Feb 1, 2016

Reality Shock in the American Classroom: A Guide for the Perplexed

via The Occidental Observer

A review of Facing Reality in American Education by Robert J. Walters

There are over 1200 schools of education in the United States awarding upwards of 175,000 Masters Degrees each year. Prospective students are increasingly selected on the basis of demonstrated commitment to egalitarian ideology; in any case, all of them are  intensively marinated in that way of thinking for a couple years or more before being let loose in America’s classrooms. There, of course, they observe White, Jewish and Asian students outperforming Blacks and Mexicans—over, and over, and over again.

Some teachers’ beliefs are unaffected by even a lifetime of observation contradicting what they have been taught; such close-minded ideologues are the successes of our ed school system. But for many of their colleagues, cognitive dissonance is painful, and their inability to “make a difference” in the lives of their young Black and Brown charges can be deeply discouraging.

The education establishment makes sure these well-meaning teachers have nowhere to turn. Some become cynics who go on mouthing the platitudes they have been taught while learning not to care about their students. More than a few drop out of the profession entirely, at a considerable sacrifice of time and money invested. Very few, we can be sure, ever stumble across American Renaissance or any other publication that might allow them to make sense of their experiences.

It is for this sizeable demographic that Robert J. Walters has written Facing Reality in American Education. Mr. Walters is a successful businessman. For several decades, he has quietly supported scientific research in the field of human differences, including the work of Arthur Jensen and Thomas Bouchard’s Minnesota Twin studies — a rare and inspiring contrast with the “philanthropy” of businessmen like Bill Gates and George Soros. Now a grandfather ten times over, Mr. Walters is past the point where he need fear the attention of ideological enforcers; his book proudly bears his own name and photograph. Kevin MacDonald and Virginia Abernethy have contributed endorsements.

Robert J. Walters
Robert J. Walters
Facing Reality is a simple book in the best sense of the word. It begins with a historical sketch of race and American education which, although brief, will contain matter both new and surprising to most readers: schools open to both races existed as far back as colonial times, but well into the nineteenth century no more than a quarter of Americans received any formal schooling at all; segregation mandated by law was introduced in the South not following the Civil War or Reconstruction, but at the very end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century; it was viewed as a progressive measure at the time, and met with little initial Black opposition.

Black schools generally received funding comparable to that of White schools through the end of the nineteenth century. The inequalities we hear so much about arose in the early years of the twentieth century: e.g., in the North Carolina of 1917, $3.08 was spent on White pupils for every dollar spent on Black pupils. A reaction then set in, and the disparities eroded slowly but steadily over the half-century that followed. By 1952, two years before the Brown decision, the difference had fallen below 25 percent, and by the mid-1960s it had disappeared.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education was made explicitly with a view to improving the academic performance of Black students. It did not do so; in other words, judged by its own standard, Brown was a failure. If desegregation is celebrated today, that is because it is now viewed as an end in itself.

The failure of desegregation to raise Black achievement has led to dozens of other proposals for accomplishing that goal. The heart of Facing Reality in American Education is its brief description of every sane and insane idea put forward for eliminating the racial achievement gap in America’s schools. There are forty-two in all, and the cumulative effect of all this failure will impress all but the most hardened ideologues. Proposals discussed include busing, Head Start, more spending per pupil, new classrooms, free lunches, universal pre-school, racial quotas, bilingual education, computers, online education, higher pay for teachers, vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools, and on and on.

Some of the ideas verge on the comical. Mr. Walters introduces us to Dennis Parker, a rancher from Sacramento whose educational principle of maintaining a “good relationship” with students is based on the methods he uses to train horses. He claims to be responsible for large test score increases at two California schools, and districts have paid him thousands of dollars per day for sharing his “horse sense” philosophy of education, which no doubt beats ranching. The author demonstrates the bogusness of Parker’s claims, but does not indicate that Parker has returned any of the money. Other oddball ideas include beginning math and science instruction “shortly after birth,” paying bribes to pupils for getting good grades, and requiring that at least half the books assigned to students be written by non-Whites.

Mr. Walters concludes his list with accounts of the most recent fiascos, No Child Left Behind and Common Core (the latter of which has unfortunately not yet had time to fail; but don’t worry, it will). There follows a brief chapter on the related issue of the racial gap in student misbehavior, and another on the erosion of overall standards which is the inevitable by-product of any effort to make all groups achieve at the same rate.

By this time the reader should be well prepared for the author’s brief account of the realist position and the most convincing evidence for it: IQ studies, twin studies and trans-racial adoption studies. Mr. Walters’ focus is on readers to whom these ideas are new and possibly unsettling, so he is careful to explain that the recognition of human differences is not meant to hurt any group; on the contrary, it would help adapt education to the needs of different kinds of pupils.

Facing Reality in American Education is a book which might achieve a great deal of good if it gets into the proper hands. It has already been promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity on their radio programs, and is beginning to rack up positive reviews at Amazon.com. If you know a young teacher or anyone considering K-12 education as a career, slip them a copy of this brief and accessible book. It might save them years of frustration.

No Country for White Men: Racial Politics and Realities in "True Detective" Season 2

via ICA Reviews

The second season of HBO’s bleak series True Detective shifts the scene of the sickness from creepy gothic Louisiana to dystopian southern California, a setting with a more strikingly chaotic ethnic mix that lends itself to an exploration of race relations in America. The plot this time around concerns the intertwined lives and fortunes of vicious but decent-hearted gangster Frank Semyon (Vince Vaughn) and tortured and tarnished detective Ray Velcoro (Colin Farrell) and their investigation into the convoluted circumstances of a politician’s death.

True Detective presents a world of demographic horror, an America in which racial loyalties are nonexistent and fealty of any other kind is hard to come by. Whites, blacks, Mexicans, and Jews are all crooked. Mexicans, while distrustful and destructive of whites, also think nothing of killing each other, while whites, finding themselves marooned in an increasingly hostile and meaningless world, grasp at anything they can get. Race-based tensions nevertheless continue to simmer beneath the surface of several of the characters’ interactions. Semyon is a self-made man and a bigot, a walking contradiction who dislikes the changing demographics of the U.S. and seethes with an angry white man’s discontent but is also and at the same time cynically complicit in the smuggling of illegal aliens into his country.

Semyon
Vince Vaughn as Frank Semyon

Semyon is also an anti-Semite and calls Israeli gangster Osip Agronov (Timothy Murphy) a “KGB kike motherfucker”. True Detective is rather daring in identifying the true ethnic character of the “Russian” mafia. The series gives Semyon more than one moment of triumphant crowd-pleasing sadism, and it is significant that one of these is reserved not for one of the Jewish gangsters, but for an especially weaselly specimen of the Shabbos goy, or gentile who sells his treacherous services to the Jewish enemy. Leonard Cohen’s excellent theme song, “Nevermind”, is interesting in this context for featuring the lines “I was not caught, though many tried. / I live among you, well-disguised.”

Velcoro
Fred Ward as Mr. Velcoro

In another scene, Semyon pummels and then pulls out the teeth of a mouthy brown-skinned inferior (Pedro Miguel Arce) – content that serves as vicarious satisfaction for Caucasian viewers fed up with pretending to like their laughingly darkening world. Representing such viewers is Velcoro’s father (Fred Ward), a retired policeman who found he was no longer able to carry out his duties properly with the advent of the fuck-the-police zeitgeist that found its explosive expression in the 1992 L.A. riots. The U.S. as it presently stands is “no country for white men,” he observes as he enjoys a black-and-white Kirk Douglas movie. He is one of two aged policemen in True Detective who remarks that blacks’ intensifying hostility toward police made it increasingly difficult for them to do their jobs.

The audience, one suspects, is expected to feel a mingled contempt and sympathy for this old man who has given up on life and squanders what little of it is left to him getting high and living in a televised, mythologized past. A parallel character is the disgusting, whorish ex-dancer mother (Lolita Davidovich) of highway patrolman and ex-mercenary Paul Woodrugh (Taylor Kitsch). Like old Mr. Velcoro, she prefers the comfort of watching old movies to doing anything productive with her years of decline. Morally and physically decrepit, her narrow, nostalgic tribalism takes the incestuous form of a selfish attachment to her son, who clearly wants nothing to do with her.

True Detective also offers multiple examples of interracial relationships, but none of these is deep, lasting, or free of damaged trust. As one of the season’s other songs suggests, “There’s no future. There’s no past.” – an assessment that could easily apply to America’s multiracial experiment as depicted in these episodes. A feeling of imminent doom pervades not just the lives of the principal characters, but the life of the proposition nation. In one episode, Detective Velcoro visits the set of a cheesy post-apocalyptic action movie – a cartoon version of the American century taking shape around those dumb enough not to notice what has been happening. Indeed, the characters who survive the final episode are those who choose to flee the country – no livable future seemingly being available to them here.

The Collapsing Fairy Tale: Iranian Ayatollah and American Rapper Strike at Anti-White Holocaust Blood Libel

via TradYouth

January 27th was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, but this year the rites that usually accompany the Religion of the West have been met with defiance from likely and unlikely sources.

The Internet today embodies the Great Information Equalizer. The free exchange of ideas sans consistent Jewish interception has replaced pyramidal top-down ideological instruction from mass media, Hollywood, and the politicized Education system. The Jews have muddled history, defamed nations and races, and kept the lid on scientific advancements, but it’s getting more difficult for them to get away with it.

Time and time again, people are discovering through mass communication with those around the world that what they’re being told about each other simply isn’t true. The instantaneous availability and reproduction of violently suppressed historical work (David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zundel, Jurgen Graf, Germer Rudolf, et al.) has outpaced political police and censors. The compelling arguments they make are proverbial sledgehammers to the base of the myth. Jews are feverishly looking for a solution to the problem of unbridled Gentile-to-Gentile communication, as my upcoming book will extrapolate upon, but for now they are panicking while watching the last granules of sand drop on the consensus of their hoax.

Ayatollah Khamenei Stands Up For Revisionists, Questions Holocaust That Never Happened


Perhaps the greatest myth in human history, the forged atrocity propaganda that accuses the German people of gassing and burning alive 6,000,000 Jews during the Second World War is utilized as an anti-white defamation to foment hatred of European descended people abroad, while also psychologically manipulating people targeted by this bigotry-fueled lie into apathy or guilt.

Throughout most of the European Union, questioning the Holocaust in any shape or form subjects you to loss of employment, violent harassment from Jewish paramilitary groups that operate with state support, and even murder and public sanctions (fines and imprisonment). It doesn’t matter whether it’s expressing scientific skepticism about whether the camps were used to exterminate people, or stating 5,999,999 Jews died instead of the magical, perfectly round figure of 6 million.

The purpose of these laws is to strongly discourage once world-renown historians like David Irving, America’s former top gas chamber specialist Frank Leuchter, and scores of elderly Germans who have long been reluctant to go public with their findings in the post-war climate from disseminating their evidence or testifying as to what they actually have seen. When a wave of Germans who had lived and worked throughout the Third Reich began to speak out against the Holocaust narrative during the 70’s and 80’s, the National Socialism Prohibition Law (Verbotsgesetz) drawn up by the Allied occupation was updated under Jewish pressure in 1992 to include:
“He who operates in a manner characterized other than that in § § 3a –3f will be punished with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects of activity, be punished with up to twenty years’ imprisonment.”
Just to understand the scope of these abusive and shockingly draconian laws, the average murderer in Germany serves 19.9 years in prison, just under the maximum punishment for “minimizing the Holocaust”!

This punishment only applies to the study of the Holocaust in Europe. Denying the Armenian genocide or any other historical atrocity that doesn’t impede on Jewish interests is allowed. When the Swiss courts tried to prosecute a Turk who denied the Armenian genocide under Holocaust enforcement laws, the European Court of Human Rights overruled them and declared that it was a violation of his freedom of speech (Perin├žek v. Switzerland , 2013). Incidentally, most Jewish organizations (such as the Anti-Defamation League) and the Israeli government not only cynically deny that the Armenian genocide happened, but unironically aggressively lobby to block governments from recognizing it.

Ursula Haverbeck: Wanted For The Crime Of Speaking About Childhood Memories Jews Don't Like.
Ursula Haverbeck: Wanted For The Crime Of Speaking About Childhood Memories Jews Don’t Like

The latest case of German totalitarianism was featured in the video of spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s address to the world on Holocaust Remembrance day. Ursula Haverbeck, an 87 year old woman, was investigated by German secret police for “offenses” committed when she went on television in March 2015, recounting her life as a girl in the Third Reich and what she witnessed. Later in June of the same year, she was again sought for a publication of similar content. In response to this, the German political police hunted the elderly woman down to her Lower Saxony home, broke in, tore everything apart looking for “evidence,” and subsequently arrested her for crimes against the state ideology.

The Zionist controlled German courts showed no mercy to the octogenarian, and she stuck to the facts as she saw them, as loyal Germans usually do. She was sentenced to 10 months in prison to the “applause” of blood thirsty Jewish sadists and their bribed running dogs.

The warped decision to imprison a little old lady who is three years short of 90 years old, in Europe’s alleged “largest democracy” (currently lecturing Poland on “democracy,” …hah!) no less, for simply speaking about the politics of her childhood has been completely ignored by all the “human rights” groups and “skeptic societies” that bang their giant noses on the table when Russia imprisons “Pussy Riot” for attacking an Orthodox Church. Groups like Amnesty International and the ACLU (in the case of Holocaust revisionists like Germer Rudolf, who have tried to seek asylum in the United States) have a distinct policy against helping “deniers”. We all know why.

On this issue and many others, the Iranians have shown that they are more willing to stand up for our rights and our reputation than even our own “Race Realists” are. Using puzzling illogic, certain softer conservative tendencies on the Alt-Right like to build a whole theory around “white guilt” being the culprit of our demise, yet go out of their way to discourage you from attacking the hoax that–if anything–is the locus of white guilt.

Iran is the only state on earth that vindicates the dignity of the German people and fights against this historical malfeasance. Unlike their more primitive and violent Sunni co-religionists who fall into all the Jewish traps, Aryan-influenced Shia Iran has decided to use kulturkampf to expose Jew hypocrites drawing pictures of their prophet Mohammad having sex with animals or Jesus (also considered illegal to portray obscenely in Islam) getting sodomized in Charlie Hebdo under the cloak of “free expression”, by hosting their own cartoon contest mocking the “West’s” pile of 6,000,000 sacred cows. I encourage all of you to participate if you have a knack for the arts.

Black Rapper Stuns Jews With Holocaust Verse

The Southern Poverty Law Center and mass media have an unspoken rule: The more melanin you have, the more taboos (not accepting queers, talking down to women, etc) you can break. There are some exceptions however, and one of them is when it comes to blacks criticizing Jews, which is put down with the same racist viciousness as white dissent.

B.O.B. , a hugely famous rapper who has had at least three songs that have broken into the Billboard Top 10, has come out of nowhere to dish out a two-handed ear clap to the shrieks of Jewish despotry:

Do your research on David Irving/Stalin was way worse than Hitler/That’s why the POTUS [President of the United States] gotta wear a Kippah.
The rap’s flat earth theory mention sort of takes away from the power of Holo-truth, but I digress. He deserves credit for almost certainly sacrificing his music recording career. The unlikelihood of a person like B.O.B. to even know who David Irving is should serve a lesson: Far more people are reading Holocaust revisionist material than you can imagine, they’re just afraid to break the ice with strangers. Don’t be surprised if taking the initiative to talk to friends, family and strangers about this topic reveals that you’ve been agreeing all along.
 

In Case You’re Not Aware

The Holocaust has been proven a farce countless times by engineers, historians, archivists, mathematicians, eye witnesses, chemists, and others from all walks of life.

The 1973 memoir Die, Auschwitz-Luge: Ein Erlebnisbericht von Thies Christopherson (The Auschwitz Legends: An Account of his Experiences by Thies Christopherson), was one of many testimonies to the true nature of what went on in Auschwitz-Birkenau. In the book, Christopherson talks about his experiences at the Bunawerk plant laboratory at Auschwitz, where he was dispatched to work on a synthetic rubber project between January and December of 1944.

While life in the camp towards the end of the war was full of hardship (for example, the Obersturmbannfuhrer died at the camp, on page 33), this was by no means an extermination conspiracy. Christopherson confirms the existence of crematoriums, but only for hygenic (for those who died of disease due to doctors being largely sent to the Eastern front to contain typhus epidemics)–not homicidal reasons–and correctly notes that any space or dwelling with 200,000 people (like Auschwitz) has a crematorium.

The Allies claim that the German government kept the purpose of Auschwitz secret from German citizens, which is how they explain why they can hardly find any Germans to corroborate what Jews after the war have said. Christopherson says that relatives of workers were allowed to freely visit them at the camp, such as the wife of the aforementioned German officer who died alongside her husband from camp conditions as well.

Most importantly of all, Christopherson testifies that a meticulous Red Cross inspection was conducted to ensure the camp was operated in accordance to international law:
“There were no secrets at Auschwitz. In September 1944 a commission of the International Red Cross came to the camp for an inspection. They were particularly interested in the camp at Birkenau, though we also had many inspections at Raisko.” (pg. 35)
The Red Cross Report on the concentration camp Christopherson speaks of is today available for anyone to see. While it criticizes certain infrastructural shortcomings at Auschwitz, it makes no mention of genocide or mass killing. Holocaust myth makers have defended against the Red Cross reports by suggesting the chronically short of manpower Germans at Auschwitz somehow were able to conceal that they were killing millions of people right before IRC’s multiple inspections. Somehow they were able to notice dated shower fixtures, yet not homicidal gas chambers or hundreds of thousands of corpses (or the ashes they produce after burning)!

In Volume III of the Red Cross “death camp” reports, the Red Cross addresses the bathing areas supposedly masking homicidal gas showers: “Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers, and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged” (pg. 594) but no poison gas delivery system was found.

Thies Christopherson’s book was ruthlessly persecuted, and the man who agreed to publish it (Dr Manfred Roeder) was brought before the Disciplinary Commission of the Frankfurt Chamber of Lawyers at the behest of the notorious Zionist Simon Wiesenthal. When this succeeded, even certain aspects of the press asked “Is Simon Wiesenthal the new Gauleiter of Germany?” (Deutsche Wochenzeitung, July 27th, 1973).

Basically, there is no actual evidence for the “Holocaust”. Nuremberg supposedly proved its existence, but the Jews who testified to being gassed, seeing people thrown in ovens alive, human skin used for lampshades, mass summary executions of tens of thousands, etc. all did so via affidavits. In other words, the defense was not able to cross-examine them, and most legal systems in the world would’ve thrown these affidavits out as hearsay.

After extraneous efforts and pressure by Holocaust revisionists, the Yad Vashem of Israel was not long ago forced to admit that both the human lampshades and soap stories were hoaxes . That didn’t stop Jews from accusing a number of people of committing such heinous acts, and it certainly didn’t stop the “Allies” from hanging or imprisoning for life innocent Germans such as Ilse Koch over these malicious lies.

Aside from affidavits from lying Jews, most of the “confessions” from high profile German officers were taken under torture, which Senator Joseph McCarthy (today maligned by Jews for his anti-Communist efforts) brought to national attention after the war. Nuremberg and other Allied tribunals were nothing but kangaroo courts, where men of great honor were murdered in cold blood for crimes the system itself is beginning to be forced to admit were made up. One piece of Allied atrocity propaganda that came to fore when it became useful to tell the truth, the Katyn Forest Massacre, was not done by Germans, but by Soviet Jewish officers of the NKVD just like Joseph Goebbels said. But that won’t bring back the Germans executed when the war ended after being framed.

Other ridiculous “evidence” for the Holocaust is the allegation of the Wansee Conference, supposedly where the “final solution” as defined by the system was plotted by the German high command. Conveniently, all records and notes from the conference were allegedly “destroyed” by the Nationalsocialists to “hide” their conspiracy. Somehow the Jews and the Allies not only know it happened, but exactly what was talked about. And they call us the conspiracy theorists!

And that’s it. That’s all they have to offer to prove the Holocaust is anything more than a politically motivated slander to shake money and nuclear missile capable Dolphin II submarines out of the German taxpayer, so that Jews can obliterate mankind in the blink of an eye in case their slower method doesn’t work. That’s why historians need to be “vetted” by the Polish and German governments before looking at their archives. That’s why you can’t dig up Babi Yar to excavate the bones of the supposed 100-150,000 (!) people that were executed there. That’s why when Ernst Zundel or Ursula Haverbeck challenge the Holocaust in court, the evidence gets suppressed by a Judge’s decree that “The Holocaust happened because it happened.” That’s why defense lawyer Sylvia Stolz was imprisoned for five years simply for doing her duty and trying to argue for Zundel in court.

Exposing the Holocaust as what it is must be one of the main tenets of any emerging Western nationalist movement. Don’t settle for anything less because this is the first–not the last–problem we need to deal with before any real work gets done. Jews are frightened by the freedom of the Internet, and the resistance this freedom is building up to their lies worldwide. Despite having total control of our education system, media, movies, and political structures, Jews know that a truly free debate between Germans (known for their honesty) and Jews (known for their pathological lying) in any venue would mean the implosion of a major tenet of their folklore (“survivors” know it’s a lie, but keep the legend alive) and the neutralization of their sociopathic manipulation of common human (and especially Aryan) empathy. Imagine if enough of us woke up one day and said: “we’ve been had!”. For all their mockery of whites as bumbling cucked idiots and weak dweebs, Jews know deep in their heart that we can fight as fiercely as we can heal.

Are You a "Racist?"

via The Political Cesspool

The key to defusing the socio-political nuclear bomb!

The Duck Speaks

via Radix

We here at Radix are happy to bring you an interview with that noted social media scourge the Duck (or @jokeocracy as he was known on Twitter). His tweets have triggered leftists from the Washington Post to USA Today. In addition to this, he has contributed posts at dissident websites such as Chateau Heartiste. He and Radix’s Hannibal Bateman discuss his recent “Twitter martyrdom,” his thoughts on the platform, the media as well as some of his intellectual influences. 

Hannibal Bateman: Could you talk a little about your latest Twitter ban and what you are looking to expose with it?

Duck: I’ve seen a lot of signs that Twitter is planning to purge a wide swath of the alt-right and other pro-Trump populist nationalists. The hashtags that fail to autocomplete were the beginning of it, and there have quietly been suspensions and shadow bannings. I've heard rumors from people I believe that Twitter is internally assembling lists of undesirable accounts for future action against.
Twitter is in a lot of trouble for a lot of reasons (see here), but management is ready to blame "harrassment" and "targeted abuse" and "hate speech" which are actually the only things keeping the platform exciting and relevant.

I suspect that Twitter is going to drop the hammer on thousands of pro-Trump accounts at the same time it banishes the alt-right so they can brand it as "cleaning up hate speech" but it may be timed to disrupt Trump's support before a crucial primary date.

I saw this coming and I didn't want my account to just be disappeared silently in the night. I decided I would go out in style and have fun getting myself suspended. I decided to go for it on a Sunday so I'd have the maximum chance of not being suspended right away, and Twitter firing a group of executives at the same time was an opportune coincidence.

I started tweeting at journalists describing the execution they'll receive at the hands of President Trump, and I asked my followers to nominate journalists for roasting. It went on all day Sunday and into the night, there are a few I missed but I managed to cover most of the journalism-industrial complex with amusing execution fantasies. Technically I didn't actually threaten anyone, I just described their future legal execution at the hands of the Trumperor once the Thousand-Year Trumpenreich commences, but Twitter isn't much for nuance.

They didn't actually suspend me until Twitter support got to the office at 8:40 am Monday. They've since communicated to me in an email that my original 12-hour suspension is permanent and my account will not be restored.

HB: Where do you see the future of online organization for those of us with rather "outre" right opinions? (Or/and is there a future for it at all?)

D: The current social networks are based on advertising revenues and the climate that advertisers want will never be compatible with transgressive opinions. Reddit has the same issue, and so does Facebook.

It's questionable whether a social network can be run under another business model, but I expect advertising revenues will crash even further. I think the future of open discourse is probably a platform that hasn't been invented yet, ideally something distributed and un-censorable could be built.

HB: Do you think the anonymity these platforms lend themselves to is ultimately a boon or a crutch for a movement looking to make actual dents in the media/information complex?

D: It's certainly helpful to be pseudonymous in an age of regular economic defenestration, I'm sure the establishment would prefer if we used real names so it could exact vengeance on us.

The chan culture has adopted norms of complete anonymity which are arguably even better at eliminating the morality signaling that left wing behavior is based on, I wonder if Facebook is so disgustingly full of signaling because of its real name policies? It seems that anonymity is inherently anti-establishment, whatever that establishment may be.

I also think there's a major misconception around anonymity. Many people seem to go by the assumption that anyone anonymous or pseudonymous is just some loser tweeting from his parents basement but in my experience most of the people who zealously guard their true identity do it because they're accomplished people with a lot to lose.

That said, there is certainly a need for some people to be willing to shed their anonymity and assume leadership roles under their own names, and I hope we do see that happen more and more as time passes and people feel like they aren't alone and can find ways to withstand the heat.

HB: How important do you think trolling will continue to be as a way to disrupt the sort of liberal narrative hegemony we've been seeing for so long?

D: Trolling is and has always been a way of speak truth to power and tweaking the establishment. Back in the 60’s trolling was a tool for hippies to attack The Man, and very little has changed since then except the identities of the hippies and of The Man have mostly swapped.

HB: Back in the 60’s there was a radical group of Marxists known as “situationists” who essentially sought to carve out spaces for radical leftist politics in everyday interactions that would send a sort of ideological jolt through spaces. In a way, I think our trolling is doing something similar only from the right. Outside of Twitter, what sort of actions can shitlords take to interrupt these narratives on a day to day basis?

D: I think comedy is an essential aspect of persuasion that is often overlooked by the right, but the times have never been more fertile for right-wing comedy. Comedy is essentially about transgression, and the left has become unable to engage in real transgression anymore given their position as the arbiters of establishment taste.

This leftist abandonment of the field of comedy is a huge opportunity for the right to establish a major front in the culture wars, and right now I think this opportunity is being squandered. The resistance against the Left spends millions of dollars on electing useless candidates and political signaling but those things are downstream from culture. An edgy hard right wing comedy show that pulled zero punches and was done professionally with a real budget would probably have more effect on the national political climate than all the policy papers by all the right-wing think tanks in the world put together.

HB: If going offline is what is needed, what sort of organization do you think is most important?

D: I don't think people should go offline as a replacement for Twitter, I just recommended reaching out in real life and other venues because I think Twitter will soon purge a lot of accounts and I'd hate to see people lose touch with their Twitter friends entirely because of Twitter's cowardice.

HB: Do you think the sort of SJW mob mentality has seen its zenith or will it only get worse from here?

D: It’s going to get much worse, we're in an 1859 type situation here, the polarization of America has rarely been more entrenched. War is coming.

HB: 2015 was a big year for growth in both "alt-right" and "NRx" circles throughout the internet. Do you think we should expect the same in 2016, or will there be a retrenchment?

D: 2016 is going to be the Year of the Shitlord. More and more people are fed up with the current state of our nation's discourse, and I think this year many of the right wing anonymous voices will emerge from the shadows, to put their names behind their words.

I'm personally working on some projects to help make 2016 our finest year, but it's too soon to give any details. In a few months I should have something amazing to announce, so stay tuned to this and other alt-right news sources. I'll make sure it gets covered widely.

HB: How do you see the role of the sort of petty media mandarins we see on social media, from the journalists to various other functionaries? As mere "Outer Party" members disseminating the Cathedral (or Synagogue if you prefer) line or do you think they actually have a more central role to the hegemonic narrative they support?

D: The Cathedral is frightening because it's just a set of blind incentives to signal leftist holiness without anyone actually being in charge of it. It would be a lot more comforting to believe conspiracy theories about a shadowy cabal running the world for their own interests, but the awful truth is that no one is in charge and even the people we view as being on top are mostly unable to materially affect the direction of the leviathan.

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, we live in what are possibly the most interesting times in history.

HB: Which journalists or outlets would you love to lose the most legitimacy, and why?

D: Gawker is, of course, the worst, and they seemed to be on the verge of death until this recent investment from a Russian mobster, I mean, oligarch. We call them oligarchs when they have a billion dollars. We'll see what happens there but I guess Nick Denton must be pretty desperate to take that kind of money.

The Buzzfeeds and Voxes of the world are probably the next tier down, but America will never be totally free until the New York Times building is a funeral pyre. It would probably help to drive a few tanks into Harvard Yard while we're at it.

HB: In your opinion, how has the rise of Donald Trump galvanized what has come to be known as the "alt-right" on Twitter?

D: Trump recognized that the white working class had no voice in today's American politics, and he's become a rallying point for everyone who feels that the establishment needs to be torn down. His specific beliefs and policies are for the most part unimportant, he serves as a Schelling point for a deep anti-establishment feeling that has grown strong in the absence of any other permitted outlets to vent that emotion.

I generally support Trump but I don't think he will win the election, I believe the establishment will do anything in its power to prevent his victory. I think the establishment will massively overreach and the blatant theft of the 2016 election could be the trigger for Civil War 2.

HB: What are your thoughts on Trump's retweeting of various "controversial" accounts and how it has affected the media narrative of his campaign and how his supporters see online see him?

D: Trump is playing the media like a master, I've never seen anyone this skilled at trolling. He skillfully manipulates the media into bringing ideas into the Overton Window from the right. Without Trump, no one in this election would be talking about immigration, and he even caused the memes of "alt-right" and "white genocide" to be repeated by major news organizations.

HB: How irrelevant do you see the current crop of media elites on the Right? (I'm thinking NR, the Weekly Standard, and others).

D: They’re still somewhat relevant but they're not actually on the Right, they're just another part of the establishment that helps redirect dissatisfaction into harmless political activity.

HB: If you could exercise the same sort of narrative power over liberal and "cuckservative" journalists as they do over "alt-right" or "NRx" views now, would you? And why if you would?

D: I am a very militant supporter of free speech, but not for communists. I think any sensible society would have communists executed as a clear and present danger to civilization itself. Feminists and other types of cultural marxists are just another kind of communist.

Our nation is a progressive theocracy and I don't believe a nation can exist without a shared myth, so when we tear this one down we'll need something to replace it with, probably some kind of nationalism.

HB: Why did you decide to start an anonymous Twitter?

D: I saw things that happened to various people like Brendan Eich and Justine Sacco and I wanted to comment on these and other situations from an anonymous vantage point. I was also a follower of the terrific @ALLCAPSBRO and wanted to try my hand at anonymous twitter comedy, so I made an account with a duck avatar to try my hand. I never expected to gain so many followers (I had over 9000 when my account was finally suspended forever) and become so popular, but it was a hell of a ride and I enjoyed going out in a blaze of glory like that. It was quite a rush and I feel like I understand the psychology of suicide bombers a little better after that experience.

HB: What have been some of your main intellectual influences? and how did those lead you outside of the mainstream?

D: I was a standard-issue Mises & Rothbard reading anarcho-capitalist libertarian when I first discovered people like Steve Sailer and the late Larry Auster. They led me to the paleocons and via Auster I stumbled on Mencius Moldbug and all of his old books. These days I generally label myself as a neoreactionary but I try to follow a philosophy of "no enemies to the right". We can disagree on a lot but if you're an enemy of the establishment left I want to count you as an ally, right-wing infighting has never served our side well. We can fight after the Left is safely buried.

HB: What has been your biggest surprise since getting into all of this?

D: The number of people who secretly hold non-PC ideas is tremendous, the left presents itself as having a monopoly on ideas but the cracks are showing.

HB: Finally, do you have any advice for aspiring Twitter/internet shitlords out there?

D: We live in a society and a culture that opposes truth, so once you acquire the truth you can't live your life in the same way anymore. What we say matters but what's more important is the example that we set as we 'Live Not By Lies'. A shitlord is a modern dissident and the truth is our greatest weapon.

Clint Eastwood Blasts Oscar Boycott as Charlotte Rampling Defends Her Comments Calling the Backlash "Anti-White"

via DavidDuke.com

I need to preface everything I say about this on-going Oscars controversy by stating that I despite Hollywood. If it weren’t for intercontinental flights, I would hardly see any movies at all. This latest uproar about the “whiteness” of the Oscars is so ridiculous given the thorough Jewish domination of Hollywood and the easily documented hostility of the Jewish elite towards the white European race.

In general, I would just rather ignore Hollywood, but given its prominence in society, I need to point out a few things regarding the controversy. First, while I am pleased that at least some movie stars speaking out against the proposed boycott of the Oscars and even condemning its anti-white nature, predictably none of the spoiled and pampered sell-out white actors dares mention the fact that Hollywood is not run by white Europeans, but rather by Jews.

The reaction of much of the black contingent in Hollywood is utterly reprehensible. They have been so inculcated in a culture of both victimhood and privilege that they assume there should be a black quota for every endevor, regardless of effort or merit.

Similarly, if they are over-represented in the prison system, the ranks of the unemployed, or the welfare rolls, the only possible explanation can be systemic racism.

You constantly hear blacks and their pretend allies in the media calling for a discussion about race, but the fact is that any honest discussion about race would expose too many realities that they would prefer continue to be ignored. Perhaps the indignation of a few otherwise pampered white Hollywood goyim can spark a reality check.

Daily Mail
  • Clint Eastwood says majority of people in the Academy do not win awards
  • Charlotte Rampling said calls for more minority nominees were ‘anti-white’
  • Chelsea Clinton blasted Rampling as ‘outrageous, ignorant and offensive’
  • Rampling is nominated for Best Actress for her work in 45 Years 
  • She gave a radio interview in Paris on Friday attacking the Oscar boycott
  • She later released a statement saying comments were ‘misinterpreted’ 
  • The ‘White Oscars’ row began when Jada Pinkett Smith and Spike Lee announced their intention to boycott the ceremony on Monday 
  • Will Smith and Michael Moore have both since decided not to attend 
  • Many others in Hollywood have joined the debate including Sir Michael Caine, Reese Witherspoon, Idris Elba and Mark Ruffalo
Clint Eastwood has blasted the Oscar race row as actress Charlotte Rampling defended her comments calling the backlash ‘anti-white’.

When asked what he thought about the controversy surrounded Hollywood’s biggest awards show, Eastwood told TMZ he didn’t know anything about it.

The 85-year-old then added: ‘All I know is there’s thousands of people in the Academy and a lot of them, the majority of them, haven’t won Oscars.’

Eastwood isn’t one of the majority, however, having won four Academy Awards during his lengthy career – Best Director and Best Picture in 2005 for Million Dollar Baby and Best Director and Best Picture in 1993 for Unforgiven.

But he slammed those calling for a boycott of the ceremony after no non-white actors were nominated in the acting categories for the second year in a row, adding: ‘A lot of people are crying, I guess.’ 


‘A lot of people are crying’: When asked about the Oscars controversy, Clint Eastwood blasted those calling for a boycott

Meanwhile, Rampling entered the debate early on Friday saying that plans to boycott the Oscars were misguided and calls to get more minority nominees were ‘anti-white racism’.

Ms Rampling’s entrance into the row was notable as she is one of this year’s nominees and is shortlisted for Best Actress for her role in 45 Years.

But she released a statement Friday evening however saying that her comments had been ‘misinterpreted.’

Chelsea Clinton launched a scathing attack on Rampling on Friday in anger over her comments and took to Twitter to blasted the veteran actress and Oscar nominee.
Clinton called her standpoint ‘outrageous, ignorant and offensive’.

Many on Twitter rallied to the actress’ side after Clinton’s swipe.

One user wrote: ‘Why? Because she has an opinion that’s not the same as yours. All sides should be heard with respect’.

Another added: ‘What Charlotte Rampling said was absolutely correct. It’s progressives like yourself who refuse to recognise it.’

The British star, 69, said such politically correct thinking was a form of racism in itself.

Speaking on Europe 1 radio station in Paris, where she now lives, Ms Rampling said: ‘It’s anti-white racism. Maybe black actors don’t deserve to be on the final stretch?’Rampling, who first made her name in classic films including Georgy Girl in the 1960s, said she was also opposed to quotas being introduced to promote black actors.

‘Why classify people?’ she said. ‘They feel like a minority, they think: “We’re the black actors and there are not enough of us.’

Referring to the vanity of some actors in general, Ms Rampling added: ‘There will always be problems – he’s too handsome, he’s too black, he’s too white…’

She released a statement to CBS Sunday Morning soon after, saying; ‘I regret that my comments could have been misinterpreted this week in my interview with Europe 1 Radio.

Misinterpreted? Charlotte Rampling is up for her first Oscar for 45 Years, seen here.  During a Friday radio interview on Europe 1 radio station in Paris, where she now lives, Ms Rampling said of the boycott: ‘It’s anti-white racism’

‘I simply meant to say that in an ideal world every performance will be given equal opportunities for consideration. I am very honored to be included in this year’s wonderful group of nominated actors and actresses.’

Her views seemed to be supported by Sir Michael Caine, who spoke out against race coming into the nomination process.

He told the BBC: ‘There’s loads of black actors. In the end you can’t vote for an actor because he’s black. You can’t say ‘I’m going to vote for him, he’s not very good, but he’s black, I’ll vote for him’.

‘You have to give a good performance and I’m sure people have. I saw Idris Elba (in Beasts Of No Nation)… I thought he was wonderful.’

The two-time Academy Award-winner also said black actors should ‘be patient’.

‘Of course it will come. It took me years to get an Oscar, years,’ he added. ‘The best thing about it is you don’t have to go. Especially the Oscars, 24 hours on an aeroplane and I’ve got to sit there clapping Leonardo DiCaprio.

‘I love Leonardo, he played my son in a movie, but I’m too old to travel that far and sit in an audience and clap someone else.’

Meanwhile, actress Ellen Page – who was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for her role in 2008’s Juno has taken the opposite stance, insisting the situation is a ‘reflection of the industry’ as a whole.

She told The Wrap: ‘It’s awful, and I think what just happened in regards to the nominations two years in a row is a reflection of the industry itself, and the lack of diversity in all positions.

‘I feel like we all have to be doing what we can to make a change, because we’re supposed to be telling stories that reflect human experience, and we can’t just be showing one group of people.’

The new comments came as the Academy rushed to announce new rules to counter the criticism.

They pledged to double the number of female and minority members by 2020, and will immediately diversify its leadership by adding three new seats to its board of governors.

Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs announced the changes on Friday.

‘The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,’ she said in a statement.

Other changes include limiting members’ voting status to a period of 10 years, to be extended only if the individual remains active in film during that decade.

'Spoiled brats': Prouder Gerald Molen, pictured left, collecting his Oscar for Shindler's List has blasted plans for an Oscars boycott. He is pictured with Steven Spielberg and Branko Lusting
‘Spoiled brats’: Prouder Gerald Molen, pictured left, collecting his Oscar for Shindler’s List has blasted plans for an Oscars boycott. He is pictured with Steven Spielberg and Branko Lusting


Lifetime voting rights will be granted only to Academy Award nominees and winners, and to members after three ten-year voting terms.

Previously, all active members received lifetime voting rights.

The organization also plans to diversify its leadership beyond the board of governors by adding new members to key decision-making committees, and further diversify its membership with a global campaign to identify and recruit diverse talent.

Reaction came swiftly.

On Saturday, Silence Of The Lambs director Jonathan Demme called for even more immediate action by the Academy.

Writing on Deadline.com, Demme, who won a best Director Academy Award for the 1991 movie, said changes should be implemented straightaway for this year’s round of voting.

‘It’s exciting that the Academy has responded so swiftly and openly with an admission of the white male dominance of our films, our industry, and our awards,’ he wrote in an opinion piece published Saturday.

‘Wouldn’t it be so wise, and so very correct, to not wait for next year to address this enormous challenge/problem?’

Demme, 71, went on: ‘Instead, let’s recalibrate this years votes, expanding the entries in all categories, and in this way make it possible for us all to actually watch what is presently — unwatchably — so mortifyingly the ‘best white whatever’ in all categories of the 2016 Oscar ceremony.’

The director, who also helmed Philadelphia, starring Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks, and Meryl Streeps’ Ricki And The Flash, also suggested that members of the Academy should be required to watch all the films released during a year before voting.

Ava DuVernay, director of last year’s best picture-nominee ‘Selma,’ tweeted that the changes were ‘one good step in a long, complicated journey for people of color and women artists.’

She added: ‘Shame is a helluva motivator.’

The diversity issue has been dividing Hollywood all week and looks set to dominate discussions surrounding the Chris Rock hosted ceremony scheduled for February 28.

Black stars fail to feature on any of the four lead and supporting acting categories. It follows a 2015 shortlist which was equally homogeneous.

The only black projects nominated for an Oscar – What Happened, Miss Simone? for documentary and Straight Outta Compton for screenplay – have all white nominees.

Jada Pinkett Smith publicly addressed the issue with a video on her Facebook page which helped kick-start the debate about this year’s lack of diversity.

The Magic Mike XXL star said she would not attend the ceremony over the issue.

‘I can’t help ask the question: is it time that people of color, recognize how much power and influence we have amassed that we no longer need to ask to be invited anywhere,’ she said.

‘I ask the question have we now come to a new time and place, where we recognize that we can no longer beg for the love, acknowledgement or respect of any group.

‘That maybe it is time that we love, respect and acknowledge ourselves in the way we are asking others to do, then that that is the place of true power. I’m simply asking the question.

‘Here is what I believe, the Academy has the right to acknowledge whomever they choose, to invite whomever they choose and now, I think that it is our responsibility now, to make the change.’

Her husband Will backed her in an appearance on Good Morning America on Thursday.

‘I think that diversity is the American superpower. That’s why we’re great,’ he told Robin Roberts in the exclusive interview.

‘So many different people from so many different places adding their ideas, their inspirations, their influences to this beautiful American gumbo. … so when I look at the series of nominations of the Academy, it is not reflecting that beauty.’

Since the Hollywood power couple came to the fore, numerous other stars have spoken out.

However, Michael Moore and Spike Lee are the only two to go as far as backing the boycott.

Lee said the ‘real battle’ against racism was taking place in the ‘executive office of the Hollywood studios and TV and cable networks.’

‘This is where the gate keepers decide what gets made and what gets jettisoned to “turnaround” or scrap heap,’ he wrote to his combined 1.4 million followers on social media.

The Chi-Raq director then pointed out that it’s easier for an African-American to be President of the United States ‘than be president of a Hollywood studio.’
Lee then suggested that the powers that be should follow in the footsteps of the NFL football league, whose Rooney Rule states that minorities must be interviewed for major positions.

Other stars have added their voices to the debate but will still attend the star-studded event.

William H Macy, who is one of the stars of this year’s Best Picture nominee ‘Room’, claimed some Academy voters don’t even watch the films in contention – and instead vote for actors they personally favor.

Oscar winner Danny Boyle also spoke about the controversy on Thursday and said that ceremonies and cinemagoers should not judge talent on skin color.

Macy, who is a member of the Academy, told Mail Online: ‘My take on this story is that there is no conspiracy, it is the Academy. It is mostly a bunch of white guys.

‘And I am guilty of it too. We gravitate to our own.

‘The only thing that the Academy needs to fix is that a lot of people that vote for it don’t see all of the movies, so you vote for the guy you liked last year… “I didn’t see this film – but I always liked that guy, or I liked that woman!”

‘I think we need we need more diversity in the Academy is the way to fix this.’

When asked about the possibility of quotas being introduced to award nominations though, Macy said: ‘That is a stupid idea.’

He then reiterated: ‘That is stupid idea to have quotas, because what if there aren’t seven white guys that didn’t do a good job?

‘You have to have four white guys, four black guys – no. It is all about the work.

‘The problem is the Academy. One of the things I get about the award shows when I go in is that I know these people, some of them owe me money… it is real.

‘If you win one of these years it is your peers, they really voted for you. So it is the make-up of the Academy that is the only problem.’

Academy Award winner and member Reese Witherspoon weighed in on Friday.

‘So disappointed that some of 2015’s best films, filmmakers and performances were not recognized… Nothing can diminish the quality of their work, but these filmmakers deserve recognition.

As an Academy member, I would love to see a more diverse voting membership,’ she wrote on Facebook.

Director Danny Boyle meanwhile said that the actors in his films ‘play human beings. There is only race..the human race.’

He also added that he believes this scandal will change matters moving forward.

‘I think everybody acknowledges that everything evolves and changes. It is going to evolve and change more, you can see that coming.

‘I have been very lucky to work in my career with a lot of actors from many different backgrounds and ethnicities and I am really proud of that.’

Boyle expressed his surprise at Creed not receiving attention from the Academy for its black director Ryan Coogler or actor Michael B. Jordan and just a nomination for the film’s white star, Sylvester Stallone.

‘I thought that Ryan Coogler did a wonderful job in Creed, which is wonderful, really enjoyable movie and I was very impressed.

‘There are wonderful shining lights out there which will find their way through.’

Two-time Academy Award winner George Clooney said he believed Hollywood as an industry was ‘moving in the wrong direction.’

‘If you think back 10 years ago, the Academy was doing a better job. Think about how many more African Americans were nominated…. And all of a sudden, you feel like we’re moving in the wrong direction,’ the 54-year-old actor and director said.

Oscar nominee Don Cheadle weighed in on the debate with a Twitter joke directed at this year’s host Chris Rock.

‘Yo, Chris. Come check me out at #TheOscars this year. They got me parking cars on G level,’ he wrote.

Lupita Nyong’o, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 2014 for her performance in 12 Years a Slave, wrote on Instagram; ‘I am disappointed by the lack on inclusion in this year’s Academy Award nominations.

‘It has me thinking about unconscious prejudice and what merits prestige in our culture.’

‘This institution doesn’t reflect its president and it doesn’t reflect this room. I am an Academy member and it doesn’t reflect me, and it doesn’t reflect this nation,’ – David Oyelowo

‘You have to ask the question – are black people normally playing petty criminals? Are women always the love interest or talking about men? Are gay people always stereotyped? Are disabled people ever seen at all?’ – Idris Elba

‘… the idea that we could go two years in a row, where 40 actors could be nominated and none of them were black, is just crazy,’ – Michael Moore

‘I can’t help ask the question: is it time that people of color, recognize how much power and influence we have amassed that we no longer need to ask to be invited anywhere,’ – Jada Pinkett Smith

‘How is it possible for the 2nd consecutive year all 20 contenders under the actor category are white? And let’s not even get into the other branches. 40 white actors in 2 years and no flava at all. We can’t act?! WTF!!’ – Spike Lee

‘Hollywood is like the Rocky Mountains, the higher up you get the whiter it gets and this year’s Academy Awards will be yet another Rocky Mountain Oscar,’ – Rev Al Sharpton

‘Somebody asked was I gonna watch the mother****ing Oscars. F*** no! What the f*** am I gonna watch that bulls*** for? They ain’t got no n***** nominated. All these great movies and all this great s*** ya’ll keep stealing from us. F*** you! F*** you!’ – Snoop Dog to TMZ

‘Why is this a conversation that we only have once a year? Every year we get all fired up and then the rest of the year nobody says anything…. So I’m not going to boycott, but I’m going to continue to bitch as I have all year round because I’m tired of seeing movies where no one is represented except a bit of the population, not all of it,’ – Whoopi Goldberg

‘If you think back 10 years ago, the Academy was doing a better job. Think about how many more African Americans were nominated…. And all of a sudden, you feel like we’re moving in the wrong direction’ – George Clooney

‘Our boys are being shot left and right. People are starving. People are trying to pay bills. And you’re talking about some f*****g actors and Oscars. It just ain’t that deep’ – Janet Hubert

‘When Jada comes out as Gay and her beard husband admits his first marriage ended when she walked in to him **** servicing his Sugar Daddy Benny Medina ..then I will listen to them’ – Alexis Arquette


Speaking out: William H. Macy, Will Smith, Danny Boyle and Lupita Nyong’o

‘Yo, Chris. Come check me out at #TheOscars this year. They got me parking cars on G level’ – Don Cheadle

‘It can’t be about box office, because I think black actors and stories along those lines have done very, very well, obviously’ – Steve McQueen

‘I think that diversity is the American superpower. That’s why we’re great. So many different people from so many different places adding their ideas, their inspirations, their influences to this beautiful American gumbo. … so when I look at the series of nominations of the Academy, it is not reflecting that beauty’ – Will Smith

‘It’s anti-white racism. Maybe black actors don’t deserve to be on the final stretch?’ – Charlotte Rampling

‘I do support the Oscar Ban movement’s position that the nominations do not reflect the diversity of our community. The Oscar Ban movement reflects a larger discussion about racism in the criminal justice system. I hope the Oscar Ban movement opens the way for my peers to open their hearts to the #BlackLivesMatter movement as well’ – Mark Ruffalo

‘I think everybody acknowledges that everything evolves and changes. It is going to evolve and change more, you can see that coming’ – Danny Boyle
‘There’s loads of black actors. In the end you can’t vote for an actor because he’s black. You can’t say ‘I’m going to vote for him, he’s not very good, but he’s black, I’ll vote for him’ – Sir Michael Caine

Unconvinced: Sir Michael Caine, producer Gerald Molen and Academy Award nominee Charlotte Rampling have questioned plans for an Oscar boycott while Reese Witherspoon called for a change to Academy voting membership

‘As an Academy member, I would love to see a more diverse voting membership’ – Reese Witherspoon

‘The idea of a boycott is ridiculous. Are their noses bent out of shape by the award nominations? Of course. That is normal in a town of egos and red carpet desires. While there were many performances of note, not all my choices for ‘best’ in the various categories have been realized.’I say to all my co-members: ‘stop acting like spoiled brats. Look to the next awards show for recognition – if you deserve it’ – Schindler’s List producer Gerald Molen

‘I think in our industry and our business, it’s really about looking to who’s telling what story, who’s being allowed to direct, who’s being allowed to act in it, and I think that needs to change’ – John Kransinski

‘The problem is not with the Oscars, the problem is with the Hollywood movie-making system’ – Viola Davis

Nyong’o did not however say she would be boycotting the awards, but did write; ‘I stand with my peers who are calling for change in expanding the stories that are told and the recognition of the people who tell them’.

British actor Idris Elba – who didn’t receive a nomination for his role in Beasts of No Nation – addressed the issue in a speech to politicians in London on Monday.

‘We need to counter what everybody has, see the lay of the land and see who has which careers in TV—who makes TV, and who is allowed on TV and when they get the opportunity which roles do they play, on and off screen,’ he said.

‘You have to ask the question: are black people normally playing petty criminals? Are women always the love interest or talking about men? Are gay people always stereotyped? Are disabled people ever seen at all?’

Viola Davis agreed it is a wider issue than the Oscars alone.

‘The problem is not with the Oscars, the problem is with the Hollywood movie-making system,’ the two-time Oscar nominee told Entertainment Tonight.

Actor John Kransinski added a similar complaint.

‘My feelings are beyond the Oscars. Though I think it’s a shame, I don’t know that they should be taking all the responsibility.

‘I think in our industry and our business, it’s really about looking to who’s telling what story, who’s being allowed to direct, who’s being allowed to act in it, and I think that needs to change.”

It’s not just actors who have weighed in. Schindler’s List producer and voting member of the Academy, Gerald Molen, has branded the diversity critics, ‘spoiled brats’.

‘There is no racism except for those who create an issue. That is the worst kind. Using such an ugly way of complaining,’ Molen told The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday

‘The idea of a boycott is ridiculous. Are their noses bent out of shape by the award nominations? Of course. That is normal in a town of egos and red carpet desires. While there were many performances of note, not all my choices for ‘best’ in the various categories have been realized.

‘I say to all my co-members: ‘stop acting like spoiled brats. Look to the next awards show for recognition – if you deserve it’.’

‘The only comment that might have some legitimate substance is the one from Jada Pinkett. I understand her disappointment for her husband, but that doesn’t mean she is correct in her analysis.

‘As far as Michael Moore is concerned, he is a socialist always looking to insert his brand of racist hatred. Spike Lee — haven’t I heard this from him before?’
‘In a liberal town like Hollywood, [saying voters are racist] makes about as much sense as saying all members of the Academy vote Republican.’

He’s got one too: Jonathan Demme won Best Director at the Academy Awards in 1992 for the blockbuster hit The Silence Of The Lambs. He wrote Saturday that the Academy should make changes right now and not wait

In an exclusive interview with Dailymail.com, Up in the Air casting agent Lori Wyman defended the Academy and the nominees selected for this year’s awards.

She said she believes Academy members ‘picked the best actors’ in the end and that she did not believe ‘people were omitted from the Oscars for their ethnicity.’

She also said that when she is casting she is always ‘colorblind’ and just looking for the best actor.

Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs said in a statement on Monday that changes were coming which would hopefully result in a more diverse group of nominees, and Academy members, in the years to come.

Isaacs, who in addition to being president of the Academy is also one of the invite-only group’s few non-white members, said in a statement on Monday; ‘I’d like to acknowledge the wonderful work of this year’s nominees.

‘While we celebrate their extraordinary achievements, I am both heartbroken and frustrated about the lack of inclusion. This is a difficult but important conversation, and it’s time for big changes.

‘The Academy is taking dramatic steps to alter the makeup of our membership.

‘In the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond.’

She then added; ‘As many of you know we have implemented changes to diversify our membership in the last four years.

‘But the change is not coming as fast as we would like. We need to do more, and better and more quickly.’

93% WHITE, 76% MALE AGED 62: MEET THE AVERAGE OSCARS VOTER


A full listing of The Academy’s membership and their demographics are not publicly released but previous studies and reports have revealed more about the group’s make-up

In 2012, the LA Times found there were 5, 765 voting members, 94% of whom were Caucasian and 77% male

Only 2% at that time were black and less than 2% were Latino

The newspaper found the group had a median age of 62

In 2013 they found 93% white and 76% male and the average age inched up to 63

Membership is now believed to have risen over 6,000 but ethic minority breakdown of members in unavailable and not every member has to vote

The Economist found no actors from ethnic minorities were nominated in 1995 and 1997 or any year between 1975 and 1980.


Top secret: Information on the membership of the Academy is hard to come by

95% of nominations in total have gone to white actors

Each award is broken up into 17 branches i.e. the acting branch and the directing branch

Academy members qualified in each respective area vote on the nominees for awards in that area i.e. actors vote for the acting nominees, directors vote for the director nominees.

One exception is that all voting members can vote on their top 10 best picture nominees and Animated Feature Film and Foreign Language Film are voted on by special screening panels

Nomination ballots are sent out in December and returned in January

The acting areas are voted for by the largest number of people

Once the nominee lists are drawn up, members get to vote once for every award

They are discouraged from voting if they haven’t seen the work or feel ill-prepared to make a judgement but are not barred

Final ballots are mailed out at the end of January and need to be filled in and returned by a week before the ceremony.

Three members are appointed as governors of their relative branches. Notable governors include Annette Bening and Tom Hanks in the actors branch; former Sony chief Amy Pascal in the executive branch and Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow is in the directors branch

The Academy on Friday announced new rules to try and enhance diversity

They have vowed to double minority and female members by 2020

Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs said: ‘The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up’.

Other changes include limiting members’ voting status to a period of 10 years, to be extended only if the individual remains active in film during that decade.

Lifetime voting rights will be granted only to Academy Award nominees and winners, and to members after three ten-year voting terms.

Previously, all active members received lifetime voting rights

"White Privilege:" White-Shaming as Psy-Op

via Alternative Right

Listen Now

In his latest "Nameless" podcast, Andy Nowicki examines the ongoing campaign – waged by various "official" opinion-shaping organizations – of shaming white people for their alleged "privilege" –revealing that this notoriously obnoxious SJW crusade, ostensibly carried out on behalf of the historically marginalized, wronged, and oppressed, is in actuality a pitiless war of psychological terrorism waged by the most privileged of our culture, against the very demographic that they wish to destroy, disperse, and displace.

To Hate Where We Should Hate

via Cambria Will not Yield

The blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime. -Edmund Burke

Let me set the scene – it is London in the early 1970s. A young American student desperately, hopelessly in love with all of Europe and England in particular is sitting in Hyde Park with a group of young English college students. The English students are attacking their nation for the usual reasons – it’s racist, sexist, too insular, insufficiently progressive, etc. I (the America student) was not at that time of my life the right-wing extremist I have become. And there were some very pretty girls at the gathering whom I quite naturally wanted to impress. But despite the fact that I had no hardened political views and despite my great desire to appear to be a good fellow in the eyes of the attractive females, I could no longer contain my feelings. I launched into a rhapsody of praise for historic Britain, from Geoffrey of Monmouth through Shakespeare’s England, Dickens’ Victorian England, and Walter Scott’s Britain. It was as if I had entered a 19th century gathering of elegant ladies and gentlemen and started telling dirty jokes. The students who had treated me with great respect prior to my sentimental outburst now became quite hostile; they had an enemy in their midst.

It took me many years to understand why some white Europeans hated a man who loved white, Christian Europe. At that stage in my life I hadn’t actually read the works of Edmund Burke – his work on the French Revolution was not in the humanities program – but I don’t know that I would have comprehended his works had I read them. That great numbers of white people could hate their own people was too fantastical for me to grasp at that point in my life. Of course I later came to know the liberals and all their works, because I met them wherever I went in academia. And I came to regard Edmund Burke’s dissection of liberalism as the greatest work of literature outside of Shakespeare. He saw through liberalism and revealed to us the face of pure evil:
Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil. It is no easy operation to eradicate humanity from the human breast. What Shakespeare calls “the compunctious visitings of nature” will sometimes knock at their hearts, and protest against their murderous speculations. But they have a means of compounding with their nature. Their humanity is not dissolved. They only give it a long prorogation. They are ready to declare, that they do not think two thousand years too long a period for the good that they pursue. It is remarkable, that they never see any way to their projected good but by the road of some evil. Their imagination is not fatigued with the contemplation of human suffering through the wild waste of centuries added to centuries of misery and desolation. Their humanity is at their horizon–and, like the horizon, it always flies before them. The geometricians, and the chemists, bring, the one from the dry bones of their diagrams, and the other from the soot of their furnaces, dispositions that make them worse than indifferent about those feelings and habitudes, which are the support of the moral world.
Liberalism, in all its many guises, is from the devil. The Europeans’ failure to come to terms with that fact is the reason why the European people are facing extinction. I have recently seen many European protesters marching against the Moslem invasion of Europe. I love those protesters, because they still have a love for their kith and kin. But do the protesters really understand the enemy they are facing? I don’t think they do, and that is a tragedy, because unless the European people fully understand the evil that is liberalism they will never prevail against the Moslems and the colored barbarians.

White protest marches can serve a purpose; they can show other white Europeans they are not alone, but protest marches will not make the liberals change their policies. Liberals have hardened their hearts against their people, and nothing will make them turn from their plan to exterminate every single white European. “Cologne will be a Moslem city in twenty years,” the German council woman proudly proclaimed. “Britain must be multicultural,” Tony Blair insisted. And we now know, or we should know, what multiculturalism means: It means the destruction of white Europe. Whites who think protest marches will influence the powers that be still do not understand liberalism. The devil’s minions cannot be protested or voted out of existence.

White Europeans cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the prolifers in the United States. For 43 years the “prolifers” have marched. First they marched to protect life in the womb from conception to birth. Now they march to protect life in the womb from five months after conception to birth. Why the change? Because they could not get a 51% consensus on the ‘conception to birth’ ban. And majority rules, don’t you know? What blather! A small, committed minority always determines history. And since when has right and wrong been decided by a majority vote? The moral equivalent of the prolife movement is the moderate protest movement against the Islamic invasion. “Let’s stop at one million and just give them half of Europe.” What half? You can’t have one single Moslem in Europe. To say a non-Moslem policy is impractical runs counter to reality. You can’t coexist with a people who are committed, by religious decree, to your extermination. The same applies to blacks. The white and the black cannot peacefully coexist, because the blacks are committed to the destruction of the white race. That which the liberals say is self-evidently impractical and immoral, a homogenous white culture, is what we should be striving for with might and main, because it is the only sane and humane course of action we can take. If our governments adopted ‘Back to the Middle East’ and ‘Back to Africa’ policies, there would be no bloodshed, because the heathens and the colored barbarians would be facing the united armed might of the white nations. But when the Western nations are governed by liberals who use the police and military against their white citizens, there is nothing but bloodshed.(1) Currently it is only white blood that is being shed. If the European people are going to survive as a people, liberal, Moslem, and colored barbarian blood will have to be shed. That is the war, a war of self-defense, the liberals have thrust upon us. We should stop trying to convince the liberals we will remain non-violent. Instead, we should tell them that we will defend our nation and our hearth fires, using whatever means are necessary. And when heathens and colored barbarians rape and murder our people and the liberals talk about making rural areas of Europe into “laboratories of integration” what means are necessary to protect our people from such abominations? Should we start a letter-writing campaign?

When the Toad (Wind in the Willows) tricks Ratty and escapes through the bedroom window, Ratty’s friends, Mole and Badger, upbraid him for his carelessness. In his own defense, Ratty says, “But he did it awfully well.” For centuries the liberals have been pushing liberalism down the Europeans’ throats, and they’ve done it awfully well. From cradle to grave in Church, Academy, and government, the message has been the same: Whites are evil, whites are racist, sexist, and opposed to the New World Order. The white response to liberal propaganda reveals they have succumbed to liberal propaganda. Even when white people protest some modern liberal blasphemy such as the Islamic invasion of Europe or legalized abortion, they protest as liberals. “I am not racist, but we just can’t take so many Moslems into our country,” a befuddled protester said to the cold, hardhearted, liberal newscaster. “We don’t hate women, we protest against abortion because it is harmful to women,” has been the refrain of “prolifers” for years. And all the pathetic, protest liberalese is couched in the penultimate of liberalese: “We are non-violent, we are democratic.” What have non-violent protests done to stop the liberal-sanctioned violence against white people? And what has democracy as an ideology ever done for white people? It has imprisoned them in a multicultural hell where Satan plays the tune, and the white Europeans dance to it.

Once during a discussion of the Protestant evangelicals with a traditionalist priest, I stated that although the evangelicals grossly oversimplified the process, they were right to assert that Christianity was about a personal relationship with Christ. “Is not our whole sacramental system supposed to be directed toward that end?,” I asked the traditionalist priest. It was as if I was back in that Victorian drawing room hurling curse words at respectable people. I had committed the ultimate sin by suggesting that Christ was above a man-made system, which the priest looked on as an end in and of itself. Which is what protest marches for the unborn and protest marches in protest of Islam have become – ends in and of themselves. “We have exercised our democratic right of protest, now let’s go back into our homes and talk about how wonderful it is to live in a democracy.” But have any of the evils stopped because of our protests? Have the devil’s men stopped aborting babies? Have the liberal governments agreed to evict the Moslem and the black barbarians from the white nations? No, they haven’t; the evils continue. That they continue democratically should not deter us from acting against the murder of the innocents and the rape and murder of white people, unless we feel that it is perfectly all right to serve Satan and spit on Christ, so long as Satanism has come to us through the democratic process.

If the internal war against principalities and powers is won, then Christian men will respond without prompting, without mental confusion, when Moslem rapists attack white women in cities like Cologne. They will know instinctively what has to be done, and they will strike home against the minions of Satan. Let it be writ large: The Europeans did not seek this war, the liberals thrust it upon us. In my own anti-nation, the United States of Satan, some white-hating spawns of the satanic federal government killed one and imprisoned four other members of the Bundy group, who were guilty of being white and Christian, which of course gave the F.B.I. the right to shoot them down like vermin just as they killed Randy Weaver’s wife and child some years back.

If you don’t hate where you should hate, then you won’t love where you should love. I hate the United States government, which does not protect its people from alien invaders, bombs innocent women and children abroad in the name of democracy, and kills white ranchers at home. And I love those martyred ranchers and all their white counterparts in Europe who are fighting against their liberal governments in the name of Him who is above the sceptered sway of the satanic liberal governments of the European people.

Kipling wrote of the time that was coming when the English would begin to hate. That time didn’t come for the English or the rest of the European people. The liberals continued to hate, the Moslems continued to hate, and the colored barbarians continued to hate, but not the Europeans. Could it be that the Europeans didn’t love their people enough to hate those who sought to destroy their people? I’m back, in my mind’s eye, with those English college students. I love enough to hate those students who spit on my sacred Europe and would root out and destroy every last Christian hearth fire in Europe. It’s not over, the battle is joined. Let us never succumb to the niceness temptation – they seek our blood and the blood of our people. “Once more unto the breach!"

Notes:
(1) The police and the military men of the liberal governments are not our friends. They are satanists who kill whites with a sanctimonious cruelty that comes from the depths of the liberal hell in which they wallow. After murdering the white rancher the law enforcement people took to the podium to brag about their triumph. It was a far cry from the cringing, crawling police in Baltimore who took to their soap boxes to proclaim their hands-off policy toward black rapists and murderers. Law enforcement gets the message. When they kill innocent whites they are saints; when they act against blacks or Moslems, even with so much as an angry word, they are devils. Who wants to be a devil? The moral eunuchs, the men with the guns, the badges, the tanks, and the bombers, prefer to be liberal saints, so they kill whites. Pleasing liberals will get them applauded in this world. Do they ever worry about the next world? I don’t suppose they do.