Originally Published at:


DiGeorgio: That’s one thing about our Harry. He doesn’t play any favorites, Harry hates everybody: Limeys, Micks, Hebes, fat dagos, niggers, honkies, chinks. You name it.
Chico: How’s he feel about Mexicans?
DiGeorgio: Ask him.
Harry: Especially Spics.
(Harry winks at Digeorgio as he walks off).
Dirty Harry (1971)

Slavoj Zizek has repeatedly made the seemingly contradictory point that Leftists should adopt “progressive racism” in order to counter racism. This would involve telling racist jokes that would produce “solidarity” by a communal sharing in obscenity. The joke and the laughter would effectively function as an assuaging mechanism to mask the very real and prescient tribal instincts, especially of whites whose countries are being invaded by a waves of foreign competitors.

The function of the racial joke for the ‘progressive racist’ is not to put down the Other, but rather to create a kind of Bakunian folk humor in which the otherness of the Other functions as a kind of post-modern grotesque realism. However, New Leftist political theorist Andrew Robinson sees potential dangers in this:

“The tendentialy resistant space of fan culture, by being displaced through repression, is turned into the pseudo-transgression of performative racism. At one level, racial abuse is transgressive (of liberal norms), but on another, it reproduces dominant structures (of underlying racism).

Such displays are similar to true carnival in their excess and expressiveness, but they ultimately uphold the transcendentalism of the in-group through transgressions which reinforce their privilege at the expense of an out-group… reactionaries and fascists are terrified of being overwhelmed by the ‘floods’ and ‘bodies’ of interpenetration with the other, though they must constantly return to the point of the threat of interpenetration so as to ward it off.”

What Robinson misses, and what Zizek and Dirty Harry both get, is that in-group hierarchies in a time of multiculturalism and multiracialism, when we have seen a two-term Black President of the United States, is no longer as racially valid as it once was. Hierarchies are much more fluid, and professional and class based, than racial. Even then, Robinson’s point about false transgressions is valid in some respects:

“Hierarchies were perhaps simpler in medieval times. We get into complexities today around the distinction between ‘true’ transgressions and those which repeat dynamics of the system at a deeper level. The system can use such ‘false’ transgressions to channel the carnivalesque into its own reproduction. Consider, for instance, how the transgressiveness of football culture has been displaced into the fascism of the EDL.”

Robinson, like most Leftists, gets it backwards. Rather than football culture being displaced by fascism, it is rather the historical movement of fascism being displaced (or rather ‘muted’ or ‘transfigured’) into the false transgressions of football culture.

Still the specter of white supremacy haunts Leftist imaginations. So much so that the mass appeal of brown racial humorists, like Russell Peters, has been more acceptable in our politically correct times than a white comedic counterpart. Although this too is rapidly changing, especially given a sampling of Comedy Central’s roasting of Shaquille O’Neil. When a white comedian can allude to ‘Shaq’ being a gorilla, the giant multimillionaire Negro can indulge in a full-bellied laugh at himself—at a joke that would likely offend most blacks.

Often when a joke pushes that politically correct line, the camera cuts to an audience member who resembles the recipient of the joke, laughing at it—”progressive racism” (freeze frame at 5:21 for the obvious Jew laughing at the Holocaust™ joke).

Shaq is part of the hierarchy of the Empire of Meaninglessness, the Empire of the Punch-line and the Slam Dunk Contest. The functions and irrationality of the market destroys and is destroying natural hierarchies between people at an unprecedented rate, helped along the way by the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world of Tin Pan Alley and Hollywood.

Shaquille O’Neil’s social status destroys the stigma of black inferiority and invites other Blacks and even whites to not take themselves so seriously. The growing acceptability of White racial humor directed against Blacks and other ‘visible minorities’ is indicative of the totalizing monolithic egalitarian tendency of what David Richards calls ‘radical constitutionalism’ in American values. Hence in Franz Kafka’s short novel Amerika, the European Immigrant Karl, adopts the name Negro for himself, because despite representing the exploitation of the immigrant worker, it functions more broadly to describe the ‘negrofication’ of all identities below a certain professional or social status in America, and more generally still of the radical leveling of the democratic type as identified in Jose Ortega y Gasset’s mass man. The solidarity of American values is the dog-eat-dog individualism of WASP capitalism and utilitarianism, emblematic of so many of Clint Eastwood’s characters—“make my day,” as Ronald Reagan said.

Eastwood at 86 years old is something of a throwback, a dinosaur, an homage to White American virility, poise, confidence and coolness. His early roles in spaghetti westerns connected him with the historical frontiersman, but in this he was always a loner, a desperado, an outsider, an individualist…an American.

These roles also connected him to the cinematic tradition of self-proclaimed ‘white supremacist’ John Wayne and the ‘Eurocentric racism’ of John Ford. ‘Blondie’ and the rest of Eastwood’s portrayals were usually gunning down swarthier gangs in credulous retroactive acclamation of the triumph of the solitary white man. Later on Eastwood achieved superstar status for his role as the straight-talking ‘Dirty Harry,’ which solidified his image of Old Stock grit. Continuing with this image, Eastwood has caught some flak for some comments in a just published interview in Esquire magazine:

Esquire: Your characters have become touchstones in the culture, whether it’s Reagan invoking “Make my day” or now Trump … I swear he’s even practiced your scowl.
Eastwood: Maybe. But he’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, “This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect.” And I said, “Good. Let me read it tonight.” The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, “We’re starting this immediately.”

Eastwood’s Gran Torino is “politically incorrect” in the same vein of the ‘racist wink,’ that is it is performative racism, Zizek’s “progressive racism.”

Eastwood’s Polish-American character in Gran Torino identifies with, and forms a self-sacrificing bond with, his South Asian neighbors, while simultaneously making racial slurs at their expense. Ironically, Eastwood’s character appreciates the communal values of his immigrant neighbors, while his own white ethnic Catholic family has succumbed to the individualism of Americanization.

In the end the self-sacrificing white man gives his most prized possession to his Asian neighbor and snubs his own family—in part because they have grown apart and see their relationship in materialistic terms, while discarding those values of family, community, kinship, homemaking and hard work, traditionally associated with white Catholic ethnics. But the image of the young Asian driving the American muscle car down the highway at the end of the film is inclusive of that group’s own impending Americanization.

The values that Eastwood’s real life son lists as those that his father imparted to him are not those that make a community:

“It’s an interesting time. My father’s definitely old-school. And he raised me with integrity—to be places on time, show up, and work hard.” 

Rather these are the values that make an obedient and efficient worker. Still, Clint Eastwood can continue to cultivate the image of himself as a straight-talking tough guy, a real Reagan Republican, while the Empire of Meaninglessness laughs and sometimes winks its way to racial dispossession.


Originally Published:

“The big tycoons lurk indeed as the ultimate driving force behind world-encompassing Anglo-American imperialism; nothing else. The great money-powers indeed financed the terrifying mass-homicides of the World War. The great money-powers have indeed, as owners of all great newspapers, woven the world into a web of lies. They have with satisfaction whipped up all lower passions, have diligently fostered the growth of present tendencies…” Gottfried Feder

Reading Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship brought to mind that infamous article which Winston Churchill wrote in 1920, for a popular British Sunday newspaper, the Illustrated Sunday Herald, entitled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” Gilbert devotes a small chapter to the essay, provoking me to write my objections to Churchill’s very biased argumentation in favour of Zionism.

Although there is some speculation as to whether Churchill was Jewish or part-Jewish himself—from his American mother—this is not overly relevant, as, by chapter four, Gilbert has already established Churchill’s tangled social and financial links to elite British Jews, stretching back to his father Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, who cultivated these relationships and passed them on to his son.

Winston was lavished with fine gifts by these Jews. For example, when he went to South Africa as a war correspondent during the Boer War (1899-1902), “Lord Rothschild gave him £150 and Cassel gave him £100: a total sum that was the annual income for many middle-class families” (Gilbert, p. 4) for his kit and provisions. Later, when Churchill wed, Cassel gave him the equivalent of $40,000 (in current values) as a gift. In 1906 Churchill spent the summer travelling Europe:

“His three hosts, Sir Ernest Cassel at Villa Cassel in the Swiss Alps, Lionel Rothschild driving in Italy, and Baron de Forest at Castle Eichstatt in Moravia, were all Jews.” (p. 13). 

Churchill patron: Lionel Rothschild

Politically Churchill’s advocacy of Jewish interests began in 1904, when the Conservative Member of Parliament decided to change alliances to run on a Liberal ticket for Manchester North-West, “where a third of the electorate was Jewish.” (p. 7) In this Churchill was groomed for the specific function of being the gentile figurehead opposing the then Conservative government’s Aliens Bill, which was “aimed at curbing the influx of Jewish immigrants from Tsarist Russia.” (p. 7) Churchill criticised the Bill as an “appeal to insular prejudice against foreigners, to racial prejudice against Jews, and to labour prejudice against competition.” Churchill and the Jews were initially successful but a similar bill later passed.

Following this, Churchill was soon speaking in support of the Jewish Hospital Fund in Manchester, eulogising the Jewish spirit of tribalism in terms of “race and faith,” adding the advice that they “be good Jews.” (p. 15) A ‘good Jew’ presumably meant one who contributed to Churchill’s coffers.

In these two cases, we see Churchill criticising his own people for having ‘prejudice’ against foreigners, lambasting them for a legitimate fear of clannish competition, while shortly after, he lauds the Jews for their community spirit, possessed by the “guiding principle” of “their race and of their faith”—a clear double standard! If this consciousness of ‘race and faith’ arose amongst gentiles, Churchill would no doubt have declared such ‘provincial’ attitudes un-English, but amongst the Jews it was a cause of celebration, especially with regard to the idea of a Jewish homeland:

“The restoration to them of a centre of true racial and political integrity would be a tremendous event in the history of the world.” (p. 18

One wonders how Churchill would have reacted to the demographic transformation of London into a multiracial zoo with no racial and political integrity, but one only needs to look to David Cameron—with his offshore accounts, policies of multiculturalism and mass immigration, and support for EU Federalism—to understand that Churchill is neither unique nor an abnormality in terms of ethno betrayal, personal opportunism and excessive philosemitism. Churchill stands out only as the prototype and best champion of the class of political Shabbos goy.

Cartoon lamenting the 1911 Welsh Pogrom

In 1911, when Churchill became Home Secretary, “Britain’s only pogrom” occurred in South Wales, with Welsh miners attacking Jewish businesses and property. Churchill promptly dispatched the army to quell the blue-collar, anti-Semitic revolt, winning for himself high praise amongst the Jewish community in Britain.

At the start of WWI Churchill intervened to help naturalise the son of the Austrian Zionist Theodor Herzl. During the war, as First Lord of the Admiralty, in charge of the navy, he  recruited the Zionist, and future first President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, as a chemical engineer to synthetically produce acetone, a solvent for naval explosives.

Significantly, Churchill was also the most prominent advocate in the British government for diverting men, ships, and materials to attack the Ottoman Empire, resulting in the ill-fated Gallipoli expedition. Gilbert alludes to Churchill’s ulterior motives in doing this, as it would help secure Palestine for Churchill’s Zionist friends. Arthur Balfour’s letter to the 2nd Baron Rothschild, “The Balfour Declaration,” confirmed the British government’s commitment to gifting the Jewish people another people’s homeland in exchange for their continued commitment to the British war effort, which included canvassing for American involvement in the war.

The Creel Committee, the advertising team that sold the American public the idea of entering the war on Britain’s behalf, despite the fact that Wilson won re-election on an anti-interventionist, “Peace without victory” ticket, certainly had its Jewish and Zionist elements. Certainty Jewish pressure mounted to get America involved. In the run-up to the American declaration of war in 1917, the Jewish financier Bernard Baruch left Wall Street to advise President Wilson on national defence, and, once war was declared, he was appointed Chairman of the War Industries Board in Wilson’s administration. Also, Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays famously partook in the propaganda campaign to steer American involvement.

With the incentive of a Jewish homeland, international Jewry, Zionists, and those sympathetic to the cause, rallied to the Entente’s side. The German defeat was attributable, in large measure, to economic warfare. Historians—Allied, German, Nazi, and even recent Rothschild biographer Niall Ferguson—have at least somewhat endorsed the “stab in the back myth.” The fact that it is referred to as a ‘myth’ rather than a ‘theory,’ should be more than enough to raise questions of historical gatekeeping. Why ‘denial’ rather than ‘revision’?

America’s international financial oligarchy, the “Big Yids,” as Ezra Pound termed them, were already sided with the international financial oligarchy of the British Empire. The war already offered financial rewards in terms of speculation and the transfer of territories and resources, but the promise of a Jewish homeland held even greater sentimental, psychological, and tribal significance for the Jewish Diaspora. The alliance between Germany and the Ottoman Empire, therefore, may well have been the factor that proved fatal to the German Reich.

National Socialist economist, Gottfried Feder

The stab-in-the-back “myth” attests that Germany was betrayed in WWI internally by a cohort of Jews, republicans, and communists. Defeat culminated in civil war, the collapse of the autocratic government, and increased civil rights for Jews. Speciously missing from the historical record, as far as I know, is a well-researched account of economic warfare against the German Empire. The trade embargo is well known and expected, but missing is a history of war credit and bonds to Germany. Did credit dry up in lieu of increasing Jewish support for the Anglo-American powers? One inferred indication of this was the publication of German economist Gottfried Feder’s Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest Slavery (1919). Feder, who was one of the founders of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, argued against “Mammonism” and framed the war in Evolian terms, speaking of a greater metaphysical struggle between ways of life:

“The World War is at its inmost core one of the biggest decisions in the evolutionary process of humanity in the struggle to decide whether in the future the Mammonistic-materialistic worldview or the socialistic-aristocratic worldview should determine the fate of the world.”

The Deuteronomic Double Standard

Clearly Churchill benefited greatly, financially and personally, from his relationships with wealthy Jews. This, combined with his unparalleled spearheading of Jewish political causes, can only lead to one conclusion, namely that Churchill was a political opportunist and gun for hire of Mammonism. In fact, Churchill’s very first platform as a junior Conservative minister was to protest against pogroms in Russia. His extreme concern with Jewish issues seems almost pathological, unless one accounts for the lining of his pockets.

The principal concept that must be imparted and understood with regard to the consciousness of Jews and their gentile apologists is the concept of a Jewish double standard, in effect giving them special status above the law. The concept of a Jewish double standard, found in the Torah, (Leviticus 25:37), corresponds to what Benjamin Nelson has labelled the Deuteronomic Double Standard. This allows Jews, specifically in relation to usury, to treat fellow Jews better than non-Jews. This is analogous to the distinction of brother vs. other, or, as Carl Schmitt put it, a well-defined “friend/ enemy” distinction.

Churchill grants Jews such a double standard, as can be observed in his famous article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” In that article, after first defining Bolshevism as a “Jewish movement,” Churchill then philosophises on the dual nature of the Jews as producing Christianity, to which he accredits “the whole of our existing civilisation,” while also producing the “anti-Christ” of Bolshevism:

“As if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of the Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people.” 

Conveniently, Churchill disregards two essential truths. Firstly, Christianity, with its universalist principles, is the antithesis of Judaism, and secondly, there is the fundamental problem that Jews reject Christ. According to Christian logic, Judaism, with its double standards of tribalism, is effectively the Antichrist itself.

Churchill then pleas for individual rights for what is in effect a collectivist entity, ignoring the fact of Jewish tribalism:

“…his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct.” 

He underlines this contradiction by lauding the Jews, who:

“…dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country… I am an Englishman practising the Jewish faith.”

Again Churchill ignores the inherent tribalism of Judaism, as if the Jewish faith was just another Christian variation which owing to liberalism must be tolerated.

Antisemitism, in its essence, is the refusal to apply individualist
standards to what is in fact a collectivist tribal entity.

Next are the ‘bad Jews’—the “International Jews”—who embrace Bolshevism and revolution. Churchill says most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of a next world. However, here Churchill’s argument rests on either ignorance or wilful deception. As Emile Durkheim noted in his famed study Suicide, Jews have lower rates of suicide than both Catholics and Protestants. Thus is not due to a lack of faith in an afterlife, but rather because their religion is a “society”—a collective. Durkheim’s hypothesis is that suicide would be highest among single, Protestant men because these groups are less integrated & less regulated. The afterlife and the belief in the immortal soul are not features of the Jewish religion.

Churchill than lists a long account of the Bolshevik Jews:

“With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.” 

But, as Gilbert writes, “Neither Churchill nor his colleagues, nor the Jews, knew that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew.” Churchill also contradicts his earlier claim about the Bolshevik Jews abandoning the faith of their forefathers, when he notes:

“…in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility.”

The next section is a public declaration in favour of Zionism:

“Zionism offers a third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race… to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life.”

This begs the question why, if the Jews are given a home, must they remain in everyone else’s lands? Why do they get their cake and eat it too?

Churchill answers that next, saying that the size of Palestine cannot accommodate more than a few million Jews, but that the growth of such a state would be beneficial to the British Empire. Curiously, the Empire today has fallen and Israel continues to grow. Furthermore after the ‘good national Jew’ has his own homeland, what keeps him loyal and patriotic to his adoptive land if he first identifies as a Jew? “Dress British, think Yiddish,” as the proverb runs. Churchill praises Zionism in precisely these terms, because it would complicate or undermine Jewish loyalty to British interests:

“A Jewish national centre in Palestine… will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory.” 

What would Churchill think of a symbol of Gentile unity and a temple of Gentile glory?

“Never has so much been owed by so many to so few”…um, yeh.


Originally published:

Jude Law as Pius XIII

by Alex Fontana

The new television drama series, The Young Pope, created and directed by Paolo Sorrentino, started off strongly.
For the first two or three episodes I felt that Sorrentino was cementing his reputation as one of the greats, but, alas, less than halfway through, the HBO series lapsed into the formulaic bathos of a common melodrama. It slowly revealed itself incapable of being the traditionalist critique that it seemed to promise at first. This was a far worse failure for me than The Great Beauty (La Grade Bellezza).

The story of The Young Pope begins with a renegade ultra-conservative young churchman, Lenny Belardo, who has just become Pope Pius XIII and has the goal of returning the Church to its former glory—basically “Making Catholicism Great Again!” The role is played enigmatically by English actor Jude Law.

The first few episodes were genuinely intriguing and exciting. It seemed as though we were witnessing something truly reactionary, done skillfully, intelligently and beautifully. I was found myself being entertained by The Young Pope, and believing that Sorrentino was not the one-hit-wonder I took him to be.
The script was witty, if a bit overblown, the camera work crisp and thoughtful, the pacing great, and the music was well worked into the scenes—creating an almost numinous atmosphere of mystery and nascent purpose suitable to a great enterprise.
In episode one, Pius is coming to clean house. He will no longer tolerate the soft liberalism that pervades the Faith. He stands for necessary intolerance and severity, and a move back towards Orthodoxy. He refuses to play the media game and eschews public speaking “until God wills it.” This is not some “pop Pope” looking to appear on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine.
A rolling Pope gathers no mass.

Instead he turns his energies inwards, working within the church to build a fanatical following, disposing of homosexuals, smashing child molesters, and expelling adulterers. What is being rejected here is the submissive relativism of the present Pope, with his aimless credo of “Who am I to judge?”

Sorrentino’s Pius XIII understands that being the Pontifex Maximus, God’s representative on earth, means that you occupy a seat of judgement—divinely inspired judgement—and must cast the first stone in judgement. The act of not judging, in fact, is a judgement in itself—a judgment not to judge. The Young Pope thus presents a fictional reactionary discourse that challenges the actual regime of the “progressive” Pope Francis (and his ‘modernizing’ predecessors, stretching even further back than Vactican II).
Pius XIII communes with God (a kind of cheap, gimmicky plot device, admittedly) and performs miracles. This readiness to move away from conventional narratives raised the possibility of the show breaking new ground or exploring taboo elememts—a crusade against Muslims in the spirit of Deus Vult, perchance, an Inquisition against heretics, a revival of traditional attitudes to Jews, or even a general “revolt against the modern world” through the work of Pius X or Benedict XVI. The Malleus Maleficarum could even have been retooled to strike at the incarnation of the witch in the modern world, namely the ‘Sex in the City’ girl.
Any of these plots would have been true to the promise of this project and helped the series move forward. At least, Sorrentino could have sparked a sentimental religious revival for simpler, more sacred times.

Sadly the show missed these golden opportunities, and, halfway through the season, lapsed instead into melodrama. Soapy endings, topped off with montage sequences set to pop music, pushed the series away from overarching topics towards twee fables and neat endings. Sorrentino essentially went for a kind of “Grey’s Anatomy” formulaic sentimentalism that pervaded the later episodes, a kind of “life is hard, but smile” degeneration of the enterprise.

Instead of the Pope changing the secular world, he was instead changed by it—pushing a message of compromise as a justification for the softening of the Church’s standards.
In place of a conservative critique of the modern Church and the modern secular world—a reversal back from Francis to Benedict and then to Pius—the show instead took its starting point of a conservative Pius and transformed him into Benedict and then the pliant and rubbery Francis, as Jude Law’s character became gradually more “tolerant” and “enlightened” by accommodation with the modern world.
With the seat of St. Pete’s in the hands of a radical progressive, pasquinos have started to appear pointing out his hypocrisy, the first time this has happened in a long time.
Contrast this with what Jeff Israely, a Jewish journalist who used to cover the Rome beat, said about Pope Benedict XVI:

“Benedict’s razor-sharp intellect is the best skill he has to offer for his church—and potentially the world as well. When he turned the brainpower toward the realm of interreligious relations in last week’s speech, Benedict shifted the terms of a debate that has been dominated by either feel-good truisms, victimization complexes, or hateful confrontation. He sought instead to delineate what he sees as a fundamental difference between Christianity’s view that God is intrinsically linked to reason (the Greek concept of Logos) and Islam’s view that “God is absolutely transcendent.”

While The Young Pope turned away from the logos of the faith’s conception of the divine, it fell into the “feel-good truisms” of the age in which it was conceived.

Curiously, ruminations about Christ and even images of Him are nearly absent from the show. It seems to bypass spiritual depth and revelation, instead focusing on a kind of House of Cards politicization of the Faith, which, despite the magical communion that the Pope enjoys with God, leaves one feeling conned with something more banal.