What's next, an Emma West biopic starring Queen Latifah?  

“Marines battle aliens in Los Angeles” cried the Washington Examiner Friday morning.  As I hadn’t had my coffee yet, as I stepped on the Metro, I briefly thought to myself that there had been a military coup during the night.  Unfortunately, it’s just a movie, and these aliens come from outer space.

As what used to be our country continues its decline into a barely controlled confederation of hostile ethnic fiefdoms, it is harder to make movies and games about villains that invade America without offending the hyphenated Americans that already invaded in real life.  The only possibilities left are Nazis, zombies, Nazi zombies, North Koreans, and space aliens.  (And also, I suppose, Nazi space aliens.) As in Independence Day, the aliens in Battle have come to take our resources and kill us all, so we don’t have to do any soul searching or make any clumsy attempts to humanize the enemy.  The aliens are a gooey machine-biological hybrid, and look like a slimy cross between Terminators and the robots from the crappy Star Wars prequels.  With their unmanned drones and their cybernetic suits that look like they came out of DARPA, the battle scenes seem like a fairly accurate representation of the United States military today fighting the United States military of 20 years in the future.

Yet despite the futuristic alien weaponry and modern, diverse cast that seemingly stepped out of a college admissions brochure, watching Battle: Los Angeles, is like stepping back in time.  As the American military in real life is transformed into a socially conscious welfare office for the Third World, the American military in the movies can return to its preferred role of waging war against wholly unsympathetic enemies. Aaron Eckhart, whose square jawed soap-opera looks normally conceal flawed characters, like Harvey Dent or Nick Naylor, here channels John Wayne’s Sgt. Stryker from Sands of Iwo Jima.  Eckhart perfectly represents the ideal Marine NCO, exactly the type of blue-eyed fighting man that the U.S. military is trying to drum out of the service to make room for more Alvin Greenes.  In this movie, the gay sensitivity training, nation building missions, racial gangs, and political correctness that characterize the modern military simply doesn’t exist.

In fact, the entire movie is simply a recruitment ad for the military.  Every soldier, Maine, and airman is skilled, brave, and noble, selflessly sacrificing themselves to rescue trapped American civilians.  All the war clichés are here, from the green lieutenant facing his first combat action to the fiancé who just wants to get home to his sweetheart (who, because this is 2011, is named “Shanice.”)  Even the civilians somehow manage to be useful.  Los Angelinos look gratefully to the Marines as their liberators, apparently reversing their stance from the last time the USMC set foot in LA, when they were rioting and shooting at them.

In a video recording of Jamie Kelso’s experience at CPAC, the argument was made that Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics have equal claim to the United States. Disappointingly (at least to me), this is what passes for White conservative opinion on this matter today.

Black activists today defend their equal claim arguing that the United States was built on the backs of Black slaves, implying that the United States would not have been possible without them. Hispanic activists go further, and assert that their claim is greater, arguing that they were in the continent first and that, in fact, Whites should not be in America at all.

Mr. Kelso’s position at the abovemented event was (1) that Whites have the right to a homeland and (2) that Whites in the United States have the right to call that country their homeland because it was built by Whites.

On the surface, the second argument seems a strong one, but in today’s context it is seriously undermined by the present day weakness of the first one.

That I consider the first argument weak nowadays may seem extraordinary to those who consider it irrefutable: after all, Whites did built the United States! Yet as an argument it is weak in the present day context because it not only depends on a false premise, but also relies on the implicit acceptance of a racial self-identification that is rejected by most White people today.

The argument "Whites have the right to a homeland" presupposes that rights have an existence independent of the consensus that is needed to make their enforcement possible.

That consensus does not exist today.

Only some Whites believe in the existence of such a right, and among them only some are willing to act in consequence. That is not a consensus in practical terms: that is a minority view.

The argument also presupposes that Whiteness is accepted as a valid category. Many White people today, however, do not accept that race exists, that the White race is a race, that they are members of a racial group, or that membership of that racial group has any value whatsoever. Many act as if they accept some or all those things, but only so long as there is no risk of being called a name by someone; in a debate, when called on the issue of the validity of their racial identification and interests as Whites, they reject them.

"Whites have the right to a homeland" is the type of argument that is used when preaching to the choir, when high-fiving among ourselves and patting each other on the back; not the type of argument that will sound convincing to a White person with conventional modern views on race.

Such a person does not accept "race", much less "White race" (pride of and identification with which they regard as evil), and therefore finds "White homeland" rather queer, if not outright immoral.

Therefore, in a time when none but a minority of Whites in the United States recognise their exclusive or primary right to the country, and / or when none but an even smaller minority is prepared actively to enforce that right, even where enforcement requires only expressing an opinion without apology or embarrassment, we can conclude that for all practical purposes Whites in the United States today do not have a right to claim the country as a White homeland.

The right may still exist in the abstract, in the minds of an unconventional minority of racially conscious White folk, but that does not make it exist in practice throughout the country today.

The right certainly existed in practice in the past, but that does not make it exist in practice today.

Evidence: tens of millions of Whites persist on voting into, and keeping in, office politicians who openly reject pro-White immigration laws. Even the existing immigration law is poorly or not enforced at all. When a supposedly conservative, politically active White youth is asked whether he cares about his racial heritage or the destruction of his race, he replies, "I don’t give a sh*t". When the question of to whom does the United States belong is posed to another such youth, he asserts in effect that to all peoples of all races, equally. These youths are not exceptional: they are the product of modern mainstream education and media and represent modern conventional opinion.

Of course, it does not have to be that way.

Nor does this mean that I accept the competing claims put forth by other groups.

To my mind, Whites in the United States are the only ones who could legitimately claim the country as their own.

I reject that Blacks have equal claim to the United States because Blacks made up but a small percentage of the historical American nation, and for whatever reasons, the economic output of Blacks on average has been vastly inferior to that of Whites. Indeed, in the contemporary United States Blacks cost more than they produce on the whole—particularly when we consider the cost of violent crime, affirmative action, and welfare recipience, where they are disproportionately represented. As Michael Levin argued in American Renaissance in 2002,

A propos whites’ supposed enjoyment of the un-or undercompensated fruits of black labor, reparationists frequently claim that “blacks built America.” This is patently untrue. At no time have blacks been a substantial part of the US population, and until the Second World War they lived largely in the rural South; they were a part of southern agriculture but played virtually no role in the development of the large cities, industrial complexes, universities and public projects that support American prosperity. In fact, it is precisely those parts of the country with the largest proportion of blacks that have traditionally been the poorest, which is the reverse of what we would expect if blacks were the source of American prosperity. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were English colonies that developed during the same period as the United States. If slavery was the basis of American prosperity, how did these countries achieve comparable levels of prosperity without it? Blacks did not contribute significantly to science, medicine or technology. America would have been different without blacks, but not poorer.

Indeed, it is conceivable that the United States would be even more powerful had there been enough of a consensus to return all of the emancipated Blacks back to Africa upon the abolition of slavery.

Blacks only have an equal (or greater) claim if Whites cease to assert theirs, as they did in Southern Africa.

I also reject that Hispanics (who are mostly mestizo or Amerindian) have a greater claim to the United States than do the Whites. There was no United States in the North American continent before the advent of the White man, and there would be no United States now had the White man not successfully colonised and organised the region in his own image. Had the White man remained oblivious of the existence of the continent we call America, no European-style nation states would exist there today; indeed, small parts of the continent would be controlled by mostly pre-historical tribes, isolated by large swathes of uninhabited space.

The famed Aztlan claim is particularly bogus, as Mexico lost the right to control that area by weakly settling it, by being defeated in war, and by selling that land to the United States.

They only have a greater claim if Whites cease to assert theirs, as did the White Spaniards in a different but more radical way when they interbred with the Amerindian and imported African population.

So much for competing claims.

The point of this article is that if debate-oriented activism is to be successful, it must among other things rely on arguments psychologically compelling to an audience with conventional modern views on race.

I say this not to devalue Mr. Kelso’s efforts, but rather to stress that if those efforts are to be more successful next time, we need to equip him and similar activists with better arguments and debating tactics. The fault is partly with the intellectual echelons of the Right, sections of which hang on to subcultural notions not applicable to the situation as we find it today. “Whites have the right to a homeland” is a archaism, a subcultural platitude, and in practical terms a fallacy where there is no consensus that makes exclusive White rights to anything—even in traditional White homelands—enjoy either moral sanction or the force of law.

 

I was intrigued by the idea of writing a review of the race war-cum-slasher flick Machete, which I attended this past Labor Day weekend. (Don’t worry: Lest my money went to the men who made the film, I bought a ticket for the most wholesome, least culturally destructive movie I find, which in this case was Nanny McPhee Returns starring Emma Thompson. The sleepy-eyed man taking tickets didn’t notice or care when I instead walked into the theater showing a movie that averages three gruesome deaths per minute.)

By the end of Machete, I felt like I could have reviewed the film without actually having to subject myself to it. Machete the movie amounts to little more than a 105-minute version of its notorious trailer -- now viewed by tens of millions on YouTube -- in which a Mexican day-laborer gets hired to make a hit on a senator, is double-crossed, exacts revenge from his tormentors, and inspires a sort violent Latino uprising in the process.

Director Robert Rodriguez originally made the trailer as a spoof in 2006; it ginned up enough interest online for him get the funding to reverse-engineer an entire film. In May of this year, he recast the project as “a special message -- TO ARIZONA!” a reference to the recent passage of SB 1070.

One would think that a blogger at SF Weekly would be well disposed to locals protesting a movie that exalts populist racial violence and presents crude stereotypes of their ethnic group. But not, of course, when the protestors are White (in this case, AltRight's friend Andrew Yeoman). That doesn't fit the script.  

Writes Lauren Smiley,  

A group of white nationalists will protest the new Robert Rodriguez movie Machete -- which depicts a Mexican renegade attempting to assassinate an anti-immigrant senator played by Robert DeNiro -- at Bay Area cinemas this week. This gets even more interesting: The protesters will show up "armed" with machetes. Jessica Alba and Lindsay Lohan, beware.

Frequent readers of this site may recall the Bay Area National Anarchists -- BANA for short -- the white nationalist group that showed up at the May Day immigration reform rally at Civic Center Plaza to instead show support of the Arizona "papers please" SB 1070 immigration law. BANA founder Andrew Yeoman and two other members were allegedly beaten while leaving the rally by black bloc anarchists, two of whom are now charged with misdemeanor assault.

BANA is also known for showing up to protest the Folsom Street Fair. But they will be doing a warmup act from Friday to Sunday at movie theaters showing the slasher film in the city, North Bay and East Bay, Yeoman says, "along with like-minded individuals and grassroots organizations nationwide." He even started a Facebook page to promote the protest.

"We feel that this is an explicit threat to white folks," Yeoman wrote on the far-right blog Occidental Dissent, "and that it is necessary to send a message to moviegoers and the producers of this film that threatening people because they happen to be white is unacceptable."

Ms. Smiley treats all this as ridiculous or beneath her (the story is captioned "The nationalist doth protest too much, methinks..."). The thing is, despite a cleaned-up trailer, Machete is very much about an angry Mexican taking his revenge, and leading a violent Latino uprising, against Perfidious Albion. According to Alex Jones, who was leaked a script, Machete includes scenes of gringos crucifying Mexican Catholic priests and Mestizo mobs worshipping Machete as their savior.

It's worth noting that Machete was produced, in part, with tax-payer funds, via the Texas Film Commission, which operates out of Gov. Rick Perry's office. Lest Texas Whites subsidize their own slaughter, let's hope that the scenes depicted in Machete remain on celluloid.   

Red Phillips has noted that the new trailer for Machete is noticeably more wholesome:

I have seen two trailers for the movie Machete, one before Predators and one before The Expendables. Neither had any hint of the hate whitey element that characterized the “Arizona Edition” of the trailer that came out after Arizona passed their new immigration law. As I predicted at the time (see link above), that take on the movie was so inflammatory that it couldn’t help but alienate a sizable portion of its intended audience. I suspect some people recognized the push back that trailer caused and have sanitized the official version.

So that moviegoing Whites won't get spooked, Hollywood execs have apparently decided to depict "Machete" as a down-on-his-luck special agent with a heart of gold. One doesn't get the impression that the film has anything to do with immigration, race, and the assassination of a populist White senator.  

Arizona Edition: 

Heart-warming version:

To be honest, as much as Machete offends my aesthetic taste, I hope as many White Americans as possible get duped by the new trailer and go see this film. It might bring them closer to recognizing that the media and political establishment thinks of them as "the expendables."

Serious discussion of the reality of genetic differences seldom reaches a mass audience, much less the largest one in talk radio, but Rush Limbaugh gave 20 million Americans a lesson in human biological diversity last Thursday.

On August 5, Limbaugh delivered the monologue “Life is Not Fair.” He was so pleased with the result he posted a transcript on his website. It revisited one of his favorite topics:

I've made the point throughout my career, the undeniable truths of life, many monologues on this program, that life is not fair by definition. Life isn't fair. I mean, it just isn't, and there's no way that you can change certain aspects that make life unfair to make them fair. Life is not equal.

He recounted economic, moral, and genetic disparities to show it is life, not the U.S. Constitution, that is unfair. Among his examples were professional sports stars:

Athletes are another thing. Champions are born. They are not made in the weight room. They are not made on the practice field. It's honed and it's practiced and it's improved, but champions are born. If you can't run a 4.2 40, nobody can teach you how. If you can't throw a baseball 100 miles an hour, nobody can teach you how. It's not fair. Some people can and some can't. It's not because the Constitution or the country's unfair.

Rush isn't speaking as a novice. He worked for the Kansas City Royals, lost his post on Monday Night Football for non-PC comments, and attempted to purchase the St. Louis Rams only to be blocked on the basis of lies about race. Rush knows sports.

Via the National Policy Institute, here's an amusing video of Mexican Brownshirts who came out at a recent Tea Party rally in Anaheim. It's funny how even minority groups that imitate fascism complain about white racism. 

In scenes reminiscent of the 2005 Paris riots, the Wretched of Earth were out and about celebrating the LA Lakers' basketball victory.

Imagine what they'll do when the state of California starts giving them IOUs in lieu of foodstamps. 

 

A Hispanic blogger is upset that other Latinos won't claim their Native American heritage.  Watch the first few minutes and you'll get the idea.  



What's funny is that Mexico has accomplished what Rush Limbaugh and other "right wing extremists" want for the US. The radio host was encouraging his listeners to check "other" on the race question on the 2010 Census and write in "American."  Mexicans identify with their country and language-the ideal of the American Right.  

I wouldn't be too hard on these people though, as I've seen segments on the Tonight Show where whites didn't know they came from Europe.  It used to strike me as a little weird that there were people out there who had no curiosity about where they originally came from before my view of mankind became much more realistic.  I still find a future where there are only individual and familial physical characteristics but no national ones sad though.