Thursday 28 February 2013


Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir’s Social Democratic government is considering banning online-pornography with the introduction of radical internet filters that would block online content.

China is already using internet filters to save children and women from the serious damaging effects of pornography. Icelandic Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson, the author of the proposed ban, says he believes it will help stop youth from viewing Internet pornography.
We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime,” Interior Minister Jonasson said.
Iceland has already passed a law that forbids the printing and distribution of pornography, the law excludes the Internet, however.

Israel-propaganda website, BlazingCatFur, criticized the ban proposal. It called Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, “a feminist lesbian”. “
The fact that Dubai bans lap dancing for Islamic reasons and Iceland did it for feminist reasons describes the best way possible the synergy between two totalitarian ideologies. The end result is the same,” wrote the ‘Islamophobe’ bigot”.
However, professor Gail Dines (Wheelock College, Boston), an anti-porn activists and author of ’Pornland: How Porn has Hijacked our Sexuality’, doesn’t agree with the BlazingCatFur nerd. She says:
“Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried. It is looking at pornography from a new position ~ from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights,” said she.
Islam goes even further ~ it calls taking any part in porn field a major sin.

Anne Machon, former British MI5 spy, who believes Israeli Mossad was behind 9/11, told RT that the Iceland government might use tools of censorship to block not only pornography, but “whatever they want”. But, then, is not that happening in over dozen European countries where challenging Holocaust in public is a crime punishable with three-year in prison?

Last year, Egyptian government of Dr. Morsi banned “sexually explicit”, which the administrative court under the pro-USrael Hosni Mubarak regime, denounced pornographic content as “venomous and vile”. The move was criticized by secularists and non-Muslims as censor on “personal freedom”.
Israeli propagandists’ problem with Icelanders goes deeper than porn industry, which is totally monopolized by the Jewish elites.
Despite the fact, that President Dr. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson of Iceland since 1996, is married to Dorrit Moussaieff, an Israeli-born Jew. However, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, Chairman of Board of Fellows at the, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, called Icelanders “antisemites” in Op-Ed he wrote for Israeli daily YNet (July 18, 2011) for the country’s support for Hamas and blaming Victor Tchenguiz family (Iranian Jewish billionaire which settled in Israel after 1979 Islamic Revolution) for collapse of the Icelandic bank Kaupthing in 2008.

Nathan Abrams, a Jewish investigative journalist, wrote in the British Jewish Quarterly (2005) that Jews dominate the porn industry. Some of the prominent Jews in American porn industry, reported by Abrams, are; Reuben Sturman, Steven Hirsch, Ron Jeremy, Adam Glasser and Nina Hartley. 

However, Abrams protects Jewish porn monopoly by a 2% American Jewish population by saying that large number of Jews in porn industry were motivated for making easy money than being Jewish. Even Abraham Foxman, head of American-Israeli advocacy group, ADL, agreed with Abrams:
“Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream“. 



They were working the number 6 million even before the period covered in the following film. 

Thumbs up to SHOAH

See also:



"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq. 
These events swung American public opinion in our favor." 
~ Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister. 
People all over Israel are celebrating Purim this weekend, and much like Halloween, the dress-up holiday is a perfect opportunity for parents to show off their creativity and then display it on their poor kids.

The winners of the contest for Costume of Poorest Taste are definitely 7-year-old twins Ilay and Nehoray, who dressed up as the burning World Trade Center towers with the planes still in them on 9/11. At least they spared us the jumpers.

Publication of the picture on the Israeli news website Ynet prompted widespread condemnation. How would Israelis feel if Americans dressed up as a burning Tel Aviv bus, or Europeans wore a “train to Auschwitz” costume? some asked. Ooopsies. Someone already took the last suggestion to heart.

Orthodox cchildren dressed as Auschwitz victims for Purim

This is as bad taste as the contest HEEB magazine held a few years ago asking readers to submit their most outrageous Holocaust stories, all to be fiction. 

The obvious “response” to that would be for all Americans who attend costume parties &/or who “dress up” for Halloween, to create & wear “Six Dancing Israelis w/White Van” costumes, plaster photos of same all over social media, & hope it gets picked up by the international wire services. 

Of course in ZOG-USA, you would be attacked by Abe Foxman’s ADL & most likely be arrested for “hate speech viva la costume” (a “new crime” quickly added to the books immediately upon your arrest & public humiliation!) 

What do you think about the costume?


South Africa has gone from a First World to a Third World nation. Is the Third World model also the NWO model?  Not mentioned here is the Black on White unofficial genocide that is taking place in South Africa.

By Gordon, (a South African reader)
Henry Makow
February 26, 2013

Occasionally the disaffected go on the rampage and riot and burn everything in sight, but this does not stop them re-electing the ruling party at election time.

South Africa was a first world country

that has morphed into a third world country.

If one looks at infrastructure, South Africa definitely qualified as a first world country.  It had a well maintained road network that actually worked.  Unlike the present malaise of bombed out roads interspersed with exorbitant toll roads, which were actually public roads turned over to friends of the ruling party, for tolls. 

What about the railways? 
Previously most freight was transported by rail. In fact, there was legislation to compel the use of rail freight.  That was all done away with in the name of privatization. This led to the deterioration of the roads which then led to the privatization of public roads via tollgates. 
What about water resources? 
Generally there was enough water until such time as water was given to all those who could not afford to pay for it, under the guise of human rights.   
What about electricity? 
South Africa used to have surplus electricity at one of the lowest rates in the world.  For twenty years there was no investment in new capacity and all the competent staff were retrenched, or forced out in the name of affirmative action.  The result is that we now have one of the highest electricity tariffs in the world and we regularly face power outages.  This is a sure sign of a third world country.
What about health care? 
We used to have world class hospitals which anyone could access basically for free, irrespective of race.  Now state hospitals are a place of last resort.  No-one goes there voluntarily.  Medical aid premiums have skyrocketed.   Industry insiders will tell you that the system will go bankrupt as a result of state interference.

What about public schooling? 
Mamphela Ramphele, left, the South African anti apartheid activist and a former head of the World Bank criticized the current state of education as being worse than under the darkest days of apartheid.  (She launched her own political party this month to challenge the ruling ANC). 
What about crime levels? 
Every level of crime statistics has dramatically increased and what is worse is that the investigation and prosecution of the said crimes has decreased. 
Yes, if you are a high profile person, such as Oscar Pistorius the Olympic athlete who has been charged with murdering his girlfriend, justice will be applied for or against you.  But what about my friend's mother who was murdered by the gardener and the police did not do anything? The crime is still unsolved to this day with no prospect of it ever being solved. 
How did this all come to change? 
After all, South Africa was the country that locked up and murdered political opponents and was so successful in its war on terror.  It all changed under the guise of human rights. The government promptly empowered criminals and criminalized the law abiding citizens.  Firearm regulations were made so onerous that numerous gun owners voluntarily gave up their firearms rather than comply with the regulations.
What about local municipalities? 
The vast majority of them are now bankrupt. Councilors vote themselves huge pay increases whilst all the municipal services are falling apart.  Occasionally the disaffected go on the rampage and riot and burn everything in sight, but this does not stop them re-electing the ruling party at election time.
Where South Africa once qualified on numerous accounts as a first world country, it now only rates as a third world country.
What about the 3M - 4M whites who actually built this country up to where it was and who now have to witness its demise?
It is all very sad ~ according to a survey a couple of years ago, up to half of them have emigrated, most unofficially. 
They merely left as young adults never to return again.  Those that have chosen to remain face an uncertain future.  You can either jump on the bandwagon and do whatever it takes (bribery, corruption, long hours, stress, etc) to succeed or else you can enter the informal sector and survival mode and keep on down-scaling in an attempt to survive.


How does this apply to the USA and other developed countries? 
Well look at the above factors and see if any of them apply to your neighborhood.  Are you living in a gated community with a hard pressed local town council retrenching its employees and cutting back on its services? 
Are you becoming a tax donkey with your property being used to fund ever increasing demands for free social services? 
Are you unable to find a formal job and doing odd jobs in the informal sector and existing on social welfare? 
By now, the picture should start to become clear.  Whatever happens in South Africa is a precursor for the USA and other western countries. 

Welcome to the New World Order.



Rothschild influence in the United States of America is of very long standing, but there is no reason to believe the story that the Jew Haym Solomon who helped to finance the War of Independence was an agent of the family, as he died in 1785, before Amschel Rothschild became an international financier.

In 1837 the Rothschilds sent an agent of theirs to establish offices in New York. This was a Jew called Schoenberg, whose name was changed to August Belmont, and who professed Christianity.

This Jew had had experience both in the Frankfort and the Naples branches of the Rothschild connection. From 1844 to 1850, Belmont was, through Solomon Rothschild’s influence, made the Austrian Consul-General at New York; he then resigned as a protest against Austria’s treatment of the Hungarian revolutionary, Kossuth. (It is noted here that Kossuth was a friend of Lord Palmerston).

In 1853, Belmont became U.S.A. representative to the Netherlands, living at The Hague for several years. After that, in 1860, he became Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Altogether it is clear that Belmont had a tremendous power in the United States. He became enormously rich and married the daughter of Commodore Matthew Perry who “opened up” Japan to the western nations.

Meanwhile, the Rothschilds “established offices in the Southern States of the U.S.A. for the purchase of wool, which they shipped to France, where they marketed it. They bought up whole tobacco harvests for supplying the tobacco requirements of the various States. Their own ships carried the enormous cargoes between the United States and France.” (A, Vol. II., p. 387).

Thus, when the Civil War (1861-5) broke out between North and South, the Rothschilds of Europe were obviously very deeply involved on both sides. It is important to remember here that they were never in good odour with Napoleon III, who borrowed not from them but from other Jews. Napoleon III had very definite plans as to the future of America, and the Rothschilds evidently had a somewhat similar scheme. The distrust of Napoleon III for the Rothschilds, however, made it impossible for them openly to support him in his efforts with money.

Napoleon III.’s idea was to establish a new Empire by acquiring Mexico and some of the Southern United States, and he wanted Britain to come in with him to compel the North to abandon the blockade of the Southern ports.

The South (the Confederates), hard-pressed, were trying to secure Napoleon III.’s intervention in their favour, which they hoped to get by offering him some territory, viz.: Louisiana and Texas. The Confederate Government had the Jew Judah P. Benjamin as their Secretary of State, and the Jewish Encyclopædia (B, Vol. III., p. 30) removes all doubt as to what was going on, for it says: 
“Unfortunately a thorough study of the diplomacy of the Confederacy has not yet been published, nor any adequate biography of Benjamin, of which that would be the principal chapter. But by such a publication it would be shown how near the Confederacy came to securing European intervention ~ particularly through the aid of Napoleon III. ~ by the tempting and statesmanlike efforts of the Confederate State Department under Benjamin’s direction, and to the probable transformation of an insurrection into a successful revolution in consequence.”
That Benjamin had, before the Civil War, actually conversed with Napoleon at Biarritz on this very subject of a French Dominion in America is revealed in Clew’s Fifty Years in Wall Street (Z.3, p. 62).
Aided by Jewish loans, through the Credit Mobilier and backed by the Pereira firm, Napoleon’s nominee, Maximilian of Austria, landed in Mexico in 1864 to become its short-lived Emperor. But the plot failed. Britain would not play her part. The man who prevented it was Tsar Alexander II of Russia! 
He sent his fleet, such as it was, across the ocean and put it at Abraham Lincoln’s disposal, so that the British and French knew that if they attempted to carry out the scheme of Napoleon III., they would find themselves engaged in hostilities with Russia. This bit of secret history has never been allowed to become public property. 
At the time, the Tsar himself did not advertise it because, immediately afterwards, he was forced by the European situation to make friends with Napoleon III. That the Russian fleet was in American waters at the time, under the command of the Tsar’s brother, and was “invited” by Secretary Seward, and that this prevented France and Britain from carrying out their plans is confirmed by Clews (Z.3, p. 59). Clews regarded the presence of the Russian fleet as a lucky incident, but the British and French Government obviously considered it was deliberate. 
Now what did the Rothschilds want? Their desires may be estimated fairly accurately by quoting the opinion given by Disraeli on the future of America when the Civil War was over: ~
“It will be an America of armies, of diplomacy, of rival States and manoeuvering Cabinets, of frequent turbulence, and probably of frequent wars.” (Annual Register, 1863, N.S. cv. 21).
Disraeli was Lionel Rothschild’s mouth-piece. The Rothschilds wished to reproduce in America the chaotic conditions obtaining in Europe whereby they ruled all States; a united America would be too powerful for them; it must be split, and now was the time to do it, but it was awkward that Napoleon III would not work with them! What were they to do? 
There was only one answer. Support both sides and prevent a win outright for either side, and so force apart the North and the South, with the possibility of the North becoming annexed to Canada. In practice, this meant helping the weak South more than the strong North. 
That was what the British Government actually did; in spite of much liberal sentiment in sympathy with the North, British policy veered round in favour of the South, and the Confederacy was recognized by it and assisted directly by allowing ships to be built, fitted and even manned for it in British ports; so much so, that, as is well known, Britain had subsequently to pay damages for the activities of the Alabama and Florida on the high seas. 
August Belmont in New York supported the North “with the greatest vigor.” “His most valuable service, perhaps, was a constant correspondence with influential friends in Europe, the Rothschilds and others, in which he set forcibly the Northern side in the great conflict.” (Z.4, Vol. II., p. 170). The Encyclopædia Britannica (R, Vol. III., p. 710) also says that he energetically supported the Union and exerted his influence on financiers in England and France in support of the North. Lionel Rothschild thought that the North would win, says Roth (L). 
Civil War Soldiers, both funded by the Rothschilds
Meanwhile, the other Rothschilds invested heavily in the bonds of the South and so ultimately of course incurred heavy losses. (B, Vol. X., p. 496).

The Rothschilds, I repeat, backed both sides, their material interests being on both sides, and their political interests requiring a long war and a stalemate, which could only be produced by giving more help to the South than to the North.

Had August Belmont any contacts with Judah P. Benjamin, the Jew who was first Attorney-General, then Secretary for War, and finally Secretary of the Confederate Government?

I find he had. Belmont’s wife, a Gentile, had an Uncle John Slidell (1793-1871), a partner in the law firm of Slidell, Benjamin & Conrad, in Louisiana, and of which Judah P. Benjamin was also a partner! This can hardly be a coincidence; it was obviously Cohen-cadence!

Further, Slidell was one of the two commissaries that the Confederacy sent to France to purchase munitions and arrange for supplies, shipping and other help for the South. Slidell was on familiar terms with Napoleon III (Z.3, p.p. 60-68), and approved of Napoleon’s Mexican Adventure. (Z.4). His daughter married Baron Frederick Emil D’Erlanger, head of the Jew banking firm in Paris, whose father, Baron Raphael Erlanger of Frankfort had been confidential representative of the Rothschilds.

The Erlanger firm financed the Confederates (Confederate States of America, by J. C. Schwab, p. 102, New York, 1901) and I have no doubt were assisted by their patrons the Rothschilds, who could do nothing openly because of Napoleon III.’s hearty distrust of them. The Erlangers were also agents for the Credit Mobilier, Rothschilds’ rivals.

Abraham Lincoln tried to introduce State Loans to free the people of America from the clutches of the bankers. We need not be surprised therefore that August Belmont “strongly opposed the nomination and election of Lincoln.” (Z.4, Vol. II.). Lincoln financed the Civil War on state credit, and for that he was murdered in 1865 by the Jewish actor Booth.

This Booth was neither a Southerner nor ever owned a slave (A New American History, by W. E. Woodward, 1938, p. 475). An attempt to murder Seward was made the same evening; Seward was the man who gave the invitation to the Russian fleet. An attempt against the Tsar himself was made in Paris in the following year and in 1881 he was blown to pieces by a bomb. Lincoln, Seward and the Tsar were the three people who had chiefly prevented the Jewish partition of the United States!

President Garfield, who held the same views about the true nature of national credit as Lincoln did, was also duly assassinated.

“Lionel Rothschild had a large share in the successful funding of the United States National Debt.” (B, Vol. X., p. 501). This would be the Funding Act, 1866, after the Civil War, which retired a large number of greenbacks (State Credit Notes) although the process was suspended within two years.

In 1893, Pierpont Morgan, Belmont and the Rothschilds supplied the U.S.A. Government with three-and-a-half million ounces of gold in exchange for bonds carrying four per cent. interest and at a price far below the current market price of such securities. This transaction was very unpopular in the States, and with good reason, for the relief offered to the country’s finances was only of ten months’ duration after which the situation was worse than ever. Then, however, the U.S.A. Government floated a loan selling its bonds to the public, with gratifying results. (A History of the American People, by S. E. Forman, 1922, p. 647).

August Belmont, the Rothschild representative, became Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society which ran Tammany Hall, the centre of boss rule and corruption in New York; this position was extremely useful to the House considering the amount of Rothschild money that was invested in New York.
Tammany Hall is a sort of Gentile front for the Jewish Kehilla, or Jewish secret government.
August Belmont died in 1890. His sons, Perry and August, were both prominent in the corrupt politics of the country. Perry Belmont was Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 1885-9, and Minister Plenipotentiary to Spain, 1888-9, and held other important posts. The second August Belmont had a son, Morgan Belmont, and through him a grandson, John Mason Belmont; he carried on the firm for the Rothschilds until his death and now Morgan represents the family in it.

Wednesday 27 February 2013


The Jewish Supremacist claim that Jews are “marrying out” and will “vanish due to assimilation” in America have been exposed as lies once again with the news that the Orthodox Jewish population in New York City has grown so much that whole neighborhoods have been taken over.

According to an article in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the area around Park Avenue, Brooklyn, was for “decades” a “derelict corner of New York’s most populous borough” which “was the domain of dangerous street gangs and dilapidated industrial buildings. The name of its neighborhood, Bedford-Stuyvesant, was synonymous with urban decay and crime.

“But driven by the explosive growth of the Jewish population in neighboring Williamsburg, a stronghold of the Satmar hasidic sect, untold numbers of haredi Orthodox Jews recently have moved into the area, and now many consider it part of Jewish Williamsburg.

“Ten years ago there were no Jews living here,” said Moishe, a construction site manager of a large residential building who declined to give his last name. “Then they changed the zoning. Now it is going heavy.”

The changes in the neighborhood are among the consequences of the explosive growth of the Orthodox Jewish population in America’s most Jewish city. That growth is altering not just the composition of America’s largest Jewish community, but city neighborhoods, too.
A study released last month by the UJA-Federation of New York identified Williamsburg as home to the second-fastest Jewish population growth in New York City. About 74,500 Jews ~ mostly haredi Orthodox ~ lived there in 2011, up from 52,700 a decade earlier.

The fastest-growing Jewish neighborhood of the city was Borough Park, another haredi Orthodox stronghold in Brooklyn. More than 130,000 Jews lived there in 2011, up from 76,000 in 2001. Together, these two areas accounted for two-thirds of the 10 percent increase in the number of Jews living in New York City, Long Island and Westchester County between 2001 and 2011, according to the study.


Every people on Earth love their own heritage as is normal and healthy. But many unsuspecting people of European descent have been taught to hate their own heritage and to applaud the rapidly shrinking numbers of Europeans in European populated nations. This video is message of love and beauty to the European people. Only a healthy and proud people can defeat the ultimate tribalists! European freedom in European nations is vital for both Europeans and for the rest of the world suffering from Zio Globalism



Ed Noor: Two story tellers, Tarantino and Spielberg. Both Jewish. Both with personal agendas.  Which one does the most damage to society? 

In my humble opinion it is Spielberg with his agenda of twisting history to suit the false Jewish narrative, of events during the last century. It is said most Americans now learn history from Jewish owned media, movies and television and accept what they see as the true history.  Needless to say they happily lap up the misconceptions that have the potential to shackle humanity under the Jewish heel New World Order. 

Meanwhile Tarantino seems to push a violent hatred of the White race in his bloody  I offer two quotes from the stars of his gratuitously gory films which I personally do not find at all worthy of spending a penny (or time) watching. 

 “It’s almost a deep sexual satisfaction of wanting to beat Nazis to death, an orgasmic feeling. My character gets to beat Nazis to death. That’s something I could watch all day. I thank you, and as a member of the Jewish tribe, I thank you, motherfucker, because this movie is a fucking Jewish wet dream.” ~ Eli Roth on his role in Inglorious Basterds

“I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?” ~ Jamie Fox, Saturday Night Live speaking about his role in “Django Unchained.”

February 16, 2013

History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. 

History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst ~ both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.

Yet, one may wonder, how many historians really engage in such a task? 

How many historians are courageous enough to open the Pandora Box? 

How many historians are brave enough to challenge Jewish History for real? 

How many historians dare to ask why Jews? 

Why do Jews suffer time after time? 

Is it really the Goyim who are inherently murderous, or is there something unsettling in Jewish culture or collectivism?  

But Jewish history is obviously far from being alone here: every people’s past is, in fact, as problematic. 

Can Palestinians really explain to themselves how is it that after more than a century of struggle, they wake up to find out that their current capital has become a NGO haven largely funded by George Soros’ Open Society? 

Can the Brits once and for all look in the mirror and explain to themselves why, in their Imperial Wars Museum, they erected a Holocaust exhibition dedicated to the destruction of the Jews? 

Shouldn’t the Brits be slightly more courageous and look into one of the many Shoahs they themselves inflicted on others? Clearly they have an impressive back catalogue to choose from.


The past is dangerous territory; it can induce inconvenient stories. This fact alone may explain why the true Historian is often presented as a public enemy. 

However, the Left has invented an academic method to tackle the issue. The ‘progressive’ historian functions to produce a ‘politically correct’, ‘inoffensive’ tale of the past. By means of zigzagging, it navigates its way, while paying its dues to the concealed and producing endless ad-hoc deviations that leave the ‘repressed’ untouched. 

The progressive subject is there to produce a ‘non- essentialist’ and ‘unoffending’ account of the past on the expense of the so-called ‘reactionary’. The Guardian is an emblem of such an approach, it would, for instance, ban any criticism of Jewish culture or Jewishness, yet it provides a televised platform for two rabid Zionist so they can discuss Arab culture and Islamism.  

The Guardian wouldn’t mind  offending ‘Islamists’ or British ‘nationalists’  but it would be very careful not to hurt any Jewish sensitivities. Such version of politics or the past is impervious to truthfulness, coherence, consistency or integrity. In fact, the progressive discourse is far from being ‘the guardian of the truth’, it is actually set as ‘the guardian of the discourse’ and I am referring here to Left discourse in particular.

But surely there is an alternative to the ‘progressive’ attitude to the past. The true historian is actually a philosopher ~ an essentialist ~ a thinker who posits the question ‘what does it mean to be in the world and what does it take to live amongst others’? 

The true historian transcends beyond the singular, the particular and the personal. He or she is searching for the condition of the possibility of that which drives our past, present and future. 

The true historian dwells on Being and Time, he or she is searching for a humanist lesson and an ethical insight while looking into the poem, the art, the beauty, the reason but also into the fear. The true historian is an essentialist who digs out the concealed, for he or she knows that the repressed is the kernel of the truth.

Leo Strauss provides us with a very useful insight in that regard. Western civilization, he contends, oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles ~ Athens and Jerusalem.  Athens ~ the birthplace of democracy, home for reason, philosophy, art and science. Jerusalem ~ the city of God where God’s law prevails. 

The philosopher, the true historian,  or the essentialist, for that matter, is obviously the Athenian. 

The Jerusalemite, in that regard, is ‘the guardian of the discourse’, the one who keeps the gate, just to maintain law and order on the expense of ecstasies, poesis, beauty, reason and truth.


Hollywood provides us with an insight into this oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem: between the Jerusalemite ‘guardian of the discourse’ and the Athenian contender ~ the ‘essentialist’  public enemy.  

On the Left side of the map we find Steven Spielberg, the ‘progressive’ genius. 

On his Right we meet peosis itself, Quentin Tarantino, the  ‘essentialist’.

Spielberg, provides us with the ultimate sanitized historical epic. The facts are cherry picked just to produce a pre meditated pseudo ethical tale that maintains the righteous discourse, law and order but, most importantly, the primacy of Jewish suffering (Schindler’s List and Munich). Spielberg brings to life a grand epic with a clear retrospective take on the past. Spielberg tactic is, in most cases, pretty simple. He would juxtapose a vivid transparent binary opposition: Nazis vs. Jews, Israeli vs. Palestinians , North vs. South, Righteousness vs. Slavery. Somehow, we always know, in advance who are the baddies and who are the goodies. We clearly know who to side with.

Binary opposition is indeed a safe route. It provides a clear distinction between the ‘Kosher’ and the ‘forbidden’.  But Spielberg is far from being a banal mind. He also allows a highly calculated and carefully meditated oscillation. In a universalist gesture of courtesy he would let a single Nazi into the family of the kind. He would allow the odd Palestinian to be a victim. It can all happen as long as the main frame of the discourse remains intact.  Spielberg is clearly an arch guardian of discourse ~ being a master of his art-form, he will certainly maintain your attention for at least 90 minutes of a historic cinematic cocktail made of factual mishmash. All you have to do is to follow the plot to the end. By then the pre-digested ethical message is safely replanted at the hub of your self-loving narcissistic universe.

Unlike Spielberg, Tarantino is not concerned with factuality; he may even repel historicity. Tarantino may as well believe that the notion of ‘the message’ or morality are over rated.  Tarantino is an essentialist, he is interested in human nature, in Being and he seems to be fascinated in particular in vengeance and its universality. 

For the obvious reasons, his totally farfetched Inglorious Bastards throws light on present Israeli collective blood thirstiness as being detected at the time of Operation Cast lead. The fictional cinematic creation of a revengeful murderous WWII Jewish commando unit is there to throw the light on the devastating contemporary reality of Jewish lobbies’ lust for violence in their relentless push for a world war against Iran and beyond. But Inglorious Bastards may as well have a universal appeal because the Old Testament’s ‘eye for an eye’ has become the Anglo American political driving force in the aftermath of 9/11.


What may seem as a spiritual clash between Jerusalemite Spielberg and Athenian Tarantino is more than apparent in their recent works.

The history of slavery in America is indeed a problematic topic and, for obvious reasons, many aspects of this chapter are still kept deeply within the domain of the concealed. Once again Spielberg and Tarantino have produced distinctively different accounts of this chapter.

In his recent historical epic Lincoln, Spielberg, made Abraham Lincoln into a Neocon ‘moral interventionist’ who against all (political) odds, abolished slavery. I guess that Spielberg knows enough American history to gather that his cinematic account is a crude Zigzag attempt, for the anti slavery political campaign was a mere pretext for a bloody war driven by clear economical objectives.

As one may expect, Spielberg peppers his tale with more than a few genuine historical anecdotes. He is certainly paying the necessary dues just to keep the shame shoved deep under the carpet.  His Lincoln is cherished as a morally driven hero of human brotherhood. And the entire plot carries all the symptoms of contemporary AIPAC lobby assault within the Capitol.  Being one of the arch guardians of the discourse, Spielberg has successfully fulfilled his task. He added a substantial cinematic layer to ensure that America’s true shame remains deeply repressed or shall we say, untouched.

Needles to mention that Spielberg’s take on Lincoln has been cheered by the Jewish press. They called the president Avraham Lincoln Avinu (our father, Hebrew) in The Tablet Magazine.  ‘Avraham’, according to the Tablet, is the definitive good Jew. “As imagined by Spielberg and Kushner, Lincoln’s Lincoln is the ultimate mensch. He is a skilled natural psychologist, an interpreter of dreams, and a man blessed with an extraordinarily clever and subtle legal mind.”  

In short, Spielberg’s Lincoln is Abe’le who combines the skills, the gift and the traits of Moses, Freud as well as Alan Dershowitz. However, some Jews complain about the film. “As an American Jewish historian, writes Lance J. Sussman,
“I’m afraid I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the latest Spielberg film. So much of it is so good, but it would have been even better if he had put at least one Jew in the movie, somewhere.”
I guess that Spielberg may find it hard to please the entire tribe. Quentin Tarantino, however, doesn’t even try. Tarantino is, in fact, doing the complete opposite. Through a phantasmic epic that confesses zero interest in any form of historicity or factuality whatsoever, he manages, in his latest masterpiece Django Unchained, to dig out the darkest secrets of Slavery. He scratches the concealed and judging by the reaction of another cinematic genius Spike Lee, he has clearly managed to get pretty deep.

By putting into play a stylistic spectacle within the Western genre Tarantino manages to dwell on every aspect we are advised to leave untouched. He deals with biological determinism, White supremacy and cruelty. But he also turns his lens onto slaves’ passivity, subservience and collaboration. 

The Athenian director builds here a set of Greek mythological God like characters; Django (Jamie Fox), is the unruly king of revenge and Schultz (Christoph Waltz) the German dentist turned bounty hunter is the master of wit, kindness and humanity with a giant wisdom tooth shining over his caravan. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Hegelian (racist) Master and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is the Hegelian Slave, emerging as the personification of social transformation. To a certain extent, the relationships between Candie and Stephen could be seen as one of the most profound yet subversive cinematic takes on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.

In Hegel’s dialectic two self-consciousness’ are constituted via a process of mirroring. In Django Unchained, Stephen the slave seems to convey the ultimate form of subservience, yet this is merely on the surface.  In reality Stephen is way more sophisticated and observant than his master Candie. He is on his way up. It is hard to determine whether Stephen is a collaborator or if he really runs the entire show. 

And yet in Tarantino’s latest, Hegel’s dialectic is, somehow, compartmentalized.  Django, once unchained, is clearly impervious to the Hegelian dialectic spiel. His incidental liberation induces in him a true spirit of relentless resilience. When it comes to it, he kills the Master, the Slave and everyone else who happens to be around, he bends every rule including the ‘rules of nature’ (biological determinism). 

By the time the epic is over, Django leaves behind a wreckage of the Candie’s plantation, the cinematic symbol of the dying old South and the ‘Master Slave Dialectic’.  Yet, as Django rides on a horse towards the rising sun together with his free wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), we are awakened to the farfetched cinematic fantasy. In reality, I mean the world out of the cinema, the Candie’s plantation would, in all likelihood, remain intact and Django would probably be chained up again. In practice, Tarantino cynically juxtaposes the dream (the cinematic reality) and reality (as we know it).  By doing so he manages to illuminate the depth of misery that is entangled with the human condition and in Black reality in America in particular.

Tarantino is certainly not a ‘guardian of the discourse.’ Quite the opposite, he is the bitterest enemy of stagnation. As in his previous works, his latest spectacle is an essentialist assault on correctness and ‘self-love’. Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. 

Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence.  

Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise.

If Leo Strauss is correct and Western civilization should be seen as an oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem, truth must be said ~ we can really do with many more Athenians and their essentialist reflections. In short, we are in a desperate need of many more Tarantinos to counter Jerusalem and its ambassadors.