Now that we are talking about why overt, out-of-the-closet homos such as James O’Meara (who must not be confused with Michael O’Meara) and Jack Donovan should not be given platforms in white nationalist forums, a recent comment in a previous post moved me to collect the following comments in related threaded discussions.
I refer to Greg Johnson who, under the penname of Trevor Lynch, extraordinarily reviewed Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (below I changed textual references to “Lynch” as “Johnson”). Johnson’s review was sectioned in two parts. Let’s start with the second.
For obvious reasons, the first commenters to jump on that thread were O’Meara and Donovan. I was the third one to comment, the dissident voice. Pay special attention to my words way below in this post in the context of what I recently said in Gitone’s magic (“Just compare this homosexual shit [two whites raping a Negro] with the Platonic love for Tadzio in Death in Venice: one inspires the sensitive soul and the other trashes the god Eros”).
After the cheers that Johnson got from O’Meara and Donovan for his favorable review of this filthy film, the most frank criticism I found about Johnson’s bizarre review came out from Howard.
John Norman Howard commenting on Johnson’s review…
“Yes, Pulp Fiction contains interracial couples, villainous bumbling whites, and noble, eloquent blacks. One just has to look beyond the casting to the story itself.” [in Johnson’s review]
The eyes are the window to the soul. The outward appearance of the characters is anything but superficial: one would have to look beyond the casting, the scenes, and the dialog as well. Sorry, but Fail one.
“Pulp Fiction is only superficially anti-white. On a deeper level, it can aid us in rejecting modernity and recovering the spiritual foundations of something better.” [in Johnson’s review]
Fail two. It’s overtly anti-White or at best, pro-diversity: which in the end analysis is White genocide. Big talk of “honor” yet admitting it was merely an opportunistic double-cross in the end? Can’t have it both ways, mate. And the whole “watch in the rectum” thing was just another of Tarantino’s gratuitous homosexual jokes. Just like the whole hillbilly pawnshop luridness. Whether you want to credit him for using Walken in the way Walken seems to work best, well. Funny in the usual South Park manner, but certainly not “genius”.
Greg Johnson said…
Your eyes might be the windows to your soul, which is what that saying means. But it certainly does not mean that your eyes are the windows to other people’s souls, or that they penetrate to the essence of whatever surface they light on.
John Norman Howard said…
I know what the saying means. My point is, the outward appearance of the characters in the movie are said movie’s “eyes”, as it were. Hence, one can readily see the indisputable “soul” of the movie. Leastwise, those of us with eyes to see, and without the scales of our pet theories, notions, and pseudo-intellectual baggage covering them.
I cannot conceive any good film featuring a black married to a white girl [as in Pulp Fiction] unless the film has an explicitly pro-white message, which obviously every film by this repulsive being [Tarantino] lacks.
The film starts with a white man with his white girlfriend assaulting a restaurant: the opposite of what usually happens in the real world, as revealed by color of crime stats. At the end of the film we see a flashback in that very restaurant with a spiritually powerful black man lecturing the weakling white robbers. Other instances of inverted travesties in Pulp Fiction could be cited, but it is unnecessary.
True filmic art, like Death in Venice or Andrei Rublev inspires people. But in this decadent century only a handful of Hollywood films have inspired me. Ninety-nine per cent of them are so replete with anti-West, multicult messages that almost every time I visit the theaters I feel morally raped.
In the other thread I said that one of my sisters sings classical music hymns. When Pulp Fiction appeared instead of finding inspiration she felt visually raped. My sister is very sensitive, and the scene of the silent masked man referred to as “the gimp” (the one who was awakened up from a S&M dungeon to watch a tied-up Butch) shocked her deeply. Just compare this homosexual shit with the Platonic love for Tadzio in Death in Venice: one inspires the sensitive soul and the other trashes the god Eros. The same with Tarantino’s violence: unlike the gratuitous violence in Pulp Fiction a group of Tatars raid the city of Vladimir in Andrei Rublev: a historically accurate and shocking yet inspiring sequence for white viewers.
It could be argued that art depicting a decadent culture is still art, for instance Polanski’s Bitter Moon; the film by the Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón, Children of Men and, according to Johnson, Pulp Fiction.
My trouble with this approach is that all of these films have contributed to debilitate the spirit of the westerners. Like the character Vincent in Pulp Fiction, Bitter Moon reflects how the extremes of the hedonistic lifestyle in Paris are leading the French to ethnical suicide, literally. Like Pulp Fiction, in Children of Men the message is traitorously inverted: the white hero must save a black baby from extinction in a dying world that is no longer breeding any babies.
Yes: there is art in both Polanski and Cuarón’s films. But since their message hurts the Western soul Howard’s reply to me in the other thread is worth reciting: “Exactly… and kudos on mention The Brigade for its much-needed hammer on Hollywood and how to handle that sewer”.
Johnson deleted this comment by Howard.
In the other thread about the same film,
Part 1 of Johnson’s review:
Joe Owens said…
Whatever moral message Pulp Fiction is supposed to convey is well and truly lost in all the filth it’s wrapped up in. I’m sure we can find some moral reasoning in all this twisted rubbish. Yes, what about Inglourious Basterds or Hostel: Part II by Quentin Jerome Tarantino? Come on, time to leave this filth to the cranks and Jews who produce it!
Uncle Fritz said…
Good heavens: I thought it was just me!! I couldn’t even get through the damned film—after two attempts. Maybe too much philosophical immersion really is a dangerous thing…
John Norman Howard said…
Exactly. Pulp Fiction is the product of an unsound mind, and bestowing it with all this metaphysical mumbo-jumbo accolades is laughable.
It’s natural that a generation raised upon South Park would find it “deep” and “innovative”. But the bottom-line is this: The only thing remarkable about the film is that it marks a true line of demarcation in American culture (such as it is) whereby trash cinema passes as art, and an overt “up yours” to Whitey previously witnessed only in the most prurient blaxploitation junk of the seventies. I’ve always found it serendipitous that this film’s release and subsequent lionization occurred at about the same time as the O.J. murders. Another stark line of demarcation in America’s racial demise.
Iranian for Aryans said…
Amen! The same can be said of everything popular, especially what passes for music.
Joe Owens said…
Why are you spoiling the pages of Counter Currents with this rubbish??? Shabbos Goy movies shouldn’t be praised by white nationalists. Come on, let’s get back to basics, Greg Johnson, I think you’re partying too much!
I said… (responding to Meh)
“Anyone expecting explicitly pro-white movies in this era might just as well stop watching movies.”
Ergo, I have stopped watching films—though as a big fan of the seventh art I still continue to watch the classics. Yesterday for example I saw the original, black-and-white version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
“Art, even decadent art, can be worth something…”
Rubbish. Please, see “The Philosophy of Beauty”, a six-video series in the playlist presently featured at The Occidental Observer.
I was born in a family of artists. Real artists I mean. So it’s easy for me to distinguish real art from “decadent art” (an oxymoron).
If I had children I would never allow any of them watching how two white males sodomize a Neanderthalesque nigger [see the Pulp Fiction photo above]. Never. How grotesque! (Not grotesque of the sublime kind, like the shots of Quasimodo at the upper balcony of the cathedral, saying to the gargoyles, “Why was I not made of stone, like thee?”) What a travesty of what is really happening in America (blacks raping whites)!
In The Brigade Covington makes a point: when secession war begins, the only thing that could defeat white revolutionaries is… Hollywood! Actually the climax of the novel is the way the revolutionaries finally hit Hollywood.
I would recommend all nationalists to stop watching modern films and use that time to read The Brigade.
In Covington’s latest novel about how our new country will look like, all of this Hollywood rape scenes, which can only turn on our decadent nationalists, will be forbidden for our budding families (“The theaters were showing virtually nothing made after 1965 or so”). Instead, inspiring films, the polar opposite of the Tarantino degenerate scum, will be exhibited in the theaters such as Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life.
Let me finish this post with another comment that Johnson deleted when, last year at Counter Currents, I dared to criticize another silly review of another Hollywood movie.
When Johnson argued that his deep philosophical interpretations of the movies were pertinent, my response was: “I prefer Covington’s approach,” and quoted directly from his last novel:
“The once vibrant city of San Francisco, officially deeded by the Aztlan government to a huge ‘gay community,’ had lost two thirds of its population owing either to death from phosgene and sarin gas, or else through flight away from the V-3s. The section of the white and Jewish entertainment industry that had remained in Hollywood and their mansions in Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Carmel being sacked and plundered by mobs of campesinos.”
That’s the spirit! That’s the way all true nationalists should handle the Hollywood foe once our nation is established…
9 replies on “Fuck Hollywood!”
Well…I’m on your side regarding that other site….and re: jewlywood…what you and Covington said.
Greg Johnson’s cultural perorations are very bad. I’m tiring of CC.
Just received this email from a visitor:
Hollywood, VVashington, and New Yaaawk: the real axis of evil.
Or Washington, Los Angeles, and Tel Aviv.
Emperor Titus didn’t go far enough. Tragically North America has 5.6 million of the bastards. Add mischlings and we have a bigger infestation than israel. Of course, Tel Aviv is still part of the evil axis.
Thank you sir! Brilliant! We could have an exhibit… Entarte Kunst! And then burn all the vile filth. Ha ha! I only watch old stuff on my DVD, especially old Samurai films, not white, but faaaar more pro tradition, honor, loyalty, etc. than any vileness creeping out if Hollywood!
I am tiring of WN its as you say. One “WN” was recently talking about his wonderful experience with Rex from the church of Satan. Another said that “yes Goth night is a good place to go as the women are white, and easy!” This is the revolution. Just more TV mimicry. Do our women deserve not more than to be easy? The church of satan, a Hollywood circus sideshow. Were doomed!
And now Greg is, in his latest podcast, interviewing Jack Donovan. I’ll not read or listen to it. I’m fed up of this gay guy being featured recently in no less than four (!) Counter-Currents posts. But I’ve searched “homosex” and “gay” thru this latest piece. No hits.
It seems that, like Robert Stark’s latest interview of Greg at VOR, once more Greg avoids talking about homosexual issues after Stark’s direct question to him about “gay marriage” ten days ago. If someone who has lived in San Francisco for a long time like Greg, was honest and courageous he would have answered Stark’s simple question.
IMHO this latest CC podcast deceives the readership, since for those who know Donovan’s writing it’s rather obvious that what drives this übermasculine man to write about “masculinity” are his homosexual preferences. Notice that masculinity is not synonymous with courage, valor or manliness. And that, to my mind, non-revolutionary bloggers like him are unrepresentative of true manliness. I mean: is he even a white nationalist? Is he even white? (in CC’s pic of Donovan that Greg just posted his skin doesn’t look sufficiently white).
Of those featured writers at CC I wonder how many, besides Donovan and James O’Meara (not sure about Costello), are non-revolutionary, non-nationalist—nation builders—, coward homos too?