It and Essence

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a blog posting. ]


Can be torrented. Girl slowly wakes up to realize that feminism is a giant lie, it’s men getting screwed by courts, lied about in media, having their serious problems ignored or laughed at by (((society))). She never really breaks through completely but it dimly dawns on her. Better than this movie, just watch a bunch of Karen Straughan videos. There are two main responses to feminism: men’s rights movement and MGTOW. The latter are those who see the anti-male double standards in the System and so choose to avoid women and relationships, and focus on themselves. The men’s rights people attempt to engage the Systems and move the rules back toward fairnesss. But feminism is entrenched, loud, with complete media support, so that it’s difficult for a handful of men defenders to do anything. Perhaps the main point is that neither MRM or MGTOW understand, or publicly mention, that the reason laws are twisted in women’s favor is ultimately a racial, not a sexual attack. The jews who have promoted (and usually written) these laws are trying to destroy white families, ideally by preventing them from being written. It’s not women who created this legal infrastructure. But that is not easy to see because the feminists are out front. But even there, most of the leading feminists are jews. So, like conservatives blaming blacks rather than the jews who forcibly inserted blacks among us (bringing them to the Americas on the slave ships they owned, first, and then destroying the Constitutional right of free association, later), the men’s movements blame women rather than jews. They’re myopic: they don’t see the biggest picture, which is this: feminism isn’t an attack on men but an attack on whites that makes use of an attack on men. It destroys white families to elevate poorly reasoning, weak, fickle women over better thinking, long-term-considering, stable men. We can rely on MGTOW and MRM for specific ideas related to self-development and what is wrong with the system, but it takes a racialist to true-context these movements – it is not evident that any of the people in these two spheres truly grasp the elephant they’re touching. FEMINISM IS THE SYMPTOM, JEW IS THE DISEASE.

By Alex Linder

This is the Michael Myers property but without the jungstabber, making it a very misleading movie, indeed a flop for that confusion. Yet judge it by its contents, not its packaging. It is an entertaining movie, with a genuinely nasty hero. An Irishman who is evil – something you never see on the screen, apart from one-is-another gangsters. Conal Cochran understands the true meaning of christmas, and he’s going to mash that pumpkin all over your girly chin. Doctor Challis is the protagonist, and he’s a regular guy, he likes hitting on women and slurping on beer. He’s helpful. His ex-wife is a nagging twat, so you understand why he concocts excuse after excuse to hit the trail with the tail. I claim no great artistic virtue in this movie, I just like rewatching it, one of few.

[ The above is from a blog posting. ]

An Uncommon Drug Dealer; or: How I Became a Regulations-Atheist and Learned to Sift Evidence and to Calculate Contingencies Like a Man; but in any case

A Review of Dallas Buyers Club

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

[Great movie. If you haven’t seen it, see it before you read this detailed review.]

Freedom and responsibility – or regulation and slavery.

Those are the paired options. Pick one.

Ron Woodroof picked the first. This is his story.

This is a fantastic movie, and the whitest in spirit I’ve seen in years. It involves a Texan lowlife who gets what queers mis-renamed AIDS (from the original Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease – GRID) and how he goes about keeping himself alive. There he conflicts with the FDA, whose main mission in life is to cover its ass and to make sure its ability to regulate hotdog contents (and everything else, including all medicine/supplements/foodstuffs) goes unchallenged by mere humans.

This is not only the whitest, it’s the most American movie I’ve seen in a long, long time. Just to say that is to risk that readers who don’t know any better will lump me in with the flaggots and patriotards. But there’s no other way to put it. Woodroof consistently ignores authority. He mocks and attacks and disregards doctors. He repeatedly rips IVs out of his arm. He ignores FDA regulations or finds clever ways around them. He disrupts meetings. He does his own research, and draws government-unapproved conclusions. He prints up and passes out his findings. He interrupts press conferences and petitions judges. Whatever he needs to do to remove obstacles between sick people like him and the medicine they need to keep living, he does. Whether it’s legal or not. Whether his friends like his company or not. Whether authority approves or not.

That’s the American spirit. Seizing the initiative. Being practical, honest, helpful, enterprising, creative and daring. All these things exhibited in spades by early, real Americans are exhibited in a direct and manly and pleasing way by this gaunt and grimy little Texas outlaw.

The America we’ve become loves to hate Texas and Texans. Why? Because it fears them. They don’t need its central authority. They have the audacity to rely on their own authority. They don’t need the higher liberal wisdom out of D.C. They aren’t willing to accept Bureaucrat Jesus as their higher power the way the tedious totalitarian vegans and assorted urban wimps and academic tools and journalist apparatchiks are. Texans are men. Liberals? Eh…not so much.

Did I say this is a great movie? This is a great movie. McConaughey won best actor for his portrayal of Ron Woodroof and he certainly deserves it.

* * *

Now let’s dig in and really look at some of the contents, and think about them. What do you say, li’l reader-friend? You up for that? Of course you are….

The scene opens to an American flag held by a kid on horseback circling a rodeo ring. What could be Americaner than that?

Then it moves to Matt McConaughey fucking a woman…wait…a woman and a man…in one of the darkened bull chutes. So we know right off we’re dealing with an omnisexual. No morals, either. Electrician/roustabout/rodeo rider Ronald Woodroof is booking bets on one of the rides. Talking about Rock Hudson being a cocksmoker, letting all that fine Hollywood pussy go to waste. Mere minutes after fucking a dude in a rodeo stall! His rider loses, he takes off running to escape his customers. He punches a cop to get himself arrested and escape the lynch mob at his heels.

Woodroof’s character is established in the first five minutes: he’s a scrawny little Texas no-account, but with a sharp brain, a strong will and uncontrolled appetites.

Back at his place, he passes out on the floor; Wranglers so slack you can’t make out a buttock. McConaughey lost a ton of weight for this role, he’s truly gaunt and skinny-sickly as needed in this AIDS pic. Very believable; totally committed; perfectly executed. He should win an Oscar for this role. He did.

The skinny cowboy coughs and passes out, hears high-pitched buzz as he starts to fade. He wakes up in hospital.

That’s the American spirit – mind your own business – and leave me to mine. FDA and DEA are unAmerican, by historical standards. They only retain their rights who are willing to defend them. Like all good Southerners, McConaughey responds instantly to any threat to his honor, his privacy, his friends. Also like many Southerners, McConaughey’s Woodroof is both honorable and dishonorable in his behavior. He’s kind of a character mullet. Honorable up front; dishonorable in the back.

That’s one of the best things about this movie: the characters come across as real people. Dallas Buyers Club is not a morality play. There are bad guys and good guys, but all characters are plausibly motivated. The good guys aren’t angels, just men acting rationally-pragmatically to solve a problem; and the bad guys aren’t devils, they’re people following protocols and laws devised to offer genuine protection. Even the transvestite, Rayon, played very skillfully by Jared Leto, isn’t over the top, which is about the only time I’ve ever seen that. I hate transvestites and sex freaks, but the Rayon character is plausible as a real person with real motivations, not just your typical drag-queen-being-a-drama-queen.

Woodroof has swagger:

He just leaves the hospital. In a certain sense, you’re as sick as you decide you are. It’s not physically true, but it’s always figuratively true. Woodroof never plays passive, he always takes the initiative, like a real white man does.

Nor is there a religious bone in his body. Not a prayer is made. Not a single visit to church or from a preacher. The one scene in which it appears he’s petitioning Lord Standby over votive candles…pulls back to reveal he’s in strip club. Can you cause your own finger to crook? Then what need have ye of God? Religion is unmanly. That’s why it’s so popular with women of both sexes – weaklings who prefer to wait and hope rather than take and make. Religion has no part of this picture, because it’s about a man about the manly business of making things happen.

So what does this bad ol’ boy do after his diagnosis, which he rejects? He snorts coke, drinks Jack, parties with hookers. It’s July 1985. His journey is just beginning.

Despite his bravado in the hospital about mixed up blood tests, he knows he’s bullshitting. He begins to research AIDS. He recalls screwing a junkie, and realizes that in fact he really does have HIV. Not just fags get it. To Woodroof, the fact that he has sex with men doesn’t make him a fag since he doesn’t act or dress or speak like a fag. At least, I think that’s the mentality. Because he appeared to believe he didn’t have HIV because he wasn’t a fag. But if you screw men, that does kind of make you a fag, almost by definition, if you’re a man. This was the one thing in the movie I found a little confusing, if it’s not as I portray it.

At this point, I might take advantage of my age and reprise some GRID history for you younger than me. If you don’t remember the eighties, here’s what happened in a nutshell. The term ‘homophobe’ was apparently invented in 1969. But it was never heard anywhere until the mid-late eighties. Reagan was president. Queers in NYC and San Francisco began to show up with weird skin lesions, Kaposi’s sarcomas. It was ‘gay cancer.’ The name GRID was created. Soon political fags had their mainstream media buddies change it to AIDS, the better to sell the disease to the public. Fags whined and whined because Reagan didn’t mention AIDS in public speeches. They simply refused to take responsibility for their own behavior in spreading the disease. As documented in the first major book about AIDS, Randy Shilts’s And The Band Played On, in which he, among other noxious doings, documents his fags’ community refusal to let the politicians take the most basic public hygiene measures to prevent the spread of the disease, namely shutting down its incubators – the queer bathhouses in San Francisco, to be most particular. So fags didn’t want to own AIDS. They wanted to blame the disease on Reagan, and threaten the public through the conniving media that anyone could get it, so better cough up disproportionate research funding. And that’s pretty much how it went. Queer love means never having to say you’re sorry. It means no one ever describes your behavior honestly, let alone forces you to accept responsibility for it. Fags spread AIDS. Fags endangered the public. Fags got rewarded with a hugely disproportionate share of research funding – something that continues to this day, nearly forty years later. Such is the power of Big Fag and backers.

That’s the nutshell. Read the thick Shilts book if you want the details.

Now, the first drug that really popped up on the AIDS scene as a potential solution or at least disease inhibitor was AZT. In DBC, the doctor says, and I assume it’s true, AZT was originally developed and then shelved in the sixties as a potential cancer treatment. Essentially it does an agent orange on human cells. And if any of the cells are cancer, they die too! As the general said, In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it. It’s simply too toxic for people to get any lasting benefit from.

But…this was not known or appreciated in the early-mid eighties. Fags were dying. Fags were desperate. They wanted AZT at any price. They protested the FDA until it relented. Then they started taking AZT and dying pretty quickly. The most famous opponent of AZT was queer jew playwright Larry Kramer, who abstained from AZT, and believed that was why he was still alive while all his friends were dead. He was the founder of the main fag activist organization back then, ACT UP.

All this stuff was the stuff of mainstream media coverage back in the day, three decades ago. This is the time period in which this movie takes place – 1985 forward.

Dallas Buyers Club dramatizes the essential problem of regulation: everything comes down to someone making a choice. Who should that be? Given that humans have a religious belief, a real faith, in authority, they prefer the comfortable lie — that degreed, professional authority can make us safe via laws and regulation — to the uncomfortable but manly and liberating truth – there is no safety. All you get with regulation is higher taxes and fewer choices. A bureaucrat now makes decisions for you. And you get the cold pleasure of paying him to remove your freedom. What if his choices involve not minor decisions but vital ones – matters of life and death (as a professor screamed at me when I used ‘vital’ for something too light)? Then you might find you don’t feel all that safe. Then you might wish the choice were restored to, I don’t know, you. This is the stuff of drama, and great fodder for a great movie.

FDA food and drug regulation may sound fine when you have a cold and need an antibiotic and can’t buy one without a prescription from a doctor. That’s just a minor hassle, not too expensive. I mean, it would be much cheaper and easier to diagnose yourself and simply buy what you need off the shelf, and only go to a doctor for the hard stuff… but it’s less fine when you have 30 days to live, think AZT is going to save you, and the FDA won’t let you have any.

Then what do you do?

This movie dramatizes this conflict better than any movie I’ve seen. If I’m not mistaken, the director Jean Luc Vallee and the writers Craig Borden and Melisa Wallack come down heavy on the side of freedom. If they aren’t libertarians, they surely created a wonderful vehicle for expressing the let-people-make-their-own-decisions side of the question.

We debate abortion as a ‘choice.’ Even though there are at a minimum two people involved – the mother and the child. But in the case of a drug, there’s only one person involved – the guy who decides whether or not to ingest something. Only his body is affected. How in the world is government justified in telling someone who is supposed to die in a month that he can’t take this or that pill to try to prolong his life?

It is self-evident to me the government has no business getting involved in regulating anything medical. It does a bad job of it. Thalidomide, which produced whopping numbers of horribly deformed babies, was approved by the British equivalent of the FDA. The regulatory body was telling women to take it! Like I said…

There Is No Safety.

It’s scary, isn’t it? But it’s true. There is only risk calculation, more accurate or less accurate.

We must not let our fear overcome our reason. We must acknowledge that freedom and the responsibility that comes with it cannot be taken away without our manliness departing with it. There is simply no subcontracting the most basic decisions, among which number which substances you allow into your body – and the selection of guiding criteria by which you make your way. It’s perfectly fine, perfectly manly, to take into account what some private, voluntary association — like Consumer Reports — says about a particular product. The difference between a CR and the FDA is that the former can’t compel you, only offer you evidence and advice you find more or less persuasive. The latter can forcibly prevent you from doing what you want, and throw you in jail if you don’t go along with its regulations. It makes the decisions. It is king. You are its subject. All in the name of safety….safety that turns out to be fewer choices and higher prices on closer inspection.

You might think regulation, or regulatory power, is boring, but it’s not. All the neat stuff with McConaughey may seem to be the movie, but at its heart, this is a deadly serious movie about regulatory power. And yes, the reason I love this movie is half ideological. I love McConaughey’s acting, something I never particularly liked before, although he is excellent in HBO’s True Detective. But I like this movie because it shows the conflict between two very different outlooks on life, and if I’m not mistaken, it comes down very hard on the side I’m on: the side of the man over the side of the machine. Be aggressive. Make things happen. If authority is wrong, don’t obey it. That doesn’t mean cheat or break rules for their own sake, it means ultimately we do follow rules because we think they’re right. And if ultimately we don’t think they’re right, we shouldn’t obey them. It’s not a light thing to disobey laws, but it’s not a light thing to obey them either – the latter point is the one that is usually lost.

I don’t know about you, but I never signed off on any sheet before I was born agreeing to follow any particular set of laws. Did you? You can’t a priori impose on me or anyone any kind of moral duty to follow rules I had no hand in designing, don’t necessarily agree with, and never agreed to play by in the first place.

As we have seen, this Texas turd blossom is not a man to put up with bullshit. He runs his own life, and is very assertive on this point. “Do I look like a rodent to you,” he says to the doctor pushing AZT at one point. Hell, no. He looks like a man. A man who needs curing badly. So if the government says he can’t have AZT, that’s not the final answer. That just means one route is closed. Others are open. He will open them.

Woodroof connects with an orderly to get some AZT. When that runs out, he gets the address of a debarred doc down in Mexico. There he learns that, what do you know, AZT is poison, at least as being administered in current trials. Rather, he should be taking A, B, and C drugs and vitamins and minerals and proteins.

Do you see what Woodroof is doing? He’s taking responsibility for his own life, for his own health, for his own choices. This is no joking matter. The defrocked doc leads him back to better health, as the AZT had ravaged his immune system. He realizes there’s a big market up north for the effective treatment the ex-doc in Mexico has come up with. He strikes a deal and packs his trunk and heads back to Dallas.

He sets up a club, and runs it out of a fleabag motel. I mean, if it’s not legal to sell drugs the FDA hasn’t approved…then he’ll give them away. Join his club, pay $400/month dues, get all the medicine you need free. Boom. All of a sudden he’s taking business away from the hospital. He’s healing people rather than hurting them. As he says later on, we handle five time as many patients, and we have 1/10th the death rate.

What makes someone a doctor? An M.D.? What if he can cure someone or heal someone or merely help someone without having a degree? Is he then not a doctor because some third party hasn’t signed off on it? Even if his patient customer is happy? Is the thing the thing or are the externals the thing? I mean, if an M.D. is such an inherently august thing, then why is it afraid to go out in the market and compete with other practitioners? Why must all other forms of medicine, all other potential healers, be denied the chance to serve patients, and the M.D. alone accorded legal opportunity and respect?

Again, this is the question of the market versus regulation in dramatic form. Woodroof is a businessman. He never once says anything about helping people. He just does help them. While making a profit. That’s another wonderful thing about this movie. In every other case, the writers would have Woodroof making some melodramatic speech about helping people and the usual sanctimonious, quasi-religious blather. It’s so much more effective when it comes in the form of a Texas criminal conman with both balls and brains simply doing what works — good old American pragmatism — and telling anyone who needs to hear it the simple facts of the matter. AZT doesn’t work. It kills people. He has found a way that keeps them alive; it doesn’t cure them, but it definitely get them healthier. And now the FDA is coming down on his ass. He gets harassed by the IRS, too. The government doesn’t care if people die of AIDS. It cares about successful challenges to its authority and monopoly. In fact, those are all it cares about.

There’s a further, subtler problem with regulation. One that pretty much only libertarians talk about. It’s not just that you lose your money and freedom when you agree to let Bozo the Bureaucrat, who is usually some penny-ante tyrant like jew

, make your decisions for you, it’s that the very independence of the regulatory body is soon compromised. The reality of regulation is very far from the marketing campaign behind it – the promise that some learned panel of neutral experts will oversee public health and safety.

What libertarians know is that, in very short order,

will occur. Yes, it is the inevitable tendency that regulatory bodies end up captured by the industries they regulate, serving them rather than the public. After all, where are these neutral experts going to come from, if not industry? Who else is going to know anything about these new drugs they’re supposed to approve except the people who actually develop them? So you get a revolving door, and interests soon become entangled. The entire point of regulation is lost. In the end, the bottom line is that the market provides the de facto regulation that is better and cheaper than what the official regulatory body can provide. If the pills don’t work, people don’t buy them. In a regulated market, the incentives are screwed up. The FDA has no incentive to approve any drugs. No good can come of it. What if the approved drug turns out to be the next Thalidomide? There’s no risk in saying no. It’s good for the FDA, and for the bureaucrat’s career. Not so good for the guy who might have benefited from the unapproved drug, but good luck getting that story into the media. Has the FDA kept this man safe?

The entire scam, if you will, is built around the false conception that safety is some kind of absolute, some kind of childishly simple matter of black and white, rather than a comparative term in a world of shifting circumstantial contingencies and calculated risks. Who better than the guy taking the pill to make the assessment? He’s the one paying the price if he’s wrong. The system works best if the man carries his weight. He gets the freedom; he accepts the responsibility that is the other side of that coin. Of course, Americans don’t like to do that nowadays. They want to cherrypick. They want freedom until things go bad, then they want to blame or sue someone else. But it can’t work like that.

If you have a regulatory body like the FDA, then drug companies have to spend billions on lobbying in order to get their drugs approved instead of someone else’s. It becomes a matter of who you know and how much you spend. It’s better that businessmen spend time trying to serve the public what it needs and wants than trying to hustle up regulators and pay off lobbyists in D.C.

Like I always say to those with religious faith in government regulation, watch daytime tv. What do you see between the terrible shows? Nothing but ambulance-chasing lawyers prospecting for complainants to join their class-action suits against FDA-approved drugs. But…but…how can that happen? They were approved? By real priests, I mean, bureaucrats!

Have you ever had a prescription? Did you ever look at the pages that come with the bottle? Or the label? The listing of the side effects? How often is outright death not listed among them?

Safety? There is no safety. There are just varying levels of risk.

“If it’s strong enough to help you, it’s strong enough to hurt you.” No matter how many billions are spent on clinical trials, that adage will remain the bottom line, whether your drug is FDA-approved or you-approved.

I consider it self-evident that a completely free market in medicine is far superior to the regulated socialism we have now. Let people choose whom they go to, and let them buy what they like, for whichever reasons they come up with. Medical prices go nowhere but up precisely because of government involvement, yet uniformly in the controlled anti-market media, government involvement – increased government involvement or outright takeover – is presented as the solution rather than as the problem. But here I begin to stray too far. See our relevant thread on what should be done about health care in the politics section here.

Self-reliance used to be nearly the top American not just value but characteristic. Bugger off, England, we can do for ourselves. We did. We still could. But now we need our parents in Washington to sign a permission slip if we want to extend a nose-picker deeper than 1.2 millimeters into the nasal canal. Only a double-degreed expert with an M.D. from Johns Hopkins and a Ph.D. from the Colorado School of Mines is qualified for an extraction like that. Q-tip?? What are you, a madman?

You ever notice how racism, sexism, homophobia and the sundry other leftist junior devils and freedom all go together? Woodruff, bisexual though he be, is a definite anti-queer, misogynist and probably racist too, thought it never comes up, except that he seizes the initiative to get an ambulance for an illegal alien trapped in some machinery. He’s willing to fuck or do business with pretty much anyone. He respects people as they present themselves, no matter his preferences or biases, which is all you can reasonably ask. It’s all a white man would ask anyway, since white men don’t pursue others into the privacy of their own bedrooms and hearts the way totalitarian judeo-leftists do. Demanding people ritually distance themselves from any thought, belief, statement or sentiment the jew-leftist deems Unutterable is, in the reality-based community, demanding that they shutter their rational component and board up their sense organs. Real men don’t use religion. Or its queer nephew, secular, post-christian leftism.

Woodruff returns to the hospital. No appointment. He just seizes the initiative. None of this waiting amid passive obese women for 1.5 hours to see a doctor, the way the rest of us do, just show up and scream. Maybe you didn’t hear me, woman, he says, assuming one of the women is another nurse. “Are you fucking deaf?” “No, I’m a fucking doctor.” She walks around the corner. “I like your style, doc.” That’s where respect begins. He assumes a woman in white coat is a nurse. In the real world, so what? That’s merely rational. In leftist world, it’s cause for tears.

It’s the same with ‘Rayon,’ the transvestite he meets in the hospital and later goes into business with. Contrary to some things I’ve read, Woodroof never changes his basic attitude toward anything in this movie. He’s not a sentimental type. But he can feel others’ pain. He can also feel whether they are true or false. He can see what needs to be done and do it. It’s not at all like he comes around and thinks fags are good, the way some seem to think. He does stick up for Rayon because he/she is his partner, not because he thinks sex freaks are some kind of abstractly great thing. Woodruff stays true to his principles. He may be a criminal, he may steal from people, but he’s honest and helpful more often than not.

Unlike liberals, he doesn’t go in for self pity either. There’s only one spot where he lets out the sorrow of his situation. Sitting alongside the road, fingering his gun, considering suicide. He lets out a cry. But that’s the only time he gives in to sorrow and self-pity. Next thing we see, he’s firmed up down in Mexico meeting the doc who will teach him the truth about AZT. You can’t say Woodroof is a great kind of man, but he’s legitimately tough, and he makes the necessary things happen. And they are mostly good things. You want more, go dig up a nun. It’s not like that ugly Albanian broad ever cured leprosy, she just threw water on the lemurs and raised money off their big wet eyes.

Mixed motives rule the world. Businessmen serve the public far more than government workers or idealists.

That is an adult truth which many physical adults will never understand.

“I want to be loved for me.” Translation: Don’t criticize me or I’ll cry. It doesn’t work like that. You want to be loved; you should want to be lovable. You should make yourself lovable.

Businessmen have to serve people to make money. Politicians and bureaucrats do not. It is the practical mission of the press to reverse this truth, which is why they always describe businessmen as greedy (when greed comes up) and never bureaucrats. It’s just like race, where whites are always guilty until proven innocent and blacks are always the injured party.

The movie shows the main character interacting with two doctors at a Dallas hospital. They represent, along with the blond-male FDA bureaucrat (the movie’s lone concession to judeo-Hollywood stereotypes – the use of the common trope of evil white blond male antagonist), the institutional forces the man-trying-to-get-drugs must cope with. Slowly Woodroof wins over the female doctor, Saks. He demands she give him AZT. (The hospital is conducting clinical trials for the FDA.) She says, “That isn’t how it works.” We really get the strong and well devised contrast between the masculine energy and initiative of the man Woodroof and the much more staid, authority-respecting, law-abiding female. Over time, he wins her over, half by his personal charms, half intellectually, as he not only provides her the research to prove his arguments about AZT, but demonstrates it on the street as well. It finally dawns on her, HE is ACTUALLY DOING what SHE is supposed to be doing but ISN’T doing. In fact, since AZT is literally killing people, she is doing the opposite of what she’s trying to do. She is honest enough that she can only ignore this so long. In the end, she forces the hospital to fire her, and joins his side. It’s reminiscent of the fireman Montag in Fahrenheit 451. He’s a book burner. To him, at the start, as he’s been told by authority, his bosses, ideas are bad and threatening things, and it is the quite-proper role of the earnest fireman to put out their carriers – books. So you burn books. That’s your job. He is a straight, just like this she-doc Saks and most women are. But he’s smart enough and just open enough, again like her, to eventually be brought around by better ideas emitted from a sexually charming personality he’s captivated by. Most people aren’t so much dumb or evil as conventional and lacking in imagination. If you can stir them, you might move them. Montag and Saks both come around to the other side, once the’ve been introduced to the right ideas, and had enough time to let them gestate, and observe them in action.

And let’s get theoretical. If you’re a thinking man, like me, this movie raises in very dramatic form, the question: what gets us to a solution fastest? Regardless of my hatred of bureaucracy and government, if we have a difficult problem before us, how do we find the solution the quickest? We have this disease that is killing people. That needs to stop. How do we stop it?

Generally, by opening it up. Let everyone try to come up with something, and see who wins. That’s how the market works, and the market is quite effective.

The she-doc, representing official authority, says “That isn’t how it works” when Ron demands AZT. See – in a monopoly M.D.’s office, you’re not the customer. You’re merely granted an audience with the medical pope. That isn’t how it works, she says? Well, that isn’t how government works. But who died and made government boss? She says, WHEN the drug is proven to work and IF you fit the profile, THEN you can get it. This to a man diagnosed with 30 days to live! This is the sort of professional deformation and just plain not-getting-it that comes from spending your vital years in a miserably lit classroom dungeon listening to someone yapping. Woodroof is a man of the rodeo ring and bar and cathouse. He needs something that works – now. Not some theory. Not some process. Not some protocol or system. Just something that works. And if it’s not known what works, then how the hell do you have all these rules about who can try what?

Regardless of his lack of degrees or background, Woodroof shows what a lone, rational white man can do. He solves the problem himself. He does the research. He rationally figures out the options from reading the medical literature – the different drugs being used to treat AIDS in countries around the world. Any man of normal intelligence can understand a question like AIDS without a medical degree. Any man of normal intelligence with AIDS can figure out the best policy for his own treatment. This movie demonstrates that in spades. Even if the government is against you, and passes laws against what you need to do, you can still work around it and get done what you need done. That’s a lesson for white nationalists, surely. If Ron Woodroof had kept it legal, he would indeed have been dead in 30 days. He decided to live. The white cause is not up for vote; neither can it be destroyed by outlawing it, as the jews and servants attempt today to do in Greece.

Woodroof didn’t follow the law, but he remained loyal to his business partners. Twice he wound up in the hospital; both times he refused to say where he got his drugs.

The only racism in the film is classism from the wannabe tranny:

But minutes later he’s playing cards and then doing business with her. Texans and Southerners seem to run a little hotter than most whites. I don’t think most people mind directness, however. It’s unmistakable. It makes for clarity. It’s confusion that produces pain and stress.

Repeatedly Woodroof exits the hospital bed against doctor’s orders. “What…get a morphine drip and fade away…? I prefer to die with my boots on.” This is a not a guy who speaks in sentences which end in dithery uplifts.

Random good things about this movie…

– Leto deserves praise for not talking too rapidly. That is a common failing of actors portraying transvestites. There’s a good scene at the end with his conservative father, where the dad is breaking as the kid makes a last appeal. Again, there’s a refusal to resort to the usual stereotype; in most movies the father would have spewed some kind of angry bible-flavored condemnation. Here he doesn’t really say anything, you can just feel his pain at, uh, having a blueberry for a daughter, so to speak.

– The pacing is excellent. DBC does not drag in a single place over two hours. That’s an accomplishment. Somebody put a lot of thought into this movie, and it paid off.

– “I’m not running a goddam charity. $400 or no drugs.” There’s a long line out door. The director keeps this hard. He doesn’t allow any false sentiment or I’m-helping-people sanctimony or self-righteousness to creep in. It’s stronger for that – because it’s so obvious what Woodroof is doing is helping people. That he’s making a profit – so what? That’s how things get done in this world. I am not going to dig into the writers and director, but if they’re not libertarians, I’d be surprised. This film could have been custom-designed to make dramatically the points libertarians make intellectually.

– Funny line: Rayon gets high during business hours, Woodroof tells the black secretary she’s now in charge, and “watch over that fucking monkey.”

– “I say what goes in my body, not you.” That ought to apply to our body politic, too.

– As the FDA throws up new obstacles, or new drug research evolves, McConaughey finds new connections, traveling to Amsterdam, China, Israel. The FDA seizes his alpha-interferon from Japan. He talks to his lawyer, who tells him: “The FDA said Japanese doctor – no legal standing. They make it up as they go along.” Now there’s an idea to play with. The people making and enforcing the law are just as human as Woodroof. They don’t necessarily play by their own rules any more than he does. They’re all about ends, more often than not. Are their ends better than his? No.

– Like most businessman, the fact that he’s playing outside federal regulations doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about quality control. That’s a point too subtle for most Regulation Jesus beliebers to grasp: either something is overseen by God Government, or it’s the Wild West. Woodroof says he has his own process. If he doesn’t trust what the “whitecoats” give him, he sends it to his lab in Seattle. And he uses it on himself.

– I repeat: anyone of normal intelligence can understand the tradeoffs involved in using a serious drug. that’s why regulation makes no sense. if doctors are better than others at curing disease, then why are they afraid to prove that on the open market? At a court hearing, the FDA guy says: “Mr. Woodroof, I’m afraid you are nothing more than a common drug dealer.” Woodroof respond: “Goddamnit, people are dying, and y’all up there afraid we gonna find an alternative without you.” That’s pretty much it.

– Never once does Woodroof relent in his attitudes, nor claim he’s trying to help people. he just cites facts. He just keeps doing what is rational and what does in actual practice – work.

In the end, let’s just sum up by saying McConaughey wins. Who would ever have thought it? Like most, I thought he topped out with his famous line in

.

In the end, McConaughey, like Texas, like Ron Woodroof, is better than his detractors. And that goes for white men too. //

An Examination of Media Treatment of the Affair Involving the Black Snipers Who Terrorized Washington, D.C., in October 2002

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

Remember this back in 2002? Snipers driving around D.C. shooting people?

These graphics will refresh your memory.

all of the D.C. victims – but not all of the victims

killers

means and method

John Allen Muhammad, formerly Williams – the older guy, father figure to the younger

Lee Boyd Malvo, the teen looking for a father

The two were caught in 2002. Muhammad was executed in 2009. Malvo remains in jail, too young for death penalty. Has apologized, said he was brainwashed in a 2012 interview. “Hurting people hurt people,” he says. The interview is worth listening to:

Three movies have been made about this affair so far. One’s trash. Two are decent.

Sniper: 23 Days of Fear in Washington D.C. came out in 2010:

The other is Blue Caprice, and it came out in late 2013.

Blue Caprice (2013) poster – notice “based on” – i.e., speculative, not limited to facts

I’ll get to the movies below; in a nutshell, they’re both worth watching. The 2010 pic is a normal whodunnit. You get all sides, with main focus on Chief Moose, the black cop in charge of the investigation. More interesting is Blue Caprice, which focuses almost entirely on the relationship between the older man and the trusting teen he turns into a sniper.

After watching these, I went back and read a bunch of material on the two. I didn’t follow the story that closely when it happened, although I used to live in D.C. My lip curled as I watched the usual suspects spin things the usual way. The hysteria offered a textbook example of Rahm Emanuel’s “

” Whenever guns are used criminally, jew-leftists use the opportunity to scream for gun control, which is their propaganda term for denying effective self-defense to anyone who isn’t a jew, criminal or politician (a Venn diagram easily mistaken for a circle).

In similar vein, after the affair ended, various parties sued Bushmaster and got a huge settlement, over $2 million. It was Bushmaster’s fault their legally purchased weapon was used to murder people. The company may not be done paying. Read the story here. It’s similar to suing a bar because someone gets drunk, leaves, and subsequently does some kind of damage. When you teach self-esteem in schools, haters-gonna-hate in popular culture, have a million lawyers with their mouths open like baby birds, and a leftist press so crooked it has to screw its capris on, to twist the late Hunter Thompson, notions of personal responsibility fly right out the window.

So, the leftists used the fear generated by these snipers to chip away at both personal responsibility and the Second Amendment – turning the crisis, per the jew’s advice, into a win-win. And of course, anytime there’s a serial killer on the loose, the jewsmedia leap to blame white men, with all the profiling glee they insist is racist when, say, New York cops apply it quite rationally to blacks and browns. So it was here. Both media and FBI were sure they were dealing with white killers. Proved wrong, they simply moved on. Apparently there was no white advocacy group to pressure them for an explanation or apology. Who knows if lives might have been saved if any official party had been willing to consider the radical notion that a bunch of murders might have been committed by, gasp, black men.

* * *

People love to use terms they think make them sound educated. ‘Psychopath’ is one. “Seek help” or “needs professional help” are others. They get little jolts of suborgasmic pleasure via these diurnal emissions. You can veritably see them appreciating the figure they’re cutting, nodding sagely both literally and mentally at the clipped professional wisdom they fancy they’re Pez-ing. I’m a Dr. Drew too! fairly drips off these gerbils of what-they-think-is advanced mentation. They like to say ‘appropriate’ if they’re on the right. Or ‘responsible.’ They like to talk glibly of rehabilitation and civilization and tut over positions barbaric if they’re on the left. As if they know what any of this means, or how to achieve it. You ever seen a bunch of sand fleas hopping around? They’re not just an insult,

actually exist! Their

show up on seismographs as much as these middle-class nitwits’ mental eructations show up in the Annals of Real Human Thought.

Most people are in love with their own opinion, and don’t recognize its true worth. Even when it’s proved to them their opinion is wrong, they pull it back to protective cover, like a mom with an ugly baby. Example: a guy gambles (or invests, if you prefer his term) in the stock market. When his stocks go up, he rationally attributes the gains to his own genius. When they go down, he generously apportions the blame to his adviser or general market forces. Humans can think, to an extent, but the greater portion of their brains seems dedicated to self-interest and self-protection rather than to right-reasoning.

Perhaps it goes too far to say that people are self-regarding idiots with little capacity for analysis and less for objectivity. Perhaps it doesn’t. People generally have to be humbled before they can learn anything, before they can see anything for what it is. Even then, it’s often not enough. People generally are so ego-oblivious they can’t take lessons from anyone else because they truly believe they are somehow different. It’s not a rational thought, it doesn’t rise to the level of considered belief, it’s much deeper than that. Sometimes they can be knocked out of this self-drunkenness, often they can’t.

It’s real easy to call someone a psychopath after the fact. If the term had any real meaning, the user could identify psychopaths before they act. No one has been able to do this, notice. Anyone can look at someone and say he’s a crazy, volatile guy who may well kill someone. The ‘professionals’ can’t do any better, notice. They will point to brain scans, but so what? Ninenty-nine percent of people x-rayed have messed up backs, but only a few have back pain at any given time. Do you suppose it is any different with brain scans? I doubt it.

One more time…if analysis is genuinely valid, it mustn’t settle for merely explaining what happened the day after, it must allow us to predict, the greater degree of certainty the better, what is going to happen before it happens.

What I’ve come a long way to say is that the white-nationalist school of media analysis has immense predictive power. You neutrals or antis ought to listen to what we’re saying, not because we’re us but because we’re right. Every single time, about things from black-on-white murder to jew-on-Muslim warmongering. Every single time we called it out of the box. The rest played catch-up. I mean, you have your smartest conservatives — William F. Buckley and George F. Will, for two — like retarded little children ten years after the fact coming to realize that the WMD and the wars they were pretext for were concocted by the Jewish Bilge Machine. White Nationalists alone decried the War for Israel from day one. WN alone! Not even the libertarians can claim that, because they’re ideologically committed to race-denial. They reject race or tribalism as motives a priori, and simply refuse to see evidence. White nationalists, by contrast, despite every inducement from the System and its wenchmedia, refuse not to see. We are the only ones who discuss, who dare to discuss, the jewish agenda driving every single thing you see on television, read in the newspapers, and hear from politicians.

Three schools of media critcism, but only one is consistently right

The leftist school contents itself with explaining media content and decision-making as functions of corporations seeking profits. It can be demonstrated a thousand times over (for example, jewish Hollywood’s refusal to fun The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson, indeed its vicious, coordinated attempt to undermine it at all stages – this movie that ended up generating the better part of abillion dollars) that this isn’t accurate, but the leftist school refuses to acknowledge or alter its theory, it just bleats and repeats.

Let’s slow down and consider the Gibson movie “Passion” for a second.

So, Gibson’s film, which jewish Hollywood did everything possible in its power to stifle and destroy, and which he ended up funding out of his own pocket — producing and distributing entirely via his own companies — grossed over $600 million worldwide. Apparently jew-controlled corporations weren’t interested in making a movie about the savior of 1 billion christians, not when they could pump money into better ideas like Norbit. Passion starred Jim Caviezel as Christ. After the movie, he said he became an “outcast” in Hollywood. So even if the jews had simply been wrong in their estimation of how well the film would do, and rejected it for that reason, they never admitted their mistake and came around; rather, their hostility, born of prejudice, not miscalculation, continued to drive their treatment of the movie’s maker, star and subject, at no point along the way deviating from complete and 100% hostility.

Which demonstrates that in fact and contrary to leftist media theory, jew-controlled mass media corporations put politics ahead of profits. Profits are important. Politics are more important. You will never see any acknowledgement of this fact, this proven fact, in any controlled-media piece of media criticism. All you will ever see, literally 100% of the time, is the same old blather about corporations-pursuing-profits. No thought or actual evidence need apply.

Two top media critics are Mark Crispin Miller, a jew, and Robert McChesney, a non-jew. Here they are in action, spouting the company line.

McChesney

Since corporations pursue profit, put profit over people, all the usual blather, we need more media owned and controlled by government. More “public” media. Which amounts to, if you’ve ever heard NPR, the same thing: a bunch of jews jewing jewily, this time in the name of the American public, rather than as a giant ostensibly neutral (but actually politically biased) corporation.

Yeah, if there’s one thing that will really reform our mass media, it’s having them overtly controlled by the state rather than merely prostituting for them. Removing even the option not to buy their output, since these state media are always funded by taxes on the people they despite – normal white earners.

Leftist media critics are a happy and helpful part of the complex they conceal with their canting about corporations and their closed-mouthedness about ki…the unChristians running things, shall we say. They are a necessary and integral part of the problem – the concealant masquerading as critic.

Turning to the conservative school of media criticism, we find bitter young fogeys exhausting themselves in impotent whining about unfairness and double standards. Conservative media critics never have or will utter the word jews or refer to the jewish agenda; indeed, they’d rather die. Even though the most cursory overview of the industry fairly screams “look at all these jews running around!”, a feeling very akin to flipping a light and seeing a counter overrun with cockroaches. No, the media are simply unfair out of some unfathomable bigotry, apparently. The tacit working assumption among the conservatives, apparently, is that if they’re whined at enough, they media will start treating the conservative position fairly. I’ve never really understood how the conservative gets from A to B on that, I’m not sure they do either. It’s one of those journey-is-the-destination things. It’s all about the whining, apparently, for they keep it up decade after decade to no appreciable result, yet show not the slightest interest in altering their approach. It would be almost unfair to quote Joe Sobran on professional conservatism, which certainly encompasses the likes of the late lizard-lipped Reed Irvine’s professional whingers at Accuracy in Media: “[It] was all a game; a way of making a living.” In the end, the conservative media critics, like professional conservatives generally, including Republicans, are simply collecting shekels from the pissed off part of the population that hates the media and the direction the country is headed. But they have no plans to do anything about them, just complain. Complaining is profitable. There is a very large market for the right-whine. After all, that’s the section of the population with money – older whites.

The white nationalist school of media criticism alone cuts to the chase: it alone gives you, the reader, what matters: not just the agenda, but who sets it and why.

Once you grasp this argument, you can predict media coverage of any given event. You know coverage will be spun against whites. You can see how this can best be done. Well, that’s what the jews will do, whether Hollywood filmmaker, local news producer or major network show-runner.

It’s really pretty simple. When you understand what jews are, and what they want — that they operate as a tribe and see ordinary white people as their enemy to be defeated and dispossessed, their racial stock mixed out of existence, their lands taken over by jews and helpful coloreds — then you can interpret every single story you come across in media they control, which is about 99% of what’s out there. If you don’t understand this, the media will seem curiously twisted, full of things left unsaid and things said that don’t really sound right.

Turning back to our story, in the case of the D.C. snipers, we’re ten years past the events. So necessarily I will be applying WN analysis after the fact. But it doesn’t matter. You’ll see how right it is. And then little ol’ you can apply it to the next racial affair you come across. It doesn’t have to be something big. It could be something small. Same rules apply, and they are unvarying.

The White Nationalist (WN) school of media analysis asserts this:

– the most basic and meaningful fact about the mass media is that they are owned/operated by jews

This is easily verified. Then it becomes merely a matter of understanding who jews are, and what they’re up to. That’s beyond the scope of this review to prove, but suffice it to sum up that jews are anti-white. Whites they see as a threat, and in order to defuse that threat, and dispossess and destroy whites, jews buy up mass media. Control over mass media allows the tribe to systematically and comprehensively misrepresent reality to their own racial political advantage. This ownership and controlled misrepresentation has been going on for a long, long time in the US, and before that in Europe. Jews didn’t own all our mass media when they arrived in the US between 1880 and 1920, but not long after that they did. Today their control is nearly seamless – apart from the Internet. They control tv completely in the US. They own the top few papers that still have actual readers and haven’t gone out of business yet. Hollywood is jewish from head to toe to excised dick tip.

Once you understand that the mass media are owned by white-hating anti-white jews, the rest falls naturally into place. Jews believe that whatever is ‘good for jews’ is the highest good. They are a race known for brazen lying, historically, and they exhibit that capacity in spades in every medium they control.

If you’re confused by the persistent and curious bias you detect in what you see on television, you shouldn’t be. Let me clarify it for you. What you see on tv is jewish hatred of whites, whether you’re watching a skewed news report about the D.C. snipers speculating that they’re white men, or you’re watching a fictional movie treatment of same in which there is not a single mention of the shooters’ antiwhite animus (we’ll get into this below).

The desire to destroy whites defines the mass media, and it can be laid completely at the feet of the jews owning those media and deciding what goes out over the airwaves into hundreds of millions of living rooms.

White nationalists argue, correctly, that jews use their media control to denigrate whites and to degrade the society they built. Their ultimate wish is to see whites disappear. Yes, the hatred is that deep. That is the ultimate end to which all their propaganda, all their lying, all their reality-reversal and coverage-distortion conduces. The conservatives yammering on about bias and double standards are simply – silly. Once you understand what’s actually going on, how profoundly hateful and antiwhite it is you will never listen to conservative media analysts again. They will seem childishly beside the point. It’s an intellectual version of “

,” with conservatism being the farm, and white nationalism being Paree. The fact, I say, fact is that the conservatives are simply controlled opposition, there to provide the appearance of variety and genuine debate — a necessary prop to the System. White nationalism is the only genuine opponent of jew-controlled liberalism, as you think of it, or neo-communism-slash-globalism, as it’s better described. Raceless serfdom and muttdom for you…racial pride and integrity for the jew. You like that? No. Me either. But for now, it’s enough to understand that it colors, nay, dictates everything you see on tv. White nationalist media criticism lets us clear up the acne of confusion caused by the greasy snake oil sold by the Irvines. The media aren’t unfair. They don’t exhibit double standards. Rather, they are the tools of genocide. Operated against whites by a powerful and hostile race. Let’s not kid ourselves. We can see things as they are. We’re not children, like the Fox News crowd. Right?

I hope so. . . .

Turning back to our story, without knowing anything other than unknown gunman/men were shooting people, the WN media critic would make these predictions re the jewsmedia coverage:

We could go on, but these cover the main point: the jew-controlled media simply refuse to acknowledge that they or any other minority are driven by anti-white hatred when in fact, as I will show below, that is manifestly the case.

And it doesn’t matter whether it’s the news reports during or the movies made after the affair, the same exact agenda-pushing and reality-skewing takes place.

So those are the predictions. We know the basic story. Now we must study and ascertain how the killers saw themselves. What was their mission – in their eyes? What did they intend to do, and why?

If a picture’s worth 1000 words, how much are pictures with words worth? Quite a lot, when it comes to showing mindset and motive. Take a look at these drawings made by the Malvo in jail after his capture. Read the words carefully.

Not hard to see motivation, is it? Racial hate of whites mixed with jihad.

(Here you can read typical neocon spin on the above from Investors Business Daily, which is very much part of the neo-con circuit in D.C.)

Notice all these drawings were collected by the neocon site “creeping sharia.” They use the snipers for their own agenda: stirring up hatred of Muslims. Notice these jews/right, just like their jews/left brethren, ignore the anti-white racial motive on the part of the killers and focus solely on the jihad ideology.

Media 101: Mass media generally divide into jews/left and jews/right. Jews/left play this story as random shootings by disgruntled psycho and brainwashed boy. They ignore Muahammad’s Muslim ideology, and they ignore his hatred of whites. Jews/right portray this as jihad-crazy Muslim out to destroy America. Of course there are elements of truth to both characterizations. But notice what’s most important: both sides leave out that these two hated whites. That’s what matters to us, of course. And that’s why we need a white nationalist media. They alone will represent our interests and look at things from our point of view. Whites should never be satisfied with a jew speaking for them or to them. Listen to these idiotic Christian radio shows. How often their ‘expert’ is some jew/right. The audience is too gullible to grasp the game being played. You shouldn’t be. You should see things for what they are, undeceived, unwilling to look away, unwilling to obey jew-set taboos and limits.

There’s much more we can adduce to demonstrate the killers’ motivations, intentions and racial agenda.

Muhammad had a three-stage plan:

Wow. That is really something. Didn’t really hear much about that in the media, did we? We’ll get to that.

The point is: this is the probative (as the lawyers say) evidence. This is what sheds high-wattage light on the happenings. With these sorts of specifics, you are equipped to understand what was going on in the heads of the killers. You have at last the true and necessary context for understanding these crimes.

We’re showing you here how journalism is properly done. We’re not trying to push an agenda, we’re trying to unearth the relevant facts explaining the motivation of the killers, without pre-set conclusions. And we have. You now have have given you the tools which are the pertinent facts you need to grasp what’s going on here in the most basic sense. You now understand what the killers themselves thought they were doing, what they intended to do. You have the who and the why. That should be enough for you to judge them.

Yet the media in 2002 laid out none of this. There were bits and pieces here and there, but they came much assembly required. The media could play down the part about shooting whites only because when he tried to reduce his plans to the real world, Muhammad found he simply had to take such targets as presented themselves. That necessary opportunism resulted in a more or less truly random mix of victims, a grabbag of the types you would find in the D.C. area, which is made up of immigrants and transients. So the media could semi-plausibly not-really-mention the stage-one plan to murder WHITES but could go with their favorite standby: these were ‘random’ murders. But we now know, they were not. They were the victims the anti-white killers were forced by circumstances to settle for. Their intent was always to kill whites. Since jews don’t value white lives, the true motives of the shooters were kept off stage.

By contrast, imagine if Muhammad were a white man named John Lee Boyd who planned to murder six blacks a day with his sniper son Jesse. In that case, the racial animus would be front and center in the controlled media. It would be the lead. All other aspects of the story would be filtered through the lens: racist-shooting-rampage. But since Muhammad and Malvo’s intended victims were white, their animus anti-white (i.e., the same as the media’s), the motivating hate goes unmentioned. Malvo and Muhammad hate whites just as much as the jews behind The Washington Post. They just favored a more direct form of attack.

If two white men with an anti-black animus had been the shooters, the jew analysts and news actors would emphasize it was mere expediency that led John White Does to shoot non-blacks; if he’d had his way, all his victims would have been niggers. He’s racisss. They would have brought out the racial angle instead of suppressing it. Again, absolutely predictable. Any white nationalist could have told you before the fact how the jewsmedia would have played it.

Now that we understand the artists’ plan – for murder can be an art as well as literature or music, surely – and we understand the media bias, let’s delve into the case from the cop angle, rather than the criminal. See if there’s anything interesting we can dig up there.

First, the lead cop in all this is Chief Moose. He’s black, and he’s head of Montgomery Country police. Montgomery County is the Maryland suburb right outside D.C., where some of the shootings took place. Moose consults with the FBI when it becomes clear what’s going on – that there’s a traveling killer or killers who is sniping people all around the greater D.C. area.

What would white nationalist analysis predict beforehand about a black top cop? (Remember – if a school has any genuine analytical value, it allows us to PREDICT what we’re going to find BEFORE we find it.)

What would a white nationalist analysis predict we might find:

In the case of a), the white nationalist position would be that most likely Moose, being black in a rich white county, was a political appointee. Most likely he was less qualified than white candidates. He might even have things in his past, like low test scores or poor job performance, that would get him tossed out of the application pile if he were white.

As for b), the white nationalist would know that the feds are indoctrinated by the ADL to believe that white men are serial killers, driven by political motives, likely to be the type behind this sort of crime. He would know that the FBI would only slowly and with great unwillingness abandon their jew-trained prejudice. They would cling to it despite evidence to the contrary. Their refusal to abandon their bias and go with facts might lead to bad advice put out to the public and murders that could have been solved more quickly if the feds let the evidence rather than The Agenda drive their investigations.

So it more or less was; the facts do line up with WN predictions:

– Moose wouldn’t have been hired if he were white. He came from Portland. He had several checks on his record. He had an anger management or emotional control problem which was to be in evidence over the course of October 2002. No way a white man gets hired as police chief with the derelictions Moose had.

– the feds yet again got a profile wrong. As one serial killer warned them, in a different case, they get too narrow too quickly, trusting their profile before they have the facts to confirm it in a particular case. This tunnel vision hurts their investigation. In this case it was someone at one of the shooting scenes reported seeing a white panel van drive off. That set the tone. It just had to be white guys!

– perhaps the bottom line as concerns the police was their incompetence: the only reason the snipers were caught when they were was their own mistake. They called up the feds to demand money, and in the course of the call mentioned a crime in Montgomery. Not Montgomery County, Maryland, Montgomery, Alabama. Huge mistake. They’d left a partial fingerprint at that scene. It was on state file. Alabama forwarded it to the FBI. Now the cops knew who they were looking for. Four hundred agents came up with nothing – it took the killers calling in and bragging to make the break in the case. After that, the end came pretty quickly. They put the news on the air about the blue Caprice they were using as their shooting nest, and soon a trucker noticed it in a rest stop in western Maryland. D.C. is the capital of a vast and rich if disgusting empire; people drive fancy foreign cars, not ten-year-old American sedans.

To sum up, media coverage of this month-long crime spree fit white nationalist predictions perfectly. The media simply ignored the killers’ stated racial motives. Both media and cops assumed the killers were white without any factual basis, and advised the public from this assumption, and were slower to correct it than had they been honest brokers. Now…how would the movies portray the crimes and coverage?

* * *

Movies are part of the jew-operated mass media/political System, so the white nationalist will look for the same bias in the movies themselves as in the newspaper and tv coverage of the actual crimes. And the same for any reviews of the movies. There’s an entire world there. Everything dovetails. The assumptions are all the same, hence the treatments are all the same. Crime, coverage, movie about crime, review of movie about crime – it’s all of a piece. You get the same bias no matter where you look. If you accept the assumptions that drive 100% of the mass media you ingest, it will never occur to you that there is a different and better way of looking at things.

Only the white nationalist worldview can explain all this, because the System never questions its own assumptions. Anything outside the ideological sphere equals There Be Monsters. In 2014, those (map) monsters are called “hate.” Yes, it really is that simple and dumbed down, exactly as Orwell presented it. There is what my old partner coined The Propasphere, the world of propaganda, and there is Hate. How ridiculous is that? Yet most people have no problem with it.

We could go on, but there’s little point, as any additional predictions we’d make fall under the same umbrella: the people controlling the media are anti-white. They skew their reporting in predictable ways. When it comes to crime, they simply deny racial motives among blacks that are both there and common – motives they themselves through their teaching and reporting have done much to stoke and nourish. When it comes to the much rarer white-on-black crime, they play up racial motives. Whites are always the bad guys, never the victims. No matter what the FBI crime stats say.

These killings are now over a decade old. The older guy has already been executed years ago. Don’t see that around D.C. much, and you can well believe that the fear he struck into the self-important denizens of that region accounted for the comparative speed of the process. In our serial killers thread, we see an execution of an Oklahoma man in 2014 for a murder he committed in 1988. That’s pretty typical – 25 years or so. John Allen Muhammad was executed in 2009. His process only took seven years. One standard for gliberals, another for ordinary folks. Same with guns, same with death penalties. But we stray…

Before seeing these movies I didn’t know all that much about the D.C. snipers. I remembered what happened, generally. Couple guys shot up people around the D.C. area. The investigation was led by a black named Moose. That I remembered. That he was a clown with a white wife, that I remembered too. That he and the FBI were looking for a white man or van and ignoring counter-evidence, as in that case down in Louisiana – that was the main point in my mind.

What I didn’t know BUT COULD GUESS BECAUSE I HOLD WHITE NATIONALIST POLITICAL VIEWS was that if I dug into the case, I would find numerous interesting facts, small or large, that the media were concealing for their usual judeo-leftist political reasons. And that is exactly the case, as shown above.

Let me lay it out. These two killers were father and son, psychologically. The father set the agenda, the son was his tool. So the father is where we look to find the motives. The motives are multiple. They break into two main camps, the personal and the political. We’ve already covered the political. We haven’t discussed the personal:

1) like many white men, the black man John Allen Muhammad hated the System because it stripped him of his children and gave them to his wife. He was, for this reason, at war with the System.

2) compounded with his System hatred for personal, family-related reasons, Muhammad bore a racial animus against whites. His original name was Williams. He converted to Islam. He was a member of the Nation of Islam! Did you know that? I don’t ever remember hearing that when this story was in the news. The NOI has distanced himself from him, but it’s true:

, Farrakhan’s anti-white group.

Now, per our WN assumptions, we would assume the two points above were either DOWNPLAYED or IGNORED completely, depending on what the media felt they could get away with. CNN wouldn’t even call the guy by his conversion name Muhammad, they insisted on calling him Williams. These are ‘reporters,’ right? Then why do they act like concealers? Everything in illiberalism is like that: it is the opposite of what its name denotes. Like those fish that have eye spots on their tails.

Do you see how deceptive that is?

Butterflies do it too.

But humans aren’t animals. They’re created by god. They’re different. They would never try to fool you, or use mimicry or be parasites. Even though those things are legion throughout the animal world. Misdirection is everywhere in nature, but certainly not among humans. Because we’re god’s children. We’re special and different.

The media are there to spread enlightenment and knowledge, and provide a forum for the public to discuss issues that matter, and reach a democratic consensus.

If you believe that…you’re too short for this ride.

Deception is everywhere humans are, and it’s our first recourse, not our last.

I ask again: did you know that John Allen Muhammad was a member of Nation of Islam? I sure don’t remember hearing that mentioned. And I’m a specialist in this stuff, you might say.

That’s how well it’s hidden. You have to do the digging and connecting yourself. The reporter not only doesn’t help you, he actively hinders you. You have to fight the ‘reporter’ for the story! how remakable is that?! He throws up dissimulations and misdirections like a bird leading you away from the nest. The rotten eggs she’s protecting are the liberal agenda.

Everywhere in nature is misdirection, fakery, deception – and murder.

Humans are no different, for they are part of nature too, no matter what your favorite religious tome asserts.

Yet, this is god’s world, if you go in for that horseshit, as most weak-minded people do. I can’t help that you’re an idiot. I’m trying to. I just don’t think based on experience my reasoned enlightenment will do much. But don’t blame me. I didn’t create what I discuss. I’m just describing it accurately. Sounds “hateful” doesn’t it? That’s how you’ve been trained to think of anything that is clear and without disclaimer or obeisance to common taboos. We have been reduced to a point at which anything straight sounds cold and threatening, and is probably hateful. We have been made into mental veal by the System, we can’t even stand on our own two legs because our mental muscles are too weak.

So this guy Muhammad and the teen he’s trained to snipe hate the System and hate Whites. They’d like to destroy them all. To do this, Muhammad develops a three-stage plan. It might sound crazy, but that’s what was going on in their heads.

You have to take these guys as you would any artist. The media won’t do that, but it’s the right way to look at it. When I guy makes, say, a movie, or writes a novel, the reviewer should ask: what was he trying to do? did he achieve it? That’s the only fair way to judge him. NOT to pretend he was doing something he SHOULD have done, or something that YOU wanted him to be doing. But that’s how the media play things. A man is never allowed his own agenda. Look at my own wikipedia entry. I’m not a white advocate, not a writer. I’m an anti-semite. I’m not allowed my own agency and self-description. I get what they put on me. What matters about me to them is that I hold a belief they don’t like, and their dislike of my view is strong enough that they feel it defines me, and use their power to try to make it so wherever they control things.

So it is with everything. The media won’t give anyone his manliness and agency, as I did Muhammad above. They won’t say: here is this man. Here is what he thought he was doing. Here is what he intended to do. Here is what he actually did.

That’s would be the starting point of honest reporting and analysis. But you never get that in System media. Because they exist to promote a political agenda. And agenda that is anti-white and, from our white racial view, dystopian (it tends toward a world most whites would find extremely uncomfortable), and rejects reality as insufficiently supportive of their politics. Since reality won’t conform to judeo neo-communism, it must be cut and tampered with, in the manner of Procrustes, who cut off men’s legs so they would fit the bed.

When you open a newspaper or turn on a tv, you don’t get reality, you get agenda.

You get jews vomiting hate on white men, metaphorically.

Know that, pilgrim.

Now some things are just interesting, and this white-hating, System-hating negro’s master plan, outlined above, is one of them. He’s a negro, so you wouldn’t expect it to be particularly well thought out or carried out, but nevertheless, it’s interesting to see what he had in mind.

That’s from one of the movies. The movies no more than the media coverage hint at the racial animus. Indeed, Blue Caprice shows Muhammad having his ‘son’ trained to shoot by his old army buddy, a white redneck type. Not a word about murdering six whites a day – in either movie.

Later on Blue Caprice, John continues:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/…ashington.html

Interesting bit I came across:

Muhammad was in some ways better than your average negro:

This is the best backgrounder piece I found on the kind of life Muhammad (and Malvo) were living before the shooting spree began. Take a few minutes and read the article, it’s very telling…

None of what is described in that article is fully communicated by the movies. That article amounts to a depiction of what life is like for many, many niggers – a sort of desultory wandering among huge broods of relatives committing whatever crimes seem most promising in the moment, whether ID fraud, credit card scam or armed stickup. No white man could do what Muhammad did: travel around the country, back and forth to the islands, staying with distant cousins and friends in a dozen different cities. Whites simply don’t live like blacks. They don’t have these masses of relatives, for one thing. They don’t have the milieu blacks do; they lack the criminal sea in which to swim. The fact is, committing crime is nigger normal. If you commit crimes, other blacks aren’t going to turn you in. They’re far likelier to help you or try to get a piece of what you’ve stolen. They may not even like crime, but to no black on earth is crime anything but a normal part of everyday life. They’re used to crime. It’s just business as usual in the black community, and black community is very much a euphemism, as their ‘community’ is basically just a loose agglomeration of individual woolies collecting around this or that white-built subsidized housing complex; a disorienting tangle of drugs, crime, unclear family relationships and sexual sniffing. Blacks on the run seem have a lot more options for staying low to the ground than whites do, as we watch Muhammad, in the article linked above, run from Washington State to Nevada to Louisiana back to Washington, to Alabama, on to Washington, D.C. Black behavior really doesn’t analogize well to white behavior; the races live in very different mental spaces, and this reflects in the physical environments they create and prefer. Needless to say, the movies don’t touch on any of this. They do show the shooters moving around, but they fail to capture the true flavor of this life, as the newspaper article comes closer to.

As for the movies, Blue Caprice is the better of the two. Not precisely a good movie, but a decent one, it focuses on the relationship between the man and the boy. It shows how Muhammad built Malvo up. Muhammad had lots of problems, but he took time to teach discipline to a kid not his own who really needed a father. That was the essential thing. The rest was just specifics related to the mission.

BC shows Muhammad as motivated more than anything by anger at the System ripping his family apart. Giving his kids to his woman, and then hiding their location from him, although he eventually figures it out. This is yet another motive downplayed by media coverage. In many ways, Muhammad might be a typical white man, as there are millions fitting his category – angry at a System they feel has abused them. Muhammad was in fact attempting to rectify this situation through a master plan aimed at bringing down the entire System. That’s how angry he was. One of his victims was someone who had testified against him at his trial. In fact, he was carrying out all these ‘random’ shootings so that he could then kill his ex without drawing suspicion. In the movies, he did spy on his ex-wife and children, but never shot her or contacted them, all this while he was driving around shooting other people. Of course, just as the media have no interest in giving their readers or viewers the truth about race and crime, nor do they have any interest in giving their readers the truth about men and the family courts. But that was a major motivator here.

In summary, Blue Caprice is reasonably effective in showing how a fatherless child came under the wing of someone with serious anger, who turned him into a successful mission-agent. There’s not really much more to it than that; the film is all about the relationship, not focused on the crimes at all.

My notes from D.C. Sniper: 23 Days of Fear, focusing on race and the way the moviemakers portray the cops and press coverage:

– opens with Chief Moose in bed with his attractive white wife.
– at one of the cop/FBI confabs, white guy suggests shooters might be African-American, another white guy shoots him down, Moose says nothing.
– white suspect shown in bed watching tv, hanging Confederate flag, sticking hand down his pants, wearing wifebeater. Gets rousted by cops, but he aint the one. Just a nice chance to promote the racist redneck stereotype we’ve all seen a million times. No mention of racist profiling. They’re looking for an angry white guy with a military background who has purchased a rifle recently.
– see nig getting near-angry look listening to tv announcer say they’re looking for a white man in a white-panel van.
– as you’d expect right from the start we hear “he [the shooter] hates everyone,” so we know it’s not racial.
– shows Moose getting emotional at press conference. He’s from Portland, Oregon. Was disciplined repeatedly for outbursts, forced to attend anger management classes. Hired by Doug Duncan back in 1999. The movie spends some time on this relationship between the white county executive and the black police chief. Primarily concerning how they handle the press.

That’s about it. Whether the personal drove the political, or vice versa, in the end they were part of the same mishmash in John Muhammad’s head. As for the media, I’ll leave the summary to this internet commenter from back when this stuff was hot (The Beltway Snipers, Ten Years Later):

The niggers assassinate ’em on the street; the jews assassinate ’em in the press. Same as it ever was.

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

Going to add my thoughts on Breaking Bad, as they occur. This show, along with Mad Men, Sopranos and The Wire, is commonly cited by the controlled media as one of the best shows ever made, and all four prove we’re living in a Golden Age of television.

Why talk about these shows? They’ve been seen by millions, thus offering a common reference point as we talk with others. Same reason VNN used to run brief, witty movie reviews by Mark Rivers, before he burned out after about 150.

I have read a middling amount of analysis of Breaking Bad. Pretty much the usual – everyone tries to spin it his own way, whether right-wing christian, like Coulter above, or more commonly to the left. I’ll try my own view, which is not so much WN as related to being a white MAN, and what that’s about. Loyalty, one’s family, competence, all those good things. BB’s not simply about morality, let alone a morality play. Simpleton reads, such as Coulter offers above, pander to the middle-class christian nibblerabbits, but I’ll analyze it from an adult point of view.

The show is the brainchild of Vince Gilligan, who is a Southerner, from Richmond, Virginia. Of course, his path to film leads through New York. He showed talent along the way, and eventually was connected to the guy who created X-Files, Chris Carter. He wrote a good many X-Files episodes himself. Gilligan is an Aryan. He calls himself agnostic. No apparent religious background, or at least nothing uncommon, from what I could find in a brief search. He says his girlfriend’s belief has become his own mantra: “I’d like to believe there’s a heaven, but I can’t NOT believe there’s a hell.” So, he’s basically a legacy christian product, with a sort of half-assed belief in karma. Pretty similar to most people these days, actually.

Ok, as Greece calls, I’ll nail my thesis. Less of a thesis than the question that interests me most. I didn’t watch this show along the way. The jews get no cable money from me. But after hearing people talk about the show for years, and finding the premise interesting, I discovered the entire series online and watched it over a couple weeks.

Creator Gilligan expressly states that what interests him is the character changing from good guy to bad guy, from protagonist to antagonist, which he says characters almost never do in conventional tv. General discussions run along these lines, following the main character Walter White’s supposed moral decline from modest, honest, competent, docile high-school chemistry teacher into empire-building meth chef. What interests me is the extent to which White’s badness, his supposed moral evil, is simply his evolution through his own decisions and will into a real man – a powerful, loyal, competent, decisive agent.

This is not a political show by any means. There is far less to tease out re our White Nationalist cause than one would find in most tv or cable shows, or movies – at least so far as the racial part. But as I’ve said many times, our cause is not just about the white in white man, but about the man in white man. This show very directly concerns manliness, and in these concerns bears directly on our cause. As I’ve also said before, too many White Nationalists haven’t given any thought to what a white man actually is. They regard it as self evident, but it isn’t. I’ll grind my own axes along the way, as Coulter does above. Most of White’s evil is simply a man dealing rationally and effectively with the problems that arise in an illegal business where the high stakes involve dangerous competition.

Walter White – start with the name. Can’t spell Walter without alter. Altering is what the show is about. White starts out white, but ends up Black. That’s the conventional read. I don’t see it that way. Rather, changed circumstances brought out what had always been there, but never before had been called upon. White’s real but latent nature was simply triggered into action by his finding out he’s going to die soon due to lung cancer. He becomes what he has always been – on the verge of being no more. That’s all. White changes from passive to decisive. In the world we live in in 2013, virtually any decisiveness or masculinity not channeled into war for Israel, or defending innocent female victims against some other evil man, ‘deadbeat dad’ or ‘wifebeater,’ is looked on as bad and dangerous in itself. Masculinity is frowned on by the powers that be. Masculine activity and energy is turned into ADD among youth, then it becomes abuse, verbal or physical, when the man is a young adult, and ends in court, with his kids taken away, and ‘deadbeat dad’ status stamped on his forehead the minute he can’t fork over the outrageous sums the court demands he pays the always innocent always victimized always abused woman.

Deep life truth, you might learn at your own cost, as many have: no one believes, truly believes, women are capable of taking responsibility for anything. That’s why they are never really held accountable for anything, informally or formally. Feminists and traditional women are alike on this point. Don’t be fooled by words! Reality is ganz anders.

A few features of Breaking Bad deserve special mention.

– unlike in Dexter or Sopranos, the title sequence and recaps are extremely brief. This is to someone’s great credit. All future showmakers should follow the 30-second rule.

– second great achievement of Gilligan is his refusal to use music excessively the way most do, as a cheap mood shifter or transition or montage showing development. Music is used sparingly, there is no need for its cheap drama when the show has the real thing. Again, other showmakers should take note. Music is used by most moviemakers and tvmakers as the filmic equivalent of high-fructose corn syrup.

– third – similar to second, the wonderful lack of dream sequences. Another cheap, awful device that Gilligan avoids entirely, just wonderful. All should copy him. As Goethe says, the master shows himself by his limitations. Gilligant avoids cheap resorts. He has real art, hence doesn’t need them.

– fourth – it has been said this film shows the consequences of actions. That is true. But it is easy and wrong to view this as “getting what he/they deserved” or any other cheap moralism. Far more, this series is neutral on that stuff, and that means its consequences are simply what actually tends to happen when you get into this sort of business. I never once get the sense Gilligan is making moral points, he’s telling a story. You can infer lessons, but they’re not necessarily the ones the chrissy obviousists insist on. Yeah, no shit, when you get involved in high stakes poker, there will be days you lose a lot of money. When you get involved in high-stakes drug operations, you can lose not only money but your life. No shit. Who doesn’t know that? There’s no moral lesson there, there’s simple fact. And of course, the christian never considers the other side. Walter enjoys the free play of his talents and personality, and builds up a hell of stake for his progeny. A simple christian “that’s immoral!” doesn’t make those facts go away. In short, meth has an upside. The christian is too much of a simpleton to see it, and if he could, he’d be too cowardly to acknowledge it. Christians are despicable; their cult, devolutionary.

– fifth – This series shows that real men act, they don’t blather. Most of the non-women in this movie are spare with words. Never stand when you can sit, never sit when you can lie. By same token, never speak when you can use a look, raise an eyebrow. Deeds, not words. No excuses, no tears. Those belong to the world of women and she-males, such as christian technical males are supposed to become, to be ‘good.’

Good scene: I particularly liked the talking pillow episode. In this bit, White’s extended family are discussing what he should do in light of his diagnosis with lung cancer. Should he get chemo, or not, or what? The wife who called this discussion, and has the idea of the talking pillow (the one with the pillow talks, the others listen), has the fixed idea that he must undergo chemo. Chemo is painful and debilitating and fails more often than it succeeds. There are reasons one might choose not to go that route. The wife wants Walter to get chemo, and the talking session is supposed to reinforce that view, under false banner of free and honest discussion. But when her sister gets the pillow, her sister being a radiation tech, she says what I say above, and says that Walter’s decision to avoid chemo is perfectly rational. At which point the wife, Skyler, goes nuts. Up to that point she’s been getting everyone else to stick to the rules, to shut up when they don’t have the pillow, and listen to the speaker. But the minute her sister starts saying something she disagrees with, why, the rules fly right out the window and she gets very angry. I thought this was the single best scene in the show, a real demonstration of the weak-mindedness and hypocrisy of the average woman. It was truly funny, too.

But in the end, Walter defers to his wife and gets the chemo. This brings out another interesting aspect to the show, the question of the natural relation between men and women. The show ran five seasons. Through about three of them, Walter spends the time he’s not cooking meth trying to hide what he’s doing from his wife. She figures something is up, but won’t trust him to do what is right, she keeps picking at it and trying to get him to reveal things. He endlessly placates her but she is never satisfied. All the discussions about this show have White as the bad guy, and they dislike his wife for being a nagger. To me, the larger issue is the relation between man and wife, or husband and wife as they always say these days in televised wedding ceremonies, real or fictional. Were things truly not better when women just shut up and trusted men? Communication is overrated. Most of it is just internal problems that don’t do anything but weigh others down. Most communication is for one’s own emotional benefit, not for the benefit of the other person.

This show is about men and their loyalties. Women just aren’t really relevant to anything. They are repeaters, seedbeds. No one needs the garden to have opinions, just grow the food. Women are along for the ride, sexually and psychologically. They suffer, they enjoy – best said, best summed, things happen to them. Things usually meaning men. Very seldom do they initiate, beyond manipulations they think they can get away with. They simply aren’t interesting, from a dramatic standpoint.

Now let’s get to the heart of it. White is evil. He suffers the consequences of his evil choices. This is the way the christian retard wants to look at White – and at everything. The funny thing about Christian morality is that it’s completely selective. It never applies to the christian’s own actions. We back Israel, Israel provides guns and weapons to subsets of Muslims to overthrow democratic governments, or at least stable ones, in the name of democracy. These muslims chop people’s heads off, eat their internal organs. Has the christian done evil? Hell, no! It’s very formulaic with these adult children. There are never any consequences to supporting Israel, which is always the right thing to do. If you’re on the side of Good, you can do whatever evil you want. Then the next minute the conservative justifying pro-Israel cannibalism turns around and browbeats liberals for their moral relativism! No one serious takes christianity seriously except as a source of fodder or laughter or danger. Christendom is kind of like a fish tank full of swimming idiots, except the rest of us real humans have to live among them.

Here’s a non-juvenile hence non-christian analysis.

First, to judge White, you have to decide whether making and selling meth is immoral per se. Most say yes. I say no. Given what meth does to the body, it’s the user who is immoral or moral, if you believe that destroying your physical being is immoral. To me, that’s not an interesting question. Use meth, you’ll destroy yourself physically, as far as I know, but that’s your business.

White makes the purest and finest meth anyone has seen. That’s manly, that competence. He takes pride in the purity of his product. So already the christian crybabies doubly hate and fear him! He’s not only doing something immoral, he’s doing it well. Oh, he’s going to hell for sure. Again, juvenile is the only way to regard christians when it comes to their judgments.

White ‘n’ crew’s actions are far more usefully analyzed economically, as a study in black markets rather than black hearts. When a product or service is illegal, business disputes can’t be settled in court. They have to be fought out, outside the law. This has many implications. If there’s serious competition for marketshare, then the businessmen must needs become experts in self-defense as well as their actual product. Or at least know where to hire the talent. All this White learns along the way – and as he survives until the end, outlasting many more experienced and seemingly tougher men, he can be said truly to win. He proved his great competence at every step along the way. Real men are competent. Masters of their domain, as Seinfeld expressed it. White is the master of his domain. He not only produces the best meth the world has ever seen, or at the the world around Albuquerque, he is able to grow and protect his budding empire, even under the most difficult and hair-raising conditions. Time after time his newfound toughness, his brains and his cunning see him out on top. That’s impressive. He’s a man in full. The meth brought it out of him. All these talents he always possessed but never used, trapped in a boring job with a boring woman.

The christian lunatic, slurping away at his thumb, sees White’s death in the final episode as proof he was wrong all along, and so he is now suffering for his sins. But we must judge White by his stated goal. Knowing he was going to die fairly soon from cancer, his goal was to make enough to see his family through the years he wouldn’t be there to provide. He undeniably achieves this. Ten million dollars will go to his family, and through channels they will be forced to accept without question. White succeeded. He made the most of his situation. He achieved what he set out to achieve. What could be manlier than that?

Basically what it comes down to is this: the universe has no ultimate point. At least not one it discloses to anyone. The christ lunatics disagree, as do 1000 other absurd cults, but they’re ridiculous and wrong. There is no point except the ideal you choose to live by. Christianity is an ugly ideal, one of the most repugnant ideas ever come up with – the idea that men should be weak, sheeplike, passive and gelded, and that anything else is immoral and evil. Crissies will deny that description, but it fits their cult perfectly. Even in the rare cases they muster the courage to defend their own kind, they end up doing something insane. One thinks of Codreanu’s cadres carrying out an action against the jews, then turning themselves in to the authorities to be tortured and murdered. Absolutely insane. Christians think winning is a sin. Theirs is essentialy a cult for losers, and losers like company. Together, these pygmies can drag down many a real man.

They say White is an evil man. I say White is a man. And it’s men they think are evil.

That, in a nutshell, is my read. And that is the relevance the themes of Breaking Bad have to our cause: it’s about what it is to be a man, a white man.

Too many WN, even, want to deny manliness in our cause, because they conceive of white men as ants to be farmed by a white government. They want to make government the sole source of all the various arrangements men need to make in their own lives, whether through the economy or anywhere else. Our cause is collective racial defense, not dictating to white MEN how they live their lives. That road leads to the same infantilization we see now, where a man taking control of his life and his business is seen by most people as ‘evil.’ If white men aren’t capable of running their own lives, then our cause has no meaning. Our point is not that white men are so incompetent and helpless they need a dictator to make their most basic decisions, it’s that only in a white context can they flourish. And providing a white context is not something individual white men can create by themselves, it requires collective effort.

It doesn’t even interest me, the argument around the morality of meth. I think meth, on the whole, is good for Whites, because it’s eugenic. Meth use weeds out the serious users in pretty short order. They don’t reproduce. They just die. White produced higher quality meth than any of his competitors could, and for that he earned and deserves respect. He’s a good businessman. He provides the best quality product for his customers. That they choose to use it is their business. They must take responsibility for that. He has kept up his end of the bargain. I truly don’t accept any other way of looking at it.

The people who plague society are not the meth users and producers but the cops. The cops can’t sell anyone their services, they have to force them on them at gunpoint. The real failure of this show is portraying the DEA and its people as the good guys.

But now we get into petty politics. A lot of the leftists want to spin this show that this poower little teacher had to turn to meth to pay his hospital bills because, you know, teachers are SO underfunded. This is the opposite of the truth. Federal and state jobs pay much better benefits than most private companies can afford to, due to taxes. The government is greedy. Not business. Government. The media are always on the side of the state, always blaming business for problems caused by government. Even as the US has been in a recession, the size of government keeps growing. We now have a society in which people don’t dream of starting their own businesses, and serving their fellow citizens, they dream of getting a government job with good benefits. This is socialism. This is the socialist mindset. It sucks. It’s completely and utterly wrong and infantilizing and unAmerican. Worst of all, it’s anti-White.

Walter White didn’t pule and whine and whimper and cry and pray about having cancer, he altered his thinking and behavior to get the money he needed. For his strength and power and knowledge and cunning he is rewarded by the ‘good’ little weak people by being called evil. And at the end, when he admits he enjoyed his wild meth ride, why, he is “selfish.” He didn’t do it for his family, he did it for himself! Yet his family benefits just the same. How about that? Good intentions aren’t enough. White, like a man, produced results. That’s one reason the seedless grapes called christians hate and fear him and his example. I wouldn’t call on a christian to identify an oak tree, let alone good and evil. Would you?

Christianity is in eternal war with manliness, which is why I summed it up in an epigram: you can be a man or a christian – not both.

There’s nothing wrong with being a man – except to a christian. They will tolerate men as women, men as sheep, but never men as men. That would be immoral. That will lead to hell.

This is the silly cult that took over our race? Tall about something one can feel legitimate shame and guilt over!

Let us end this saddest of sicko cults before it ends us. What do you say, white man?

Now let’s look at Coulter’s thoughts.

Breaking Bad has nothing christian about it, either intentionally or by implication. Things happen that tendentious scrawny scolds can moralize about, but that’s on them, that’s not from Gilligan. All he believes or hopes is that people who do bad things should be punished for it, or what does the universe mean? That’s a common if silly view. But White doesn’t suffer anything for what he does beyond what is logically predictable, or statistically likely. Any belief there’s some greater meaning or ultimate punishment must be supplied externally, from the head of the watcher, because it’s not in the show.

Right-wingers like Coulter object to criminals blaming society for their crimes, but then they turn around and claim that the fictional god named jesus can absolve people of their responsibility for ‘sins’ all parties agree they committed! Which is it, Apple Annie? How can someone else take responsibility for your sins? He can’t. Someone else can no more absolve your sins than lift weights and run laps for you. You can’t have it both ways, chrissy paralogicians, though you never stop trying. Shut your mouths, cap your pens, quit embarrassing yourselves.

Jesse disliked therapy precisely because accepted responsibility for his actions, and felt remorse for what he had done – and he hated what the instructor was trying to teach, that you must accept yourself, destructive actions and all. Should everything just be accepted? Jesse says no. He finally gets the group leader to admit that he doesn’t tolerate Jesse’s original reason for attending the sessions – to sell meth to the recovering addicts. So there is somewhere to draw the line. Even the all-accepting therapist has something he won’t accept or tolerate.

That’s largely the message of the show – being a man is about what you will and won’t tolerate. The bible has one set of answers, but there are infinite numbers of others. Jesse never forgave himself for things that he did. There is no indication of that, at least. Coulter is simply forcing him into her ideological mold. He returns to cooking meth. Mayhem, murder and disaster ensue. Not because cooking meth is inherently evil, but because it’s illegal. This is the weakness of seeing everything as a morality play, it blinds you to simple, factual reality. Jesse never forgave himself for getting his girlfriend back on the drugs she had gotten away from, and why should he? Of course, she is guilty too, more than he is, in fact, but as I said above, no one really believes women are capable of independent action, so Jesse manfully if inaccurately assumes responsibility for her death. Why should he forgive himself? He doesn’t have to obsess about it, but neither should he forgive himself. Life is heavier than christian helium. Reality has no “get out of jail free card,” only christianity, selling false hope to true dopes.

You know, I spent my entire youth growing up reading conservatives. Reading their warnings against moral relativism. But moral relativism is real. Human societies always have a bad and a good, but they undeniably vary somewhat by time and place. Within different contexts morality is real enough, useful enough, necessary enough, just to give society some driving lanes, but to call it absolute? No. There is no indication anywhere morality is absolute. Not by any ordinary evidential standard.

Here’s the only moral absolute, and no philosopher ever has or will come up with anything to gainsay it.

Not a single man alive had any say in his own creation. Having never consented even to his own existence, he is under absolutely no obligation to any man or any set of rules.

THAT is absolute. No one ever can or will produce a morality as firmly grounded as that one.

You owe no one anything. That’s the starting point. Such obligations and commitments and loyalties as you choose to take on SUBSEQUENTLY are your business. But you didn’t sign any papers or agreements before you were born, so no one can reasonably hold you to anything. Morality is simply a human construction, made to make people feel comfortable with what’s going on. In absolute terms it is absolutely meaningless, and you can take that to the bank.

Here’s the question that confounds the christian puerile like Coulter, whining about moral relativism. If the lack of absolute morality means that everything is permitted, then how can you deny that Jesus dying for your sins results in the exact same thing? If everything I do can be forgiven, then why shouldn’t I do exactly what I damn well please?

Coulter says it herself: it doesn’t matter what you did (or DO), Jesus died for your sins. You are forgiven. How is that conservative religious view not the same thing in different words as the liberal view?

God does not exist – everything is permitted. – liberal relativism

Jesus forgives all sins – everything is permitted. – conservative relativism

Believe either one, you end up the same damn place!

Here’s the reality: morality is not weaker for being relative, nor is it made stronger by advancing false claims that it is absolute.

If Jesus forgives all sins, then everything is permitted. That’s the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Coulter’s view, which is liberalism by another name. A man’s actions bear no real weight, since all men are sinners, as the christian claims, and all sins are forgiven, as the christian also claims. That’s the christian world – it’s for babies, namby-pampies and cowards. In a man’s world, like the world Walter White and Jesse Pinkman inhabit, the world of the illegal meth business, a man’s words and actions are deadly serious things, with consequences that cannot be avoided. There are no takebacks, no do-overs, no didn’t-mean-its, no get-out-of-jail-frees. No Mulligans in Gilligan’s island. In christian’s world, nothing has any weight, ultimately, for all the high and mighty claims about absolutes and higher morality. That’s the essential irony and silliness and puerility of the cult’s doctrines.

One can only laugh at this. No matter what Skyler did, it’s child’s play to find a christian verse justifying it. I thought “the greatest of these is love.” And women are supposed to be obedient to their husbands. And we’re supposed to be our brother’s keeper” – but not our husband’s?

You see how silly this is. Bandying bible verses is a mug’s game.

Not to mention, Coulter is factually wrong. Or lying. I don’t know which. But Skyler did leave her husband. Did begin the process to file for divorce. Did move the kids out of the house. It was Walter who cleverly forced his way back into his own place, surviving her cop call to throw him out. Only much later did she come back around. Just as she did in her book about communism, Coulter promotes or suppresses whatever she needs to advance her thesis, reality be damned. In her book on communism, Coulter completely exculpated jews of their 100% responsibility for the creation of the doctrine and its spread through much of the world. This is typical of christians, this sort of basic, essential, characteristic, fundamental dishonesty. It is observable in most, I assert, most christian intellectuals. Yet they are always the first ones with morality on their lips. I’m dead serious, as one who has spent his professional life criticizing and analyzing the jews trying to genocide our white race: how do you write a book about communism and not point out the jews are the driving power (Churchill) behind it? Does that not bespeak a certain fundamental character defect – a basic, underlying, deep and thoroughgoing dishonesty? Forgive me for not taking seriously this woman’s appeals to morality.

[thanks to a storm for knocking out my internet and breaking my chain of thought. fuck you, nature!]

Sounds like something a cult leader would say, you ask me. Separate a child from her parents, then brainwash her.

Pride is a sin? Pride is what allowed the White man to rise. Pride is the father of standards. Baseless pride can be destructive, but legitimate pride is a good and necessary thing. Pride as a sin – yeah, if I was an incompetent loser, I meant find that doctrine highly tempting.

Pride is what led Walter White to perfect meth cooking so that his purity was higher than anyone had seen. That’s a bad thing? The hell it is. That’s a good thing. Pride was what prevented White from doing the same mediocre job the average cook would be content with. Pride is good, far more than it’s bad.

Notice, again, my theme, how any human quality that gets close to manliness – pride, strength, toughness, cunning, endurance – becomes a sin to the christian. Uh oh. The guy’s not acting like a gerbil, a sheep, or a prey animal any longer. Danger! Danger! He’s acting like he’s a man – and he’s happy about it, rather than ashamed! Then out in a jumbling pour come the epithets: sin! evil! immoral! bad! prideful!

Christianity is basically just a bunch of losers celebrating their weakness, and using their association to denounce and, if they can, bring down the strong. I’m not the first to say that, I’m simply confirming it from my own experience.

Oh, I thought you just finished saying above there was no such thing as irredeemable evil – you know, since your Jebus character died to absolve ALL our sins. I mean, right? Do words have meaning, Ann? Or are they just there to look pretty?

Even using ‘evil’ in the conventional sense, what’s so evil about what White did? He killed people? Were any of them innocent? Hell, no. They were dishonest businessmen attempting to smash his operations, or screw him in some other way. At least one of them was simply crazy. White played by the rules of the illegal-business game, and proved better than men in it long before he ever thought about getting involved. ‘Evil’ is mostly just a term used by inferior people, cowards and incomps, to explain the curious success, or attractiveness (Wilde), of others. Who did White kill who didn’t deserve it? He stood by as Jesse’s girlfriend choked to death on her own overdose vomit. Is that immoral? The christian says you’re your brother’s keeper, but there’s no reason to accept that. That’s mere opinion. Jane brought her death on herself by choosing to use a drug which frequently produces the particular circumstances that killed her. That’s her fault. To a secondary and lesser extent, it’s Jesse’s fault for reintroducing her to drugs after she was on the path to sobriety. White needed his partner’s full attention, so he simply let nature take its course. You can call that immoral, but the universe knows no such thing. You’re just a human flinging adjectives. There’s absolutely zero indication that morality exists in any independent sense. How about the crazy meth gangster Tuco? Is White crazy for killing him? Hell, White’s crazy NOT to kill him. Even though he actually didn’t.

Really? The guy works for the DEA. Taking bread by taxes out of honest men’s mouths so he can have a comfortable, easy job that 99/100ths involves nothing more than, as the series shows, spying on innocent people playing cards in their RV. While this bloat-gutted tool makes a huge salary, enjoys huge, unearned benefits, real people have to work real jobs to get by. Apple Annie’s just another little dog trying to lick the mouth of the big dog, which is anyone who works for the federal government. Anything authoritarian has her full respect, she rolls right over on her back. Our Heroes – no, they aren’t. Real men don’t join the army. Real men don’t join the cops. Real men sure as hell don’t join the DEA. As I’ve said before, all cops are K-9 units. And the two-footed ones are no more worthy of respect than the four-footed.

And yet again, this real man, this DEA hero, this guy who’s portrayed as female-sharp at reading faces, thoughts, emotions and body cues, this guy can’t figure out for years that his own brother-in-law is dealing meth. This is an actual problem with the series. The guy can’t be super sharp everywhere else, and then dumb as fuck when it comes to his own family. Really…it never occurs to you to ask your brother-in-law chemistry expert some leading questions, to find out what he knows about meth production, just to see how he responds. Ask him about the chemistry involved, perfectly innocent. I find this curious cluelessness the least plausible part and biggest defect of the show. It’s not a huge flaw, but it’s not a small flaw either. A guy as sharp as Hank is portrayed would have put the picture together sooner.

Walter White does all that – and sets his son up with $10m. Game, Walt.

Really? Walter burdens others with his problems? He does everything he possibly can to separate his money raising from his wife and child. All he needs is some alone time, but she can’t be content with that. I mean, I felt, watching it, he was incredibly, tiresomely over-placating of her. I honestly wonder about this. This seems to be the default. The man is just guilty. No matter what it is, he’s responsible. Her feelings, attitudes, actions – he’s responsible. All she is responsible for is deciding whether she’s happy or not. The rest is up to the man. This truly is how their relationship is portrayed over the first couple seasons. Indeed, this is par for the course in all tv presentations of marriages these days. There’s no room left for the man to be a man because everything is about the woman. She and her insipid, meaningless, ever-changing feelings become the basis of all social life, and soak up all the air and psychic energy in the room. Who needs that? It’s refreshing to see in BB men dealing with men, in the arid, light-aired expanse of the American West, and if I haven’t said it thirty-two times, let me say it a thirty-third: the West IS America. The northeast aint America. The South aint America. The midwest aint America. The West…is America. No amount of socialist legislation can change the American ambiance that only the West possesses. One of the great things about this show is just seeing the geography, the landscapes, the flatness, the aridity, the mountains in the distance. Such a psychologically healthy environment. Spare, cool, refreshing, beautiful in a subtle way…free…spacious…masculine. In the east, south and midwest, the cunts are all smashed together and have to be nice. In the West, there’s room for balls and elbows and integrity.

Hank is what’s considered a good man, generally. I don’t disagree with that. But Walt is too – and through the entire series. His badness is reserved for his enemies. Toward his family he is always helpful and fair. He is about a man’s business, and his problems in the family direction mostly come from their interfering, even if only by prodding, into what he is doing. It’s not like his wife is any great shakes. She cheats on him, kicks him out for no real reason, is overly intrusive in her questioning. Yet he’s the bad guy. I don’t see it. If you don’t think that cooking meth is some great crime in and of itself, regardless of what the laws say, and I don’t, then it’s hard to see Walt as doing anything particularly evil or immoral. It was the others who were fucking things up for him and Jesse. He did his job. He cooked high-quality meth. He made the best arrangements he could for its profitable distribution. And he dealt like a man with such serious problems as arose. He also shielded his family, successfully, from this rough business. In the end, he died on his own terms, having accomplished his mission. What’s not to respect? Very little.

No, no, we’re to be little blue groupies like Ann. The DEA guy is the good guy. Why, Ann? You ever hear of a little thing called freedom? I know the very concept is super scary to you conservatives, but, believe it or not, it used to be considered the defining feature of Americanism. The very idea of a DEA is unAmerican, let alone slobbing its knob like you do. We’re obviously not going to get any freedom with the supersized government we have now. Maybe the good guys are the ones who just take it. Rather than the “good guys” who just take their salaries from us at gunpoint so they can play their little games of cops and robbers. But this conclusion requires thinking and going against the mob, and these are not among Manny’s qualities. She’s just another authoritarian.

Have to laugh at “realistic” and what we know she means by it, but notice the way her all-too-conservative, all-too-christian cowardice prevents her from mentioning that it is jews responsible for this code since, as she knows, they dominate Hollywood. Ann is a coward. Just like her male conservative peers. For all I know, cowardice is considered a virtue by christians, since, after all, it takes pride to stand up for yourself, and for the truth. One would never expect the average christian to take a principled stand on anything.

Ann Coulter is a real AmeriKwan – she has the soul of an anonymous phone snitch.

Descent into darkness, a cheap and stupid cliche. He got into an illegal business, and had to deal with the problems that cropped in the only way such operations can – through violence, blackmail, intimidation, etc. He didn’t descend into darkness, he ascended into masculinity. Unless, of course, the two things are the same – which one suspects Coulter and the rest of the christian sheep really do believe in their heart.

Yeah, the noble mexican wronged by the evil white man. We haven’t seen that 1000x before. Except…the janitor was a druggie. So, you know, be consistent, if you’re denouncing illegal drug use, Annie. But she’s just using whatever stick comes to hand to beat her theme. It’s not Walter’s job to prosecute crime; if the cops suck at it, that’s their fault, if they’re busting innocent people.

Wait a minute. He was a pothead. How can using illegal drugs not destroy your status as a “good man,” Ms conservative? Be consistent. It could be framed this way: Walt’s criminal theft inadvertently helped the school, and society, by removing a pothead from a position from which he might be able to influence young minds.

Again: where’s the immorality? It’s your belief, not some graven principle, that we are our brother’s keeper. I thought you conservatives were about personal responsibility. White didn’t turn Jane on her back, force her to OD, cause her to puke. He just watched nature play itself out. He didn’t act the way you think he should have acted, but who died and made your opinion about how people ought to act into some kind of holy law? What’s evil, I can just as easily argue, by your own express principles, is your not holding Jane and Jane alone responsible for taking the drugs that led to the overdose that led to the vomiting and the inability to clear airwaves resulting in death. Jane alone. But your interest in personal responsibility comes and goes as your argument needs, one observes.

Where’s the evidence he ever wanted to escape his choices? Or was unhappy with how they worked out – apart from Hank’s death, which he tried as hard as he could to prevent? It’s incumbent on you to prove this. You’re the one claiming it’s a christian parable. If so, show me the repentant Walter White lamenting his choices at the end, wishing he had done differently. I saw a guy who achieved his stated mission and died with a smile on his face. Did you actually watch these episodes, Apple Annie, or you just breaking wind?

Good example of what a liberal Coulter actually is. He “kidnaps” his own daughter? Really? Does the daughter only belong to the mother? And what’s this “we went along with”? Who’s this we, Annie? You and the silverfish that lives in your twat? I didn’t go along with anything, I watched a fictional story about a man entering an illegal business. And I was highly entertained, watching him work his way through the obstacles. How I feel about the morality of what he did isn’t particularly interesting to me, since it’s mere accident of law that meth is illegal. I think it, and all other drugs, should be completely legal.

Also notice this subtle point: christians always play it like eating with your mouth open inevitably leads to mass murder. Everything is a gateway to some eekable horror. It’s just childishness. Coulter isn’t dumb, but hers is the same reasoning that the mouthbreather christians use when they forbid their tots from playing Dungeons & Dragons because it will turn them to witchcraft.

White never rationalized a damn thing. He simply couldn’t bring himself to admit how much he enjoyed what he was doing, for all its terrors, until the very end. The meth business used him to full capacity, and he liked that. As any creature would, like a mother pig sucked on by fifteen piglets, all teats occupied. The only evidence about how he felt is that he took evident and justified professional pride in the quality of his product. And he was doing it for his family. He piled up 80m dollars, even if he lost all but 10m by the end. It’s an up and down business. He came out 10m ahead, dealing with some rough customers. And he passed it all on to his family. On his own terms, and by objective measures, he succeeded. Not only succeeded in some specific mission, but he triumphed in a spiritual sense – he overcame great difficulties by exhibiting courage, cunning and brains. That’s heroic. The moral sense is mostly just a pretty name for christian cowardice, and no amount its girlish yippings can diminish what White accomplished. He won. That’s why he had a smile on his face. That’s also an indication of Gilligan’s real attitude, no matter what he says in public. Maybe karma isn’t real. Let alone heaven and hell. Maybe that’s the secret hidden meaning of ‘Breaking Bad.’ By his actions, by his success, Walter White, the altered white, changed himself from a white mouse into a white man – breaking the bad, which was the erstwhile weak Walter. His real altering was from weak to strong – from bad to good. Not good to bad. Unless, like christian cowards, to be redundant, you consider it better to be weak than strong. Better to be a white sheep or white mouse than a White Man. I’m not a christian; I don’t.

He can say what he likes. The final fact is that his family is secure for lifetimes. That is no small thing. He provided more for them that they would ever need. He achieved his mission. His confessing to enjoying it doesn’t change any of that. It just gives christian milksops an easy way to browbeat. Why shouldn’t he take pride in the excellence of his product? Why shouldn’t he take pride in his ability to overcome fear, and in outwitting his powerful enemies? Any man would take pride in those.

Pride is a sin? Oh yeah? Says who?

Pride goeth before a fall, says the christian, but verily I say unto you, with greater accuracy, pride goeth before a rise.

Christianity is despicable for many reasons, but not least because simply saying the right things and passivity qualify you as good. It’s a contemptible outward-show religion for people without talent, courage, beauty or anything the world conventionally prizes. Christianity is basically the ugly girl whose advocates pump her “great personailty.” Naw, even there you suck too, jesus ninnies.

As if a meth dealer could cause 1/1000th the community damage any given christian preacher does! The meth dealer plucks human weeds for profit, leaving a better, healthier human garden; the christian, by direct contrast, farms these defectives, these weeds, for profit. If anyone deserves the title “good” it’s the former. The meth dealer is effectively a eugenicist, the christian a dysgenicist.

Yeah, because pretending your ethics aren’t personal but come from on high makes it so. Mere assertion, Ann, mere assertion. Doesn’t make it so, no matter how many sad clowns you can pack in a pew. You ever hear the statement “the public is always wrong”? Apply that to your cult, and you won’t find it wanting.

Not to mention, Apple Annie – show me the christian who exhibits 1% of the personal loyalty Walter White exhibits towards everyone in his extended family and his business partner. Christians don’t act like that. They run their mouths. When the heat comes down, they just run. You mock the pope because you’re not catholic, but how are the lesser christians any better? Can you think at all, Annie? Walter White believed his own bullshit and acted on it. By your own admission, the pope can’t even do that! That ought to be a hint to you that there’s no there there in christianity. But you keep right on pretending your personal ethics reflect something absolute, while the next guy’s are velleities blowing in the wind. Whatever makes you feel good, right? Keep pulling your punches when you write about communism or the Hays Code. I guess that’s prudence, and a virtue, rather than cowardly self-interest, a sin. It sure doesn’t break the commandment against lying does it – I mean of course it does, but you lie passively rather than actively, so I’m sure it’s ok and your eternal soul is safe, you quackstress of an analyst. Keep forgetting to mention the jews behind communism and liberalism and everything else you spend your time denouncing. Keep telling yourself you’re on the side of truth and justice and integrity and courage, and all the other good things. It’s what your low kind does.

Unlike the right way, which leads to…well, it leads to death too, but uh, just ignore that fact, and concentrate on this incredible (imaginary) afterlife you get when you die! I know there’s no real “evidence” of such, but hey, you can’t prove it’s not true! And isn’t that really good enough? For a christian, yes. For a man, no.

Great show, great credit to creator Gilligan, and great credit to to the actors who were, with only one exception, exceptional. Watch it and after you watch, think deeply about what it means to be a man, and a white man. It’s very far from self-evident. Bring your assumptions to the surface, which this show will help you do, and see if you can figure out a solid answer.

By Alex Linder

“Stop pitching, Steve. It’s over.” And with that, lying jew Stephen Glass (right) is expelled from the offices of The New Republic, in whose pages he planted 27 bogus stories. That’s 27 out of 41, and this with a battery of senior editors, copy editors, and lawyers going over his every word multiple times!

Jew Glass’s behavior and expulsion is a perfect microcosm of the experience
of jews among Aryans. The jews lie, cheat and steal, cry, whine, plead when they get caught, and finally wind up getting booted out on their ass. “Shattered Glass” isn’t an action feature like “They Live,” or a sci-fi thriller like “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” but it pursues the same object: the dramatic extraction of what is from what seems. This is a perfect trainer movie for WN investigators because in the chutzpathetic behavior and unmanly deportment of jew Glass we have a window into his entire rotten, duplicitous, wheedling, whining, conspiring, expostulating race.
Through a glass clearly we are shown, not told, everything we need to know
about jews.

Jews are essentially nodes on a global criminal network, call it
Interstein. Each comes equipped with a bag of excuses, and a black book of Crimbergs and Bailsteins to reroute ’round danger should the jig be uppin’, and links disabled. Deceit and manipulation are second nature to the jews. The Aryan misses this at the cost of his society, then his existence. There are very few sectors of our society not shot through with jews spinning lies for profit.

From the race-realist point of view, what is a detail in the movie is
actually one of its most telling points, namely that when the fact-checking heat came down, and jew Glass was forced to document his sources, he was able to rely upon his brother at Stanford (!) to sustain his mirage. At the drop of a dime, jew/Stanford was willing to help jew/D.C. by calling up editor Lane and pretending to be George Simms, president of Jukt Micronics, a company Glass invented as part of a kewl story about a teen hacker hired at a seven-figure salary to secure a company whose computers he’d invaded. Spinning illusions out of dust; making a living from the air – these are jewish specialities. These black arts are much admired among Semites. Without truth or honor going for them, the jews are left with a sort of crooked loyalty. However, that
crooked loyalty may be enough, given jewish predominance in our society.
It is the odd Glass that gets broken. The vast majority remain intact and in place, and the media they produce a funhouse in which everything is distorted out of all shape, but always to their benefit.

Lane-the-Aryan vs. Glass-the-Jew; or, When Objectivity Meets
Subjectivity

If you don’t recall the Glass caper from a few years ago, read these two
links to refresh your memory.

The New Republic belongs to Martin Peretz, a jew. It’s a standard
jew organ, liberal, anti-racist, except when it comes to Israel, where it’s
hyperracist. The day-to-day editorial business during the late nineties was run by goy Michael Kelly, who was fired and gave way to goy Charles Lane. Kelly was popular with the staff of twentysomething writers, and jew Glass used Lane’s stiffish relationship with the Kelly-loyal staff to smear Lane’s motives when he began the Aryan detective work to reveal the jewish crime.

Charles Lane (left) is the quintessential honest Aryan, slow to anger, slow to doubt. Glass is the jew. Quick to draw sympathy, entertain, draw women, hyperemotional. Lying, lying, lying, blaming sources as lie after lie disintegrates upon inspection, not above a final ploy of hinting that he’s suicidal when Lane finally fires him. Never, really, taking responsibility for anything. Hell, trying to profit from his lies to the very end. In real life Stephen Glass finished law school at Georgetown and returned to New York, where he wrote a novel, The Fabulist, about himself. This be chutzpah, and the jew must make the most of it. “Sell every lie three times,” as the jewish writers say. Did you damage the reputation of a century-old institution with your fabrications? Well, don’t stop, Hyman, until you’ve wrung every last drop of profit from your imposture.

As I say, Lane, at least in the movie, is the quintessential Aryan. Scrupulous, honest, slow, careful. Such a contrast to the eely, oily, teary jew, he’s. The beautiful part of this movie is that this lying jew doesn’t get away with it. He gets nailed. The Lane mill grinds slow but it grinds fein, so to speak. The righteous Aryan leader finally puts his foot down and crushes the jewsnake. The women cry and moan, but in the end, they come around. They see that in his coldness and his carefulness and his judgment – Lane was right. Justice not mercy rules the day – very unusual these days. You will see the obvious
parallel to our political situation today, where jew-conditioned white women
import/sleep with niggers/other women, and everything goes to hell. The jew draws the women to revolt, tells them they’re equals of men, with just as much capacity for violence, reasoned thought, and leadership. They aren’t. But many of them, hearing uniform message of the school-government-media machine, exposed to nothing else, buy it. We all see and must live with the results.

It never occurs to Lane that someone would make up stories out of whole
cloth. But when he’s contacted by Adam Penenberg of Forbes Digital, it slowly dawns on him that something is deeply wrong about the Glass story mentioned above. The company, Jukt Micronics, can’t be located. Neither can the teen hacker. Neither can the kid’s agent, nor the convention at which he was hailed as a superstar, be documented. But the jew doesn’t give up or give the truth up easily. He’s got lies to cover lies. As each layer is peeled, a new one presents itself. He’s got excuses, explanations, and extenuations for everything. And the whining and expostulation and attempted guilt-tripping are unbelievable. A jew is an animal that seems to have all the defenses of the animal kingdom at its disposal: the tears of
woman, the bloating of the pufferfish, the squirting of the squid, the
quills of the porcupine.

“Are you mad at me?” Glass says throughout the picture, trying to deflect
Lane’s request for notes and contact information. He’s continually trying to turn an objective question of evidence into a subjective question of motivation, exactly the way the ADL tries to turn debate over crime from a focus on objective data to subjective feelings about motives. And for the same reason: to hide the guilty party; in his case himself; in the ADL’s case, organized jewry, which is responsible for the “civil rights” that loosed black criminals on a formerly safely segregated nation.

The cold, logical, masculine application of feminine wiles, deceit, and manipulation seems to be the working M.O. of the jewish race, from Glass right on up. Glass instinctively exhibits behavior scientifically turned into strategy by ADL. The Aryan finds the jew hard to understand because Aryans follow a different pattern. When we lie, the vast majority of us, we know we’re doing a shitty thing; that we’re destroying trust, and tearing away the basis of communal life. When the pressure gets great enough, or our remorse overwhelms our conscience, we admit to it. JEWS AREN’T LIKE THAT. There ought to be a name given the fallacy of assuming that people that look more or like us think like we do. Jews don’t. They are a different species. They do not feel ashamed of lying, they PRIDE THEMSELVES ON THEIR ABILITY TO LIE. Remember what Monica Lewinsky said, when her lies about her mess with Clinton were revealed. Lying was “what you did. It was how you got through life.” Think about the implications of that for a second. The jews don’t see lying as a desperate last resort. They see it as an essential tool in making their way through our world. The jews sort of look like us, and they move among us, but they are something very, very different.

How did he get away with it?

Jew Glass really wormed his way in with the staff, particularly the women.
As he says at the start, in the world of cutthroat self-importance that is Washington journalism, the littlest bit of humility and respect for others stands out. Glass was the youngest staffer, and the most entertaining. Where others wrote drab policy pieces, he uncovered scintillating tales of excess or corruption. He charmed the other staff members personally – by paying attention to them. This works with everybody, but with women in particular. There’s a parallel here in that just as Aryans have difficulty recognizing jews aren’t Aryans, women have difficulty recognizing men aren’t women. People assume others think like they do, but they don’t, whether for race or sex or some other reason. In any case, getting others to like him was a definite skill Glass possessed, and it was an important minor reason he got away with his charade for so long.

The main reason Glass succeeded was that he fed the editors pieces that
appeared to document their biases. He proved what they “knew” without having actual factual evidence of, so they let their guard down. When he presented them with “Spring Breakdown,” a piece purporting to document orgies among young conservatives at a Republican convention, they never thought to question it, because all good liberals know that Republicans are evil white men who quaff and whore behind a facade of hypocritical moralizing. All Glass did was pretend to document in the real world the stereotypes ubiquitous on tv. He knew who he was writing for, and he knew what they wanted to hear, and he knew that if they heard it, they would never think twice. With a novelist’s verisimilitude of plausible names and
quotations, Glass set the hook and reeled the suckers in. It really was
chutzpah at its finest. It takes balls to simply make up a story, fill it with fictional people, companies, and events. And keep mum through phalanxes of legal/editorial reviewers, through publication, through attempts by honest reporters to unveil the truth. Only bit by bit did jew Glass cede the increasingly obvious. Oy, a different construction might have been put. Oy, a copy editor changed a line. Oy, a source may have been mistaken. Oy, the phone number is not for the source himself, but for the source of the source. Oy, why are you mad at me? Oy, isn’t the duty of the editor to defend his reporters? Oy, you fired me? Oy, oy, oy, what going to do am I? Oy, alone I can’t be. Oy, drive me to the airport, or oy’ll not be responsible for my actions.

There truly is nothing like a jew. Watching Lane’s reaction as he finally realizes, Jesus Christ, this isn’t one story, this little shmuck has probably been feeding us bullshit from day one, and may well have wrecked the magazine, and seeing him go in and just tell the rich ‘n’ jewy Glass to back away from the computer, and don’t touch anything, just get out of the building — no one watching this from a WN perspective can fail to see the parallel. Jew Glass is the jewish race, and the mess he made of The New Republic and its reputation is precisely the mess the jewish race is making of America and hers. AND THE SAME EXPULSION IS INDICATED. Only this time, to avoid recurrences, letz make it vertical. You know, jew Glass’s chutzpah was so brazen, and so obviously impossible to pull off over the long term, it truly does suggest an almost genetic compulsion to overreach, as others have indeed said of the jews. And that is good news for WN, because it simply means that we honest men are in the position of Charles Lane, and simply need to keep chugging along, alerting more and more honest Aryans to the truth about Big Hymie.

A third reason Glass succeeded was because his lies were Big rather than small. He didn’t gussy up a story about Microsoft with some quotes from anonymous sources, he made up companies and peoples and events out of thin air. Apparently this didn’t raise a single flag anywhere in the review process. A voiceover spells out that process in detail, and it is impressive. Basically, an issue of The New Republic is fact-checked and copy-edited and lawyer-reviewed multiple times. But not a single person ever doubted that Jukt Micronics existed.

Men drive off mental maps of the way the world works. They see the world in
stereotypes. A few of the intelligent ones are able to accept fresh input
conflicting with their world view, but not many. If you feed men data that reinforce their assumptions, they listen. If you point out where they’re wrong, they turn off.

I’ve done a minor bit of Glassing myself, although not precisely in the
same way, and not to any criminal end, merely to make some political points I thought could not be made any other way in the organ in question. I described this in the postscript to my article on media control.

I quote:

P.S. A funny little coda on TAS. I many times bitterly contrasted myself
with Tyrrell. His aim was to get published in The Washington Post, mine was to get published in the The American Spectator. I finally achieved my aim, in a backhanded way, back in August 1997. Traveling through Texas, I stopped at a newsstand and came across my letter to the editor. Not the longer, fiery one I’d sent under my name, but this one:

A couple thoughts regarding “Is Liberalism Kosher?” by Joseph Shattan.
First, if anti-Semitism is the “socialism of fools,” then, per Abrams, we can say that socialism is the Judaism of fools. And if Jews define their religion by their politics — what Shattan calls “secular liberalism,” but what the rest of the world knows as socialism — then conservatism is by definition “anti-Semitic.” Don’t think so? Ask yourself: Is the term applied carefully and rigorously to a select group of deserving people — or is it simply a catch-all smear for anyone on the right? As a conservative, I have been called a “self-hating” Jew and, believe it or not, an “anti-Semite” often enough to
realize that the association of “right-wing” and “anti-Semitic” is more or
less instinctive among my (mostly secular) co-religionists. It has always amused me, sourly, that you can find a ream of articles anytime the “Christian right-wing extremists” attempt to “take over” a school district in Podunk, Virginia, but nary a word on the religiously leftist Jewish cabal surrounding the president of the United States. No, say the ACLU Jews, we must be ever-vigilant lest religion be mixed with politics in the form of a
créche on a public lawn or the commandments in a courtroom. But if half of
the most important advisers surrounding the president pray daily to the god of
Social Justice (what most people would call Theft), we ignore it lest we be blackened as “anti-Semites.” My personal opinion is that by making an identity of our religion and the politics that has done so much to destroy this great country, we Jews are setting ourselves up in a very dangerous way.

Jeff Sokol
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Why did my ruse work? Why did TAS print my letter? Because it fit
the editors’ biases, preconceptions, and hopes. They want to believe: 1) jews are getting more conservative, especially the younger ones (Gettysburg is a college town in rural Pennsylvania; not likely jew would be from there unless a college student); 2) their magazine is popular with the hip young crowd (especially jews; Jeff is not a name an older jew is likely to possess); 3) it is only safe to point out the damage jews do under cover of jewish name, thereby indemnifying the publisher against charges of anti-Semitism. And so, the nonexistent personage “Jeff Sokol” furthering a number of editorial desires, the letter gets printed.

Most of what you read, White man, is vetted in just such a way. Very, very
few men can stand facts that tell against their biases. Very, very few men can
stand personal criticism. Therefore, while many speak in favor of free speech, few practice it. Like morality itself, free speech is an aesthetic ideal, upheld by a minority of Aryans and by virtually no other group. In the Propasphere, everyman comes to think and reason and act like the jew, over time, because of the universal and inescapable conditioning by the media. Everything and everyone becomes an instrument of calculation or utility; valued only for its or his ability to make our dream-world into reality, of no interest in itself. The jews have all the answers. Nothing rebutting their lies is acknowledged as valid, let alone considered as potentially true.

Keeping perspective…

But let’s keep some perspective. Plowing too deep to see over the furrow
was what got the TNR editors in trouble in the first place. Too wrapped up in meaningless politics, too cut off from the world of computers and commerce, they were snookered by a wayward jewlet. Let us be wiser than they were. Let us see the Glass imbroglio for what it’s worth.

Glass’s main mistake was mixing genres. He should have been writing novels
or tv scripts. It is perfectly fine to make up lies about young conservatives and White males in those quarters. TNR promotes exactly the same fictions Hollywood does, but follows different conventions with regard to facts. The dollar stuff is wrong, but the nickel and dime stuff better be right. Mistakes in the small stuff might lead readers to suspect mistakes in the big stuff, and that cannot be allowed.

Perhaps publications need logic editors more than fact-checkers. It’s one
thing to misspell, say, Abigail Thernstrom, in a review of her and hubby’s work about the racial intelligence gap. It’s a nice thing to get right; it should be gotten right; but nothing important changes if it be got wrong. But where’s the logic editor to point out that neither reviewed book nor reviewer adduced the genetic IQ differential between blacks and whites as a cause of the test-scores gap? Or pointed out that this is something that all the money and cultural-change and special programs in the world can do nothing about? There’s no such thing as a logic editor I’ve ever heard of. The duty seems to fall somewhere under general editing. So the ship may be headed to Bermuda by way of Nome, Alaska, but the table linen will be neatly arranged.

It is certainly not to absolve jew Glass that I observe that in our New Jew
Dark Age of cultural decline, nigger worship, and widespread disinformation, Glass’s fictions are among the least damaging The New Republic committed to print. Our entire media create and sustain myths that wreck nations, and woe to the Aryan David who lifts stone to shatter that glass Goliath. But go rent this movie anyway; you’ll enjoy seeing a jew get his comeuppance, even if the Aryans who deliver it remain in the grip of deeper and truly destructive jewish myths.

By Alex Linder

A review of Mel Gibson’s “Passion”…

Summary Judgment: Decent, not great. Reasonably artistic depiction of the brutality attending crucifixion, marred by sops to Semites who hate the film anyway, and failure to evoke motive justifying the excessive torture that seems to be the real interest of the filmmakers. No nonChristian will walk away from this understanding the passion behind the whipping, scourging, mocking and crucifying of Jesus.

More fleshing, less flaying, Mr. Gibson.

Viewing Context: I saw the first showing in Kirksville, Missouri, 3:45 p.m., 2/25/04. Already at 2:20 a line of a few dozen had formed. There was a local tv news van in the parking lot outside the theater. I came back at 3:40, and there was a decent line of people buying tickets. Two college students ahead of me purchased 32 tickets. A colored woman with a camera was taping the line for KTVO. But I was in the wrong line, the advance tickets line for the two shows after the 3:45. The guy directed me to the right place and I got in to the premiere with no wait. There were about 150-200 in the audience, plenty of empty seats. When I came out, there were a good number of people lined up waiting to go in for the next showing. I suspect the later showings will have more than the afternoon. By midnight, 500-600 people in a midwestern town of 17,000 will have seen this movie.

Comments on Audience: The audience for “Passion” was families and older people and some college students. Far more elderly than you would normally see in a theater. There were many kids under ten, for whom in my opinion this picture is too brutal. The minute the credits rolled, 80% of the audience got up and filed out. No tears. Just another consumer gulp. It strikes me, but apparently not others, as disrespectful to bolt after art. It would be one thing if this were a teen comedy, but “Passion” requires at least the pretense of reflection, of letting it sink in. At least the audience was quiet.

Sops to Semites:

1) refusal to explain the reason the jews are so hot on getting rid of Jesus,

2) conspicuously compassionate hook-nosed girl gives Jesus a towel to mop his face as he’s carrying cross to Calvary. Perhaps she figured she could sell the bloodstained rag on Ebay for a pretty penny, call me cynical.

3) the conscription of a jew who looks suspiciously Tan-Everymanish, with his white intelligence, flat flared nose, coffee-colored skin, and Jewish religion, to help exhausted Jesus carry the cross up the hill.

Most important:

4) removal of “his blood be on us and upon our children” – a crucial syncopation. Instead, we get Pilate refusing responsibility for this man’s blood. The natural next step is to flip the camera to Caiphas and the priests in the courtyard saying what jews themselves say they said: His blood be on us and upon our children. The camera does flip for the jews’ reaction, which is thumbs up, but not mockingly conclusive, as in the Good Book. This evasion seals the film for the comparatively philosemitic theme: “blame Man not men.”

This bears going into.

Mel’s removal of the crucial words is not merely a sop to jews, it is a betrayal of Christ after Peter, whose betrayal the movie does depict. Gibson, like Peter, is afraid of getting murdered by jews if he speaks truth to jewish power! Not only is this a spiritual failure on Gibson’s part, it makes you wonder how far any Christian stands with Jesus. Is this atheist cynical to observe that Jesus is the only jew Christians don’t fear? Mark that line down, itz a keeper, channeled straight from Mencken.

General Observations on Treatment and Characterization

Evil in the movie comes in two forms: sinister Semites and brutal Romans. The Pharisee priests who want Jesus killed are nasty enough, but not particularly jewish. The Romans soldiers are relentlessly, almost cartoonishly brutal. Theirs is a straightforward Aryan sadism. They delight in mocking and scourging and whipping the king, but all more or less in good, dirty, innocent, sadistic fun. And Jesus Christ, do these Romans put the mess in Messiah. By the time they’ve wiped the floor with Jesus, believe me, that floor needs wiping. And wiped it gets, literally, by Jesus’s mom and girlfriend. With fresh towels supplied by Pontius Pilate’s wife, Claudia. Hmm, don’t remember that from the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John…and Hilton? Really, Claudia and Pilate are the only ones who come off half-way decent in the picture. Pilate is, mutatis mutandis, Roman middle-management — squeezed between Caesar and Pharisee. He goes to bat for Christ to an extent, but when it’s clear the Semitic rabble wants blood, he relents. And hell, it’s not like Jesus really sticks up for himself. He’s on a mission from God, after all. He takes it like a woman and a Messiah. And boy does he take a licking. They chain him to a block and beat the bejesus out of him. It looked like the utility room floor after I’m done cleaning bass.

Nasty instruments effectively applied. But that’s just the start. Pilate puts it up to the Semites again, after the scourging — is that enough? can they can call off the dogs? Nope. Not good enough. Like the jews they are, too much is not enough. “Crucify him!” they insist. Pilate, left to his own devices, wouldn’t have done it. That much is clear. But no matter which way he goes, some angry bunch is going to riot, and so he throws the rabbid rabble its meat.

Cavaziel makes a good, conventional Jesus. He’s got that androgenous thing going, like Elvis and many successful male artists. He’s got the command of a male, yet the sexy form of a female. He’s straight-nosed as they come. It is impossible to conceive a Semitic-nosed Jesus, isn’t it? And yet, given his race and religion and region, Jesus was surely a six-nosed Semite. But our mind simply refuses to conceive a perfect man with a Semitic nose! The Semitic is the sinuous is the sinister; the sly and the serpentine. One instinctively knows that the jew is the master of the lie, and so Jesus is never portrayed as a jew.

Pilate is effective enough, a politician beset by competing pressures. The Pharisees, however, are not jewy enough. Not hateful and dishonest and shifty-eyed enough, just ordinary corrupt dark-eyed powermongers. I want a dozen shifty-eyed obese camel-nosed foxy weaselwitzim for my Pharisees.

Women in the movie are sympathetic characters, apart from a few in the mob, never individuated. Every individuated woman was shown to be noble or at least not vicious. A dark pharisee seemed to be having second thoughts about the persecution – the standard-issue noble negro we see in every film. And I’ve mentioned the darkish “jew” forced to carry the cross when Jesus can’t make it alone. In other words, as far as he can, given the racially specific nature of the story, Mel makes a Semitically Correct movie. It is reasonably realistic in its gory parts, but ethnically cleaned up if not cleansed in the rest. At the risk of judging Gibson for not making the movie I feel he should have made rather than the movie he was trying to make, the real story here is why the jews wanted Jesus killed. The murder of Jesus as an ethnic study is most interesting. Far more than his being sent to die by God and resurrected, which claim may be discarded as “savior” spin.

Successes

The best screens are:

1) flashback to whore Mary Magdalene prostrate, stretching a trembling hand toward Jesus’ foot, seeking redemption. Life hurts, goddam it hurts bad. I could feel her suffering far more than Jesus’. Jesus represents a way out for those desperate and suffering. Is He an effective way? Yes, for some. Is he the Only way, as He asserted? No. He’s the way for botches of a bent, but not for everybody. Men are men, not Man. Man must make and save himself. He can’t do it? Well, neither could Jesus. Perhaps man must accept his nature, and rather than seek to transcend it, seek to build societies that force it into aesthetic molds. Or just go around killing people, like Chuck Manson. Hard to say, itz. Contrary to Jesus and his followers, I believe there is no right answer, there are just people and preferences. Certainly the story of Jesus holds the mirror to Man, with its real betrayal and desperate false hope of Salvation. Yeah verily, I say unto you, no one gets out of death alive. Be a little nicer to…someone who deserves it. Thatz the best you can do or will receive. Sorry. VNN is a water bar.

2) Mary holding her son’s corpse in her lap after his removal from the Cross, looking up into the camera, implicating the viewer in the murder of her son. This works. And this was the natural ending to the movie, but, after seveal dark moments, Gibson made the mistake of tacking on a brief scene of restored-and-Risen. He appended no jewprop as Suckpoop Joe’s liar suggested.

3) The embodiment of the Devil in the form similar to Annie Lennox in “Here Comes the Rain” video. Like Jesus, the Devil is both male and female – masterful, yet sinuous. This Devil is inserted in several scenes, and effective in reifying an aspect of human personality which undeniably exists, whether we name it Good, Bad or Fact.

Failures

1) Too much brutality. Gibson lingers far too long on the point that man enjoys torturing man. Too many slow-motion whippings and scourgings by the Roman soldiers. We get the point. The flesh-rending realism is necessary, but overdone. More interesting and to the point would be evocations of exactly what so irritates fellow jews in the teachings of this christ. That’s the interesting part. I can see how someone preaching love your enemies could be obnoxious in a wussy gadfly way, but to cut him up with whips and tack him to wood? That seems excessive.

2) As said, not enough backstory. Why do THE JEWS want this guy dead so bad? Gibson puts in some flashbacks, and in many ways these are the best parts of the movie, but he doesn’t define Jesus the preacher against his kiken context nearly strongly enough.

Jesus, the jewish radical…

Jesus is yet another Jewish revolutionary. His radical doctrine is repay hatred with love, evil with kindness. Is moral advance possible? If so, is Jesus’ doctrine moral progress? I don’t believe so. I side with the “take arms and in opposing end them,” whereas Jesus is with the “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” I side with the Greek view that you should help your friends and hurt your enemies. Take your own side in an argument. Jesus is not someone I’d want to be in a foxhole with. Treat others not with love, but treat them the way their behavior towards you shows you’d be wise to treat them. That is a solider doctrine than love only. Love only is a distortion, and a dangerous one that accounts for more misery on earth than sadism, I’d be willing to wager. We all feel that things are bad and good, but those feelings aren’t ultimate reality, they’re relative to our position and condition. People don’t act the way some people claim Jesus did because it is contrary to the nature Jesus’ father bestowed on us. There is no escaping the logical conclusion that God is responsible for “evil” in this world. Don’t look at me, Mary, look up. After all, we needn’t take Jesus’ own view of the meaning of his crucifiction. It is, or is represented to be, an objective fact that he existed and was crucified at the behest of the jews by the Romans. He believed and taught that this was necessary, commanded by his father in heaven. No one knows the truth; hell, one knows for a fact very little about what actually happened back then. It’s all a mystery, a blank page we can write our own opinions on. I base my opinions about Jesus and his meaning on my factual knowledge of jews and their tendencies.

Brief thoughts on the irony of Christianity: Stupid and desperate people, all of us, require answers. They will not be denied Ultimate Meaning, which takes the form of God and such emissaries as he requires to make his message manifest. The Christian ultimate answer, which is claimed universal, is that Love is the great commandment. The Christian believes there is Heaven and Hell, and that there will be a Judgment Day on which verdict on our individual souls is rendered. There is no evidence for the Christians’ position save a book put together by the most particular, most hateful, most racist race on earth. Cue Simpsons’ “I’m sold”…

On the making and media reception of “Passion”…

We’ve treated the treatment in many spintros, but let’s review, just to catch the scope of the hate that surpasseth all understanding. Jews:

– tried to prevent this movie from being made – denied it funding
– denied it distribution
– poisoned the press well a year before release.

When it became apparent it was going to appear, they

– stole script copies to help their attacks
– pretended to be priests at screenings
– used bought Christians to false-face the source of opposition
– put together a 47-page manual denouncing it and issued hypocritical accusal after hypocritical accusal that it was

– anti-Semitic
– too violent
– boring with dead languages and subtitles
– historically inaccurate

Let history record the jews did everything they could do to prevent this film from being made, and, once that became impossible, to smear the maker, to misrepresent the message, and in general to do everything inhumanly possible to live up to their historical reputation as hypocritical liars of the first water. I don’t know if Jesus really existed, let alone that he was the Savior of humanity and Son of God. What I find completely plausible to the point of 100% guaranteed is that, if he was, the jews murdered Him.

Go see “Passion” and get Mel a good return on his money. His heart’s in the right place, if his guts need work.

[ The above is from a blog posting. ]

By Alex Linder

Sometime back around 1928, a big cat curled its lip and snarled for the last time in the Show-Me State, as a farmer somewhere down in the Ozarks drew a bead and put it out of his misery. The last Missouri man was extinguished something of the same way, sixty years earlier. But there was a time….

Set in Missouri, “Ride with the Devil” is one of the five best movies I’ve ever seen, and far and away the best treatment of the “Civil War.” I’m prejudiced because my people have lived in Missouri since the early decades of the 1800s, so I liked seeing on film the rolling hills and the woodsy countryside that make Missouri a green and pleasant place, and it’s inherently interesting to see on screen political struggles my family was bound in a number of ways. But that aside, this picture by Taiwanese Ang Lee does an impressive job evoking the men and mentalities that culminated in the war between states – or within a state, in Missouri’s case. In sticking to the small scale, “Ride with the Devil” captures the big picture far better than movies essaying the Grand Sweep, which typically collapse in self-conscious Importance.

“Ride with the Devil” shows you what happens when men who live next door to one another disagree over questions that one of them, at least, can’t compromise, thereby forcing the other to kill or conform. Moreover, it nails the specific mindsets at odds in the Anti-American Crusade, and in dramatizing their conflict raises an even deeper question, and one I’d never really considered before, having more or less swallowed without chewing the idea found in Goldwater’s Conscience of Conservative that our goal is maximum liberty consistent with civilized order. But…is liberty consistent in any way with civilized order? Can civilized men be free? Or is freedom inherently and essentially feral, and civilization a fettered subordination different in degree but not in kind from slavery? This movie comes very close to showing that feral men are the only free men. When I reflect on today’s professional defenders of “freedom,” the writers at LewRockwell.com, for example, I feel the matter all but cinched. For Lew Rockwell is most assuredly no Celtic-American Eagle riding back into Freeport and certain death because, goddamn it, he’s from there, and no man nor hundred men are going to chase him out of his home. Lew’s freedom is the freedom of the baby to crawl from one side of its playpen to the other. More on this in a moment. But first this ejaculation: what a thing is art! How superior it is to jewish “psychology” in picking at man-ticking. How clearer a pane it puts before our wondering eyes than some cheap reduction to sex or money drives. Art shows you things in the world and in yourself you didn’t realize were there, or only dimly sensed before it put them in breathtaking relief. This film is good art, and as you know, good art is always, and particularly these days, in short supply.

Missouri is a Southern state with thick streaks of North, such as the swath through the midsection along the Missouri river where Germans came to settle in the mid-19th century. Missouri was home to many Germans who came over after the failed socialist revolutions of 1848, as Jimmy Cantrell and others have written, and these made for natural union men – believers in Equality as a religious ideal, and believers in the state’s right to force egalitarian ideology on free men. Even if those free men were there first and had given birth to the nation in the first place. These German socialists, with their Protestant state-worship and soldierly cultural traditions, made natural military fodder for the descendants of Puritans controlling the East and Upper Midwest, and the nation as a whole, politically. These WASPs, led by the Lincoln my ancestor Usher Linder and Stephen Douglas battled against, used the new Germans in the Midwest and the new Irish in the Northeast to crush the real American spirit embodied in the Celtic traditions and people of the South. The victors called it a new birth of American freedom, but in fact it was and remains the defining American tragedy, turning us from a motley collection of free and weird states into Levy’s bargain-basement one-size-fitz-all Leviathan Leisure Suit. As Chruchill pointed out, the empires of the future will be empires of the mind, and so the mentality that destroyed freedom in the South yesterday is today bent on the physical genocide of the White race, and not just in the South and the North, but worldwide, wherever Whites have settled. Itz genocidal campaign is carried out not via cavalry waves but airwaves.

Against the Northern moralizers array the Southerners, true Americans, and Celtic in culture – fighting, fiddle-playing feral farmers. Among these numbers the film’s protagonist, Jake Roedel, with the ironic twist that he is ethnically German. “Dutchy” as they call him was born in Germany, but raised in Missouri, and as Southern as anyone. Against the wishes of his father, who wants him to wait out the war in the union-controlled safety in St. Louis, he sticks with his Southern kin, and joins up with ragtag bands of so-called Bushwackers who do battle with feds and “Jayhawkers” – abolitionist Kansans who put torch and bullet to Southern sympathizers wherever they find them. In other words, the war in Missouri was nasty and internecine and no-holds-barred, with ambushes and burn-outs the order of the day.

There are two scenes that capture the heart of the struggle. One I’ve mentioned, and will return to. The other is a dinner at which Jake and his “brother” John Bull sit down with a rich Southern Missourian who’s helping them hide out over the winter. He’s a businessman who has traveled, and is about to move his family to Texas for the duration. He sees what’s going to happen, and his exchange with Jake and John bears the gravitas of the issue:

Mr. Evans: Half Missouri’s going to Texas. State’s thick with invaders. We cannot drive them away.

John Bull: We have a different thought. I still want to fight. Reckon I’ll always want to fight them.

Mr. Evans: You ever been to Lawrence, Kansas, young man?

John Bull: No, I reckon not, Mr. Evans. Don’t believe I’d be too welcome in Lawrence.

Mr. Evans: Before this war began, my business took me there often. And as I saw these Northerners begin to build that town, I witnessed the seeds of our destruction being sown. The founding of that town was truly the beginning of the Yankee invasion. I’m not speaking of numbers, or even abolitionist troublemakers. It was the schoolhouse. Before they built their churches, they built that schoolhouse. And they lettered every tailor’s son and farmer’s daughter in the county.

John Bull: Spelling won’t help you hold a plow any firmer. Or a gun either.

Mr. Evans: No, it won’t, Mr. Chiles, but my point is merely that they rounded every pup-pup into that schoolhouse because they fancied that everyone should think and talk the same freethinking way they do, with no regard to station, custom, or propriety. And that is why they will win. Because they believe everyone should live and think just like them. And we shall lose. Because we don’t care one way or another how they live, we just worry about ourselves.

John Bull: Are you saying, sir, that we fight for nothing?

Mr. Evans: Far from it, Mr. Chiles. You fight for everything that we ever had. It’s just that we don’t have it anymore.

Jake Roedel: (with feeling) When you get back from Texas, it’ll be here waiting for you. Jack and me will see to it.

Mr. Evans: Well…yes…thank you, son. (changes subject)

As you can see, the boys are stouthearted, but naive. No matter how heroic, and how “morally right” they are, their side will lose. Because might makes right, and the numbers and aggressive mentality are on the side of the North, no matter what the Constitution says or what the people want.

Over time and through battles and losses and injuries, Roedel and the ex-slave who’s one of their band of four, along with his ex-master and friend Clyde who brought him out, become friends of a sort, and begin to see that their participation is not going to change anything substantial. Although there’s never any indication they see their cause as wrong, the fact is they’re drawn into the fight more for personal than political reasons, and so they begin to see at a certain point that their bushwacking is simply killing and burning out innocent people. The issue is decided, it’s time to move on.

Not all the Bushwackers feel this way. Itz do or die to some. One of these is Pitt Mackeson, who’s been a thorn in Roedel’s side the whole movie, distrusting his being “Dutch,” and his friendship with the nigger. Finally he shoots him in the leg in the middle of a firefight with the Union boys after the Lawrence raid. Mackeson is either a sadist or simply a feral human being. He certainly believes in the cause, but it’s pretty clear, killing people for the sheer sport of it, and for the plunder, runs a close second. He’s about as close to feral as a human gets. He nearly shoots Roedel eating breakfast in Lawrence when Roedel prevents him from murdering the old couple running the restaurant. The contrast between the old man’s blubbering thanks — sharply cut off by irritated civilized Southerner Roedel — and the fearless but ferally dangerous Mackeson is sharp and effective. The scene at the very end, though, is unforgettable.

Convalescing at a sympathizer’s home with the snaggletoothsome Jewel, who he marries after his brother, who married her first and sired a pup on her, is killed, Roedel decides to take his new family to California. Meanwhile, the ex-slave says he’ll going to take off for Texas to look for his mother, once they’re out of the danger zone, through which he’ll stay with Roedel. For they’ve heard Mackeson, now a Jesse-James type land pirate, has said he’s going to come by and finish him. As they’re camped out, Roedel with his wife and baby son, or nephew, his bushwacker locks sheared, signifying his return to civilized life, they hear a noise and see Mackeson and one last diehard coming through the woods on horseback. He offers Mackeson some chicory, and asks what they’re about. They tell him Quantrill and Black John have been killed, their heads put on pikes, paraded through town, with photos in papers. Itz over. But not for them. They’re heading back to Freeport for a drink. “Hell, man, there’s 200 federals in Freeport, you can’t go in there.” “Wrong, Dutchy. I am going in there. For certain sure going in there. I want a drink. They have drinks in Freeport.”

“They’ll kill ya. Best stay clear out of there.”

“I don’t think so, Dutchy. I don’t reckon I’ll clear out of where I was born. You see, that there was my hometown. And I reckon I’ll go on in and have me a drink there.”

“They’ll kill you sure.”

“(Laughs) What a horrible fate. Oh, what a horrible fate!”

Then Roedel whips his shotgun on him. These men don’t care about their own lives, and would think nothing of killing the four of them. He draws a bead on Mackeson, can kill him if he wants. But he draws the bead up. The camera flips on Mackeson, light eyed and hovering, floating above Dutchy on horseback, completely fearless, shifting back and forth as his horse moves, studying him. A predator. A specific predator. An eagle. An American eagle. As American as the eagle in Bill the Butcher’s glass eye. I believe that is what Ang Lee is trying to show with the camera work. This man is truly free. Truly American. He may be a sadistic and incorrigible feral, but he’s a slave to no man, and that fits Dutchy Hegel’s definition. Nor is he what the man on the other end of the firestick has become: a pre-suburbanite. “Come on, Turner,” Pitt finally says, as always with a bit of mock in his voice, and he turns the horse south to Freeport, and with him goes whatever America really was…to die. To be killed by whatever America is, and let me tell you, friend, it ain’t as much as itz jewish publicists claim.

This scene really moved me, almost to tears, the first time I saw it, a couple months ago. By god,

I’m not a cog.

I’m not a resource.

I’m a man.

And if no one else take me serious, well so I take myself.

And that is worth killing or dying over.

The sight of the last two Missouri freemen, one of them shot through the mouth, unable to enunciate because of his buckshot palate, but still game and untame; the other a pure-out wildman riding back through the woods in search of the way we were, it pulls at you. Why does nothing good ever last? Why does the scum always rise to the top? Why don’t the good guys ever win?

Watching it a second time a couple days after seeing Gibson’s “Passion,” I could only think of how much better a filmmaker Lee is than Gibson. Gibson in two hours of stagey torture didn’t get near what Lee captured in the Mackeson character and his feral indomitability. Maybe it’s just that I prefer someone willing to fight and die for his Cause more than someone willing to suffer and die for it. Better murder than martyr, I say. Better Mackeson than Jesus. Better to discriminate and fight than dissolve and love. Mackeson’s, as I say, a Southern Bill the Butcher, the guy who protected his own New York turf from Irish invaders in “Gangs of New York.” All Pitt’s really doing is sticking up for his people and his way of life. I just have a funny feeling that the wrong side won. I have a funny feeling that the North winning wasn’t progress. I have a funny feeling that there’s a straight line from the Roedel character, killer of fifteen men, to the pitiful whitemice victims sucking each other off at nigger behest in the Wichita Massacre, then driving to ATM for money before lying down in snow to await kill shot. I can’t help but think of the little kid here in Missouri whose name, if I recall, was Jake Robel, who was carjacked to death by a nigger the likes of which the descendants of Jake Roedel are too Christian-goopy to deal with. I got a feeling when we put down men like Pitt Mackeson we committed suicide in the name of Christ and compassion. Biology deals a rough hand, and Christianity has never trumped it, lies about Resurrection be damned. This world is all there ever was, is, or will be. It ain’t no fun when the Rapturebunny’s got the gun.

Lee may even be making the case that America the land of the free can’t survive not merely public schooling, but the written word itself. The Southerners are depicted as illiterate, yet knowing all they need to know to farm and fight effectively. Roedel seems to be the only one who can read. He’s often shown poring over a book. The rest of the boys ask him to read letters taken from prisoners. There’s a stark difference in the cultures at odds here, very much along the lines Mr. Evans pointed out. Let’s make a chain: the written word leads to public schools leads to mass indoctrination leads to slavery. No one would ever think to question the value of teaching people to read, so let’s question it. Is it possible that what we call civilization is built on reading, and that reading is mind indoctrination at least as much as mind extension? Would we be better off if the ten percent capable of college material were trained, and the rest left to their own devices? If not, you must be prepared to argue that the mass of “input” called “education” is on the whole true and worthwhile; a collective positive. I think that is quite debatable. I think, per Twain, another good Missourian, that it is better to remain ignorant than to know things that “just ain’t so.” What is public school but an attempt to indoctrinate things that “just ain’t so” before the student has enough experience of the world to tell him otherwise? Was America freer before or after public schools became ubiquitous? Was America freer when her government was dominated by Southerners or by Northeasterners?

How are we doing today, now that the mass-uniform Northern spirit dominates everywhere, and the specific items of indoctrination are determined by izzies who picked up where Lincoln left off?

Wouldn’t you rather take your chances dealing with the odd feral Mackeson out to do you in, in exchange for genuine freedom of mind and money? If you’re a VNN reader, by God, I hope your answer is yes.

Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job portraying “Dutchy” Roedel. I don’t know if he gave Roedel a flat aspect for his youth or his Dutchiness, or both. But it works. For example, when Quantrill gives his thrilling speech to whoop the boys prior to the ride on Lawrence, the farmers are rebel yelling, while Dutchy just blinks twice. He’s got it in him, it just isn’t as close to the surface. He does have a sort of slow wryness that I’ve seen in my own relatives. Germans are very stable people; they make great neighbors and soldiers. It is unfortunate that their character and mentality is generally such that they can be very easily misled because they lack the imagination or cunning to see that things political cannot be taken at face value. Too often in pop culture we get the tiresome chirpy cheery peppy Irish type. Nothing wrong with this type, it’s just that fuck the Irish. There are other people out there who like to see themselves represented once in while. How seldom is anyone of the background of Germans like Roedel portrayed. Almost never. Maguire gets his character just right. He looks and acts like people I’m related to. The difference in his portrayal of, say, Rydell vs. Roedel is the difference between good makeup and good bone structure. Maguire hits his mark exactly, as far as I’m concerned. The way he says, “You know I am,” real slow and straight-eyed, when Black John says he’s heard bad things about his performance in Lawrence — i.e., sparing the innocent elderly Mackeson was hot to put to the ball. The way the kid doesn’t get mad when others cast aspersions on his background, but simply fights hard and keeps his mouth shut – proves himself. That is echt Deutsch, as any war will show. I don’t know if reviewers praised Maguire for his work here, but he did an excellent job. Really, the whole cast did well, even Jewel did a nice job. Jonathan Rhys Meyers was perfect as Pitt Mackeson, he reminded me of Jay of Jay and Silent Bob fame in the Kevin Smith movies. Very interesting character, very evocative of a type and attitude that you don’t see anymore. Because there’s no room for it. Because the system is designed to prevent its occurrence, to drug it away with Ritalin. Itz a type we’ll need for the coming revolution.

But like I say, I truly do wonder whether freedom and civilization are irreconcilable, thoughts occasioned by the Mackeson character. Because the men who produce liberty are long way from the men liberty produces. I mean, this would be a great guy to fight alongside, but I sure wouldn’t want to live next to him. All around here in Kirksville are Southern types who could easily fit on the horses making up Quantrill’s cavalry. And there are bad-seed families, shitcrickers, “American Independents,” as I’m told they used to be called back in the decades before I was born — people who truly hate government and just want to be left alone. People who can do everything, and don’t need anything. In a word, Americans. Not like these washed-out pastel suburbans we’ve become today, like that GEICO human relations guy in the tv ad praising the gecko. We’ve come a long ways, baby: most of it down and backwards.

Go rent this movie and ask yourself at what point White evolution veal-stalled.

And what you can do to unbox it.

ALEX LINDER