I’ve been writing on this subject since 1998 when Reggie White got in trouble for remarking on group differences. Around the same time, I read The Bell Curve which made it obvious what I had always suspected — different races have different gifts and diversity with proximity creates conflict and tragedy.
In 1999, I started reading William Pierce and I understood why some people became white nationalists (aka white zionism).
Just as Jews want to control their own destiny in their own state, so too Germans and Americans and French want to control their own national destinies and they don’t always want alien groups such as Jews running important things such as media and finance. The Jewish state would never permit its media and finance to be run by non-Jews so Jews can’t expect gentile states to be indifferent to the influence of Jews in their media and finance.
It would go a long way to ending anti-Semitism if Jews supported nationalism and the sovereignty of nations. https://t.co/HVJxglpZpT
— PsyOps Dissident (@altrightwarfare) September 1, 2016
This is the first time I've seen a politician take a hard line on something that isn't Israel
— Walēd (@thelateempire) September 1, 2016
I think I understand white nationalists — they want the same kind of cohesion that the Torah seeks for Jews.
Torah makes no provision for non-Jewish citizenship in the Jewish state, just as Japan allows little power and influence for non-Japanese in Japan, so minority groups in the diaspora including Jews should be grateful and non-troublesome when the majority give them full citizenship.
Brett Stevens notes: “Minority groups (of any race) never vote for majority interests.”
White nationalists, by and large, see organized Jewry as pushing white genocide by promoting non-white immigration and multiculturalism, thereby rendering whites minorities in the countries they created and unable to live out their destiny free of interference by non-whites.
People, be they Jews or non-Jews, rarely care about the motives of people who hurt them. They judge individuals and groups based on their actions. So white nationalists understandably see the multiculti push by organized Jewry as malicious. Every major Jewish organization in America, for instance, supports immigration amnesty, which will hasten the time that whites become a minority in the country they developed.
In his essay on the Alt Right for the Forward.com, Joshua Seidel describes the multi-culti push of organized Jewry as crazy and self-destructive.
I don’t see things quite that way. I see organized Jewry as acting out of a tribal addiction (all groups have blind spots, that’s a normal function of social identity formation, ties bind and blind) when it reflexively promotes minority rights and multiculturalism to the goyim while often seeking the opposite (unity, strength and cohesion) for Jews. As a result of historical trauma, organized Jewry has a reflexive fear of gentile nationalisms and thus promotes diversity, globalism and tikkun olam (social justice).
So when American Jews such as Stephen Steinlight point out to organized Jewry the great harm mass immigration will do to Jews, the organized Jewish community can’t see it because of the blinders imposed by their tribal addiction. They can’t see themselves as doing any harm to their host countries. They think they are only doing good by promoting multi-culturalism, massive non-white immigration and ever-increasing minority rights.
I have never heard a Jew say that he wants to weaken gentile racial, religious and national identity so that gentiles are easier to manipulate (aka make America and other gentile countries more “user-friendly” for Jews). That sounds crazy, even though that is sometimes the upshot of what the Big Jews in the diaspora push (cohesion for Jews, diversity for goyim).
Why can’t organized Jewry see that they are doing harm by always siding with minorities against the core? Because of a tribal addiction. This addiction pushes reset whenever organized Jewry begins to think they might have made a mistake, so they always double down on multiculturalism and diversity and increased immigration.
The best way to see this tribal addiction, this reset addiction, is among the frumies (Orthodox) who often have negative views of gentiles. Think about those Orthodox Jews always defending Sholom Rubashkin. No matter what you said, they had an answer. If they accepted he did some wrong things, they would then argue that everyone in the meatpacking industry does wrong things. The difference is that the average gentile meatpacker, when reprimanded by the feds, mends his way but Sholom Rubashkin and company just kept on brazenly breaking the law while retaining the complete support of their community.
Another example of this tribal reset against admitting fault is the Orthodox response to any negative reports about Orthodox-run nursing homes or denying any wrongdoing by Bikur Cholim.
This addiction to pushing reset in the face of any negative news about one’s own group is a normal part of group identity. It is not unique to Jews. The more you identify with your group, the less likely you will see its faults.
So now that organized Jewry in America is facing a rising tide of implicit white identity in the form of the Donald Trump campaign, how are they reacting? Are they having second thoughts about pushing multiculturalism and increased immigration? No way! Organized Jewry has an addiction to seeing gentile nationalism as dangerous while its mirror imagine in Jewish nationalism is great. They can’t see the harm they are doing in pushing for things such as immigration amnesty and taking in more Muslim refugees. They don’t see the danger they are facing. So they double down on the multi-culti agenda.
So why do my Jewish friends and I see things the way we do? Because we don’t assume that Jews as a group are always innocent. Instead, we see Jews as like other people in that they have gifts and flaws and that their actions always affect other people, everything we do affects other people, and not always for the good as no group always acts for the good of other groups.
Few people are willing to take stock of the harm they have done. Jews are no different from non-Jews in this regard.
Absent a religious faith, there are no good guys and no bad guys in the world. There are just different forms of life fighting to perpetuate their genes.
Every life form has a strong reaction against anything that threatens its survival. Groups normally need cohesion to survive. Threats to group cohesion, such as multiculturalism, should be expected to produce violent responses.
Shutter Island (2010) is Martin Scorsese’s film about Jewish tribal addiction, aka Jewish resetting to its default position that Jews are always right and gentiles wrong whenever there is a conflict of interest. Organized Jewry calls this conflict of interest anti-Semitism.
Scorsese has spent his career working in Hollywood and he knows Jewish blind spots. This movie is his perspective on the Jewish addiction to hitting reset whenever uncomfortable perspectives come up that show Jews are not innocent (no group is innocent, but because Jews are particularly smart, hard-working, organized and passionate, they are often more influential than most groups in things such as finance, politics, and media).
The movie is set in the 1950s and almost everyone is white. The clue that this movie is really about the Jews is the German doctor.
The protagonist played by Leonardo DiCaprio is a stand-in for Jews. The whites want him to accept responsibility for his actions and to act white aka responsible. They don’t want to go nazi on him, but when he keeps misbehaving, they finally go nazi.
That’s like white nationalists such as Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, Richard Spencer, Gregory Hood, etc. They don’t want to go nazi on the Jews, but if they have to to survive, to protect their people, they will, just as Jews will fight for the preservation of the Jewish state against all enemies.
A goy says: “Eyes Wide Shut is absolutely [Stanley] Kubrick’s knowledge of the cabal. Kubrick attended the Rothschilds ’70s party with bizarre masks. Uncle Luke, this is from the party that Kubrick attended that many feel inspired Eyes Wide Shut:”
The Rothschild's illuminati Ball from December 12, 1972. pic.twitter.com/n0DETHESSW
— ClassicPics (@History_Pics) September 1, 2016
For some time I have been concerned that we in the nationalist movement pay insufficient attention to culture and the arts. I am convinced that the same sensitive “code” antenna that we apply to news articles can be applied to movies. So let’s place a few under the “Jewelers loop” and discover the deeper meaning.
Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is a 10 karat D flawless — as good as it gets!
If you have already seen this movie I want you to see it again. If you haven’t seen it, go. And enjoy the female nudity. It is all for a good cause.
For the truth is that Kubrick has grabbed the football and scored a touchdown. Many have seen the movie but (almost) nobody saw the quarterback sneak.
The kick off to my curiosity about this movie came in two parts; first, a clear memory of Kubrick’s past masterpieces packed with profoundly politically incorrect content. He is not above using sex and violence to lure us to the theater to see messages that are profoundly disturbing to universalist egalitarians. 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange are classic examples. This is another.
Next, and more important, were the uncomfortable movie critics on TV who, while admitting that this movie was about sex, thought that the American public would not want to see it.
At the first exhortation not to see this film, my code antennae sprung erect.
A clear warning that something in this film is at odds with the agenda of the inner party culture destroyers.
(For a subtle piece that uses every tool in the Hollywood arsenal of culture destruction to maximum effect see The Election.)
The clear message from the inner party critics was that they wanted this movie to fail at the box office. Of course, I did not expect them to articulate their own reasons why. That isn’t how our social signaling and instruction system works here in America. But in truth, I am not sure the inner party critics could articulate their reasons. Most likely, they watched the movie and smelled vague danger, but because the movie lacked any easily recognizable tag of hostility, they could not instantly summon the appropriate verbal script of rebuke.
Yes folks, its that good!
And the reason is the movie’s simple act of deception. The inner party cannot recognize that a candid, relaxed portrait of themselves in their element is a hostile act. They may not like it, but they cannot bring themselves to bitch out loud.
In order to tell you why it is that good, I am going to have to “spoil” the movie for you. But since the movie does not really center on a plot, there is little suspense to spoil, and of course there are higher values involved.
Tom Cruise, plays an outer party doctor living and practicing medicine in New York City. It is Christmas time in New York, and you cannot help but notice Kubrick’s deft portrait of Christmas in New York as something quite different from, for example, Christmas in Oklahoma. Few apartments we see house Christians, but all have “Christmas” trees and ornaments. Not a crucifix nor a manger to be seen anywhere. (For reasons that entirely escape me, our ancient paganism is improbably and yet profoundly comforting to the inner-party alien, who for inexplicable reasons is frightened to death by the sermon on the mount. If they think Christ is scary, just provoke us into bringing Thor’s Hammer out of retirement! — but then I digress.)
Tom and his wife, Nicole Kidman are on their way to a Christmas party hosted by his wealthiest patient.
At the party, a guest attempts to seduce Kidman, while Cruise has to attend to a nude model or prostitute who has overdosed in the bedroom of his host. The host appreciates Cruise’s emergency services and his discretion. The host’s ethnic origin is entirely obvious (played by Sydney Pollack). On his way back to join the party, Cruise is accosted by two models who apparently want to double team him.
The sexual predation at the party is blatant. It is also accepted by all the party goers as if it were the natural state of enlightened humanity.
Cruise spots a friend who dropped out of his medical school class playing piano at the party. Cruise promises to come see him play at a local club.
The next evening, (actually, the movie moves quickly, and I might have the events a bit out of order) Cruise and Kidman decide to share a marijuana smoke before they get intimate, and this provokes a remarkably aggressive verbal attack from Kidman in which she talks about a fantasy of making love with another man.
Cruise, in his intoxicated condition gets called by the daughter of another wealthy patient who has just died. Cruise goes to the apartment of the patient. The daughter, who is engaged to be married, comes on to Cruise, with her fiance in the next room. Cruise maintains his professionalism.
After the visit, he takes a walk and is accosted by a prostitute on the street. He goes with her to her apartment and is interrupted by a cell phone call from Kidman wanting to know if she should wait up. He says no, but the mood is spoiled so he leaves.
He then goes to the club to see his piano playing friend, and is told of parties where his friend is paid a fortune but must play blindfolded. The friend never knows where the parties are and only finds out that one is starting and given the password for entry an hour in advance. He is escorted to the party by guards. After the piano player’s cell phone rings, Cruise twists his friend’s arm for the location and password. At this point the serious adventures begin.
To gain access to the party, Cruise must rent a costume and a mask, which he does, from an amusingly predatory costume rental proprietor.
He takes a cab to the party at a huge mansion out on Long Island.
He walks in on an orgy unlike any other you have seen or imagined. It is highly organized. There is more voyeurism than action. The entire performance seems carefully orchestrated, and the participants, including the master of ceremonies, the nude entertainers, and the masked party goers all seem to know each other and what to expect. Neither the need for nor the function of the masks is entirely clear.
The master of ceremonies is an old man with a staff who directs the nude ladies with cabalistic chants.
Cruise is approached by one of the young ladies who warns him to flee or he will be killed. Cruise declines, and is exposed by the master of ceremonies. The girl who warned him offers to sacrifice herself if he will be allowed to leave alive, the deal is struck, and Cruise is expelled by the guards and goes home.
The next day, he notices a news item to the effect that the girl who sacrificed herself for him was found dead. He goes to look at her in the morgue at the hospital.
He returns the costume (with the exception of the mask) to the predatory owner, and his girlfriend.
He tries to track down his piano playing friend, can’t find him, and notices that he is being followed.
That evening, he visits the prostitute’s apartment, and encounters her female roommate who lets him in. The roommate delivers the bad news that the prostitute tested positive for HIV and is gone.
The problem with this movie is that you tend to get caught up in the swirl of action, and the message can rip right past you. But when the roommate conveys the bad news about HIV, I am jolted erect in my seat. The Hollywood culture destruction machine would never allow this sort of scene in one of its movies.
So what is going on here?
At a minimum, we have a conservative message being thrust upon an unwilling audience, but perhaps there is much more. The AIDS interruption lifts me up out of the delirium of action and forces me to whip out that jeweler’s loop.
And suddenly it is painfully obvious.
Cruise is a typical outer party professional earning a good living in an intensely remote and hostile land. You are instantly struck by his isolation, and the isolation of his family. No co-workers to talk this over with and to understand or come to his aid. And he is utterly unwelcome in the cabal. His role is to work, pay taxes and not think too hard!
Like all outer party elites in the big city, he is absolutely clueless about how the society around him really works, and why it works the way it does, and then suddenly he stumbles upon the inner sanctum of the inner party. He sees the rewards and entertainments that draw them together, and he also experiences first hand the terror they can inflict on wayward members or unwanted intruders.
Movie hell! This feels like real life in the big apple!
The ending to this movie has two parts. First, his wealthy patient friend, played by Sidney Pollack, calls and asks him to come over. Pollack then explains that he was at the orgy, that Cruise is in “way over his head,” that it was he, Pollack, who had him followed. His piano playing friend was put on a plane back to Seattle, the girl wasn’t killed but died of an overdose, and nobody was killed by this Cabal that he is a part of. He, Pollack, is explaining because he trusts Cruise to stop investigating and just forget this ever happened.
The movie goer is left with an intense feeling of alienation. There is a powerful and disciplined cabal that runs things from behind the scenes, and maintains its membership with corrupt entertainments and enforces discipline with terror.
But, of course, according to one of its organizers, It’s harmless. Just a few nebbishes from Brooklyn who wouldn’t hurt a fly havin a little fun. Hey, it might be a dictatorship, but it is a benevolent and fun loving dictatorship, so that makes it OK!
All the while , of course, Pollack is delivering a not-so-subtle economic threat, which as we all know, is exactly how it works in real life.
In the meantime, of course, Cruise has explained to Kidman the whole series of misadventures before his meeting with Pollack, and is fearful that his marriage might be in danger. He has arranged with her and their daughter to go Christmas shopping, which sets up the final scene in FAO Schwartz.
Now curiously, the critics hate this ending, claiming it is no ending at all.
But to normal viewers, the conclusion is absolutely pre-ordained. My wife knew the outcome ten minutes before the end.
After all, Cruise and Kidman are sojourners in a hostile and alien land. When Cruise pops the fateful question, Kidman responds as she must, but in a playful and hip way.
So it is no wonder that critics absolutely hate this movie.
The reason they hate it is that the typical outer party viewer is left with a powerful feeling of vague threat from a predatory culture in which a cabal such as the one portrayed in this movie makes perfect sense. The kabal is populated with people who show harmless and genial public faces during the day, but cannot show their real faces among themselves at private parties after dark.
It is some of the richest symbolism I have seen on celluloid. This flick veers awfully close to the truth folks. And it gets away with it!