An Anti-Semitic Allegory?"/>
Print this post Print this post

Batman Returns:
An Anti-Semitic Allegory?

Danny DeVito as the Penguin

2,536 words

Soon after the release of director Tim Burton’s Batman Returns (1992) starring Michael Keaton as Batman, Danny DeVito as the Penguin, Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, and Christopher Walken as evil capitalist Max Shreck, America’s premier newspaper, the Jewish-controlled New York Times, published an op-ed piece by two Columbia College seniors, Rebecca Roiphe and Daniel Cooper, entitled “Batman and the Jewish Question” (July 2, 1992).

Today, Roiphe, the daughter of feminist Anne Roiphe, is a professor at New York Law School.

Batman Returns is the second movie in the series, after Tim Burton’s inaugural Batman (1989). It told the tale of the Penguin, a freakish villain who posed a deadly threat to the citizens of Gotham City. As a deformed baby, he had been secretly set adrift à la Moses in Gotham City’s river by his parents, who deemed him repellant.

Nurtured in the sewers, the Penguin tries to seize political control of the metropolis with the help of wealthy, megalomaniacal industrialist Max Shreck. Ultimately, the Penguin mounts an attack to kidnap and murder all of the first-born aristocratic children of Gotham City.

This last plot element, an obvious reference to Passover, was introduced by Jewish screenwriter Wesley Strick, who admitted, “of course I was referring to Exodus.”

In their article, the two Ivy League Jews charged that Batman Returns was anti-Semitic. The Penguin, they averred, “is not just a deformed man, half human, half-Arctic-beast. He is a Jew, down to his hooked nose, pale face and lust for herring.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Cf9hffZ8k&feature=related [4:24 mins.]

Some of Roiphe’s and Cooper’s allegations make little sense to a non-Jew.

For example: the Penguin’s “umbrellas that transform into bayonets, machine guns and helicopters are Moses’ magic staff. The flipper hands he holds at his chest are Moses’ hands, which in Exodus become ‘leprous as snow.'” The Penguin’s “army of mindless followers, a flock of ineffectual birds who cannot fly, is eventually converted to the side of Christian morality. They turn against the leader who has failed to assimilate.”

One could deconstruct their argument further, but my objective here is to report Jewish perceptions.

Here were some of their charges:

  • Using “images and cultural stereotypes,” director Tim Burton “depicts the Penguin as one of the oldest cultural clichés: the Jew who is bitter, bent over and out for revenge, the Jew who is unathletic and seemingly unthreatening but who, in fact, wants to murder every firstborn child of the gentile community.”
  • “The Penguin feigns assimilation into society and gains the citizens’ trust for a time. But eventually even the ignorant masses understand this false prophet for what he is, a primordial beast who seeks retribution, ‘an eye for an eye.'”
  • The evil, wealthy capitalist who allies himself with the Penguin against the citizens of Gotham is named “Max Shreck” after German actor Max Schreck, who portrayed Dracula in F. W. Murnau’s Expressionist silent film classic, Nosferatu (Ger.-1922). Metaphorically, Shreck is a blood-sucking vampire.
  •  The Gentile Shreck “wants only power, but the Jew who has suffered wants to punish others for the crime that was committed against him.”
  • “The Penguin’s evil plan is the enactment of a paranoid notion that Jews’ effort to preserve their heritage and culture is a guise for elitist and hostile intentions.”
  • Batman Returns takes place at Christmas time. The Christmas tree, the lights and the mistletoe serve a thematic purpose. They represent the Christian ethic, which will save Gotham City from the false ideology of the Penguin. In the final scene Batman articulates the distinctly Christian moral of this film: ‘Merry Christmas and good will toward men . . . and women.'”
  • Finally, the authors discern a Wagnerian motif: Jewish composer Danny Elfman’s musical score, they say, “makes indisputable the influence of Richard Wagner.” In addition, director Burton’s horde of penguins are like the Niebelungen; the “Penguin-Jew-villain” is Wagner’s Alberich from Das Rheingold; and the duck-shaped boat in which the Penguin navigates Gotham’s sewers is a parody of the “Schwan der Schelde” from Lohengrin.

The Chorus Chimes In

Publication of these accusations in the Times conferred instant legitimacy upon them. The article generated numerous letters to the editor, commentaries in other venues, and was republished across the country. One large metropolitan daily re-ran it under the headline “Batman Returns Casts Jews as a Force for Evil.”

A Jewish reader who initially assumed the article could be dismissed as the “product of a pair of intellectually overheated, pretentiously affected and politically correct undergraduates straining to ferret out nonexistent sinister motives,” became a convert after seeing the “vile motion picture.” He was puzzled why it hadn’t been censored in the production process.

After positing this taken-for-granted censorship regime, he inconsistently concluded that Batman Returns “gives the lie to the shibboleth that Jews control the entertainment industry and use it to manipulate the American public.”

Even paleoconservatives felt compelled to weigh in on behalf of the weak, ever-persecuted Jews.

Chronicles magazine’s contribution to the dialogue was “Christmastime in Hollywood” (December 1992) by David R. Slavitt, a derivative review reproducing the opinions of the Columbia undergraduates nearly verbatim.

“These Columbia kids,” Slavitt averred, “are not crazy. If anything, their report is cautious, modest, and generally understated.” Although it was hard to believe “that an industry from which the Jews are not significantly excluded” (!) would “base a surefire summer hit on the old blood libel,” nevertheless, Batman Returns is “an old-fashioned 1930s Jew-baiting movie.”

Since there were no 1930s “Jew-baiting” movies in America or virtually anywhere else, he was undoubtedly referring to Germany.

“The trouble with the Penguin,” Slavitt sermonized, “is that his bestiality runs riot and that he outwardly proclaims it: ‘I am not a human being! I am an animal!’ Which is the fundamental basis of all bigotry—that they are not like us and in fact are not even human.” “The Penguin,” he concluded, “is at least as Jewish as Roiphe and Cooper claim.”

The message from Batman Returns is that all our ills arise from the work of some small but evil bunch of rich and powerful people who are different from us—not quite human, beasts, vermin—and are therefore after blood, wanting to kill our children and our God.

Note that this outlook is, without qualification, exactly the way Jews demonize whites!

The movie left Slavitt feeling “dismayed” and “numb.” He hinted darkly that a pogrom (or worse) might be in the offing.

A not exactly earth-shattering observation by Slavitt was that the film had an Expressionist look. (This is true of virtually all of Burton’s films.) Expressionism was common in the German cinema of the Weimar era. The implication seemed to be that this, too, was somehow anti-Semitic.

Although the production designer for Batman Returns was Bo Welch, he inherited his expressionist designs from Batman (1989). The set designer for that film was British-born Jew Anton Furst, who committed suicide before the second project went into production by leaping from an LA parking garage.

Designer Bo Welch did mention in an interview that he had blended “Fascist architecture with World’s Fair architecture” for Gotham City, and studied Russian architecture and German Expressionism.

Anti-Semitic Allegory?

Were the Jews right? Was Batman Returns an anti-Semitic allegory? Or were these aspects of the film some sort of odd coincidence?

When I saw Batman Returns I was well-versed about the Jewish problem, but did not automatically think, “This film is anti-Semitic!”

That doesn’t mean such themes weren’t present, but until they were pointed out by anti-white writers they did not register with a racially conscious person such as myself. And, unlike me, most Gentiles are unaware.

There is another film that works better as anti-Jewish allegory.

That is John Carpenter’s low budget sci-fi flick They Live (1988). Carpenter, who is white, is a typical Hollywood denizen. His objective was to discredit Reaganism and free enterprise. The film also prominently features a hoary propaganda cliché, the white-Negro “buddy” team (The Defiant Ones, Mel Gibson’s Lethal Weapon series).

I have never seen They Live attacked as anti-Semitic by Jews the way Batman Returns was. Rather, I first read that take on the movie in 1988 in the now-defunct Populist Party’s magazine The Populist Observer, and have seen many pro-white writers make the same point since.

In They Live the (unintended) anti-Jewish theme sticks out like a sore thumb for conscious whites in a way that it does not in Batman Returns. But the depiction of the Penguin in Batman Returns unquestionably set off the Jews’ own alarm bells.

The anti-Jewish elements in Batman Returns might have been as unconscious and unintentional as Carpenter’s were.

Another approach is to ask who made the film. Whose sensibilities, conscious and unconscious, does it express?

The corporate parent was media colossus Time Warner, run by Jews Steven J. Ross (real name Steven J. Rechnitz) and Gerald M. Levin.

The co-head of subsidiary production company Warner Brothers was Jew Terry Semel, later CEO of Internet giant Yahoo!.

Of the movie’s six producers (director Tim Burton was one), Peter Guber and Benjamin Melnicker were Jewish, while New Jersey-born Michael Uslan’s ethnicity is unknown. Apparent Gentiles were Jon Peters, supposedly half-Italian and half-Amerindian, and Denise Di Novi, a presumptive Italian-American.

Daniel Waters wrote the screenplay. Unfortunately for anti-white conspiracy theorists, his screenplay was heavily rewritten prior to filming by Wesley Strick, who is Jewish. Strick has been credited with authorship of two-thirds of the final script, including the Old Testament allusions.

As an aside, the final script reveals one way Hollywood scriptwriters, directors, and actors employ buzzwords to quickly convey white racial images and stereotypes to one another during production. In one scene I saw references to nameless characters including “ALL-AMERICAN DAD,” “ALL-AMERICAN MOM,” “ALL-AMERICAN SON,” and “ADORABLE LITTLE GIRL” with her “precious little purse.”

Tim Burton

A movie’s director ordinarily exercises more control than anyone else over the final product in terms of story, look, theme, etc. Counter-Currents and TOO film analyst Edmund Connelly relies upon “auteur theory”—the theory that the director is the main “author” of a film—in his readings of Hollywood movies. He succinctly summarizes that theory here.

Tim Burton exercised considerable control over the making of Batman Returns.

His previous Batman (1989), the first film in the series, was one of the biggest box office hits of all time, grossing over $411 million. It won critical acclaim and an Academy Award for Best Art Direction. The success of the movie helped establish Burton as a profitable director.

During production, Burton had repeatedly clashed with the film’s producers, Jon Peters and Peter Guber. But after Batman‘s success, Warner Brothers wanted him to direct the sequel. He finally agreed on the condition that he be granted total control. As a result, producers Jon Peters and Peter Guber were demoted to executive producers.

Tim Burton has always seemed hyper-Jewish to me. (By my definition, half- and quarter- Jews—certainly one like Burton—are also “Jewish.”) Indeed, I find it nearly impossible to believe that he isn’t. He is so strange, so alien, that next to him Alfred Hitchcock looks like Ward Cleaver.

But if Burton is Jewish, he is extremely crypto-.

The media implicitly presents Burton to the public as white. Reporters state that he was born in 1958 in Burbank, California to Jean Burton (née Erickson), the owner of a cat-themed gift shop, and Bill Burton, a former minor league baseball player who subsequently worked for the Burbank Park and Recreation Department.

Yet Tim Burton’s background remains obscure. As late as the 1990s a newswriter incorrectly identified him as a “British director,” and years ago I read that he was adopted.

He does not look Aryan.

His sensibility—notably his weirdness, obsessions, and conspicuous neuroticism—does not seem Aryan, either.

Burton’s “art,” whether his commercial films or the paintings, drawings, photographs, etc., featured in a retrospective at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, does not look Aryan.

Proof of all of this is on display in a 7:00-minute YouTube interview with Burton posted by the Museum of Modern Art in 2009 that highlights examples of his artwork.

In 2003, a Jewish website no longer in existence (http://jewishpeople.net/famousjewssz.html) listed him as Jewish, and of 515 voters at a contemporary Jewish site called Guess Who’s the Jew?, 58% thought him Jewish and 42% non-Jewish. The site does not verify that he is in fact Jewish, but rather tabulates the perceptions of visitors.

Burton’s amazing career trajectory suggests favoritism. He became a leading director of big budget movies while still in his 20s.

His career received major boosts from Disney Studios, where he was employed as an animator (gauge his qualification for commercial Disney animation work in the YouTube clip), and Warner Brothers, which gave him his first significant break directing Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985) starring Pee-Wee Herman (Paul Reubens, born Paul Reubenfeld).

Burton’s current mistress is actress Helena Bonham Carter. Nearly half Jewish, Bonham Carter has a complicated family tree, the product of hybridization between members of the British aristocracy and Europe’s Jewish aristocracy. Burton has two children by her.

Finally, despite the toxic charges of anti-Semitism, Burton’s career did not miss a beat. He was not unceremoniously cashiered like Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen. That’s too bad, because a suffering world would have been spared much ugly cultural dreck if he had been.

Self-Image

That from a Jewish perspective there are coded “anti-Jewish” messages in Batman Returns is interesting.

More interesting, though, is the fact that the controversy over them has completely disappeared from public view.

As John Derbyshire recently observed in connection with William Cash’s much-reviled 1994 Spectator (UK) article, “The Kings of the Deal”: “‘It’s surprising what you can find on the internet,’ we used to say when the thing was new. Nowadays I am more often surprised by what I can’t find on the internet.”

This is certainly true of Batman Returns. The 1992 assaults on the movie are conspicuously absent from the World Wide Web, especially given how prevalent they were at the time. Googling David Slavitt’s Chronicles article does not turn up a single reference.

Perhaps some subjects are routinely downplayed or concealed by slyly jiggering search results. I can think of a particular search formula I consistently used with great success for many years that no longer works. The ADL partners with Jewish mega-giants Google and Facebook to censor Internet content on ideological and racial grounds. Such control of information choke points confers tremendous power.

Today most people do not know that such accusations were ever made, although oblique hints linger. For example, Jewish movie critic Leonard Maltin’s bestselling annual Movie Guide gives Batman Returns only two stars, calling it, without explanation, a “nasty, nihilistic, nightmare movie” with a “dark, mean-spirited screenplay”—an obvious allusion to the Jewish themes discussed here.

But those who self-righteously take umbrage over alleged anti-Semitism in Batman Returns deserve no sympathy. They should have their faces shoved into anti-Semitism every bit as vicious and unrelenting as the anti-white filth they propagate daily without remorse, and experience the resultant violence and hatred as well. Such vile people are in no position to preach.

That won’t happen, of course, but it should.

Surely the most extraordinary aspect of the entire affair, however, is that Jewish elites gazed upon the physically, psychologically, and morally deformed Penguin and instantly saw themselves.

“That’s us!” they cried. “They’re depicting us!”

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

53 Comments

  1. Lew
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    The bottom line is that in addition to being evil Jews are sick. No group is their equal when it comes to degeneracy, perversion, avarice, parasitism and lying. I recall discussing this film about 10 years ago on a now defunct WN forum. One of the members ran through the anti-semetic elements beginning with the obvious. The villain is a malformed, hook-nosed, rat-faced creature set adrift at birth who consumes fish in the sewer. We ended up scratching our heads trying to figure how this one ever got made.

  2. Dan
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Tim Burton is quite perculiar, most times uncomfortably so.

    I remember watching Batman Returns 20 years ago and I, like the vast majority of folk, had no idea it may have carried anti-semitc under- (or over-) tones. As Mr Hamilton concludes at the bottom of his article: ‘Surely the most extraordinary aspect of the entire affair, however, is that Jewish elites gazed upon the physically, psychologically, and morally deformed Penguin and instantly saw themselves.
    “That’s us!” they cried. “They’re depicting us!”’

    Like kids in the playground used to retort: “It takes one to know one!”

    • Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:22 am | Permalink

      As for “looking like that”, does anyone else agreed that De Vito’s Penguin, in costume, looks a lot like Seinfeld’s “Uncle Leo” au natural?

      http://meanmassive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Len-Lesser-dies.jpg

      A lot of clips on that page as well, but look at the photo itself: he even has flippers!

      Speaking of De Vito, I haven’t been able to decide whether It’s Always Sunny is “good for the Whites” or not, but except for a couple episodes, it’s an almost entirely Jew- and Negro-free viewing experience. Pleasant!

      • Andrees
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        I thought that the Penguin looks more like Rudy Giuliani.

      • Dan
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:26 am | Permalink

        Ha! He DOES look a lot like Uncle Leo, who I always thought the perfect “Uberjew”.

      • Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:07 am | Permalink

        “Course my family’s nuts; they’re crazy. Yep. My uncle Leo, (quick take of Uncle Leo in bed with Lydia, watching Jerry on TV. Lydia is laughing, Leo is not) I had lunch with him the other day, he’s one of these guys that anything goes wrong in life, he blames it on anti-Semitism. You know what I mean, the spaghetti’s not al dente? Cook’s an anti-Semite. Loses a bet on a horse. Secretariat? Anti-Semitic. Doesn’t get a good seat at the temple. Rabbi? Anti-Semite.”

        The episode is entitled “The Showerhead”. Shower?

      • Classic Sparkle
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

        Speaking of De Vito, I haven’t been able to decide whether It’s Always Sunny is “good for the Whites” or not, but except for a couple episodes, it’s an almost entirely Jew- and Negro-free viewing experience. Pleasant!

        It’s often described as “Seinfeld for Gentiles” when I read critics who write about it.

        I love it. But, I think one has to be mature enough to understand that the take home message of the show is that narcissism is truly disgusting. We are supposed to identify with “the gang” in the show (who are grotesque versions of ourselves) and walk away and purge ourselves of the horrible charater traits they manifest in extremis. In that sense, it transcends Seinfeld and its about nothingness and calls to act with greater moral consistency in our daily lives.

        Still… It isn’t for children.

  3. Fisherman
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Don’t know with certainty but I think Tim Burton is NOT jewish. Aryan art and sensibilities can be as varied as Judaic. Similarly, had you not known that the Cohen brothers produced and directed “No Country for Old Men” would you have guessed that its makers were Jewish?

    Nevertheless, interesting observations.

    • UFASP
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 1:20 am | Permalink

      “No Country For Old Men” is a great film.

      • Dominion
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 1:56 am | Permalink

        Agreed. I got the impression that they were trying to get a look at the “soul” of Texas with all its contradictions, and the nihilism that can lie at the heart of the cowboy riding into his sunset.

      • UFASP
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:31 am | Permalink

        That’s not a bad interpretation. One of the obvious things about the movie is that the moral people (Tommy Lee Jones) are tired, uncertain, and ineffectual. On the other hand, Chigurh is the opposite of all of that. He has this strange and rather loathsome ethical system (“chance”) but he has almost a metaphysical conviction about it. (Like at the end, when he confronts Moss’s wife and she says “you don’t have to do this.” She was right; it served no real purpose.) There’s a lot of interesting stuff to dissect in that film. The part with Tommy Lee Jones talking about his dream at the end still sends chills up my spine when I watch it.

        Being a native Texan myself, I appreciate that sort of small town 1970s/80s Texas setting. It’s a world you can still see traces of if you go into small towns in this state. On the one hand, that world is a bit of a cultural wasteland (not much to stimulate the mind in those parts outside of nature itself). On the other hand, the people in such towns are all sort of salt of the Earth types of white people that I think create the well-spring for white genius. Robert E. Howard comes to mind, for example.

        I actually think the Cohen Brothers are pretty solid directors. I don’ t like everything they’ve ever done. But when a movie of theirs is playing, I usually take notice while I mostly ignore what someone like Tim Burton has to offer these days.

        This was a very interesting article, though. I loved Batman Returns as a young boy when it first came out. I certainly remember Catwoman seeming very feministy but that really is the essence of her character. I’ve also heard another interpretation from someone (I don’t recall who) that this movie is a bit of a play on Dickens’s A Christmas Carol but that wasn’t half as convincing as this “anti-Semitic” interpretation. It is hilarious how Jews are the ones to bring attention to the fact that they embody so many of these negative attributes, I mean “stereotypes” when everyone else would have just gone about their business and simply viewed the movie as Batman fighting another bad guy. To 99% of all white men shoveling popcorn in their mouths, a Penguin is just a Penguin. But that’s not good enough for the Jew.

      • Classic Sparkle
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        Agreed.

        The Cohen brothers are interesting. They really do despise Whites and they were particular open about their disdain for Kelly Macdonald’s character in multiple interviews.

        The problem for them is, they know Whites so well (having been very keen and extremely observant growing up in a suburban and still White America) that they portray them accurately which causes the characters they despise to always appear generous, loving and sympathetic to us White folks.

        Anyway… No Country is great.

    • Posted June 23, 2012 at 5:06 am | Permalink

      “Aryan art and sensibilities can be as varied as Judaic. ”

      Indeed. As Evola said, one needs to look not at principles as such but how they function in a given context. Without bothering to look over Burton’s oeuvre in particular, it seems off the top of my head that the “Gothic” genre, from Monk Lewis to Anne Rice, has been more Aryan than not. Think of the likes of Poe or Lovecraft as racially aware American writers.

      Supposedly it originates in a twisted kind of nostalgia for the “bad” old days of feudalism, the Church, etc., “tradition” in short, from the point of view of a now rootless, “enlightened” time. Thus viewed as “dangerous” at best, by the critical elites [viz, Jews]. Don’t want people to “romanticize” those days of rampant anti-Semitism and oppression of women, after all.

      Of course, more recently, there have been the usual attempts to “recuperate” the genre by means of Judaic academics who “contextualize” and “challenge” books in their introductions and notes [see the absurdly named China Melville in the Modern Library edition of Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness] or even “claiming the tradition” by their own writings [eg, the same Melville, or the likes of a Stephen King].

    • Lew
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

      RE: No Country for Old Men

      Cormac McCarthy (White Gentile) wrote the source material. This probably had more to do with the film being good than the Cohen brothers’ work.

      • UFASP
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. That being said, I don’t think it’s a fluke that the Cohen Brothers made a good film out of it.

      • Lew
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

        I agree. I like the Coen brothers a lot. I enjoyed Fargo enough to own a copy.

  4. Posted June 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    I think we are dealing with a couple of issues here, or levels.

    Most generally, as I’ve said here and elsewhere, PC is necessary because ” fascism”, “anti-Semitism”, “racism” etc. are in fact PERFECTLY NATURAL and so need to be suppressed by a rigorous intellectual discipline so as to prevent their inevitable and recurrent outbreak.

    You can see this on various “financial” sites, where however “hip” or “edgy” they purport to be, the great fear is that the financial crisis might lead to a rise of “cornpone nazis” [Jim Kunstler] and so on; Merkel is “a nazi”, etc. Oooh, don’t want to “go there” do we?

    Now, the interest in “genre” or “B” films or culture is that they slide under the radar, since no one is paying attention to them; no great financing is at stake. I think They Live falls into that category. “Hip” critics might notice some “unfortunate themes” that “some” ignorant [i.e., not submitted to the guidance of said critics] viewers might harp on.

    Ironically, this can also happen when SO MUCH money is at stake. Batman Returns might be such an example. Since the first movie was a big hit, Burton had carte blanche. Burton’s heritage is irrelevant then, because, as Guenon observed, the value of myth, its superiority to mere allegory, is that myth, anchored in reality, has a natural logic to it. The twisted, misshapen creatures must be Jews. Allegory would require the author’s conscious intent [The Yellow Brick Road "really" is the Gold Standard, the Wizard is William Jennings Bryan] but myth? Well, just look at them.

    Interestingly, when Hollywood was already run by Jews, the films were “all-American.” This might be a plan, or crass commercialism, but perhaps also because the studio heads didn’t give a damn, and so the films were NATURALLY pro-White. It’s only now that they have an agenda.

  5. Posted June 22, 2012 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Another angle:

    Michael Hoffman has introduced the useful concept of the “Revelation of the Method” — originally a Masonic concept. As the Jew solidifies his control over culture, he becomes more comfortable, and hence more likely to amuse himself by taunting the goyim by depicting the Jew’s motivation and methods.

    Thus, Mel Brooks’ original film, The Producers, is a textbook presentation of the Jewish method of ‘culture distortion’ and financial flim-flam, and was denounced at the time as the “anti-Semitic” work of a “self-hating Jew”. Julius Streicher could not have created a more virulent film, but hey, “it’s only a joke”.

    Notice how the Jew always turns the tables by saying “If you really believed in [such and such a principle]” or “if you really had confidence in [some principle]” you would “go along with the joke”? Hence, the “celebrity roast” and other Satanic inversions of Aryan integrity and Truthfulness.

    Dr. Goebbels had the right idea: “They [the Jew press] ought to stop lying. One day our patience will come to an end and then we will grab these insolent Jews by their throats and shut their lying mouths shut!”

  6. jack
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    I never knew there was any controversy regarding Batman Returns very informative piece.

    If anything the strong feminist message is what stands out in regards to Catwoman complete with dominatrix style leather costume and whip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hP6qoHxV1Q

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2T7R8WXz0A

  7. Free Man
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 3:26 am | Permalink

    “Burton’s current mistress is actress Helena Bonham Carter. Nearly half Jewish, Bonham Carter has a complicated family tree, the product of hybridization between members of the British aristocracy and Europe’s Jewish aristocracy. Burton has two children by her.”

    Revilo P. Oliver mentioned this hybridization in The Jewish Strategy.

  8. Kullervo
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 5:31 am | Permalink

    Another great shift in topic by Alexander Hamilton. The Batman Returns supposed anti-Jewish symbolism may be real, but may have an alternate explanation. Their is a great deal of “intra-Jewish” subtext within the movie industry that goes un-noticed to the average American. For example, Steve Sailer once described how the subtext behind one of the Shrek installments is about one Jewish entertainment mogul who was supposedly cheating another. Quoting the passage from his blog:

    “The first Shrek had evolved into a poison pen letter from DreamWorks executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, the former Disney studio head during its Beauty and the Beast silver age, to his ex-boss Michael Eisner. Shrek’s villain, Lord Farquaad, was modeled on Eisner, who had tried to cheat Katzenberg out of his share of Disney profits (eventually settling for, reportedly, $280 million).”

    The movie industry is full of such back and forths between its various princes, but would not be apparent to us peasants in most cases. And this is typical of art throughout the ages–it typically reflects the values and concerns of the elites: “He who takes the king’s dime plays the king’s tune.” There also appear to be some mild anti-Jewish jokes in Star Wars: think about the name “Jawa” and the obvious characture of Watoo in the Episode I debacle. I have been unable to fully characterize Lucas’s maternal ancestry.

  9. Bohemianh
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    The Jews see themselves as those behind the evil in society? Wow the masses may see this film and figure they are not helping America’s success; rather profiting from it’s downward spiral. The guilty normally are always self hating and waiting for Karma to catch up to them, a question of when! As history shows any amateur historian.

  10. Posted June 24, 2012 at 2:07 am | Permalink

    Yes, another excellent review. I have to second Kullervo’s comment here: “Another great shift in topic by Alexander Hamilton.” I can think of few other writers with such range and imagination.

    BTW, one film not mentioned was Burton’s “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” I thought it fit in with my two TOO essays on Jewish anti-Christmas films, but I thought I was alone in wondering about Burton’s identity.

    Now we have reason to wonder.

    • Classic Sparkle
      Posted June 24, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      BTW, one film not mentioned was Burton’s “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” I thought it fit in with my two TOO essays on Jewish anti-Christmas films, but I thought I was alone in wondering about Burton’s identity.

      I dunno. Nightmare might be stretching it. Everybody loves it and it lifts the spirits. It isn’t a “downer” film like Bad Santa.

      • UFASP
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        Yeah. I never saw Nightmare as hostile towards white European culture. I actually rather enjoyed it. Harold & Kumar’s Christmas, however, is pure Jewry.

      • Posted June 25, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

        It was many years ago that I saw “The Nightmare Before Christmas,” so I had to go to Wiki to refresh my memory. What they write there confirms my view that it is an anti-Christmas film, namely because of negative associations.

        For starters, the title changes “Twas the Night Before Christmas” to the horrible suggestion that Christmas is a nightmare. Then there are all the “benevolent dark creatures such as deformed monsters, ghosts, ghouls, goblins, vampires, werewolves and witches.” Maybe benevolent but still at least subliminally associating these goblins with the Christmas spirit.

        What about the “coffin-like sleigh” that Jack rides? Or the “skeletal reindeer”? Even if it’s all camp and has a happy ending, I think the negative associations are harmful . . . and more likely from the Jewish psyche than the Christian one.

        All of this is said in light of my views of Spielberg’s vile “Gremlins” (1984). I remember the massive advertising campaign for it, where it was sold as a children’s movie. When I went, more than one (Christian) child left crying.

        No surprise either, as the film pairs typical Christmas items with monsters, blood and death. It is deliberate.

        Having said all this, I did enjoy “Edward Scissorhands” the three times I saw it.

      • Classic Sparkle
        Posted June 25, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        It’s a Halloween movie.

        Is Halloween (Reformation Day) not European (Pagan) or Christian enough for you?

        There is something jewish under every rock. Don’t over-perceive.

      • UFASP
        Posted June 26, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

        I think you may be onto something about Gremlins, though I’m suspect of Spielberg in general. I mean, Munich, Schindler’s List, Amistad… (though I do have fond memories of E.T.) It’s obvious that he’s really into his Jewishness and really into taking the piss out of white people.

        That being said, I agree with Classic Sparkle. Ultimately, I find the whimsical spirit of The Nightmare Before Christmas to be positive unlike Gremlins which just comes across as mean-spirited and resentful and yes, very Jewish. The characters are not soulless in Nightmare like they are in Gremlins. You have to look beyond the ghoulish aesthetics with Nightmare, though. And ghoulish aesthetics are ultimately very European, anyways. So, and I mean no disrespect, I think it’s only anti-Christmas if you interpret the movie in a really literal sense. As in, “look what they did to Santa! Booo urns!” It’s the kind of stuff that would offend a sweet and well-meaning lady that writes for some Christian newsletter. But she’d be offended for the wrong reasons in such a case, I think.

        If Hitchcock did a Christmas special, would that be anti-Western necessarily?

        Nightmare is just a twist on two Western celebrations. I find the idea to be rather creative myself as it gets to the essence of each one in, again, a high-spirited sort of way. Even if I found out that Burton was a Jew, I’d have a hard time viewing this film as an attack on Western culture. And I think I’m pretty darn hostile towards the glorification of anti-Western values, myself.

        Seriously, if you want anti-Christmas, just watch the trailer of Harold and Kumar’s 3D Christmas; there is no comparison. Nightmare is beloved while Harold and Kumar was an obvious Jewish cash-in at the expense of the goyim. The metaphorical kicking of sand in our faces. Again, I think your argument about Gremlins holds some weight.

        Now that I’m thinking about Burton movies, I’ll add that I, too, liked Edward Scissorhands (though I’m tired of seeing Johnny Depp in a Tim Burton movie with white make-up) and even enjoyed Ed Wood.

  11. Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    First of all, thanks for a fascinating article. I remember “Batman Returns,” but had no memory of this controversy. I haven’t actually seen the film since its release, but from what I recall, the allegation that the Penguin is rendered as a nefarious “Jew in disguise” might actually have some merit. It seems this character had a certain repulsively slimy and diabolically vindictive nature which recalls that of various anti-Semitic literary staples, most notably Shakespeare’s Shylock.

    Personally, I see no evidence that the Coen brothers (far more skillful auteurs than the rather mediocre and overrated hack Tim Burton) despise the goyim, as has been alleged above. Several of their movies, especially “Barton Fink” (which I’ve written about elsewhere) and “A Simple Man” are quite unflinching in their negative portrayals of Jews and implied critiques of the extent of Jewish influence and power.

    • Posted June 26, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      Andy, have you seen the Coens’ “Fargo“? I _despise_ that film.

      I wrote about it here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2008/04/eye-on-hollywood-no-country-for-old-men/

      The pertinent quote is:

      Ethan Coen has commented that he always felt the outsider, one who never identified with “flat-voweled Scandinavian-American Minnesota.” That world, of course, is the object of the Coens’ hit film Fargo (1996), a cold world in which non-Jews are far from brilliant and unpredictably violent. Kindly but slow-thinking police chief Marge Gunderson (played by Frances McDormand, Joel Coen’s real-life wife) is able to outwit Minnesota criminals only because they are even less intelligent.

      Gaear Grimsrud, for instance, is arguably not even intelligent enough to be considered a real human. He kills without forethought or remorse, and in one famous scene is caught feeding the remains of his crime partner into a wood chipper in back of their cabin hideaway. The red effluent issuing from the machine stands in stark contrast to the white Minnesota snow.

      • Kullervo
        Posted June 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

        yeah, I agree with you on Fargo. While an entertaining film, it portrays almost every white gentile in a somewhat negative light. Especially the used car salesman who has his wife kidnapped. And notice the asian who tries to get the main character into bed by pretending his wife died of leukemia! It’s just a world of crazed psychopaths outside their close nit ethnic enclave. But there are some negative Jewish characters in their Jewish film, Serious Man, such as Si Abelman, so maybe they can take it as well as dish it out. My main complaint with the Coen brothers is a certain adolescent reliance on gratuitous violence and gore. They won’t seem to grow up as fim makers. Their characters are grotesque charicatures of real life.

  12. Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    above: I meant “A Serious Man,” not “A Simple Man.”

  13. Classic Sparkle
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I see no evidence that the Coen brothers (far more skillful auteurs than the rather mediocre and overrated hack Tim Burton) despise the goyim

    Read all their interviews. They hate us.

    Despite the fact that Barton Fink allows an Italian to play a jew a little negatively. Don’t you think the goy, that for all intents and purposes, is supposed to be a run-o-the-mill White American farm boy type and turns out to be the sociopathic monster next door ends up looking a little worse? The jew’s only flaw is that he is too narcissistic to see how fucking crazy the goy really are. He really just wants to do Tikkun Olam, but, as the movie makes clear, we goy aren’t worth it and we aren’t able of being changed. Even the cops are just anti-semitic assholes who end up murdered.

    You’re grasping at straws because you don’t want to believe that they are that bad but they are. I like them too but I see them for what they are.

    • Posted June 27, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      “Barton Fink” contains numerous unsympathetic characters who are *explicitly* Jewish. Ditto “A Serious Man.” Ditto, as Greg points out, “Miller’s Crossing.” Sure, there are buffoonish and unlikeable gentile characters in their movies as well, but I honestly don’t evidence from their body of work that the Coens are Jew supremacists or goyim-haters. In fact, if Joel and Ethan *weren’t* Jews, they’d surely be assailed as anti-Semites for many of their edgy and provocative filmic portrayals of Jewishness.

      Greg’s review of “A Serious Man” is terrific, but E. Micheal Jones’s analysis at the “Culture Wars” site is also worth reading.

      • Classic Sparkle
        Posted June 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

        Sure there are unsympathetic jews in Fink. But they stand in such stark contrast to the usual depiction of jews that most let it wash over them. They consider it silly. It isn’t a truly unsympathetic portrait because it is cartoonish.

        Goodman is the best actor in the movie and his character is truly strong, developed and the only one with real gravitas. He literally makes the movie. I don’t think you’ve acknowledged the point that Barton is just trying to do some Tikkun Olam and runs up against a psychopathic goy. Goodman is the only truly fucked up character in the movie. The jewish director is a silly character and not meant to be taken any other way. Goodman is the focus of the movie. Particularly when the hotel is on fire and he lets the mask drop.

        Same goy hatred in No Country. It’s essentially a movie about the end of Christian Americana type America. Don’t get me wrong. I love the Brothers C but I don’t think they reciprocate.

      • Posted June 27, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

        “Same goy hatred in No Country.”

        Where are all of the supposedly hate-worthy goyim in that movie? I don’t recall a single one. The sinister bad guy is darkly-complexioned and altogether non-white looking.

        “It’s essentially a movie about the end of Christian Americana-type America.”

        And hardly a celebratory one, at that…

        Meanwhile, “Barton Fink” shows loud, obnoxious, sociopathic Jews controlling Hollywood, “A Serious Man” portrays ugly, mean, morally repulsive, stupidly paranoid Jews who openly deprecate gentiles as unworthy (Q:”What happened to the goy?” A: “Who cares?”), and “Miller’s Crossing” gives us a wily, compulsively lying, slimy manipulating Jew in the character played by Jon Turturro. I’m not sure how the Coens personally feel about the uncircumsized, but I really don’t see evidence of any compulsion to show Jews in a positive light and gentiles in a correspondingly negative light in their movies.

        I’m all for calling Jews or anyone else out for stupid double standards or manifestations of anti-white or anti-gentile political correctness, but I just don’t see the Coens as guilty in any way of this aesthetic scourge.

      • Classic Sparkle
        Posted June 28, 2012 at 4:35 am | Permalink

        I haven’t seen A Serious Man or Miller’s Crossing. One can portray jews grotesquely and still portray Gentiles unfairly, wrongly, etc. One can also despise one’s own and despise others. I’ve always gotten the impression that most of the Gentile protagonists in their films (Big Lebowski even) come off as lovable. However, I’m not sold on Barton Fink.

        And hardly a celebratory one, at that…

        True. I don’t think it is celebratory in tone.

  14. Emer
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    In Bill Still’s (money masters) youtube movie about the Wizard of Oz the cowardly lion is Wm. Jennings Bryan. Still backs it up with news writings from the time.

    The wizard is obviously a jew.

    I also saw, for the first time, No Country for Old Men when I wasn’t jew aware. Since viewing it again I see it differently.

    Texas, and by extension America, is no longer a country for old WHITE men. They are being dispossessed/murdered by jews. Watch it again and see if you still think it’s a great movie.

    The lone cowboy riding into the sunset is a hollywood metaphor for the demise of whites.

    • Posted June 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

      Hey, Emer, could my writing have unconsciously influenced you? In one of my TOO columns, I wrote:

      Another difference is that the non-WASP elite today, the one that “loathes the nation it rules,” is composed even more of the elite Jews Gelernter and Stein discussed. With the huge rise in crime against whites and the vast array of preferences in society for non-whites, I’m probably not the only person to think that McCarthy’s title No Country for Old Men could just as easily read No Country for White Men.

      This appeared here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2008/04/eye-on-hollywood-no-country-for-old-men/

  15. Lew
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    We know Hollywood Jews have been depicting White gentiles and Christians is the most loathsome ways for decades. Jews have deliberately portrayed us as stupid, foul, evil, despicable, monstrous, misogynistic, bigoted, serial killers, genocidal mass murderers; you name the insult; you name the slander; you name the denigration; Jews have depicted us Whites in that way.

    Now, without consulting Google or any other authority, can anyone here off the top of the head name 2 or 3 or even 1(!) Hollywood film in the last 30/40 years with an explicitly Jewish villain?

    Not metaphorical, allegorical, etc. Explicit.

    Hyman Roth from The Godfather Part II doesn’t count. You can’t cite him.

    Go.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

      One of the most loathsome explicitly Jewish villains in film is Bernie Bernbaum (played by John Turturro) in the Coen brothers’ 1990 film Miller’s Crossing.

      But I would be hard pressed to name four more.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

      I really can’t think of any.

      On TV there are a few characters, but they’re not portrayed viciously the way whites are. Never, never as ALL villains–blond, blue-eyed, WASPs, Germans, Southerners, businessmen, corrupt government officials, etc. Talk about racism!

      The Jewish portrayals aren’t truly bigoted.

      For example, the TV character Howard Wolowitz (played by the Jewish actor who portrayed the young rabbi in the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man, mentioned by Andy Nowicki) on the comedy series The Big Bang Theory is complained of by some Jews as “anti-Semitic,” but really isn’t.

      As you may know, your observation has been made before:

      “Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity. They should have greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering because they’ve [been] exploited. We have seen the nigger, we’ve seen the greaseball, we have seen the chink, the slit-eyed dangerous Jap. We have seen the wily Filipino. We’ve seen everything, but we never saw the kike, because they know perfectly well that is where you draw the wagons around.” –Marlon Brando interview on Larry King Live (April 1996), quoted in Cultural Diversity and the U.S. Media (1998) by Yahya R. Kamalipour and Theresa Carilli, p. 105.

      No surprise: the Great Man was put through the ringer for that statement! He groveled, wept, and paid homage to Rabbi Abraham Cooper at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in LA.

      “Brando,” by the way, was originally a German name–“Brandau.” The actor was also part Irish, English, and Dutch.

      • Lew
        Posted June 25, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

        I remember. I bet that was Brando’s last appearance on a national a TV program with a big audience before he passed away 8 years later. Just once, I wish someone wouldn’t apologize and grovel. It never does any good. On the other hand, it’s probably easier said than done given Jewish power and their willingness to destroy. There’s no telling what some of the more extreme Jews might do. Jews might have had Mel Gibson killed if he wouldn’t have pulled that scene in The Passion of the Christ where pharisees spit and say his blood be on us and on our children. I do get annoyed how many people just don’t get the full extent of Talmudic hatred.

    • Classic Sparkle
      Posted June 26, 2012 at 6:10 am | Permalink

      Ryan Gosling’s movie Drive has two really evil Jewish villans (uber jews Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman) and I really mean evil. Both of them have entirely no scruples. There are no apologies, no holocaust references and no excuses for their behavior.

      Worth a look.

      Other than that I can’t think of any truly jewish villans.

  16. Posted June 26, 2012 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    This is informative AND hilarious! I’ve commented on, and linked to it, here:
    http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/06/protocols-of-penguin.html

  17. Otho
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    Burton has his moments. Remember his bitter satire of modern “art” in Beetlejuice? Or his takedown of Magic Negro General Colin Powell in Mars Attacks?

    I bet a DNA test would prove Burton 100% European.

    On the Coen brothers, sure, they hate us, but at least they have the good sense to hate themselves.

  18. Oswald the Rabbit
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    His [Burton's] career received major boosts from Disney Studios, where he was employed as an animator

    Disney hired Burton when it was still under gentile management.

    Jew Michael Eisner took over in 1984.

    “With the help of Stanley Gold, his lawyer and business associate, Roy Disney formed Shamrock Holdings to make diverse investments. By early 1984, Shamrock owned television and radio stations, commercial real estate and a 10,000-acre cattle ranch in Oregon. Roy Disney’s discontent with the studio’s management under Miller reached a boiling point.

    Roy Disney resigned from the board on March 9, 1984, and began buying more shares, almost doubling his stake to 5.2 per cent in June. His action ignited a free-for-all among takeover aspirants and resulted in Miller’s resignation.

    With Disney directors divided on the choice of a new chief executive, Roy Disney and Gold won the support of the Bass family of Fort Worth, Texas, then Disney’s largest shareholder group, in backing Eisner. As part of the deal, Frank Wells, a former Warner Bros. executive, entertainment lawyer and Roy Disney confidante, was named president in September 1984.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/roy-disney-nephew-who-reshaped-walt-disney-co-dies-at-79-20091217-kzn5.html

    Disney’s history with the tribe

    Why Walt Disney Is No Friend of Jewry
    From Instauration May 1998
    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/2004b/InstaurationDisneyMintz.htm

  19. Kullervo
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t think Burton was Jewish because his qualities as a director emanate almost exclusively from his visual artistry. To me, his movies are almost Dali, visually gripping, but with very little intellectual substance or meaning behind them. I would put him in a catagory with David Lynch in this regard. My personal favorite of his is Big Fish, and that was based on a book. Ashkenazi Jews tend to have lower visuo/spacial abilities than other groups but higher verbal abilities, and as such their movies are more characterized by smart dialogue and nifty plot elements than by visual artistry. Their writing tends to rely on clever syntax, but rarely on visual imagery, I also notice.

  20. GTRman
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 4:44 am | Permalink

    Another explicitly jewish villain is Ben Kingsleys gang-boss character in Lucky Number Slevin .

    And doesnt the white-haired gang-boss in ” Eastern Promises ” wear a jew star ?

    Nicolas Cages arms dealer character in Lord Of War is I think also jewish , but the references are subtle .

    Yes , its pretty hard to name 5 . As someone said above , the film ” Drive ” has some loathesome and blatantly jewish villains . I think Trevor Lynch wrote an essay here , worth a look .

    Another storm in a teacup here .

    ( Seth McFarlane is the goy face of ” Family Guy ” , many if not most of the voice actors , writers , producers , etc , are of course jews . The programme , like the Simpsons and South Park , is full of jewcentric humour and in-jokes . Its a neat trick they use to say that a ( heavily jewish ) product is ” anti-semitic ” )

    To paraphrase Philip K. Dick , ” Are jews offended even when they sleep ? ”

    ‘Family Guy’ Offends Hollywood Jews in Attempt to Win Emmy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oGulyThvw&feature=player_embedded

    • Classic Sparkle
      Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      Another explicitly jewish villain is Ben Kingsleys gang-boss character in Lucky Number Slevin .

      Forgot about that.

      Nicolas Cages arms dealer character in Lord Of War is I think also jewish , but the references are subtle .

      Nope. The Dad pretends because he is running a deli.

    • Classic Sparkle
      Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:50 am | Permalink

      ‘Family Guy’ Offends Hollywood Jews in Attempt to Win Emmy

      That was a freaking hilarious clip.

      “Many members of the Academy reside in Brentwood and many *happen* to be Jewish.”

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance