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)
Counter Currents Staff

2,456 words

[1]The following is an attempt to analyze two popular Christmas movies, A Christmas Story [2] and National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation [3], using the Myers-Briggs personality traits. One can take the test at 16personalities.com [4] and receive a four-letter acronym which represents parts of one’s personality.  For example, many Counter-Currents readers are reputed to have INTJ personalities, which means they possess Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Judging characteristics. The opposite of INTJ is ENFP, or Extroverted, Feeling, and Perceiving. These two are not the only possible types. In total, there are sixteen possible combinations of these traits, and thus sixteen possible personalities under the Myers-Briggs system.

To provide a bit more background, the following summary is adopted from changingminds.org [5].[1]

Extroverts are energized by human interaction and Introverts by solitary reflection.

Thinkers tend to make decisions using logic, and Feelers by considering how their decisions impact other people.

Sensors experience meaning more lucidly from observing their immediate surroundings, and Intuitives through deep personal thought.

Judgers prefer life to be structured, and Perceivers want it to be open and flexible.

A Christmas Story is an INTP film. For those who don’t know it by name, it’s about a boy named Ralphie who wants “an official Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun” in spite of many of the adults he knows telling him that he’ll “’shoot [his] eye out!” This article attempts to prove that the protagonist Ralphie has an INTP personality and worldview. Later, we’ll see that National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation is more of an ISFJ film, with the protagonist, Cark Griswold (played by Chevy Chase), being an ISFJ.

A Christmas Story is told from a very introverted perspective. The narrator is an adult reflecting on his childhood, specifically his memories of a particular Christmas in the 1940s. He simultaneously conveys his perspective as a child and as an adult reflecting on the eccentricities of his parents and the bygone era of his youth. Certainly, dialogue plays an important role in the story (“you’ll shoot your eye out”), but the protagonist’s narration is what really gives us the meaning of what’s going on. The film’s reflective perspective highlights the analytic, or NT nature of the INTP. Finally, INTPs are constantly thinking, and their internal world trumps the external. This is the case in the film, and it isn’t a stretch to say that if it were not for the narration, it may have never become a cult classic.

Several other traits conveyed in the film scream INTP. For one, when it comes to how INTPs deal with interpersonal conflict, they either “blow it off or blow up.” When Ralphie is cornered by a neighborhood bully who taunts him to the point of crying, he “blows up” and give the bully a bloody nose. This comes after a series of events which suggest that Ralphie is blowing off conflict. For one, he is a quiet boy who endures mild mockery at the hands of his peers after he is caught in an apparent stupor while standing at his teacher’s desk in the front of the class. Little do they know that he is fantasizing (a very INTP behavior) about getting an A+ on his paper. (The paper is about what he wants for Christmas, which of course is a BB gun.) Not only does he shrug off their mockery, but he avoids confronting the threats he receives from the neighborhood bullies, that is until he finally blows up in response to one. One also gets the impression that his various trials in life, such as having to put a bar of soap in his mouth for swearing in imitation of his father, may have been simmering below the surface.

Ralphie’s overall outlook of the surrounding world, which he views as being completely alien, shouts INTP. For instance, his father is presented as a somewhat comical figure who angrily wrestles with a continuously malfunctioning furnace, delights in changing a flat tire, and rambles on about sports in a trance-like state. For an INTP, who is typically interested more in abstract theories, this sort of character would seem to be very strange.

Ralphie’s father is a Judger. According to changingminds.org:[2]

Judgers approach life in a structured way, creating plans and organizing their world to achieve their goals and desired results in a predictable way . . . They enjoy being experts. At work, they decide quickly and clearly and work to get the job done.

This couldn’t better describe the father. He creates a plan to deal with blown fuses by keeping a ridiculous number of spare fuses. He also keeps track of how long it takes him to change a tire, delighting in becoming an expert at doing it quickly. He is presented as an expert at fixing furnaces too. This is all presented as a kind of eccentricity in the film.

Conversely, Ralphie is a Perceiver.

They [perceivers] get their sense of control by keeping their options open and making choices only when they are necessary. They are generally curious and like to expand their knowledge . . .

Unlike his father, Ralphie is not used to being decisive. He freezes up when the scary Santa at the mall asks him what he wants for Christmas. He also displays intense curiosity, and uses his Little Orphan Annie decoder with great anticipation to find the secret code.

Both of Ralphie’s parents seem to be concerned more with feeling than thinking:

Feelers make decisions based primarily on social considerations, listening to their heart and considering the feelings of others. They see . . . material things as being subservient to this. They value harmony and use tact in their interactions with others.

After making Ralphie put soap in his mouth for saying “f**k,” his mother tries putting the soap in her own mouth. This is a way of empathizing with him, putting herself in his shoes. She is also sensitive to Ralphie’s tears after his fight. To distract his father from punishing him, she mentions a football game, which induces the father to enter a trance-like state discussing sports and forget about his son’s fight. Ralphie’s father likewise spares the boy the embarrassment of wearing the oversized childish bunny pajamas from his Aunt Clara. He furthermore grants Ralphie’s wish to own a BB gun, remembering how he once had one himself as a boy. In all of these cases, the parent cares more for the child’s feelings than for mechanically doling out punishment, forcing the child to wear a pink bunny suit, or adhering to a strict level of safety mutually exclusive with a weapon that could “shoot one’s eye out.”

In a future article, I will discuss the fact that Whites average higher on the Feeling spectrum than do other races. Because the film focuses a lot on these elements, it would be reasonable to conclude that it would be difficult to find something like A Christmas Story being produced in a non-White society. The film is also incredibly heteronormative given that the mother protects her son from the father’s potentially harsh punishment, and the father in turn protects his son from the overprotectiveness of women and their taste for girly, babyish clothing. In short, the woman compensates for the weakness of the male and vice versa. Separately, their respective eccentricities would go unopposed, but together they cancel each other out.

The one trait which is somewhat in question is whether Ralphie himself is a Thinker or a Feeler. Regarding Thinkers:

Interacting with them [thinkers] tends to brief and business-like. Perhaps because people are so variable, they focus on tangible things, seeking truth and use of clear rules.

The driving plot of the film is whether or not Ralphie gets a BB gun, a tangible object, and he tells everyone he can, including Santa, about his wish in a brief, business-like manner, and believes that he deserves getting it because of the rules of Christmas, as he understands them.

Consider that Feelers “…are sociable and people-oriented.” Ralphie is not Mr. Popular at school, nor does he show signs of being terribly social. The Feeling aspects of his parents seem foreign and yet funny to his mature self as the narrator, worthy of a comedic nostalgia and a little fondness.

Clark Griswold of the Christmas Vacation movie is also introverted.

The energy of introverts is inward toward concepts and ideas. They need little external stimulation – and in fact they can easily be over-stimulated. It is possible that they focus more on their inner worlds because they suffer from sensory overload if they spend too much time outside and focusing on other people. They thus bottle up their own emotions, which can explode if pushed too far.

This is applicable in two ways. First, after disaster upon disaster piles up by the end of the film, Clark “explodes” in the same way Ralphie does when confronted by the bully. Second, at one point Clark accidentally becomes trapped alone in his attic. While there, he watches films of Christmases he enjoyed as a child, and finds an inner peace as a result, as introverts are wont to do when alone. Out of this peace, he realizes his SFJ goals and gains new resolve in his plans to have the perfect family Christmas. Of course, planning is very much a Judging activity.

Judgers approach life in a structured way, creating plans and organizing their world to achieve their goals and desired results in a predictable way. They get their sense of control by taking charge of their environment and making choices early.

The whole point of the film is to subvert the perfect holiday plan. It may be somewhat of an attempt to lampoon judgers, since many of Clark’s plans, such as having an over-exuberant Christmas display and applying oil to the skids of sleds in order to make them run so fast that they set things on fire from the friction, go horribly wrong. However, in spite of these failures, we are still asked to sympathize primarily with Clark, who is the protagonist as well as a Judger.

The quasi-antagonist of the film, Cousin Eddie, is not a planner, and shows up for Christmas unannounced. The whole point of the film is to depict a subversion of the Judging ideal, as the Judger’s plans for the holiday disintegrate. This could also be said of A Christmas Story, as demonstrated when the family’s Christmas Turkey is eaten by a pack of the neighbor’s dogs which have broken into their home. Similarly, in Christmas Vacation, the turkey is overcooked to the point of near inedibility. The important difference is that one protagonist, Griswold is a Judger, while the other protagonist, Ralphie, is a Perceiver. Ralphie’s father, a Judger, is made the butt of humor, whereas in Christmas Vacation it is Cousin Eddie’s Perceiving ways that are the subject of jest.

Griswold is also a Feeler:

Feelers decide based primarily through social considerations, listening to their heart and considering the feelings of others. They see life as a human existence and material things as being subservient to this. They value harmony and use tact in their interactions with others.

Griswold wants to please everyone in his home. Primarily, he cares about their feelings. One could say that Clark has a streak of the Thinking trait since he engages in a near-Faustian quest to set up ridiculously bright Christmas lights, which are tangible things. However, its meaning is entirely social, whereas Ralphie’s quest is for a gun, the only practical use of which is to shoot at things.

Feelers often view thinkers as “cold and heartless.” Griswold’s neighbors are presented as elitist yuppies who do not delight in pleasing anyone other than themselves. Moreover, his boss is presented as an evil figure for not caring about the feelings of his employees and not giving them a holiday bonus.

Griswold also appears to be a Sensor rather than an Intuitive. Sensors “happily dig into the fine detail of the situation.” Clark works as a food scientist whose job it is to create preservatives. This seems like a comically dismal occupation, but one which nevertheless requires parsing out a lot of fine details. Of course, it also involves Intiutives’ “focus on the future” as new preservatives must be created. However, if one looks at common careers for ISFJs on truity.com [6], one will see that one of them is Food Scientist.[3]

Sensors often view Intuitives as lacking determination. This may be useful in describing the Griswolds’ male yuppie neighbor, who is not manly enough to confront them about the disturbance they are causing, and hence his wife has to do it instead. Thus, a member of an out-group in the film could be construed as an Intuitive.

If Christmas Vacation pokes fun at the NTP personality combo, it is not the first to do so. Aristophanes’ The Clouds lampooned Socrates, an ENTP according to celebritytypes.com [7],[4] for being overly concerned with things great and small – in other words, the macrocosm and minute particulars of the human experience. This lack of focus on the present would seem to be “impractical” and overly “theoretical” to a Sensor, who is concerned with what is “immediate, practical, and real.” Socrates is presented as a charlatan and sophist, bereft of the sorts of values-based thinking to which Feelers are said to gravitate. Finally, in The Clouds, Socrates’ character is maligned for teaching a pupil methods for rebelling against the traditional life of discipline which the gods favor. Judgers are said to be “self-disciplined,” and probably would put more emphasis on discipline in general.

Aristophanes was a conservative. It could be said that SFJ comedies like his and Christmas Vacation lampoon deviations from the norm, and that comedies such as A Christmas Story poke fun at the norm itself, in search of higher truth.

In summary, the Myers-Briggs system is not perfect, and works in terms of gradations rather than absolutes. It has many critics, and certainly cannot be said to measure the sum total of one’s psychology. This essay is not meant to be taken with scientific seriousness, and was written more for the fun of applying Myers-Briggs to fiction than anything else. If anything can be taken from this analysis, it is that SFJ comedies like Christmas Vacation and The Clouds, and NTP comedies like A Christmas Story will always be with us so long as the White race continues to have a societal dialogue with itself.

Notes

1. Changingminds.org [5] is authored by David Straker, who has a M.Sc. in Psychology, according to the site. I discovered the site through a search engine and have never had any interaction with him. His political sentiments, whatever they may be, should not be confused with ours.

2. All bracketed and parenthesized quotes referring to the personality types are taken from changingminds.org.

3. http://www.truity.com/personality-type/ISFJ/careers [8]

4. http://www.celebritytypes.com/entp.php [9]

(Review Source)
The Unz Review Staff
(”A Christmas Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
From The Guardian: How not to name your child – five golden rules by Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad Thinking of giving your baby an unusual name? Think about the effect it will have on their life, says Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad My name is Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad. No, I’m not kidding. This is the name my parents chose for me 19 years ago and it is the reason I don’t go to Starbucks. Choosing a name for your baby can seem like a way to determine what type of parents you will become – many aim for trendy rather than traditional. However, faced with the resentment of your grownup offspring, who have endured a childhood of being embarrassed by their unusual name, you may wish you could turn back time. My experience of living with an unusual name has been, to put it lightly, difficult. There has not been one occasion when making a new acquaintance has not resulted in a remark about it, or some degree of confusion. … Have you heard the name before? If not, no one else will have. Can you pronounce it without having to look it up? Because if you need to look it up, I can tell you firsthand that you will be the only person your child ever meets who has taken the time to do so. Avoid hyphens unless both names are easily pronounceable. Dobson – that’s fine. Mouawad – more than enough effort on its own. Dobson-Mouawad – no comment. Can a child of primary school age say it? If they look confused and say, “What?”, take that as a strong no. Remember that your child’s name is for their happiness alone and not to prove to the world how cool and creative you are. That’s what Instagram is for. Take it from someone who knows or in 19 years’ time your child will be as fed up as I am. One issue is whether your child will have an accommodating personality and will be distressed by inconveniencing others. It’s hard to tell ahead of time. For example, you might think that giant baseball slugger Giancarlo Stanton would be an assertive individual who’d consider the rest of society’s problems pronouncing the Italian movie star name his parents had given him to be your problem, not his. But he is a nice guy, so he was troubled growing up that the other children couldn’t pronounce it. Thus when he was in fifth grade he decided to have everybody call him Mike. Finally, after a couple of years starring in the majors he asked professional sportscasters to use his real name Giancarlo. Yet, one complication is that if you have a common surname such as Stanton, it can make sense to look for a distinctive first name. For example, baseball doesn’t have a rule like the Screen Actors Guild that you can’t use the same name as an earlier player. But there was previously a relief pitcher named Mike Stanton who was in the majors from 1989-2007, so another Mike Stanton was confusing to fans. A sixth golden rule would be not to give boys any names that are trending into girls names. Composer Shel Silverstein was inspired by the childhood travails of his friend Jean Shepherd, whose memoirs about wanting a BB gun as a boy were the basis of the movie Christmas Story. Jean Shepherd was a radio humorist, the Garrison Keillor of his day, but I have a hard time remembering he was a man: I always get him confused with Jean Kerr, the woman humorist who wrote the novel behind the Doris Day movie Please Don’t Eat the Daisies. Christian names only trend feminine. Going through life with a name that is increasingly feminine mostly seems like an indication that your parents weren’t cool enough to notice which way the winds of fashion were blowing when you were born. I suspect that Evelyn Waugh’s long grudge against his father Arthur Waugh had to do with Arthur not being (whatever the 1903 equivalent of) cool enough was to notice that the grand old aristocratic masculine name of Evelyn was becoming a common woman’s name. The younger Waugh had too many insecurities about his masculinity as it were without his first wife also being named Evelyn (or She-Evelyn as he called her during their short marriage). Yet, not every name ever given to a woman trends feminine. The best known example might be Bertrand Russell’s third wife, Peter, Countess Russell (1910-2004). Her parents gave her the official name Patricia but they always wanted a boy so they called her Peter. So far, Peter has not caught on as a girl’s name. One complication is that the biggest source of potential easy-to-spell first names that aren’t common (yet) are Anglo surnames. But upscale-sounding WASP surnames are vulnerable to turning into girl’s first names. A classic example is Madison. This Founding Father’s surname (derived from Matthew’s Son) started to trend upward as a girl’s first name after Darryl Hannah played a mermaid named Madison in the delightful 1984 movie Splash. By 2001 and 2002, it was the second most popular baby girl’s name in America, but has since been declining in of fashion, as girl’s names are more wont to do. One question would be how much popular culture drives American baby names. Much of the changes seem to be driven by cycles in the fashions of sounds and spellings rather than instantaneous reactions to celebrities. The Splash case might be a good example of the effect of pop culture, although another possibility is that the filmmakers were simply more tuned into changes in fashion that were already in the pipeline. It’s pretty much impossible to turn around a trend toward being a feminine name, no matter how big a celebrity comes along. For example, in 2014 San Francisco Giant pitcher Madison Bumgarner was World Series MVP and Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year. You can’t get all that much more masculine than Bumgarner, who is a 6’5″ and 250 pound truck-driving hillbilly nicknamed Mad Bum is perhaps the strongest power hitter among contemporary pitchers. Bumgarner’s post-season heroics in 2014 did lead to an increase in the tiny number of baby boys named Madison in 2015. Douglas Knight kindly researched my question at SlateStarCodex: Douglas Knight says:July 29, 2016 at 2:29 am I don’t know about Northern California, but there were 72 boy Madisons born in America in 2015, compared to 40 the previous two years, after a long decline from the peak of 269 in 1995, a peak caused by the same force that created the girl’s name. You have to go back to 2005 to find as many boy Madisons. There were more than 1000 girl Madisons born in the state of California [alone] in 2015. ORDER IT NOWLike Evelyn Waugh, Madison Bumgarner once had a girlfriend with the same first name. Unlike Waugh, she had the same last name too: Madison Bumgarner. (Across the street from the home he grew up in in Hudson, North Carolina, 55 of the 305 people buried in the Baptist cemetery are named Bumgarner.) ]]>
(Review Source)