the corpse, is already dead anyway (“It’s a dead man talking to me” said the corrupt cop earlier) and as Grimsson emphasizes, the whole point of being initiated into the warrior band is to be already dead, hence able to fight fearlessly.[34]

If Nitti is Malone’s’ twin, then he seems to play the role of Loki to Malone’s Wotan, in accordance with Grimsson’s suggestion that the Männerbund were led by Wotan but had more secret rites associated with Loki. Nitti’s gender-ambiguity, sudden or subliminal appearances around crimes, and above all his fooling Malone with the decoy assassin (cleverly inverting Malone’s gun vs. knife with shotgun vs. Tommy gun) suggest Loki’s shape-shifting, while his Loki-like boasting about Malone’s death will lead to his own demise, and Ness’s triumph.

Malone’s death, then, is a self-sacrifice, and just as Wotan’s sacrifice leads to knowledge of the runes, both of these deaths are related to communication in some way, an appropriate role for the dead.

Nitti has hung Wallace’s body in the elevator, suggesting one of the odd ways Loki would “assist” Wotan, and used his blood to smear the message “touchable” on the elevator wall, reminding Ness of his mortality. Malone, despite losing about 90% of his blood, is still able to gasp out the train information, but more importantly, he inspires Ness; first, when Ness discovers him and Malone asks, “What are you prepared to do?” and later, when Nitti makes the mistake of mocking his ridiculously bloody death, leading us to see just what Ness in fact is prepared to do. Like Obi-Wan, Malone is even able to inspire Ness after what we would call “death.”

The Train Station sequence, while the final bravura set piece, is really quite dispensable. De Palma added it to Mamet’s script[35] perhaps to show Ness is still capable of defending “family values” despite his increasingly outlaw status,[36] or to re-enforce our memory of the child’s death at the beginning, as well as the threats to Ness’ family; or just as a homage to Eisenstein.

The Law on Trial: “Your Honor, Is this Justice?”

Using the knowledge provided by Wallace and Malone, Ness is able to bring Capone to trial, but perhaps not to justice; the judicial system is as corrupt as the police.

Nitti seems to have the stupid ball now; in other words, some kind of karmic payback for his previous cleverness. First, he stupidly lets Ness spot his gun in the courtroom (even Ness mumbles an incredulous “Unbelievable”), which gives him a perfectly good excuse to have him removed and searched, which yields the list of bribed jurors. Then, Nitti hands over a matchbook that links him to Malone’s death. (What? Has he been carrying it around for weeks?) Panicking, Nitti steals a gun, shoots a cop, and makes his escape up the stairs to the roof. (Has this ever worked out in movies?)

After failing to escape from the roof by — stupidly — climbing down the ivy-covered building (another Eden connection), Ness captures Nitti by successfully executing the same trick, using his superior shamanic powers of deathlessness and shape-shifting. He rolls over the edge of the building, and when Nitti — stupidly — ambles over to check out the corpse, Ness, in corpse pose, has the drop on him.

Ness seems willing to let the system take over at this point, but in a final Act of Stupid, Nitti decides have a little Loki-like laugh about Malone’s death:

Nitti: I said that your friend died screaming like a stuck Irish pig. Now you think about that while I beat the rap. (Nitti is now doubling Stone, who called Malone “a stinking Irish pig.”)

Which causes Ness to revert to full Berserker mode, frog-marching Nitti right off the roof, and shape-shifting him into Malone:

 Nitti: [Screaming as he falls to his death]

Ness: Did he sound like that?

As he falls, Nitti not only shrieks like a little girl, he flaps his arms wildly, as if trying to transform into a white bird against the bright blue sky (or blue screen). But his shamanic powers to fly or shape-shift have been misplaced along with his wisdom.

It’s conceivable that Malone’s death was an elaborate scheme to not only lead Ness to Nitti but insure he would be enraged enough to kill him outright. As Grimsson has pointed out, the member of Odin’s band, the initiate, is already dead, and so does not fear death.

From the alchemical thriller, Red Dragon:

Dr. Frederick Chilton: You caught him. What was your trick?

Will Graham: I let him kill me.

Now Ness has to finish with Capone. Knowing about the bribed jurors, Ness the Trickster bluffs the judge into thinking Ness knows his name is in Capone’s coded ledger, and the judge responds by executing the largest shape-shifting yet:

Judge: Bailiff, I want you to go next door to Judge Hawton’s court, where they’ve just begun hearing a divorce action. I want you to bring that jury in here, and take this jury to his court. Bailiff, are those instructions clear?

Bailiff: [puzzled] Yes, sir, they’re . . . clear . . .

Capone: [to his attorney] What’s he talking about? What is it?

Judge: Bailiff, I want you to switch the juries.

Bailiff: Yes sir.

Defense Attorney: Your honor, I object!

Judge: Overruled!

Remember, Capone is in a civil court, for tax evasion; not murder, but now he will face a family court jury, since in the film’s terms he is guilty of the child’s death at the beginning, the child whose mother asked Ness for justice.

Capone’s attorney reacts by switching his plea to guilty (unlike the jury switching, not really a possible defense motion at this point, but whatever, this is a philosophical fiction) and, as the cliché has it, the courtroom “explodes.”

Ness has achieved his shamanic purpose: he and his androphilic band has inverted reality, ripping the facade off society, and even turned back time. We are back at the beginning of the movie. The elite courtroom of false justice explodes, not the bar full of honest working people. Frank Nitti has exploded into a pile of bloody flesh in the back of a car, not the little girl who found his bomb in the bar. Capone, who we first met telling us that there was no violence in Chicago, at least “not by me,” is now swinging punches wildly, like a common juvenile delinquent.

Capone: I’m askin’ Your Honor, is this justice?

Better he should ask the child’s mother, or Ness’ family in hiding.

“Here endeth the lesson.”

In the aftermath, Ness is cleaning out his office, and finds Malone’s call box key, with its religious medal, St. Jude, patron saint of police and lost causes (“God, I’m with a heathen” Malone had said when having to explain it to Ness). Ness gives it to Stone: “He’d wanted a cop to have it.” Apparently, while Ness is moving on, back with his family (choosing The Path of the Ancestors), Stone will remain.

Here we uncover a final Männerbund: the Twelve Disciples (there were 11 Untouchables in reality, the 12 minus Judas). Stone, born Giuseppe Petri, has received the key(s), and upon this rock a new, uncorrupt police force and cleansed society will be built, safe for Ness and his family to return.[37]

We’ve learned that the Männerbund is not an archaic, literally primitive feature of Aryan culture in a dead past, as the Christians and secular “Progressives” would have us believe (conveniently for them) but an eternal principle, which can always and anywhere be re-accessed and re-created when needed. As Krishna said, in a verse frequently quoted by Savitri Devi:

 yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjamy aham

Whenever there is decline of righteousness
and rise of unrighteousness;
To protect the virtuous, to destroy the wicked and
to re-establish Dharma,
I manifest myself, through the ages.[38]

Notes

1. For example, “It isn’t ancient Sparta (like 300), or The Trojan War (as in Troy). But make no mistake, De Palma brings to The Untouchables the same archetypal flourishes we might reasonably expect in any cinematic depiction of those legends. He transforms real historical figures into larger-than-life scoundrels, saints, and angels. As dramatized by De Palma, The Untouchables is nothing less than the Timeless Heroic Poem of Avenger Eliot Ness.” See John Kenneth Muir’s Reflections on Film/TV, Friday, July 31, 2009, at http://tinyurl.com/yf2psv7 [4].

2. I want to emphasize that these reflections are based on the Brian de Palma film, not the 1950s TV show, the autobiography Ness wrote near his death to make money for his family, or “actual” history, whatever that is. For what it’s worth, “the real Al Capone and Eliot Ness never met face-to-face; there were 11 “Untouchables” who all lived after Prohibition; but most notably, the real Frank Nitti lived several years after Capone’s conviction, rather than being thrown off a roof by Ness” (tvtropes.org [5]). Incredibly, though, the most absurd scene (other than the train station shoot-out), namely, the switching of the juries, really did happen. As Aristotle said, art was more true than history, as it narrates what ought to be.

The script is by David Mamet, who here, and in Glengarry Glen Ross, shows a most un-Judaic, perhaps unconscious, understanding of male group dynamics.

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that it is emblematic of the misunderstanding, at times perhaps deliberate, of Tradition by Westerners and Westernized Hindus like Gandhi, to portray as “untouchables” the supposedly downtrodden lowest castes. Actually, the Untouchable was the highest caste, the Brahmin. See Alain Daniélou, The Way to the Labyrinth: Memories of East and West, (New York: New Directions, 1987), p. 137, where he adds “One of the most typical characteristics of the European mentality is the ability to present everything backwards.”

3. Hans Blüher: Wandervogel. Geschichte einer Jugendbewegung. (Berlin-Tempelhof, 191/23); Die Rolle der Erotik in der männlichen Gesellschaft: Eine Theorie der Menschlichen Staatsbildung (Jena, 1917/19). Neither has ever appeared in English, other than a few excerpts, but see Alisdair Clarke’s “Hans Blüher and the Wandervogel,” a talk from sixth New Right meeting in London, February 2006, available at http://tinyurl.com/24cwn5f [6].

4. “It was this Männerbund, in which the qualification of “man” had simultaneously an initiatory (i.e. sacred) and a warrior meaning, that wielded the power in the social group or clan. This Männerbund was characterized by special tasks and responsibilities; it was different from all other societies to which members of the tribe belonged. In this primordial scheme we find the fundamental ‘categories’ differentiating the political order from the ‘social’ order. First among these is a special chrism – namely, that proper to ‘man’ in the highest sense of the word (vir was the term employed in Roman times) and not merely a generic homo: this condition is marked by a spiritual breakthrough and by detachment from the naturalistic and vegetative plane. Its integration is power, the principle of command belonging to the Männerbund. We could rightfully see in this one of the ‘constants’ (i.e. basic ideas) that in very different applications, formulations and derivations are uniformly found in theory or, better, in the metaphysics of the State that was professed even by the greatest civilizations of the past.” See Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins., trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2002).

5. All available at http://lulu.com/spotlight/lokisway [7]. Grimsson, by the way, agrees with Aristotle when it comes to dealing with history: truth is “more often than not in myth legends, traditions and symbols; literal history needs to be decoded by it, not vice versa” (p. 19).

6. Grimsson, p. 7.

7. Grimsson, p. 89.

8. Grimsson, p. 7.

10. One could argue, in another essay, that the particular law, Prohibition, was itself responsible for the breakdown in respect for the Law as such, as well as providing the entrée for Capone. In this way, Prohibition is a synecdoche for the Judeo-Christianity which brought about the regression of the castes, or degeneration of the functions, by demonizing the Männerbund (Judaism’s well-known and unique ‘homophobia’). See Grimsson, ch. 6. In addition, not only did ordinary citizens learn to fraternize with criminals, they also became accustomed to hobnobbing with Jews, the financier and businessman par excellence, and even welcoming them into their homes. Once more, the small town Protestant, in their war against big city immigrants, shot themselves in the foot.

11. Tony Tanner, “Introduction” to the Oxford World Classics edition of Moby D**k (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. xix.

12. Jack Donovan, The Way of Men (Portland, Or.: Dissonant Hum, 2012).

13. “. . . the point is that a ‘group’ is the beginning of everything. One man can do nothing, can attain nothing. A group with a real leader can do more. A group of people can do what one man can never do.” — G. I. Gurdjieff, quoted in by P. D. Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching (New York: Harcourt, 1949), p. 30.

14. In Search of the Miraculous, p. 222.

15. While Connery won his only Oscar for the role, his performance has been voted “Worst Movie Accent of All Time” in several surveys over the years; in 2009, his runner up was co-star Kevin Costner, for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. See http://tinyurl.com/boy79nv [8]

16. Grimsson, p. 65.

17. Grimsson, p. 79.

18. Interestingly, the real Capone was married, like the standard Mafia “family man,” but in the movie we see no women anywhere around him or his mob, and Capone lives in sybaritic splendor in a swank hotel suite. Malone also lives alone, but in a rundown apartment; also like Capone, his listens to opera, but on a gramophone, not at a meet-and-greet with Caruso. Unlike Capone, or Ness, he cooks for himself, and even serves Ness tea; all somewhat unmanly traits by the social standards of the time, but right at home in the world of the Männerbund.

19. Grimsson, pp. 90–91.

20. Greg Johnson, Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2010), pp. 12–13.

21. Donovan, The Way of Men, ch. 2.

22. Grimsson, p. 95.

23. Grimsson, p. 90.

24. Grimsson, p. 93.

25. Grimsson, p. 94.

26. Grimsson, p. 36.

27. Grimsson, p. 90.

28. Grimsson, p. 97.

29. Grimsson, p. 98.

30. Grimsson, p. 101.

31. Discussing this “Language of the Birds,” René Guénon recalls that in the Gospels the “birds of the air” that settle in the branches of the tree that grows from the mustard seed of faith, represent angels in various levels of the spiritual hierarchy, the tree itself being the World Tree which links all the levels, bringing us back to Odin’s hanging, the bridge at the border, which like the tree is a means of changing states, and even the airplane flight with which the sequence opens. See The Sword of Gnosis: Metaphysics, Cosmology, Tradition, Symbolism, ed. by Jacob Needleman (New York: Penguin, 1988), pp. 299–300.

32. Malone’s literally operatic death has been mocked endlessly; even Connery refused to do more than two takes, saying it epitomized “everything he hates about moviemaking.” See the analysis at The Movie Deaths Database: http://www.moviedeaths.com/untouchables,_the/jim_malone/ [9]

33. Baron Evola observed that the Magus, despite his powers, may appear poor, downtrodden, or even in danger of death or injury in this realm, precisely because of his achievements in the higher realms, due to the law of cosmic compensation.

34. Nitti is the shape-shifting Malone’s own double. He’s dressed entirely in white, which is a nice flipping of conventions, like Henry Fonda’s blue-eyed killer, also named Frank, in Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America, also scored by Morricone. It works nicely cinematically, as his stark white figure is seen yet barely registered on the edges of his crimes, but not so well against the blue screen in his fall. As played by B-movie favorite Billy Drago, he takes the womanless Capone gang over the edge into effeminacy, although perhaps he’s just European. (Later he’ll play the call-boy that ruins Steven Lang’s life in that monument to despair, Last Exit to Brooklyn.) When a bailiff puts a hand on his shoulder, he shakes it off with the haughty annoyance of a drag queen dismissing an unwanted bar patron. He suggests both the feminine and the reptilian, and thus the snake in the Garden, thus forbidden knowledge, and ultimately his own Fall. He is the Evil Tutor to the Evil Männerbund, just as the real Frank Nitti was not a killer but more of a consigliore. (While red-haired Tom Hagen was always shown as a family man, in accordance with the Don’s views, the balding actor, Robert Duvall, suggests a kind of James Carville snakiness.)

35. “That cockamamie baby carriage”; see “David Mamet Talks About The Untouchables on Tax Day” by Ben Kenber of Yahoo Voices at http://voices.yahoo.com/david-mamet-talks-untouchables-5905806.html?cat=2 [10]

36. “Ness collects a small bunch of would-be vigilante cops (vigilante in the sense that since the rest of the force is corruptly suckling on the teat of organized crime payouts, their righteousness could be considered transgressive)” — Eric Henderson on October 4, 2004 http://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/the-untouchables/463 [11]

37. If assimilating the Apostles to the warrior band seems forced, it is, like the switched juries, absurdly real. Christianity was presented to the Germanic tribes in the form of a revamped gospel story, the Heliand, in which Jesus leads his warriors on raids between Fort Rome and Fort Jerusalem. See G. Ronald Murphy, S.J., The Saxon Savior: The Germanic Transformation of the Gospel in the Ninth-Century Heliand (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) and James Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

38. Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 4, Verse 7.

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff

[1]1,276 words

Author’s Note:

While preparing an essay on Zack Snyder’s Watchmen [2], which I think is the greatest superhero movie ever made, I came across the following review of 300, which for reasons now forgotten, I never got around to publishing. Since my readers have come to expect untimely meditations on movies, I thought I would dust it off. Give me your thoughts.

Zack Snyder’s 300 [3] (Warner Brothers 2007), based on Frank Miller’s popular graphic novel [4] of the same name, retells the story of King Leonidas of Sparta and his bodyguards, all but two of whom died defending the pass of Thermopylae against a vast Persian army in 480 BC. (Since everyone should already know the story, I trust I will not be spoiling the ending.) In addition to the 300 Spartans, several thousand other Greeks also fought, and many of them died as well, but the Spartans are remembered for being particularly unsparing with their own lives.

The story of Thermopylae survives because it is retold. It is retold, because it inspires. It inspires because the Spartans did the right thing, which is rare and hard: they preferred collective freedom, even at the price of war, over peace purchased by submission to alien peoples and ways. Leonidas and his men, most of whom had sons to carry on their names, were willing to sacrifice their individual lives because they hoped to assure the collective survival and freedom of their families, including their common extended family, Sparta herself.

In the retelling, the tale of Thermopylae has inevitably been embroidered and mythologized. There are contradictions and gaps in the surviving accounts. But the real tale of Thermopylae is worth retelling, and it really can be retold. We can aim at complete historical accuracy, and where history does not record every detail, then we can aim at complete historical plausibility. Where our story cannot be true, it can at least be likely.

The only reason to set aside historical accuracy is because one wishes to use Thermopylae to promote values the Spartans would have found alien and repellent. This was done during the French Revolution, when the image of the aristocratic Spartans was used to promote egalitarianism. It is also done in Snyder’s 300, where historical accuracy and plausibility are cast to the winds to pursue another agenda.

[5]The question, though, is: Whose agenda?

The reason so many find 300 a shocking, perplexing movie is that the most straightforward interpretation is as White Nationalist race war propaganda in the vein of William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries.

Although director Snyder preserves Miller’s sepia and red dominated color palate, there can be no confusion about the races of the protagonists. The Spartans are portrayed as Nordic Europeans, physically magnificent and beautiful Nordics, which is historically accurate. The Persians, however, are portrayed as entirely non-white. Some of them are even non-human. Most of them are blacks and racially indeterminate mongrels. The Persian Emperor Xerxes is portrayed by a towering mulatto. The Persian Immortals are dressed like ninjas, and when their masks are removed, they look like orcs from The Lord of the Rings [6] movies.

But clearly 300 was not made to promote White Nationalism. So what is its real agenda? To answer that question, we have to look at Frank Miller’s original graphic novel. My first impression was that 300 is the work of a Jewish neoconservative. But Miller is apparently not a Jew. He was raised a Catholic. Upon closer inspection, 300 reads like the work of an Objectivist: “mysticism” is disdained, “reason” and “freedom” are exalted. In terms of their foreign policy, Objectivists are hyper-bellicose Zionists who disdain the neoconservatives as too soft, sentimental, and unprincipled.

Now that Iraq has been devastated at American expense, Iran is at the top of the Zionist hit list. Thus it makes perfect sense to create a graphic novel and a movie about European resistance to a Persian invasion. Thus 300 plays the same role as Oliver Stone’s Alexander [7], which also has a clear element of Zionist war propaganda, as I argue in a review here [8].

In the original graphic novel, the struggle between the Spartans and the Persians cannot be interpreted as a race war, simply because all the characters, even the Spartans, look like Negroes or Negroid mongrels. Why Miller (along with co-artist Lynn Varley) chose this mode of portrayal is hard to fathom. My guess is that their image of the ancients is based on their ideal audience, the “tan everyman,” the brown mongrel race that would emerge through universal miscegenation, the ideal citizen of a universal homogeneous state.

In addition to Miller’s repugnant racial, political, and philosophical agenda, his dialogue is, well, what you would expect from a comic book, rarely rising above the pedestrian, anachronistic, and clichéd.

Yes, there are some good bits here and there, particularly Miller’s treatment of Ephialtes, the hunchback who would have been discarded by the Spartans as an infant, but who was saved by his tender-hearted parents. Ephialtes offers his services to Leonidas, but Leonidas rejects him as unfit to fight with all compassion consistent with being truthful. Leonidas suggests that he is capable of tending the wounded and bringing water to the warriors, but Ephialtes, in a narcissistic rage, instead betrays the Spartans to their doom. Xerxes says that Leonidas was cruel to demand that Ephialtes stand. Xerxes, out of kindness, demands only that he kneel. Leonidas, when he sees that Ephialtes has betrayed him, wishes that he live forever — for a dishonorable life is a far worse fate than an honorable death. It is pure Nietzsche, by way of Ayn Rand, but it is also magnificently Greek, and a fundamental rejection of Christian and liberal values.

But, for the most part, Miller’s script is an insult, not just to Leonidas and the Spartans, but to the taste and intelligence of anyone with a basic knowledge of history and literature. It is really, really stupid.

[9]

Director Zack Snyder

Director Zack Snyder (who is not Jewish either) was artist enough to cast the Spartans as Europeans, but for some reason he did not tamper with Miller’s vision of the Persians. Perhaps it appealed to his imagination as a monster movie director.

Snyder, by the way, is so talented a director that one occasionally forgets how stupid and offensive the script is.

To the naïve viewer (and face it, that is practically everyone these days), 300 is a visually stunning ballet of slaughter. It is a poetic celebration of the love of comrades, the hatred of enemies, the sublimity of self-sacrifice, and plain old ripped, shredded, berserk, rampaging machismo.

The movie also explains and justifies the brutal eugenic selection and military training of the Spartans. If Sparta still existed, this movie would have sent waves of young men seeking to enlist in its military, just as Full Metal Jacket turned into a recruitment movie for the Marines.

And because of Snyder’s casting choices, Miller’s abstractions about reason and mysticism make scarcely any impression compared to the stark confrontation of Europeans against the invading hordes of Africa and the Near East.

The Persians of 300 do not resemble Ancient Persians at all. Nor do they resemble modern Persians so much as the blacks, Arabs, and North Africans who make up the bulk of Europe’s Muslim invaders.

If in ten or twenty years, Europe explodes into race war and expels the Muslims, the consciousness of the young men who fight will be shaped more by the images of Zack Synder’s Spartans than by almost forgotten figures like Charles Martel.

The sacrifice of Leonidas and the 300 inspired the Greeks to unite and repel the Persian invasion. May they continue to inspire our people to ever newer victories.

(Review Source)
Return of Kings Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
is an aspiring philosopher king, living the dream, travelling the world, hoarding FRNs and ignoring Americunts. He is a European at heart, lover of Latinas, and currently residing in the USA.
(Review Source)
The American Conservative Staff
(”300” is briefly mentioned in this.)
In keeping with a proud tradition of not placing too much importance on most pop culture products and arguing vehemently against reading political messages in the plotlines of space operas, I had steered clear of the ever–widening circle of arguments over the political “message” of Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up (I should mention at this point that I have not seen this movie).  There is a part of me that would like to encourage left-of-center movie reviewers to see every cinematic depiction of normal human behaviour as a coded conservative propaganda effort, thus reinforcing the association of normality with conservatism that any supposed propaganda effort would be trying to achieve.  This saves conservatives some of the trouble in actually producing our own films, as it attributes the production of films in which conservatives had no role to our supposedly vast network of Hollywood influence.  In addition to being very amusing, because it is so obviously contrary to fact, this serves to increase the public perception that such-and-such a popular, entertaining movie is “conservative.”  It also gives conservative movie reviewers things to write about, as they attempt to perceive the hidden references to Burke in The Bourne Supremacy*.  For the most part, however, I find this sort of movie criticism annoying because it is so obviously wrong and compels everyone to label quite arbitrarily different pieces of art, television and film according to mostly inappropriate or misleading political categories.  Instead of appreciating Pan’s Labyrinth as a work of magical realism, it seems as if everyone felt compelled to show off his anti-fascist credentials by talking up the supposed political lessons of the film.  Instead of trying to understand, say, the New Caprica sequence in Battlestar Galactica as an interesting attempt to tell a different side of a war story there was no shortage of observers who wanted to make it into a commentary on Iraq.  Interpretations of 300 were similarly obsessed with either its horrible Orientalism or its supposedly subversive attack on Bush.  I suppose there could be and are political messages worked into all sorts of stories (I am more sympathetic to interpreting Apocalypto as a conservative morality play, which is far less speculative given the well-known politics of the director), but I suppose I have never quite understood why this becomes the basis for criticising the story or, more dramatically, rejecting it outright.  This is my general rule of thumb: the less overt and clear the political references, the better the work of art.  If you can very readily glean a political message from a film (at least any film not explicitly intended as propaganda), it is probably not terribly well made and probably not worth watching.  Take V for Vendetta, for instance–please!   There have been some cases where Hollywood studio politics clearly clashed with the marketing and release of films that had potentially very un-P.C. implications, resulting in their narrow release and fairly dismal box office receipts (and possibly contributing a little to their later critical acclaim).  Children of Men and Idiocracy were two films that, even in the Cuaronised version of the Children of Men plotline, seem to have conveyed messages that so horrified their respective studios that the studios seem to have tried to sabotage their success.  Both films pointed towards–probably unwittingly for the most part–the issues of “birth dearth” and demographic collapse that might be taken as encouragement for a natalist politics, and Idiocracy also had the “bad” taste to clearly put intelligence and heredity at the center of its story.      *In case anyone couldn’t tell, this is not a serious example. ]]>
(Review Source)
The American Conservative Staff
(”5 Days of War” is briefly mentioned in this.)
foreign policy politics film Calum Marsh makes a ridiculous generalization: But it’s important to remember that despite their moralizing, war films are still essentially action films—blockbuster spectacles embellished by the verve and vigor of cutting-edge special effects. They may not strictly glorify. But they almost never discourage. This is a somewhat strange argument, since it is quite easy to come up with a fairly long list of movies that are explicitly and in some cases deliberately antiwar or at least have the effect of discouraging its audience from supporting most wars. There are the obvious examples, such as Grand Illusion, All Quiet on the Western Front, Apocalypse Now, Gallipoli, and Breaker Morant, and there are also less famous films such as Cold Mountain, Bang Rajan or even the recent propaganda film Five Days of War. Those are just the few that came to mind, and I’m sure that a more complete survey would find many more. Not all of them are good movies, but there are quite a few of them out there. One frequently hears complaints from hawks in the U.S. that filmmakers no longer make enough straightforward pro-war movies as they did in the years following WWII, because there really are relatively fewer war movies that are unabashedly trying to celebrate war than there used to be. It’s also worth noting that there are two very different kinds of antiwar movies. One kind tries to demonstrate the futility or injustice of a particular war or war in general, while the other engages in an almost cartoonish oversimplification of a conflict in order to portray war as something forced on the good side by an implacable, evil foe. Both want to reject war and condemn it for its horrible effects, but in some of them the responsibility for the conflict is identified (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) as being entirely on one side. I haven’t seen Lone Survivor, but based on what Marsh tells us about the plot it could easily be an antiwar movie that falls into this second category. ]]>
(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”55 Days at Peking” is briefly mentioned in this.)
3,951 words For decades now, I’ve been waiting for someone to package an oversized picture book called The Films of Basil Dearden. The 1970s would have been a good time for that, since Dearden died in ’71 (car accident), and this mid-rank British director was in need of appreciation. Great big coffee-table books about cinema […]
(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
Zulu

[1]3,686 words

55 Days at Peking (1963), Zulu (1964), and The Sand Pebbles (1966) aren’t part of an actual trilogy, and aside from Zulu, the films aren’t necessarily about colonialist projects in the strictest sense. Additionally, the movies are produced, written, and directed by entirely different people. However, they are remarkably similar in some ways, and they all have a pro-white rule vibe.

The 1960s were a radical, change-filled decade. Part of the reason for this change was that the last of Europe’s Empires started to break up during that decade. France was driven from Algeria in 1962, and Portugal dealt with a fierce insurgency in its colonial Empire. The Congolese reverted to savagery the very instant Belgium left in 1960. Across the globe the non-white hordes came under their own control — to varying, mostly negative, results. When Lothrop Stoddard wrote about white supremacy in 1920, he was discussing an existing situation where whites ruled all over the Earth. In the 1960s “white supremacy” became a lurking, mostly imaginary menace used by organizations such as the SPLC and the NAACP to gain funds and sympathy.

While all the above was going on, it is interesting that Hollywood put out three excellent movies that unashamedly put white men and Western Colonial powers in a positive light. All three movies show a small detachment of white men who must fight off a much larger force of non-whites. All three movies are loosely based on actual historical events. All three movies also take place in a timeframe, 1879 to 1925, that was well within the span of a single lifetime. There is also something nostalgic about these films that contemporary audiences would have appreciated. As Europe’s Empires collapsed and the United States became increasingly drawn into the mire of Vietnam, it must have been refreshing to see white victories over massive Native armies on the Saturday Afternoon Matinee.

This author has always found these movies excellent. I’ve since come to feel like I have a personal connection to the movies also. When I was in the service, the book Defense of Duffer’s Drift — based on the battle of Roark’s Drift (shown in Zulu) — was required reading. One of the units I served in was involved in the Boxer Rebellion (shown in 55 Days at Peking), and twice a year, we would duplicate the forced march of our forbearers in that conflict. Afterwards drinks were served from a punchbowl crafted by Chinese Imperial silversmiths and made from silver given to the regiment by the Dowager Chinese Empress after the conflict. Every veteran I know who served in Korea or the Far East seem to have a special connection to the American sailors on the Yangtze River (as shown in The Sand Pebbles).

There are several lessons to be learned from these movies from an “Alt-Right” perspective.

[2]

1. White Western military force is unstoppable — but white Western military men have a difficult time making a Third World society function along Western lines.

Most people reading this will, of course refer to various defeats of white, Western armies. Indeed, in Zulu and 55 Days, there are two defeats respectively of white armies as major movers of the plots. Additionally, the reader no doubt remembers the various defeats of whites during decolonization, Vietnam, and elsewhere. However, in almost every case in the anti-colonial wars of the 20th Century, whites won victory after victory on the battlefield and then left due to political decisions in the metropolitan capital.

Victor Davis Hanson explores this theme in his excellent book Carnage and Culture (2001). Hanson argues (after a politically correct denial that race matters) that Western people have particular set of traits that started with the Greeks and continues on today. These traits grow out of the idea that a free Greek citizen was expected to bear arms for his society, but as a free man he was allowed to innovate, expected to survive military service, and not be called upon to fight indefinitely. As a result, Western arms has become highly innovative and lethal, Western armor actually protects the user, and the Western military seeks to finish wars quickly by a decisive battle. In a speech promoting his book Hanson stated, “The history of 2500 years of civilization is mostly a question of where the West wants to fight and under what conditions.”[1]

Non-Western military operations are different. The 9-11 attackers knew in advance they were on a suicide mission. The hijackers came from a society where there was no advanced weapons development, hence the need for a kamikaze attack by guile with stolen aircraft. Osama bin Laden’s strategy to connect his decisive acts of terrorism with any achievable political goal required hopes for a cascade of effects stemming from 9-11, where every possible outcome would go the Islamist way. While the Middle East is unstable, it is difficult to see that the current situation is what Osama bin Laden wanted.

On the other hand, in Iraq a relatively small force of Americans completely defeated Saddam Hussein’s army on their home turf and drove his government from power. In 2003, the entire world knew the Americans were headed to Baghdad, and yet the Iraqis could do nothing to stop them. The question was, where the Americans wanted to fight, and under what conditions. The purpose and worth of the war is beyond the scope of this article, but like the whites in the three movies, the Americans beat the Baathist Iraqis very quickly in 2003.

The three movies show white, Western military excellence. In 55 Days at Peking, movie-watchers follow Major Lewis, USMC (Charlton Heston) and his small band of Marines as they, along with other Western and Japanese forces, defend the diplomatic area in Peking (Beijing). Major Lewis and his men, and the various foreign Powers allied with him, out-fight the Boxers through a mix of brawn, bravery, teamwork, and innovation. The siege is lifted by a coalition of Japanese and whites that fight their way into Peking using the same mix of military virtue. In Zulu, a force of British soldiers detailed to build a bridge, manage a make-shift hospital, and secure supplies beat off an enormous force of Zulu Warriors. The British win by use of their superior discipline and better use of their technology. In The Sand Pebbles sailors on the gunboat USS San Pablo defeat a Chinese Republican attempt to cut off navigation on the river.

In all three movies the whites win, but in all three movies there is an ominous ending. In 55 Days, the Chinese Dowager Empress (Flora Robson) paces, worried about the future. After the Boxer Rebellion, the Manchu Dynasty was mortally stricken, leading to Chinese political instability and disasters such as famine, Maoism, the Korean War, etc. that Americans of 1963 were very familiar with. In Zulu, even after many Zulus were killed by volley fire from British Henry-Martin rifles, there are enough healthy survivors to sing a final salute to the British. In 1964, this would easily have reminded white South Africans of their existing demographic problem. In The Sand Pebbles, the protagonist Jake Holman is killed by a sniper and dies unsure of the purpose of all he’d been through. In more recent times, American military victory in Iraq has imparted no decisive change to Middle Eastern, Islamic society. Instead, the Middle East looks much the way it was prior to European rule, with savage bands of religious fanatics battling over women, oil, and territory.

 

2. Personal, intimate, involvement with Third World people is a bad idea which usually leads to personal tragedy.

[3]In all three movies, there are whites who are intimately involved, including sexually, with Third World People. In Zulu, Reverend Otto Witt (Jack Hawkins) and his daughter Margareta (Ulla Jacobsson) are missionaries to the Zulu tribe. However, they’ve clearly never become reconciled with Zulu culture or made a true mark upon it. Margareta is uncomfortable with the Zulu marriage ceremonies, and when war breaks out the Witts must abandon the Zulus and head to the British for safety. Witt eventually becomes appallingly drunk at Roark’s Drift, and he is sent away. His ministry to the Zulus is over. One can’t help think that it would have been far better for the Witts to have set up a Salvation Army style mission in Cape Town or one of the South African mining camps to minister to the whites. Margareta could have easily found a husband, and Reverend Witt could have actually made a worthwhile convert.

The intimate involvement with Third World people in Zulu is still light, but increases in 55 Days and more darky increases in The Sand Pebbles. In 55 Days, one of the Marines, Captain Andy Marshall (Jerome Thor), has a mixed-race daughter, Teresa (Lynne Sue Moon) who he has left at a French Catholic orphanage. Teresa becomes a complication for Captain Marshall and Major Lewis as the story plays out. Even though she is rescued by Major Lewis in a dashing way with epic music playing in the background in the final scene we know she is not going to really be at home in Illinois after being raised in a Chinese orphanage. In my personal life, I know a great many people whose father was a career military man and whose mother is from the Far East, usually Korea. It seems to me that about half the kids of those combinations fail to launch, there is drug abuse, poor personal and career decisions, and other issues. Recently, several spree killers, such as Elliot Rodger, came from such a background.[2]

Moviegoers also learn that Baroness Natalie Ivanoff (Ava Gardner) has had an affair with a Chinese General, causing her husband to commit suicide. She is now alone in the world with a valuable necklace her only wealth. She is haughty to her in-laws angry at her infidelities, but one can see her haughtiness is empty bravado. The Baroness is in dire financial straits and irredeemable social trouble. By the end of the movie she has pawned her necklace. The Baroness’ problems are solved by her death in the siege.

In The Sand Pebbles, the problem of personal, intimate involvement with Third World People is fleshed out more deeply. The deep personal involvement has three different layers. The first is institutional. On the USS San Pablo, the Captain, Lieutenant Collins (Richard Crenna) organized a group of Chinese as coolie labor on the riverboat. The Chinese coolies turn part of the ship into their living quarters and a no-go area for whites. The coolies cook the meals, launder the clothes, clean and paint the ship, and service the engine. The Americans do little but drill in their perfectly laundered clothes, argue over trifles, and drink. This institutional organization brings about serious problems as the plot of The Sand Pebbles thickens.

It is in the bars where the problems start to crop up and the second layer of problems arises: intimate sexual involvement. When being shown around the ship, Frenchie (Richard Attenborough), tells Jake Holman (Steve McQueen) that the Pharmacist Mate is the critical person to know, as many of the men are getting venereal diseases from visiting the Chinese prostitutes. Normally, sailors visiting Far Eastern prostitutes is not a big deal. In fact, such a thing is often a rite of passage for many young men in the military. However, Frenchie takes the situation further when he becomes involved with a Chinese woman named Maily (Marayat Andriane) who works at the bar the sailors like to patronize. The woman is at the bar because she is burdened with debts that she manipulates Frenchie into paying.

The third problem is wasted mentorship. This occurs when a white pours personal effort into increasing the skills of a Third World person. In The Sand Pebbles, this is involvement is a sub-function of the institutional problems described above. The captain of the USS San Pablo has painted himself into a corner. The sailors have it easy in China, where they are comparatively wealthy and can hire coolies to do all their work. However, the engine is being maintained by coolies who don’t really understand it. When Jake Holman notices problems, he causes the engine room coolie to lose face. I believe this scene is what makes so many American veterans of Korea immediately connect with The Sand Pebbles.

The Orient is a peculiar place for personal relationships. In the West, one calls a spade a spade. In the Far East this is not the case. In Korea, where the culture is structured on Chinese lines, there is a concept called kibun which has no corresponding word in English. One translator writes:

Interpersonal relations in Korea are dominated by recognition of each individual’s sense of being, or “selfhood.” A person’s inner feelings and his prestige, as acknowledged by others, combine to influence morale, face, and overall state of mind and heart. . . . In this context, kibun is more important than candor, because to unsettle another person’s kibun also hurts society in general. Considerations of kibun, then, are long-term, overriding the desire to “tell it like it is” in the moment.”[3]

Holman has damaged the Chinese equivalent of the kibun of the Chinese engine room coolie.

Of course, telling it like it is can save lives, fix problems, and move things forward. It turns out that the engine is in a poor state of repair. Critical maintenance has been neglected. When th engine breaks down, the coolie is killed trying to fix it.[4]

At this point Jake Holman, a competent Petty Officer, should have been given young American sailors fresh from boot-camp to train to operate the engine. Instead, the Captain orders that he train a new coolie named Po-Han. Eventually, Holman’s mentorship of Po-Han brings both of them into conflict with Machinist’s Mate Stawski (Simon Oakland). Holman eventually arranges a fight between the tough American sailor and Po-Han, and the Chinaman wins. Stawski is popular with the crew, so the fight alienates Holman from all but Frenchie. Meanwhile, Frenchie has married Maily.

As the story of The Sand Pebbles moves to its climax, the tragedy of intimate personal involvement between whites and non-whites starts to crystalize. Frenchie dies of a fever contracted by swimming off the riverboat to visit Maily. Maily is taken by Chinese militia and killed along with her unborn child. Po-Han is sent off the ship by the head coolie, and then Anti-American protestors capture Po-Han and torture him in front of the crew, forcing Holman to shoot him.

Far Eastern morality is also clearly shown. As soon as Frenchie has the money to pay Maily’s debts, her Chinese creditor seeks more money by auctioning off Maily’s virginity. Additionally, the Chinese Republicans simply lie about who killed who, declaring Holman a murderer although the Republicans themselves were responsible for most of the killing.

3. Christian missionary activity serves the purposes of Christianity, not necessarily white purposes.

In all three movies, Christian missionaries play an important, negative role. In Zulu, the missionaries pressure the British to leave Roark’s Drift. Reverend Witt causes a number of native soldiers to run away. His daughter causes confusion when she attempts to load the sick and wounded on to wagons. Of course, if the British leave their post, they must find another place to defend. Additionally, it is likely that the Zulus attacking from Isandlwana would catch up to the retreating British and kill them in a less defensible area.

In 55 Days, the missionaries are in the background of the story. The missionaries have converted many Chinese, and they and their converts are threatened by the Boxers.[5] Since most of the powers in China are Christian nations, and the two most powerful, Great Britain and the United States, had enormous missionary lobbies, the various white governments were forced to support missionary activity that did not necessarily help the cause of the various national governments. The Boxer Rebellion itself was partially sparked by Chinese fears that missionaries were damaging Chinese culture. Thus the Europeans were forced to take sides against a genuine native uprising based on legitimate native concerns. It was a crisis those governments could have done without. In fact, it would have been better for the Anglo-American governments in particular to have simply focused on getting tax revenues from opium sales to China.

The lobbying of Christian missionaries had other disastrous consequences for US policy in China. For instance, the missionary-backed “China Lobby” supported Chiang Kai-shek, a Methodist, whose government was so corrupt and inept that it went from crisis to crisis dragging the United States with it. Vinegar Joe Stilwell, the famously dour senior military commander in China during WWII felt that the Chinese Communists would have been better partners for the United States. In 1972, after the so-called “missionary generation” had left the scene, President Nixon took Vinegar Joe’s ideas forward. Nixon’s greatest triumph was “opening up” China, thus allowing strategic flexibility for the Americans in Vietnam and eventually breaking up the Communist world.

In The Sand Pebbles, missionaries are also shown with considerable circumspection. Shirley Eckert (Candice Bergen) is portrayed as a bright, idealistic, and tragically naïve American in China. Her boss, reverend Jameson (Larry Gates) is a fanatic anti-colonialist who is organizing and supporting Chinese Republican militias. Jameson is doing this despite knowing that Chinese self-government has been a disaster. For example, Chinese justice consists of trial by ordeal, and Chinese society has drifted into disordered warlordism. When missionaries are killed in Nanking, Lieutenant Collins orders the gunboat to rescue reverend Jameson and Shirley Eckert. Of course, the missionaries are pursuing their own religious interests which are separate from that of the whites. The missionaries don’t wish to leave, and virtue signal enough to cause the deaths of Holman and the USS San Pablo’s officers. The missionaries have stirred up the Chinese against the Americans, and ironically, against themselves.

Notes

1. Victor Davis Hanson Speech on CSPAN’s Book TV. 15 Sep 2001, Fresno, California https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHlSTkja8xc&list=PLmLlaNoL1WVv_1ObSfdROn75K20EMQs-k&index=7 [4] (11:55-12:03)

2. http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf [5] Spree shooter Chris Harper Mercer was also of mixed racial origins.

3. http://translationjournal.net/journal/43korean.htm [6] I believe that all Koreans have their kibun damaged by Americans in some way due to our directness. I believe that the Virginia Tech Shooter Seung-Hui Cho was partially motivated to carry out his rampage due to his damaged kibun. This damage added a layer of complication to his already serious psychological issues. Although none of his American classmates felt that he had been bullied or insulted, it is apparent that Cho felt something his inner soul was harmed. Kibun explains why a person who’d lived a comfortable life could say, “Do you know what it feels to be spit on your face and have trash shoved down your throat? Do you know what it feels like to dig your own grave? Do you know what it feels like to have your throat slashed from ear to ear? Do you know what it feels like to be torched alive? Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement? You have never felt a single ounce of pain your whole life. Did you want to inject as much misery in our lives as you can just because you can? You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your Vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything. (unclear) crucified me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart, and raping my soul all this time. When the time came, I did it. . . . I had to.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho [7]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18195423#.V3GA1qI4Fjg [8]

4. I believe that the HBD argument, that East Asians have some sort of IQ edge over whites is not entirely true, or missing some critical aspect of measuring intelligence across racial lines. It seemed to me that the situation related to the engine room between Jake Holman (Steve McQueen) and the coolie points to something deeper. Holman states to the Captain, “It’s all monkey see monkey do.” Americans stationed in Korea call the place “The land of the not-quite right.” I started to suspect that Koreans didn’t understand how things worked shortly after arriving in Korea, when Korean workmen were comfortable with repairing water main pipes without first shutting off the water. They’d take the backhoe, start digging, and sewage would flow everywhere, into buildings, private rooms, etc. This happened all the time, and I presume it still does.

They seem to have no true mastery of most complex things. I believe this is partially due to kibun interfering with an instructor’s ability to be direct. Examples of the lack of true mastery on the part of Koreans include:

  • The crash of Asiana Flight 214, which occurred on July 6, 2013 in San Francisco occurred because the pilot didn’t really know how to land a Boeing 777.
  • KAL007, the Korean airline which was shot down by the Soviets, nearly causing WWIII, occurred because the pilot had made a critical error in basic navigation and was blithely flying over restricted Soviet Airspace. If a North Korean airliner made the same mistake flying over Alaska, no doubt the Americans would have shot that aircraft down.
  • In 2014, the MV Sewo a Korean ferry which capsized leaving hundreds dead is another example of a lack of true mastery in Korea. The ship was modified, making it easier to capsize as the center of gravity was raised (lack of mastery in naval architecture), it was severely overloaded (failure of mastery on the part of the load-master, captain, and regulatory agencies), and the crew gave the wrong instructions to the passengers as the shipwreck occurred thus increasing the death toll (failure of mastery of basic seamanship). The captain of the MV Sewo was the first to leave the ship and first claimed to just be a passenger after being rescued. (An example of kibun over-riding telling it how it is.) This was also not the first time a ferry capsized due to this incompetence. The MV Seohae also sank due to overloading causing a similar number of deaths.

5. In actual history, many young American Protestant missionaries were martyred by the Boxers. http://www.phcmontreat.org/BoxerRebellion-Presbyterians.htm [9]

 

(Review Source)
8 Mile
Counter Currents Staff
(”8 Mile” is briefly mentioned in this.)

Trevor Lynch
Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
Edited by Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015
214 pages

Kindle E-book: $4.49 [1]

Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is his second collection of essays and reviews, covering 51 movies and 4 television shows, spanning a 14-year period, from his very first review (Mulholland Drive) to his last to date (The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies).

Lynch offers penetrating and sometimes surprising philosophical readings of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, Alejandro Jodorowsky’s The Dance of Reality, the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man, M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs, and Francis Ford Coppola’s Youth Without Youth; sympathetic interpretations of Bollywood musicals and Zhang Yimou’s wuxia movies; and hilarious pans of Atlas Shrugged: Part I, Prometheus, The Hobbit trilogy, The Monuments Men, Machete, Predators, Secretary, Sucker Punch, and other worthy targets.

Return of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies cements its author’s status as a leading cultural critic of the North American New Right.

Contents

Preface

1. Agora
2. Alexander
3. Arlington Road
4. Atlas Shrugged: Part I
5. Blade Runner
6. Burn Notice
7. Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky
8. The Dance of Reality
9. Die Another Day
10. 8 Mile
11. Firefly
12. Hero
13. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
14. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
15. The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies
16. Hooray for Bollywood: Devdas & Kabhi Kushi Kabhie Gham
17. House of Flying Daggers
18. The Interpreter
19. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
20. Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde
21. Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown
22. Machete
23. Man of Steel
24. Men in Black II
25. Minority Report
26. Moneyball
27. The Monuments Men
28. Mulholland Drive
29. Nebraska
30. Person of Interest
31. Predators
32. Prometheus
33. Red Dragon
34. The Road
35. Secretary
36. Serenity
37. A Serious Man
38. Signs
39. Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams
40. Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones
41. Sucker Punch
42. The Tourist
43. Vanilla Sky
44. Youth Without Youth

Appendix
45. Ten Favorite Films

Index (Print edition only)

Praise for Trevor Lynch

“Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

—Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique

“Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. . . . These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

—Edmund Connelly

“The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

—F. Roger Devlin, author of Sexual Utopia in Power

“This is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

—Jack Donovan, author of A Sky Without Eagles

“Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

—James J. O’Meara, author of The Eldritch Evola . . . & Others

“What I find most remarkable about Trevor Lynch’s writings on film is his ability to use philosophy to illuminate film, and vice-versa, with an intellectual virtuosity and lucidity of style that blows away anything in the vast Open Court and Blackwell series of Philosophy and Popular Culture books.”

—Jef Costello

“‘Trevor Lynch’ is not precisely a real person himself. Rather, he is the alter-ego of a tiresome and self-important fellow named Greg Johnson who runs a vastly pretentious website called Counter-Currents.com . . . . Lynch/Johnson . . . might be considered shocking, if only he weren’t such a bore. A consummate nerd and self-described “LOTR [Lord of the Rings] fanatic,” he’s the kind of guy who finds himself at parties at which ‘Pulp Fiction’ is described as a film about ‘greatness of soul at the end of history,’ and who complains as lustily about ‘lowbrow’ appropriation of the term ‘postmodern’ as he does about the supposed Jewish scheme to undermine ‘higher morality’ by putting ‘dangerous truths’ ‘in the mouths of monsters’ like the racist skinheads of ‘American History X’.”

—Leah Nelson, Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report

“The most bizarre of the white supremacist titles, though, is Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies. . . . Mr Lynch’s review of summer blockbuster ‘Django Unchained’ calls it ‘another Jewish wet dream’ before saying that ‘hateful fantasies about teaming up with blacks to harm whites are staples of the Jewish imagination.’”

—Ryan Gorman, The Daily Mail

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”8 Mile” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Lynch2coverMedium

[1]1,161 words

Trevor Lynch
Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies [2]
Edited by Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015
214 pages

Hardcover: $35 [2]

Paperback: List price: $20; our price: $18 [2]

Print copies will ship by March 21, 2015.

To visit our secure order page, click here [2]

Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is his second collection of essays and reviews, covering 51 movies and 4 television shows, spanning a 14-year period, from his very first review (Mulholland Drive) to his last to date (The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies).

Lynch offers penetrating and sometimes surprising philosophical readings of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, Alejandro Jodorowsky’s The Dance of Reality, the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man, M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs, and Francis Ford Coppola’s Youth Without Youth; sympathetic interpretations of Bollywood musicals and Zhang Yimou’s wuxia movies; and hilarious pans of Atlas Shrugged: Part I, Prometheus, The Hobbit trilogy, The Monuments Men, Machete, Predators, Secretary, Sucker Punch, and other worthy targets.

Return of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies cements its author’s status as a leading cultural critic of the North American New Right.

Contents

Preface

1. Agora
2. Alexander
3. Arlington Road
4. Atlas Shrugged: Part I
5. Blade Runner
6. Burn Notice
7. Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky
8. The Dance of Reality
9. Die Another Day
10. 8 Mile
11. Firefly
12. Hero
13. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
14. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
15. The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies
16. Hooray for Bollywood: Devdas & Kabhi Kushi Kabhie Gham
17. House of Flying Daggers
18. The Interpreter
19. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
20. Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde
21. Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown
22. Machete
23. Man of Steel
24. Men in Black II
25. Minority Report
26. Moneyball
27. The Monuments Men
28. Mulholland Drive
29. Nebraska
30. Person of Interest
31. Predators
32. Prometheus
33. Red Dragon
34. The Road
35. Secretary
36. Serenity
37. A Serious Man
38. Signs
39. Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams
40. Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones
41. Sucker Punch
42. The Tourist
43. Vanilla Sky
44. Youth Without Youth

Appendix
45. Ten Favorite Films

Index (Print edition only)

Praise for Trevor Lynch

“Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

—Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique

“Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. . . . These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

—Edmund Connelly

“The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

—F. Roger Devlin, author of Sexual Utopia in Power

“This is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

—Jack Donovan, author of A Sky Without Eagles

“Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

—James J. O’Meara, author of The Eldritch Evola . . . & Others

“What I find most remarkable about Trevor Lynch’s writings on film is his ability to use philosophy to illuminate film, and vice-versa, with an intellectual virtuosity and lucidity of style that blows away anything in the vast Open Court and Blackwell series of Philosophy and Popular Culture books.”

—Jef Costello

“‘Trevor Lynch’ is not precisely a real person himself. Rather, he is the alter-ego of a tiresome and self-important fellow named Greg Johnson who runs a vastly pretentious website called Counter-Currents.com . . . . Lynch/Johnson . . . might be considered shocking, if only he weren’t such a bore. A consummate nerd and self-described “LOTR [Lord of the Rings] fanatic,” he’s the kind of guy who finds himself at parties at which ‘Pulp Fiction’ is described as a film about ‘greatness of soul at the end of history,’ and who complains as lustily about ‘lowbrow’ appropriation of the term ‘postmodern’ as he does about the supposed Jewish scheme to undermine ‘higher morality’ by putting ‘dangerous truths’ ‘in the mouths of monsters’ like the racist skinheads of ‘American History X’.”

—Leah Nelson, Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report

“The most bizarre of the white supremacist titles, though, is Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies. . . . Mr Lynch’s review of summer blockbuster ‘Django Unchained’ calls it ‘another Jewish wet dream’ before saying that ‘hateful fantasies about teaming up with blacks to harm whites are staples of the Jewish imagination.’”

—Ryan Gorman, The Daily Mail

Hardcover: $35 [2]

Paperback: List price: $20; our price: $18 [2]

Print copies will ship by March 21, 2015.

To visit our secure order page, click here [2].

 

(Review Source)
Counter Currents Staff
(”8 Mile” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Lynch2coverMedium

[1]1,140 words

Trevor Lynch
Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
Edited by Greg Johnson
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015
214 pages

Kindle E-book: $4.49 [2]

A print edition will appear shortly, $35 for hardcovers and $18 for paperbacks. 

Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is his second collection of essays and reviews, covering 51 movies and 4 television shows, spanning a 14-year period, from his very first review (Mulholland Drive) to his last to date (The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies).

Lynch offers penetrating and sometimes surprising philosophical readings of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, Alejandro Jodorowsky’s The Dance of Reality, the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man, M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs, and Francis Ford Coppola’s Youth Without Youth; sympathetic interpretations of Bollywood musicals and Zhang Yimou’s wuxia movies; and hilarious pans of Atlas Shrugged: Part I, Prometheus, The Hobbit trilogy, The Monuments Men, Machete, Predators, Secretary, Sucker Punch, and other worthy targets.

Return of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies cements its author’s status as a leading cultural critic of the North American New Right.

Contents

Preface

1. Agora
2. Alexander
3. Arlington Road
4. Atlas Shrugged: Part I
5. Blade Runner
6. Burn Notice
7. Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky
8. The Dance of Reality
9. Die Another Day
10. 8 Mile
11. Firefly
12. Hero
13. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
14. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
15. The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies
16. Hooray for Bollywood: Devdas & Kabhi Kushi Kabhie Gham
17. House of Flying Daggers
18. The Interpreter
19. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
20. Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde
21. Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown
22. Machete
23. Man of Steel
24. Men in Black II
25. Minority Report
26. Moneyball
27. The Monuments Men
28. Mulholland Drive
29. Nebraska
30. Person of Interest
31. Predators
32. Prometheus
33. Red Dragon
34. The Road
35. Secretary
36. Serenity
37. A Serious Man
38. Signs
39. Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams
40. Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones
41. Sucker Punch
42. The Tourist
43. Vanilla Sky
44. Youth Without Youth

Appendix
45. Ten Favorite Films

Index (Print edition only)

Praise for Trevor Lynch

“Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

—Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique

“Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. . . . These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

—Edmund Connelly

“The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

—F. Roger Devlin, author of Sexual Utopia in Power

“This is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

—Jack Donovan, author of A Sky Without Eagles

“Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

—James J. O’Meara, author of The Eldritch Evola . . . & Others

“What I find most remarkable about Trevor Lynch’s writings on film is his ability to use philosophy to illuminate film, and vice-versa, with an intellectual virtuosity and lucidity of style that blows away anything in the vast Open Court and Blackwell series of Philosophy and Popular Culture books.”

—Jef Costello

“‘Trevor Lynch’ is not precisely a real person himself. Rather, he is the alter-ego of a tiresome and self-important fellow named Greg Johnson who runs a vastly pretentious website called Counter-Currents.com . . . . Lynch/Johnson . . . might be considered shocking, if only he weren’t such a bore. A consummate nerd and self-described “LOTR [Lord of the Rings] fanatic,” he’s the kind of guy who finds himself at parties at which ‘Pulp Fiction’ is described as a film about ‘greatness of soul at the end of history,’ and who complains as lustily about ‘lowbrow’ appropriation of the term ‘postmodern’ as he does about the supposed Jewish scheme to undermine ‘higher morality’ by putting ‘dangerous truths’ ‘in the mouths of monsters’ like the racist skinheads of ‘American History X’.”

—Leah Nelson, Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report

“The most bizarre of the white supremacist titles, though, is Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies. . . . Mr Lynch’s review of summer blockbuster ‘Django Unchained’ calls it ‘another Jewish wet dream’ before saying that ‘hateful fantasies about teaming up with blacks to harm whites are staples of the Jewish imagination.’”

—Ryan Gorman, The Daily Mail

 

(Review Source)
Return of Kings Staff
(”8 Mile” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Alfonso Taft is a surfer stoner All-American Aryan alpha male quarterback. Raised in the Northeast, he speaks with a Southern twang for no apparent reason. Host of America's #1 Chadcast.
(Review Source)
American Renaissance
(”8 Mile” is briefly mentioned in this.)

And it will crush Eminem and his corporate “homies.”

The post It’s Like an Army appeared first on American Renaissance.

(Review Source)
8MM
Counter Currents Staff
(”8MM” is briefly mentioned in this.)

4,196 words [1]

Part 1 of 3

Jay Dyer
Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film [2]
Walterville, Or.: Trine Day, 2016

“A film is a ribbon of dreams. The camera is much more than a recording apparatus; it is a medium via which messages reach us from another world that is not ours and that brings us to the heart of a great secret. Here magic begins.” – Orson Welles

Damn this chap Dyer! If only he had just put that Welles quote in his text somewhere, I could have appropriated it as the epigraph for my own forthcoming collection of film essays. But no, he had to go and use it himself! We hates him forever!

Calm down.

In Esoteric Hollywood, Jay Dyer[1] has “has compiled his most read essays, combining philosophy, comparative religion, symbolism and geopolitics and their connections to film,”[2] and now he “invites the reader to consider the existential experience of the various films chosen and how, though it may seem counterintuitive, fictional films can present more ‘reality’ than mainstream media.”

Now, as David Lynch might say, the words here are not what then seem. You might skim over this paragraph in the first section, “Film as Ritual,” and think he’s talking about “the various films chosen” in the book, but actually he’s talking about the book itself, as we can see if we read the immediately following two lines carefully:

Cryptography and cyphers have, for millennia, encoded hidden messages in many forms, and so it will be with this book. Think of it as a hidden message that is intended to be understood, but not immediately apparent. . . . Thus, the reader will travel with me on a mental journey into the psychosphere, understand the semiotic system I utilize, and in turn be able to interpret films in a deeper, esoteric sense on their own.

The message isn’t in the films, it’s in the book. The message is always hidden in plain sight, the method is always revealed.[3]

Before getting to the message, a little background is needed. Leaning on Eliade, Dyer correctly posits that:

Space-age man is just as “religious,” if not more so, than ignorant, savage ancient man. The difference emerges as merely one of form and medium, not substance, and his new temple is wherever the television screen or theater feeds him his new narrative by which to read his world . . . The liturgical icon of old has now become the moving icon of vivacious info-babe, the holy mothers of Channel 5 Monastery.[4]

So far so good. But, all is not well in our groovy, twenty-first century “global village.”

Unfortunately, our new gods do not always issue messages of hope and salvation. Our devas are very much gods of wrath and vengeance, inflicting upon the mass psyche a continual barrage of spells and incantations geared toward confusion and hysteria.

That bit about “gods of wrath and vengeance” will prove to be pretty ironic, but more anon. For now, things are even worse:

Few are those concerned with the virus of programmed liturgical psychodrama their magical mirror screens enchant them with, as they are lulled under the vodoun spell of the zombie.

But aren’t zombies kinda cool? Aha, that’s exactly what They want you to believe! In reality,

[t]he zombie is under the spell that death is life, that parasitism will grant power, that sex is death, when in reality zombies are death feeding on their own death, the fullest blossoming of the covenant of death, which is self-destruction. . . . The iconography of the screen is the crafted narrative and mythology of the establishment’s choosing.

And needless to say, that narrative is self-aggrandizement:

The “secret society” of priests exercise their control of the tribe . . . with the very same ritual psychodrama the mass media mavens of our day utilize, only our ascended Hollywood hegumen are more technologically sophisticated.

For them, the wires and waves of electrical signals are currents are the medium for their message, and the medium’s message is the medium – to further its own existence as the source of meaning thought its faithful presentation of its own mystagogical psychodrama.

In short:

Modern man is far from being irreligious, even in our science-driven era. He has, as Michel Foucault said, simply changed his old priests and gods for new ones, and in Esoteric Hollywood, I will decipher how this has been done.

In Part One, “Hollywood Babylon and Kubrick,” Dyer starts, in Chapter One, “The Occult Empire,” to put some flesh on the zombies. Hollywood has been aptly compared to Babylon, since “[t]he holy sites and rites of Hollywood are not the altars of mainstream religion, but another ancient religion, ultimately summed up in the epithet of the ancient mysteries.”

And who are the new priests?

The wizards behind the curtain of Hollywood are drab old studio executives nowadays working with the intelligence agencies, calling the shots for occulted reasons, for the purpose of mesmerizing the Dorothy-like populace of America.

Dyer then draws a consequence that may not be obvious:

The Hollywood magical city of Oz doesn’t exist, in fact, and is instead a place where reality comes closer to the film 8mm. . . . Holly-Oz is where naïve princesses go to become whores or end up in porn, like Betty/Diane in Mulholland Drive, and after they’re used up, the system tosses them away as refuse or kills them like so many stars and starlets who have been “suicided” or sacrificed to the system. . . . “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” (Mark 8:36).

The reader should note that the psychodramas now have a name, and a direct historical reference: the ancient Mysteries; and the warning comes from conventional Judeo-Christian religion, for which the ur-Gospel of Mark [5] serves as a synecdoche.

What we have here, then, is not so much a book of film analysis as another instance of the millennial-long struggle between what might be called the religious, or specifically Judeo-Christian, mentality, and the Hermetic, gnostic, or (in the Greek context) heroic (Heracles) or Titanic (Prometheus) mentality. As Evola says, there are

[m]yths in which there are heroes who confront the tree, and divine natures (in the Bible, God himself is hypostasized) that defend it and impede access to it. And the result, then, is a battle variously interpreted, according to the traditions.

There is a double possibility: in one case the tree is conceived as a temptation, which leads to ruin and damnation for anyone who succumbs to it;[6] in the other, it is conceived as an object of possible conquest which, after dealing with the dragons or divine beings defending it, transforms the darer into a god and sometimes transfers the attributes of divinity or immortality from one race to another.[7]

A review is not the place to decide, or even detail, such a long and complex ideological dispute. It should be noted, though, that Dyer makes no real attempt to make his position explicit or to argue for it.[8] Occasionally, he will simply note that the other view is “stupid.” When he does deign to argue, the arguments are rather embarrassingly jejune, especially for someone claiming to have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy.[9] For example, at one point he simply sneers that all this is “solipsism,” which is the sort of faux-profound point I like to imagine a Plato or Hegel or Blake, even, responding to with, “Gosh, I never thought of that! Thanks so much for bringing that to my attention!”[10]

This Evangelical perspective informs – or distorts – the cinematic analyses on hand, but after all they are merely the window-dressing to attract the readers[11] who will absorb the Abrahamic message.

This distortion occurs in two ways, or areas, which might best be outlined by first contrasting my own perspective. If the Hermetic path is true, in the (forgive me, Heidegger) sense of giving an accurate reflection of reality, then it is a body of doctrine, a science, if you will, that one can understand, or not; and Dyer often doesn’t.

In my own analyses, I have emphasized the contrast of the circle, symbolic of the senseless repetition of phenomenal reality (samsara), and the spiral, in which one casts off ones karma or fate (a process I call “passing the buck”) and instead of returning, ascends to the next level, the Turn of the Cosmic Screw.

Originating in the Pythagorean obsession with circles, which, as we have had occasion to mention in various contexts, is the pseudo-symbol of the circle, horizontal enslavement to the material world, reincarnation, “The Path of the Fathers,” substituted by the Counter-Initiation for the dear, the blessed Spiral, symbol of vertical Liberation, “The Path of the Gods.” As Alain Daniélou expresses it:

The fifths [in an acoustically valid or Traditional system] form a spiral whose sounds, coiled around themselves, can never meet. For us, this limitless spiral can be the joint in the center of the world, the narrow gate that will allow us to escape from the appearance of a closed universe, to travel in other worlds and explore their secrets.[12]

As the great twentieth-century mystic, Neville, puts it [3]:

Without the resurrection, you would know infinite circuitry, repeating the same states over and over again. But, after moving around the circle unnumbered times, the perfect image is formed,[13] removing you from the circle to enter a spiral and move up as the person who created it all.

Throughout, Dyer confuses spiral with circle; for example: “The spiral has the significance here [Vertigo [4]] of alerting the viewer that we are trapped.” And quoting his fellow Christian symbologist, Michael A. Hoffman II: “The resulting ‘evolutionary being’ [in 2001 [5]] was revealed to be . . . a homunculus out of the shadows . . . guardian deity of alchemical miscegenation, and entity beyond the spiral of Nature.”[14]

Which is true, except that since Dyer thinks spirals are circles, he interprets this “spiral” to be an instance of the Circle of Eternal Return (Nietzsche, of course), and not a spiral evolutionary advance. But as a Judeo-Christian, Dyer must (deliberately?) confuse the circle and the spiral, seeing both as symbols of Evil: “The spiral [of Babylonian occult mind control] goes even deeper.”

This isn’t entirely pedantic, as, I think, it leads to his Judeo-Christian distortion of the Hermetic path. Lacking the concept of the spiral, Dyer thinks the path of “evolution” is actually just a big, dumb circle and the idea of transcendence is a sneaky-snaky, Satanic siren song leading not to promised freedom and eternal perfection, but to enslavement and death.[15]

Instead of following our Titanic destiny, we should just be nice goyim and bow down to our Lord and Master, the alien space god JHVH-1, who may, out of his inscrutable will, be nice to us and not burn us forever as we deserve. Amen.[16]

By contrast, the Promethean perspective:

Reflection on modern science allows a return to the primordial. Not a return to the past, but a movement into the future from out of the primordial – a development wherein the vital force of evolution becomes consciously self-directing.[17]

Apart from failing to accurately present the Hermetic view, there’s also the issue of where it comes from, if not from the real world itself.

If metaphysics is true,[18] then its elements will occur naturally.[19]

If metaphysics is a “stupid” fairy tale and Satanic snare, they must be put in there, and by somebody.[20]

As Dyer says, “The iconography of the screen is the crafted narrative and mythology of the establishment’s choosing.”

As I began by somewhat solipsistically referencing my own film essays, I hope I may be forgiven for returning to the subject. In my own work, I have been far more interested in what isn’t planned in films, that which slips by when the writers and producers aren’t looking or when they try something and fail. That’s when the mask of Hollywood crap and propaganda slips and reality seeps out.

For example, Dyer traces a wonderful connection from The Black Dahlia [6] (De Palma, 2006) to Lost Highway [7](Lynch, 1997) to The Big Sleep [8] (Hawks, 1946),[21] yet when introducing the latter, says, “Noir would not be a place one would expect esoteric symbolism.” Which may be literally true, but that’s exactly why it can be a fertile field for it – no one’s looking.[22]

Moreover, Dyer needs to explain who put it there, and that’s where we veer off into Conspiracy Land. Here again, Dyer eschews argument and relies on insinuation, changing his putative actors as suits his purpose. As near as I can tell, they comprise an ever-expanding circle [or spiral?!] somewhat like this:

Cigar-chomping Hollywood execs, behind whom are
Various government and intelligence entities, behind whom are
Global elites, of the money and power sort[23], behind whom are
Occult organizations.[24]

It’s clear that the categories are somewhat porous, with people moving from one to another; Dyer is always happy to find a Fleming, for example, move from intel to writing movie scripts, or a Crowley moving from occult leader to secret agent,[25] and one might easily imagine someone moving through all four sectors (Trump? Ahrnold?) either as a career path or as needed.

Nevertheless, the fourth ring is, by its very nature, somewhat amorphous, and Dyer occasionally hints that even those in the third ring are unaware of the occult powers they are playing around with; the Strauss-Kahns are just useful puppets of the Crowleys.

Anyway, the point is that while I love a good conspiracy story as much as anyone, and as a proponent of Feyerabend’s principle that “Anything Goes” when it comes to empirical investigation,[26] I’m also (in addition to being a Natural Born Cheapskate) a Lazy Bastard, and my method has the advantage of simply not needing to work up any institutional backdrop, especially an occulted one.[27] You may find that a convenience as well, or as always, your mileage may differ.[28]

I might suggest an analogy with smoking in the movies. There’s a persistent notion that tobacco companies sponsored or bribed their way into movies and TV. And it does seem that far more smoking occurs on screens than ever occurred in real life.[29] But whatever the dastardly efforts of the coffin nail industry, there’s a much simpler explanation: directors and screenwriters loved smoking, since it ate up time and also gave actors something to do with their hands.[30]

A good example is Red Zone Cuba [9], which I’ve extensively analyzed elsewhere [10]. The three main characters are two hobos and an escaped con, and all three smoke constantly, especially the escapee, even when in a Cuban jail. This is in spite of never showing any of the penniless three buying or even stealing a pack, to say nothing of the cartons that must be stowed away in their truck. Even the penultimate shot of the film informs us that the convict “ran all the way to Hell with a penny (dramatic pause) and a broken cigarette.”

 

Notes

1. Book cover: “Jay Dyer a writer and researcher from the Southern US with a B.A. in philosophy, his graduate work focused on the interplay of literary theory, espionage and philosophy. He is dedicated to investigating the deeper themes and messages found in our globalist pseudo-culture, illustrating the connections between philosophy, metaphysics, secret societies, Hollywood, psychological warfare and comparative religion. Jay is a regular contributor to the popular Intelligence Hub 21st Century Wire and the scholarly Soul of the East, as well as conducting numerous interviews with experts in fields ranging from espionage to history to economics. Jay’s work has appeared on the web’s top alternative media outlets: Activist Post, Red Ice [11]Waking TimesRenseIcke and Infowars, as well as appearing on the Alex Jones Show. Jay has broken national and international news, numerous viral alt news stories, as well as surpassing 1 million views in its first 4 years.”

2. Op. cit.

3. Thus, the medium, as Marshall McLuhan said, is the message. In Videodrome [12] (1983), David Cronenberg’s homage to fellow Canadian McLuhan (and starring future Trump supporter James Woods), the point is not the snuff films being broadcast but that the Videodrome signal causes brain tumors and hallucinations (or are they?). As the McLuhan character, Brian O’Blivion, says, “The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena: the Videodrome. The television screen is the retina of the mind’s eye. Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it. Therefore, television is reality, and reality is less than television.”

4. The conjunction of info-babes and monasteries recalls Videodrome’s Nicky (Deborah Harry), a TV psychologist who later turns up among the robed-and-hooded torture masters of the Videodrome.

5. The choice of Mark is rich with irony, since Mark seems to preserve ancient Mystery traditions associated with the Jesus movement. What would Dyer make of a modern film featuring, as Mark’s account of the arrest of Jesus does, a youth alone with Jesus, clothed only in a sheet which he loses as he runs away nekkid? See Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark [13] (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973). In any event, “It is certainly possible to read Mark, even in the canonical text, as containing doctrines ascribed notoriously to the Gnostic Cerinthus and to the Ebionites, such as the adoption of Jesus as God’s son as of the Jordan baptism, when an angelic entry entered into him; and the substitution of Simon for Jesus on the cross of Golgotha.” The Human Bible New Testament [14]; translated and introduced by Robert M. Price (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 2014); reviewed here [15].

6. One can fairly sense Dyer rubbing his hands together with glee as he intones that “Cooper’s curiosity and desire for knowledge of the beyond [in Twin Peaks] . . . lead to his demise [just like] Fred Madison in Lost Highway.” Serves him right, the sinner!

7. The Hermetic Tradition: Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art [16] (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1995), p. 4 (italics in original).

8. By contrast, the Alt Right has recently been graced with a detailed, closely argued and profoundly meditated account of the other side in Jason Reza Jorjani’s Prometheus and Atlas [17] (London: Arktos, 2016).

9. I myself have a Master’s degree . . . in Science!

10. It’s like when the SJW says, “But not every immigrant is bad” or “I know a black engineer.” Wow, your training in mathematical logic has taught you that one counterexample refutes a general proposition, and I never imagined a black engineer or Mexican non-rapist!

11. As Jason Reza Jorjani notes, Tricksters from Hermes to Barnum must add a little bit of truth to make their spiels successful. Op. cit., Introduction.

12. Music and the Power of Sound [18] (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1995), p. 8. See “My Wagner Problem . . . and Ours [19]” and “Our Wagner, Only Better: Harry Partch, Wild Boy of American Music [20],” both reprinted in my collection The Eldritch Evola . . . & Others [21] (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2014).

13. As Will Graham decodes Dr. Hannibal Lecter: “If one does what God does enough times, one becomes God.” See my “Thanks for Watching: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 1 [22]” and “Phil & Will: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 2 [23].”

14. Oops! “Another key thing to note is that people in these circles often refer to nature with a capital “N.” For example, as Francis Parker Yockey does in Imperium [24], as does Hitler in Chapter Two of Mein Kampf [25]for example, and David Duke in his junk. “This is not by accident, in my estimation. It is done because it is a specific rejection of the God of Mt. Sinai – the one true God, and a deifying of nature itself, as Devi makes clear.” Dyer, “The Satanic Nature of Nazism,” here [26].

15. “[T]he oligarchical plan . . . is not to heal man, but rather to end man.” Dyer’s view of the Hermetic tradition is dramatized in Night of the Blood Beast [27] (Gene Corman, 1958): “An astronaut crash lands back on Earth and apparently dies in the wreckage. His body does not deteriorate however, as he is being used as a breeding ground for an alien race of creatures whose ultimate goal is to assimilate our minds into theirs by killing us, eating our brains, and assimilating all the knowledge and experiences and personality contained therein into themselves. The alien creature thinks that he’s going to save humanity and give us immortality by doing this, but our heroes have other ideas. Will they be able to stop the creatures plan before it managed to create enough offspring to wipe out the whole human race? . . . This story had a very interesting aspect to it, in that we’re left wondering if the creature really is evil, or if it’s actually benevolent and just misunderstood.” B-Movie Central, here [28].

16. “The ‘infinite demand’ of these finite gods, namely Prometheus and Atlas, disclose the partisans of Revelation as enemy combatants loyal to our would-be slave drivers. The specters of Technoscience drive us on in rebellion against the One True God, with a will to liberate the Earth from those who are content to be His slaves, and who resentfully endeavor to enslave the alpine eagles of the Earth.” Jorjani, op. cit., Introduction fine. By contrast, Thomas Mann, who devoted four thick volumes to retelling the story of Joseph and his brothers [29], no doubt intends to draw the same moral as Dyer does from his fictional biography of Adrian Leverkühn, who dares to live boldly (Leverkuhn) only to have his meteoric career end, like Nietzsche’s, in syphilitic collapse.

17. Prometheus and Atlas, op. cit., Chapter Six, “The Occultation of Supernature.”

18. Henry: “My philosophy: metaphysics. What is metaphysics? A metaphysician doesn’t believe you’re dead when you die.” Mike Nelson: “So, he’s not much good at an accident.” MST3k, Episode 603, The Dead Talk Back [30].

19. “There appears to be an archaic force that projects an inexhaustible variety of mythic symbols onto nature, irresistibly framing the world in terms of meaningful relationships. . . . The incomprehensible is turned into what is most firm; it becomes a ‘vault’ or ‘dome’ shielding man from the abyss of meaningless absurdity.” Prometheus and Atlas, op. cit., Chapter One.

20. “Inspector Clay’s dead . . . murdered . . . and somebody’s responsible!” Ed Wood, Bride of the Monster [31]. Thus, the Church Fathers were well aware that the dying and rising God was a common myth, but insisted not that this showed it was a true, general metaphysical symbol, but, being committed to belief in one and only one Christ, argued that Satan had planted these distortions long ago, so as to confuse the pagans. He later did the same thing with those fake dinosaur bones.

21. “Back in my own house on the sixth floor of the Cahuenga Building I went through my regular double play with the morning mail. Mail slot to desk to wastebasket, Tinker to Evers to Chance.” Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye [32] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953).

22. See my “Mike Hammer, Occult D**k: Kiss Me Deadly as a Lovecraftian Tale [33],” reprinted in Green Nazis in Space! [34] (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2016).

23. “A secret team of wealthy upper class who remain in the shadows.”

24. “A world run, not just by oligarchical moneyed elites, but a cryptocracy of occult elites.”

25. See Richard B. Spence, Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley, British Intelligence and the Occult [35] (Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2008); and my review, “’The Name is Crowley . . . Aleister Crowley [36]’: Reflections on Enlightenment & Espionage.”

26. “The expansion of our consciousness would be best served by allowing for an abiding tension between those conflicting fairy-tales or myths called ‘theories’ without rejecting any one of them simply because in certain situations a particular theory may have advantages over others, and allowing this tension to further proliferate theories that make new ‘facts’ possible.” Prometheus and Atlas, loc. cit.

27. Moreover, two can play the conspiracy game as well. In Prometheus and Atlas, Jorjani reduces the much-vaunted Christian “God” to a two-bit, yet rather sinister, UFO trickster – JHVH-1, as the Church of the Subgenius dubbed him. See Chapter Twelve, “Mercurial Hermeneutics.” No wonder Dyer will sneer at Project Blue Book. Always notice when a conspiracy theorist tells you “nothing to see here.”

28. One might note that focusing the reader’s attention on the location of mysterious “hidden forces” is also an effective way to keep their minds off developing any of those Promethean abilities; one might compare this with Jorjani’s account of how Descartes and Kant constructed entirely materialistic accounts of science precisely so as to occult the very existence of psychic powers and thus derail their general development, and preserving the “conservative religious faith in the dogmas of Abrahamic revelation.” See Prometheus and Atlas, op. cit., Chapters Three and Four. The sense of being trapped by occult forces beyond control or even identification is likely intended to correspond to the “sense of being trapped” felt by Cartesian dualists such as La Mettrie or De Sade, which led “straight to the madhouse of reactionary religious faith.”

29. At most, about forty percent of Americans were smokers, while it’s not uncommon to find films like Lost Continent [37], where literally everyone is constantly smoking. If you compare that to cellphone use, or PC ownership, or indoor plumbing, it’s clear the industry still had some room to grow before being wiped out after the Surgeon General’s report.

30. For a non-voluntary example, think of how much film has been used up watching characters dial rotary phones.

(Review Source)
Jay Dyer

 The 30k Nic Cage esoteric movie analysis kicks off. Esoter-Nic Cage Stream! Thanks for subscribing all you chad nerds. Today we will inflict CAGESTREAM MADNESS – CAGE RAGE OR CRAGE IN FULL EFFECT. Our Cage obsession begins with a recap of National Treasures (Nic himself being the real treasure), Wicker Man, The Knowing, 8MM, […]

The post Top 5 Nicolas Cage Films – Jay Dyer – 30k Chad Nerd Esoteric Hollywood 2 Party! appeared first on JaysAnalysis.com.

(Review Source)
Quintus Curtius
film2

The past week was not especially great, but not a complete disaster.  Here’s the damage, spelled out.

Continue reading

(Review Source)
9/11
Counter Currents Staff
(”9/11” is briefly mentioned in this.)

[1]1,348 words

As a polemical documentary, Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016: Obama’s America has guile, snarkiness, and a kind of sneaky, nimble ambition.

Beautifully filmed and obviously quite generously funded, produced by a mover-and-shaker of typically ultra-liberal Hollywood (though of course I shouldn’t speculate on the possible ethnicity of Mormon movie mogul Gerald Molen, listed on the poster as “one of the producers of Schindler’s List, because such musings would be HIGHLY offensive and would render me the journalistic equivalent of Josef Mengele, so of course I will refrain), 2016 wants to be pass itself off as a humanely sympathetic yet deeply critical assessment of the present president. Finally, however, it reveals its true colors as an avidly alarmist and apocalyptic vision of what will surely happen to America if the Mulatto Messiah manages to get himself re-elected in November.

Eschewing Michael Moore-style confrontation and prickly bluster for bland patter and contrivedly stale interviews, all the while unfolding at a leisurely, meandering pace, 2016 aims to lull the viewer into not noticing just what a rich slab of red meat it truly is. It is National Enquirer dressed up as National Review; luridness in the guise of sobriety. In other words, 2016 is more interesting than it first appears to be, though not, in the final analysis, terribly persuasive in its conclusions.

D’Souza, a nerdish, wonkish, bespectacled intellectual, is from the start eager to ingratiate himself with his enemy, so that we know it’s nothing personal. He and Obama, it turns out, share many things in common, which D’Souza enumerates: both men were born in 1961; both are of mixed-race heritage (though D’Souza, an India-born Catholic, doesn’t reveal the precise miscegenated ambiguity of his own apparently scrambled genes); both excelled academically and wound up at Ivy League colleges (Obama at Harvard; D’Souza at Dartmouth); finally, both lived in the Third World for much of their youth (Obama spent several years in Indonesia as a boy) and thus came to form a view of European imperialism, with a certain sympathetic regard for the colonized.

D’Souza shows absolutely no interest in the “birther” controversy, accepting that Obama was indeed born on U.S. soil. Still, while Obama may technically be an American citizen, D’Souza asserts that the man’s ideology is foreign and dangerous in ways that set him apart from any prior American president. In fact, the 44th Commander-in-Chief is at bottom a hard-left anti-American, just like the long-lost father whom he strives at all costs to emulate.

* * *

Of course, Barack Jr. never really knew Barack Sr., as the former (or more probably, his ghost-writer) poignantly records in the autobiography Dreams from My Father. D’Souza liberally quotes Obama reading from the book, and through only minimal reading between the lines, we can easily discern that the prez has some lingering daddy issues. But then nearly anyone would, given the circumstances of his childhood.

For those who don’t already know, Obama’s very black African dad met his very white American mom Ann Dunham when both were enrolled at the University of Hawaii in 1960. Barack Sr. had been a young operative of the anti-British Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya, apparently spending some time in confinement getting tortured and beaten by British guards; over the years, he matured into a promising scholar and leader for the cause; he’d travelled to Honolulu on an international scholarship to study economics; Dunham at the time was an 18-year old freshman. The two married after a brief courtship, and soon afterwards Barack Jr. was born.

When the future bringer of “hope” and “change” was still having his diapers changed, Hussein the Elder (and Darker) flew the coop permanently, returning to his native country, where it turned out — contrary to what he’d originally told Ann — he’d long been married to a local woman. Yet Barry’s mother apparently never held this treachery, deceit, and desertion against her dusky paramour. Instead, in true guilty white liberal fashion, she praised him to the heavens as a great man who simply needed to fulfill his grand destiny. Barack Sr. would marry several more times, in keeping with (still current) African custom, and would only visit Ann and Barack Jr. on one other occasion in his life.

Obama Sr.’s early hopes to become a leader of the African independence movement were to fizzle badly. Smart but irascible, frustrated by thwarted ambition, bested by rivals and finally consigned to bureaucratic irrelevance, he grew into a dissipated, alcoholic, embittered middle age. His death in 1982, in a likely drunk driving accident, hit the future American president hard. At age 21, Barack Jr. duly attended the family patriarch’s funeral in Kenya; the writer of Dreams from My Father describes the emotional moment when he knelt beside his father’s grave, anguish welling up in his chest.

In 2016, D’Souza visits this historic spot and nods thoughtfully; he is quite sure that here is the place where young Barack’s formation as a thinker truly solidified. Here he vowed to take up his father’s cause and carry it forward.

“We are all shaped by our pasts,” our lilting-voiced guide portentously declares, “and we all carry elements of our past into the future.” And in the case of young, grief-stricken, father-haunted Obama, D’Souza finds this aphorism particularly apt.

* * *

2016 depicts D’Souza as an intrepid uncoverer of the psyche of the American president. To unearth his crucial discoveries, he travels the globe, making colorfully cinematic stops in Kenya, Indonesia, and Hawaii, while also paying visits to various well-heeled D.C.-based neocon thinktankers like Daniel Pipes and Shelby Steele. Of course, this entire setup is in some ways a risibly disingenuous charade, because D’Souza has already reached his conclusions, outlined in his 2010 book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, which he pretty much just repeats here.

Simply put, D’Souza contends that Obama was sorely wounded by his father’s nearly total absence from his life; to compensate for this loss and the concomitant sense of insecurity it brought, he chose to emulate his father’s politics out of a desire to win his posthumous approval.

According to 2016, Obama’s fraught father issues have numerous dire consequences for the immediate future, should he be allowed to serve a second term. After winning his second election, D’Souza explains, the president will no longer even have to pretend to be moderate or centrist. Instead, he will pursue his Third World socialist agenda — the one he shares with his once Soviet-sympathizing papa — full bore, pulling out all the stops, and then some. For Obama, it turns out, just aches to bring the country to its knees by spending it into paralyzing debt, while at the same time stripping it of its defenses and rendering it supine before a hostile world. Moreover, D’Souza tells us, the president wants to see to it that America’s enemies unite, consolidate, and grow steadily more powerful, while America grows weaker. During one luridly entertaining segment near the film’s conclusion, we are treated to an illustration of a map of the Middle East in which, thanks to Obama’s wily and treacherous anti-American machinations, we witness one regime after another falling to Muslim radicals, leaving a “United States of Islam” poised for confrontation with the West; the hostile turf of this new caliphate has turns a sickly Islamic green.

* * *

D’Souza’s grim final assertions are strictly conjectural at best. Oddly, in a sense they give Obama too much credit. The film treats him as a true believer of some sort of sinister cause, rather than as a canny and cynical politician, with infinitely malleable, barely-existent principles, which is surely much closer to the truth. How can we really know how Obama feels about his father or how it has affected him, besides what he has chosen to tell us, likely out of self-aggrandizing motivations?

Ultimately, 2016 probably won’t do much to persuade the undecided; the “clash of civilizations” rhetoric won’t be effective unless and until another “9/11” takes place. (Remember how ardently pre-9/11 neocons pined for a “new Pearl Harbor”?) Still, the movie makes for a somewhat entertaining and only slightly hokey bit of elaborate stealth-GOP agitprop; it is worth a look, merely for curiosity’s sake.

 

(Review Source)
Jay Dyer

Earth Radio Network with Dr. Truth invited on Jacksonville, FL, FM radio invited me on to discuss the book and new subjects, such as the music industry, its coopting for...

(Review Source)
Vox Day
(”A Beautiful Mind” is briefly mentioned in this.)
It's not really possible to ruin Star Trek, in my opinion, but according to the Dark Herald, to the extent it is possible to ruin it, Bad Robot appears to have successfully done so with Picard:
The blitheringly incompetent Bad Robot productions is producing Picard, so it takes place in the Kelvin timeline, because everyone wanted more of that! Kurtzman is running it so you know it was born as a festering boil covered abomination. And he has admitted that Picard is NOT a canonical sequel to Star Trek: The Next Generation.

You heard that right. The much ballyhooed Picard is more J. J. Abrams fanfic!

And it’s been written by Avrika Goldman who wrote A Beautiful Mind (Wait! Stop! Don’t get your hopes up) as well as Batman and Robin, Batman Forever, plus the Lost in Space movie. When Goldman is only in it for a paycheck he is the living embodiment of phoning it in.

And phone it in he did!

Starting off a Star Trek series with a anti-Nationalist political rant was a bad enough start, but following that with an action scene let all of the Star Trek fans know upfront that this one is on the fast track to ST:D-ville.
I'm not even going to pretend to care since I am congenitally indifferent to all things Star Trek, but I post this here as a public service.

Posted by Vox Day.
(Review Source)
Steve Sailer
(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
Here’s my full-length review of Russell Crowe’s spring thriller “State of Play:” “State of Play” is an intermittently intelligent Capitol Hill thriller based on a celebrated 2003 BBC miniseries. The story was Americanized by at least five competent Hollywood hacks, including Tony Gilroy, who wrote the similar “Michael Clayton,” one of George Clooney’s movies about a murderous corporate conspiracy that goes all the way to the top. The new film starts out much like “Michael Clayton” and “Syriana,” just even more Ripped from the Headlines, with Ben Affleck as a Gary Condit-like Congressman. (Politics may be show business for ugly people, but Affleck’s convincingly wooden performance suggests that Congress is for handsome but mediocre thespians whose range is restricted to acting sincere.) The Representative’s Chandra Levy-like staffer, who is investigating a Blackwater-like mercenary-monger, gets hit by a subway train. After the politician persuades his Silda Spitzer-like wife to stand by him at a news conference where he admits to the affair, he hides out in the disheveled apartment of his one-time college roommate, an old-fashioned investigative journalist at a declining Washington Post-like newspaper. The besieged Congressman discloses that he thinks his mistress was murdered because she was getting too close to the truth: the Blackwaterish firm is going to take over America with its private army. Brad Pitt was cast as the reporter hero of “State of Play,” but walked away at the last moment due to script objections. I admired, however, the way the later plot developments undermined the clichés of Clooney’s conspiracy genre. The boring truth is that in America, politically connected CEOs seldom rub out their rivals. As the Rep. Jane Harman-Haim Saban wiretap scandal demonstrates, Washington conspiracies are mostly talk. Moreover, Russians and Mexicans scoff at the small sums that buy our politicos, such as the Congressman caught with $90,000 in his icebox. (Although now that so many trillions have gone up for grabs, perhaps we can hope our oligarchs will at least give us some satisfying entertainment in return for our bailout billions by starting to shoot each other over the money …) With Pitt out, a pudgy Russell Crowe jumped in. Like Jeff Bridges in “The Big Lebowski,” Crowe looks fat and happy in a role where abs don’t matter. Early in this decade, Crowe was the finest leading man in Hollywood, starring in “Gladiator,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “Master and Commander,” and “Cinderella Man.” Since then, however, he seems to find himself with empty stretches on his schedule, perhaps because he’s seen as an ornery party animal. (On New Year’s Eve in 1999, while the rest of the world was timidly hunkering down in fear of Y2K glitches, Crowe celebrated with millennial gusto, getting himself arrested for disturbing the peace three times.) Crowe’s Aussie manliness carries him through his under-rehearsed role, and the celebrity’s personal distaste for journalists adds interest to what could have been a routine hagiography. To chase down the conspiracy, Crowe’s veteran reporter teams up with a callow blogger (the ever-perky Rachel McAdams of “Wedding Crashers”). Much banter about the rivalry between print and online journalism ensues. Yet the movie misses the key personality difference between traditional media and the more Aspergery culture of the Web: newspaper reporters converse constantly, while Web people prefer Google to human contact. Young Matthew Yglesias, for instance, recently declared on his blog, “Definitely the whole time I was employed at The Atlantic I never once returned a voicemail. … In general, I’m not a fan of talking on the phone …” The movie portrays Crowe’s aging reporter as a solitary man, trudging alone to confront the powerful in their lairs. In reality, as Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop made clear, traditional reporters are most comfortable in packs, where they can gauge what’s “appropriate” to ask and to write from the consensus of their colleagues. Just when the strident soundtrack (synthesizers and militaristic drums relentlessly barking “Tense up!”) and now-mandatory Shaky-Cam cinematography have almost ruined a decent if predictable story, an amusingly florid Jason Bateman (Arrested Development) shows up as a hedonistic public relations consultant, seemingly to contrast the greed of the flack with the nobility of the crusading journalist. The film’s countless screenwriters, though, are aware that reporters, such as the New York Times’ Judith Miller, who pipelined so much pro-Iraq war propaganda, are often just more respectable PR agents, publicizing messages in return for access to newsmakers. From there, the movie keeps departing from its earlier Vast Corporate Conspiracy rut, ending with a plot twist that, while contrived, is surprisingly realistic. ]]>
(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
Slate summarizes a 55 page meta-analysis by three B-School profs on the economics of the movie industry, but misses the key questions of “How can you tell whether a movie is going to be good or not? And how can you tell whether it’s going to be a hit or not?” Consider Ron Howard’s last three movies: A Beautiful Mind — Good / Hit The Missing — Not good / Not a Hit Cinderella Man — Good / Not a Hit I’m obviously over-summarizing here (I didn’t much like “A Beautiful Mind,” but it’s reasonable to say it was well-made; “The Missing” isn’t bad, but it seemed to be missing something.) Back in the early 1980s, screenwriter William Goldman pointed out that “Nobody knows anything” about whether a movie will work or not. Obviously, that’s an exaggeration. Everybody knows that a movie made by high-priced talent is likely to be better and do better than one made by nobodies who are financed by their rich grandparents. But we already knew that, so how do we get beyond that to determine whether the latest Ron Howard – Russell Crowe – Akiva Goldsman movie will be or do better or worse than the last one? I put a fair amount of thought into this because I’m constantly trying to pick out ahead of time which movies will catch the educated reader’s interest and make him or her want to read my review. That way, I don’t have to go see every single movie that’s released. But, it remains almost a complete crap shoot. Most things that are interesting to us are difficult to predict: the nightly news has a weather forecast, not a forecast on whether the sun will come up in the east or west tomorrow. I suspect that the quality of movies is particularly difficult to forecast because each one is a one time only operation where the interaction effects are at least as important as the individual contributions. Furthermore, the popularity of sub-genres goes in and out of fashion in mysterious ways. For example, “Seabiscuit” made a sizable amount of money in the “inspirational Depression true sports movie” subgenre. So, when “Cinderella Man” came along two years later, with at least equal critical and audience responses, it had to do at least as well, right? But apparently the audience decided it was sick of that subgenre… In sum, nobody knows anything. P.S., the bigger economic mystery is why so many people buy DVDs rather than rent them for a quarter of the cost. Hollywood takes in a lot more these days from DVD sales than from tickets. Do people really re-watch movies over and over enough to make paying about four times the rental cost worthwhile? Sure, it’s economical to buy “Peter Pan” for your three-year-old, but are grown-ups really going to want to watch “Anger Management” five times, the minimum number needed to make purchase more economical than rental? Or do people just like to buy and own stuff? Do they buy “Anger Management” instead of rent it because they want to give more money to Adam Sandler. That’s sounds weird, but I think there’s some truth to the idea that people get pleasure out of wasting resources to worship their gods, kind of like burning a goat to honor Jehovah. ]]>
(Review Source)
Return of Kings Staff
Corey is an iconoclast and the author of 'Man's Fight for Existence'. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature. Visit his new website at primalexistence.com
(Review Source)
Millennial Woes
(Review Source)