Death Wish: Then and Now

With respect to the Death Wish remake currently out, I’m struck by the significant ‘White Panther’-esque “moviegoer vs movie critic” split in terms of the film’s favorability/unfavorability.

In his review of the film at Variety, Owen Gleiberman (sigh) establishes his liberal bona fides, which for his type and his social milieu, is almost an obligation when reviewing a film like this:

“Death Wish,” make no mistake, is a movie that has its heart in the wrong place. It’s an advertisement for gun fetishism, for taking the law into your own hands, for homicide as justice, for thinking of assault weapons as the world’s coolest toys…

“Death Wish” is designed to ring right-wing alarm bells, but mostly it’s designed to inspire nihilist chuckles at seeing bad-guy scum get killed real good.

However, Gleiberman then reports to us that actual man-on-the-street reactions to the remake are rather… different:

[Bruce Willis] walks up to a drug dealer who he’s learned was guilty of wounding and terrorizing a young boy. The dealer, known as the Ice Cream Man, is slumped in his chair, surrounded by thug bodyguards. He barely has enough time to take out his gun and say who the f— are you before Willis announces, “I’m your last customer,” and pumps half a dozen bullets into him. No muss, no fuss.

The scene, by all rights, ought to be a nasty bit of business: a middle-aged white avenger in a hoodie, popping out of nowhere to blow a black drug dealer away. But that “last customer” line plays like an old Schwarzenegger kiss-off, and the lawless killing is followed by equal-time commentary from black and white talk-radio hosts — the film’s explicit attempt to defuse any racist overtones.

More than that, the reality of a glib execution like this one is that audiences have been consuming overripe revenge thrillers for 45 years now, and they no longer take them all that seriously. Blowing someone away with unsmiling moral cool is now an act of violent comedy. (That’s certainly how the multi-racial audience reacted at the preview showing of “Death Wish” I attended; they hooted and hollered with glee.)

Note the similarities with this 1974 NYT review of the original Death Wish by Judy Klemsrud (sigh):

The critics who dislike the film have complained that it exploits fear irresponsibly; that it gives an exaggerated picture of crime in New York; that it glorifies vigilantism; that it endorses violence as a solution to violence, and that it was, made by out‐of‐towners with a distorted vision of New York…

However, in random interviews I had with people coming out of the two theaters where “Death Wish”, is playing, I found it hard to find anyone who was critical of the film. Of the 30 people I talked to, only four objected to the film. The others loved it.

“It’s great—this is the second time I’ve seen it,” said George Flynn, a 47‐year‐old Manhattanite who describes himself as a poet. “It’s very entertaining and very lively, and tremendously well done. I don’t necessarily agree with the vigilante philosophy, but the movie is so entertaining that I don’t bother with the morality.”…

The crowds at both theaters were a mixture of well‐dressed older people and casually dressed youths. The number of moviegoers over 40 seemed to be higher than is usual these days. Whites outnumbered blacks greatly at both theaters, with more blacks and working class people at the Astor Plaza theater.

“I think it’s lovely, a very comfortable picture,” said Anne Mitchell, a white‐haired 62‐year‐old secretary from Queens, who saw the movie alone. “I like Charles Bronson don’t approve of killing, but at least the people he killed were not good people. I’m glad the police let him go at the end.”…

Many, but not all, of the women interviewed defended Bronson’s vigilante actions more than the men did.

This part of the 1974 review cracked me up:

Two couples who walked out of the Astor Plaza theater at the same time had widely differing opinions of the film. “Not at any time was it racist,” said Lorenzo Powell, a black 23‐year‐old teacher’s assistant from Brooklyn. His date, also black, Gail Gordon, 23, of Brooklyn, agreed.

Behind them, Joseph Delon, 30, of Brooklyn, an Oriental [Yes, in 1974 even NYT liberals used the word ‘Oriental’ – LM] who described his occupation as “bum,” shouted so people entering the theater could hear: “This is the worst picture I’ve ever seen in my life. A white man can get away with anything in America. I’ve never seen so much racism in a movie — six blacks get killed for every white.”

His 30‐year‐old black wife, Vonnie, who was carrying their month‐old daughter, Nia, added, “This picture stinks. I wish we had our $8 back.”…

Moral of the story: The perception/opinion gap between elites (MSM movie critics) & John Q. Publics, while perhaps not as wide as it was in 1974, is still quite significant in 2018.

Posted in Culture, Film | Comments Off on Death Wish: Then and Now

XTC – The Ugly Underneath (1992)

One of the countless gems by this sorely missed, genius band.

First there’s the handshake
It’s so warm that you could bake by it
Designed to take attention from their
Ugly Underneath…

Then there’s the wedding
The coordinated bedding
And the fairy tale shredding
Boy, it’s Ugly Underneath…

Posted in Music | Comments Off on XTC – The Ugly Underneath (1992)

The Shape of ‘The Shape of Water’

Thank God we have people like Nathan Duffy over at Thermidor, who went through the pain of watching The Shape of Water so that the rest of us can be spared:

It’s hard to overstate how absurd the SJW messaging of the film is. It’s essentially Tumblr: The Movie. The lead protagonist Elisa is a mute girl, not pretty, whose best male friend is an aging homosexual and whose closest lady friend at her janitorial job at some government facility is a sassy black woman. Lest you think you’ve ticked every diversity box (racial minorities, handicapped, gay), she later befriends a quasi-human-like beast and a Soviet spy with a heart of gold (!), filling out the roster of ‘others’ on the fringes.

We also learn early on that our heroine is a regular masturbator and her elderly homosexual friend, in his wisdom, tells us his main regret in life was not, ahem, %^&$ing more when he was younger. You might say, “that’s odd, male homosexuals typically do a ton of that—much more than straights.” Indeed, but you see this is 1962 when homosexuality was cruelly forced to stay in the closet by the cis white hetero patriarchy. Pity the man’s wasted youth without massive amounts of degraded, unnatural fornication, dear viewer. At one point he, misreading a situation, makes a pass at an unsuspecting heterosexual male waiter who is offended and asks him to leave the restaurant. Del Toro, not wanting you to miss how evil the homophobic bastard was, has two black customers enter the restaurant at that exact moment whom he promptly kicks out too.

This parade of sterile outcasts (even Elisa’s black friend is in what appears to be a rather loveless and childless marriage—how could it be otherwise with a filthy man involved) is contrasted with Michael Shannon’s sadistic, Bible-quoting character who has an idyllic 1950s style suburban family with a wife and two kids. To drive home the contrast, he is shown having awkward (if presumably fertile) missionary-position sex with his wife…

The emotional centerpiece of the film is Elisa falling in love with the river creature and copulating with it. We can add bestiality to the list of peccadilloes for our merry band of outcasts…

This erotic love with chaotic otherness—manifested in the form of interspecial sex and defiant toward traditional norms and morals—is the power which will defeat the old straight white male vanguards of order and morality who oppress the world. This is literally the message of the film.

This movie sounds absolutely dreadful, quintessential ‘Oscar-bait-by-the-numbers’.

We’re now at the point where even a rudimentary A.I. program could write a diversity-propaganda screenplay worthy of Oscar nomination.

Posted in Film, Hollywood, Political Correctness | Comments Off on The Shape of ‘The Shape of Water’

Tyler Cowen: “No, Fascism Can’t Happen Here”

Tyler Cowen (of Marginal Revolution) has a piece in Politico titled “No, Fascism Can’t Happen Here”, which is adapted from Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America, edited by Cass “Nudge” Sunstein.

My argument is pretty simple: American fascism cannot happen anymore because the American government is so large and unwieldy. It is simply too hard for the fascists, or for that matter other radical groups, to seize control of. No matter who is elected, the fascists cannot control the bureaucracy, they cannot control all the branches of American government, they cannot control the judiciary, they cannot control semi-independent institutions such as the Federal Reserve, and they cannot control what is sometimes called “the deep state.” The net result is they simply can’t control enough of the modern state to steer it in a fascist direction.

On the irony of a mythic libertarian state being a more probable facilitator of fascism:

I commonly hear arguments from classical liberals suggesting that a “night watchman state” (or some slightly expanded version thereof) focused narrowly on upholding the rule of law provides government with greater efficacy and focus. If government is concentrating on its essential functions, and what it can do well, maybe it does a better job. Imagine, for instance, a government that doesn’t try so hard to regulate broccoli stems, but delivers on limiting crime and providing speedy and fair trials to the accused.

Yet the greater focus of the night watchman state, for all its virtues, is part of the reason why it is easy to take over. There is a clearly defined center of power and a clearly defined set of lines of authority; furthermore, the main activity of the state is to enforce property rights through violence or the threat of violence. That means such a state will predominantly comprise policemen, soldiers, possibly border authorities, Coast Guard employees and others in related support services. The culture and ethos of such a state is likely to be relatively masculine and also relatively martial and tolerant of a certain amount of risk, and indeed violence. The state will be full of people who are used to the idea of applying force to achieve social ends, even if, under night watchman assumptions, those deployments of force are for the most part justified.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Tyler Cowen: “No, Fascism Can’t Happen Here”

Culture Wars 3.0

If the incipient formation of Political Correctness in the early 1990s was Culture Wars 1.0, then we are certainly now in the heady throes of Culture Wars 2.0. But what shape might a Culture Wars 3.0 take?

In his recent column “How Progressives Win the Culture War”, David Brooks correctly sees Progressives winning in Culture War 2.0’s long game, but for the wrong reasons:

First, over the past two years conservatives have self-marginalized…

While becoming the movement of Dinesh D’Souza, Sean Hannity and Franklin Graham, they have essentially expelled the leaders and thinkers who have purchase in mainstream culture. Conservatism is now less a political or philosophic movement and more a separatist subculture that participates in its own ostracism.

Second, progressives are getting better and more aggressive at silencing dissenting behavior. All sorts of formerly legitimate opinions have now been deemed beyond the pale on elite campuses. Speakers have been disinvited and careers destroyed. The boundaries are being redrawn across society.

A decent measure of how out of step Brooks is with the underlying mechanics of the Dissident Right is that he sees Dinesh D’Souza and Sean Hannity as uncouth  representations of a populist New Right, when in fact D’Souza has more than his share of P.C. tendencies, and Hannity, while having moderated his knee-jerk propensity for cheerleading the GOP, still largely acts as… a cheerleader for the GOP.

What Brooks sees as the self-imposed marginalization on the Right may in fact be the birth pains of a burgeoning White Identitarianism. Insofar as a White Identitarianism is actively and organically forming in the U.S., it will necessarily take the form of a cultural separatism of sorts, particularly as the dominant Culture in which it is forced to operate is so uniformly censorial, hyper-individualistic, multiculturalist, globalist, and cosmopolitan.

It is true that, in our current socio-cultural environment, SJWs continue to advance the ball down the field one yard at a time, much to the consternation of race realists. To make matters worse, the unfolding logic of Political Correctness is increasingly being implemented by a Silicon Valley vanguard, with the ensuing totalitarian group-think leeching (with an ever greater rate of acceleration) into corporate H.R. departments. Brooks writes:

If progressives can cut what’s left of the conservative movement off from mainstream society, they will fundamentally alter the culture war. We think of the culture war as this stagnant thing in which both sides scream at each other. But eventually there could be a winner. Progressives have won on most social issues. They could win on nearly everything else.

But here is where Brooks is wrong. The ethos of Political Correctness does not represent, and will likely never win, the hearts and minds of ‘mainstream society’ (aka white society). On cultural issue X, the Cathedral (including media elites like Brooks) confuses mainstream society’s relative silence on issue X with acquiescence, but it may be more accurate to describe white public silence on issue X as a brewing atmosphere of festering recriminations: the clearly real phenomenon of whites rationally afraid to publicly disagree with what black liberal Y says to them about issue X.

Brooks concludes his column with a warning to the Left:

The only thing I’d say to my progressive friends is, be careful how you win your victories. It is one thing to win by persuasion and another thing to win by elite cultural intimidation. Illiberalism breeds illiberalism. Using elite power, whether economic or cultural, to silence less educated foes usually produces a backlash…

If you exile 40 percent of the country from respectable society they will mount a political backlash that will make Donald Trump look like Adlai Stevenson.

Mind you, Brooks does not endorse the likely form such a backlash will take.

As the racialization of America’s two-party system continues, margins in the Bradley Effect will continue to grow and eclipse what we saw with Trump’s election… but this can only be capitalized upon if/when a candidate is brave enough to challenge Political Correctness in all its incarnations. For the slowly coalescing, identity-politics-for-white-people dynamic currently taking place in America, Trump has certainly been (and will continue to be for the next 3 to 7 years) an accelerationist force, especially with regards to realigning the white, middle class electorate.

After Trump, however, there will be a sizable political vacuum on the Right. GOPE 2.0 will predictably relaunch itself with a mission of ‘restoring’ true conservatism, getting back to ‘free market’ principles, and ‘forward-thinking’ immigration policies, etc… the usual bromides of neoliberalism. During this time, the wider Ministers of Culture (from the NYT to NR) will declare Trumpian populism dead, etc.

But all the while this faux pendulum swing ‘back to sanity’ is going on, Political Correctness will become even more strident and domineering, inadvertently strengthening the equal and opposite reaction that is being pent up and forced underground. The Dissident Right will steadfastly grow and, among Gen Z and beyond, the more aggressive, counter-cultural, and guerrilla political tactics of the Alt Right will expand exponentially. Both will flourish outside of the traditional, ‘polite society’, political structure, and will exist predominately as an online social force: organic, anonymous, and (due to deplatforming, doxing, and the complete lack of any public arenas for debate) increasingly radical or at least rude. The Jordan Petersons of the world will be gateways to the Jared Taylors of the world. The only significant obstacle, in this regard, will be corporate deplatforming and de facto censorship, none of which requires governmental action to accomplish.

Race-realism and an existential awareness of our profound civilizational crisis — arguably the most important thing we ought to be talking about — will have the allure of the taboo, and this allure will grow proportionally to how increasingly verboten it is to broach any ‘Death of the West’ aspect in public.

For the shape of things to come, look to Eastern Europe. Their successes are affecting Western European politics. The relatively new political parties that have sprung up in Western Europe in the past 10 to 20 years, formulated around a central platform of ethnonational identity, will grow in both size and strength and will push the respective Western European countries towards the unabashed identitarianism we are witnessing in today’s Hungary and Poland. The only question will be whether it is too little, too late.

In short, what is going on in Eastern Europe today is the canary in the coal mine for what will eventually happen first in Western Europe, and then many years from now, in the U.S.

Posted in Alt-Right, Culture Wars, Political Correctness, White Identity | Comments Off on Culture Wars 3.0

Collins: “Why Isn’t Self-Destruction Immoral?”

Hubert Collins has a very good, very personal essay in Social Matter titled “Why Isn’t Self-Destruction Immoral?” He really gets to the essence of where we are culturally. Collins is focused on the long game. Highly recommended. Game quote:

“Gregory Hood has joked before that we will know we’ve won when people like him and I are executed as leftists by the very movement we helped launch.”

That is one helluva quote.

Posted in Alt-Right, Death of the West | Comments Off on Collins: “Why Isn’t Self-Destruction Immoral?”

Marx vs. Nietzsche

I’ve been having fun with Google Ngram Viewer. Here’s my first one. In the dawning, liberal, socialist Culture born after WW2, you can see Nietzsche treading water while Marx takes off in the early 60s, reaching a crescendo in the heady 1970s (when academia began its descent into overt neo-Marxist activism and postmodernism.) But then Marx begins to decline circa 1975 and plummets from 1980 onward, when the Reagan Revolution was taking place, capitalism was booming, and the USSR was beginning to fracture. Nietzsche plateaus around 1996, around the time Generation X cynicism was at its peak.

Posted in Academia, Culture | Comments Off on Marx vs. Nietzsche

Peter Brimelow on CivNat vs. WN

In a Slate piece titled “A Brief Conversation With White Nationalist Peter Brimelow at CPAC”, the VDARE founder expresses a sentiment many of us struggle/struggled with:

“[M]y heart is with civic nationalism, but my head is with racial nationalism. Because I think that’s the way things are going—I think the country is precipitating out on racial lines.”

Posted in Civic Nationalism, White Identity | Comments Off on Peter Brimelow on CivNat vs. WN

How Should Jews Remember Rev. Billy Graham?

Currently, the #1 story at The New York Jewish Week is “How Should Jews Remember Rev. Billy Graham?”:

Rev. Graham’s sharing of vile anti-Semitic stereotypes with President Nixon in 1972 did not endear him to Jewish collective memory. In secretly taped telephone conversation, when Nixon complained that Jews controlled the influential New York Times and Washington Post, Rev. Graham responded: “This stranglehold has to be broken, or the country is going to down the drain.” He invokes the pejorative term from Revelations — “synagogue of Satan.” Sure, say some, Rev. Graham apologized — not once but twice — but only because he was caught. His true colors confirm a popular Yiddish aphorism: “Scratch a goy (a non-Jew), uncover an anti-Semite.”…

Well, how about that. I’ve never heard of this ‘popular’ Yiddish aphorism before. I wonder why?

So my advice to my co-religionists who harp on Rev. Graham’s anti-Semitic attitudes as eclipsing all his other characteristics and contributions? Get over it. After all, we Jews did that with others we admired, like Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, who themselves harbored some pretty nasty stereotypes of Jews. Recall FDR dismissing appeals for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff”; his insistence that immigration should be confined to those who “had blood of the right sort”; and his saying that Jews were “overcrowding” many professions. And what about the sentiment in President Harry Truman’s  diary that “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish?”

So, both FDR and Truman, in making the sort of common sense heuristic assertions one tends to make upon noticing patterns (e.g., observing Jewish social strategies and in-group behavior) were, like all of us goyim, anti-Semites at heart.

Let’s not forget that popular Yiddish aphorism: “Scratch a goy, uncover an anti-Semite.”

Knowing and remembering that this level of paranoia and persecution-complex is so deeply embedded in their culture helps to explain a lot of things.

Posted in Christianity, Jewish | Comments Off on How Should Jews Remember Rev. Billy Graham?

What Makes Jewish Comedy Jewish?

From David Baddiel’s review of Jeremy Dauber’s book Jewish Comedy: A Serious History (“What makes Jewish comedy Jewish?”):

Jewishness in comedy – what, in other words, is actually Jewish about the comedy of these secular Jews – is elusive, a bit like Judaism’s conception of the afterlife. Sahl, when first approached with the idea that his act was pervasively Jewish even though he rarely drew on his ethnicity directly, is quoted as saying, “If the role of the Jew is to rock the boat and to be inquisitive – intellectually curious, that is – fine. Classic role”. It is an interesting concept: that Jewishness in comedy is subversive but also something that can be identified in comedians whether or not they wear it on their sleeve…

It is indeed integral to what is Jewish about Jewish comedy that Jewishness can only show itself in obscure ways, because Jews, for many years, would not want to identify themselves as such…

To come back, then, to what appeared to be a passing, but was not, point about the afterlife: Christianity, and most other religions, are all in the clouds, in the great hereafter – Judaism tends to concentrate on the here and now, and indeed its rules.

Posted in Humor, Jewish | Comments Off on What Makes Jewish Comedy Jewish?