Batman Returns

Not rated yet!
Tim Burton
2 h 06 min
Release Date
19 June 1992
Action, Fantasy
Having defeated the Joker, Batman now faces the Penguin - a warped and deformed individual who is intent on being accepted into Gotham society. Crooked businessman Max Schreck is coerced into helping him become Mayor of Gotham and they both attempt to expose Batman in a different light. Selina Kyle, Max's secretary, is thrown from the top of a building and is transformed into Catwoman - a mysterious figure who has the same personality disorder as Batman. Batman must attempt to clear his name, all the time deciding just what must be done with the Catwoman.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?



Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)

 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Counter Currents Staff5
Counter Currents Publishing

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • 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 [2], is a professor at New York Law School [3].

    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 [4], was introduced by Jewish screenwriter Wesley Strick, who admitted, “of course I was referring to Exodus.” [5]

    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.” [6] [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 [7] 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 [4],” 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.” In summation:

    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 antiSemitic!”

    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 [8] and TOO [9] 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 [10].

    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 [11], half- and quarter- Jews 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 [12] 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 ( [13]) 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 [14]. 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 [15] (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.


    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 [16] in connection with William Cash’s much-reviled 1994 Spectator (UK) article, “The Kings of the Deal” [17]: “‘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!”


    (Review Source)
  • Jason Jorjani’s Prometheus & Atlas
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]8,319 words

    Jason Reza Jorjani
    Prometheus and Atlas [2]
    London: Arktos, 2016

    “A man is, whatever room he is in.”[1]

    Christy Mattling: Tellin’ them innocent kids stories about the dead and their hauntings! That’s the work of the devil. You’ll pay for it. The Devil! That man is the Devil Himself!

    Renee Coliveil: Oh shut up, you potentate of righteousness![2] 

    One seldom encounters a work that can truly be called not merely intellectually challenging, but staggering; one might even say “titanic” (the significance of which will soon be made clear).

    In its scope and ambition, which is very largely achieved, this is the sort of book that elicits the cliché that no review would be adequate. What Prof. Jordani has presented us with is nothing less than a Summa Contra Aetatis,[3] concocted from the tools of modernity itself.[4]

    Our esteemed editor here at Counter-Currents recently suggested that with the publication of the Complete Edition (Gesamtausgabe) of Heidegger’s works, “For the price of a couple of shelves of books, you can attend the lectures of one of the greatest philosophers and most talented teachers of the 20th century, namely Martin Heidegger.”[5]

    Perhaps as a preparation, if not a substitute, the general reader might use Prometheus and Atlas, as each chapter is a kind of mini-seminar on topics ranging from precognition to pragmatism, from Schelling to Shelley (Mary and Percy), from Kant’s aesthetics to alien abduction. There is indeed a whole year’s worth of seminar material here (hint, college instructors out there looking for next semester’s assigned reading!).

    And now might be a good time to point out to the potential reader that despite its origins as a dissertation, Prof. Jordani has an easy prose style that presupposes little more than some general cultural literacy for understanding. If, like me, Heidegger’s prose causes you to break out in mental hives you will still be able to follow the argument (the nature of which we will soon be explicating) of Prometheus and Atlas.[6]

    Indeed, one of the most remarkable features of the book is the author’s ability to operate within both the — if not exactly “analytic” (say, Quine or Kripke[7]) or “linguistic” or “ordinary language” (Ryle, or Austin) tradition, at least the Anglo-American[8]—as well as the “continental” traditions of Heidegger, Derrida and Foucault.[9]

    However, as a result of that fusion of methods, that facility with many styles of philosophical rhetoric, Prof. Jorjani will immediately draw on both Feyerabend and Heidegger to point out that if we are to expand our horizons with new content, new ideas, new concepts, then however clear we may try to be,

    We have to use and abuse language in ways that recognize how wildly “illogical” Nature could be (from the stand point of Reason) . . . My use and abuse of language . . . would amount to a permanent revolution [in which] the archetypal or mythic forces in our unconscious minds at a social level that anticipate phenomena with a view to projection [viz, Prometheus] and frame them in terms of fixed world models [viz, Atlas] [are made conscious] so that we can embrace the uniquely constructive power of these forces, but also creatively re-imagine and redefine our relationship with them.

    As for “use and abuse,” a rather self-consciously Nietzschean phrase, one might put it in both a kinder and more Heideggerian mode by calling his procedure “poetic” or indeed, imaginal.[10]

    Indeed, Prof. Jorjani starts us off with a poetic evocation of his theme[11] in the form of a mediation on Rockefeller Center that serves as a kind of overture, stating themes the significance of which will only later become evident, rather like the “Sirens” episode of Ulysses.[12] It bears quotation at some length, and I will highlight some of these elements.

    There is something curious about the fraternal statutes of Prometheus and Atlas at Rockefeller Center in New York City. Instead of simply bearing a celestial globe on his shoulders, Atlas is supporting several interlocking rings that outline the shape of a hollow sphere. These bear astrological markings which suggest the precession of the equinoxes through the rise and fall of world ages. The very same zodiacal symbols are also impressed upon a ring through which Prometheus is triumphantly emerging. An inscription of the Greek tragedian Aeschylus reminds us that the torch of craftily stolen fire that he holds stands for techne, the essence of Technology: “Prometheus, teaching every art, brought the fire that hath proved for mortals a means to mighty ends.” We find yet another hint to the meaning of this symbolism in a bolder inscription beneath a depiction of Zeus holding a compass over the central doorway of the main building that is immediately behind Prometheus, which reads: “Wisdom and Knowledge Shall be the stability of the Times.”

    This is paradoxical . . .

    Indeed. The Celtic note first occurs here:

    It is no accident that King Atlas, ruling over the Atlantean world empire through Time, stands opposed to the Cathedral of St. Patrick, the Serpent-slayer, and that his head is turned aside in such a way that his gaze spurns the Lord’s altar.[13]

    The implication of which is immediately unpacked:

    It is amusingly ironic that every year Gotham light up its “Christmas” tree behind Lucifer.

    The reference to “Gotham” recalls Batman Returns (Tim Burton, 1992), where [3] “Penguin and Catwoman “concoct a plan to frame [the role of Atlas] Batman as a villain and turn all of Gotham against him. The plan unfolds [Prometheus] on the night of the ceremonial Christmas tree lighting in the city square.”

    Our author immediately adds that

    One does not have to look too far to see that there is something of the mercurial Joker in this spectacular [spectral!] arrangement.[14]

    Lucifer and the Joker will return before we’re finished. For now, let us note that although apparently a book of philosophy, Prometheus and Atlas is actually going to be about spectral possession: the world views or archetypes that possess us or, to take another view, which we embody, on which our much-vaunted “science” is based and, indeed, without which would not be possible.

    Since these archetypes — Prometheus, who makes objects already present and predictable through mathematical preconceptions, and Atlas, who creates worlds and marks out horizons –make possible the real life practices that Heidegger insists are the more-real bases of such theoretical endeavors as “science,” these then might be considered rooms that we inhabit, for as Bert Cooper told us, a man is whatever room he is in. And as the American “New Thought” guru Neville tells us, to imagine a room is to be in it.[15]

    Talk of houses recalls the zodiacal symbolism of Atlas, and what follow the Introduction are 12 chapters — like the houses of Zodiac[16] — in which Prof. Jorjani explores various aspects of his vision of Prometheus and Atlas, like the 12 central chapters of Ulysses where Bloom wanders in search of his lost son and finds his specter in Stephen Dedalus (techne!).

    Like the Neoplatonist Plotinus, Prof. Jorjani does not so much produce iron-clad chains of reasoning as explore various topics, moving around, through, and back to them again as he accustoms the reader to his viewpoints; indeed, how else would one convince someone to change his very intellectual foundations themselves?[17]

    Feyerabend’s insight — that while scientific practice may require a professionally enforced restriction of vision (Kuhn’s famous “paradigms”) in the same way that Heidegger’s forms of life require a horizon, scientific progress can only occur if we try, though imagination or intuition, to see beyond those limits (hence Jorjani’s crooked prose) — is amped up by Foucault’s notion of “epistemes” as systems of socially enforced power, and Derrida’s identification of the uncanny as what is left over by such enforced cognitive limitations; and then combined with Heidegger’s insistence that a more real world of social practice — most basically, mathematical projection and world measurement: “Our primary experience of things is not theoretical but practical”– underlies science itself.

    That more real world from which science abstracts a set of professionally “acceptable” ideas includes the so-called “paranormal,” which Jornani insists is “supernatural” only in the sense of having been occluded in this way from real Nature. By marking this area “off limits” official science has occluded the world where its own sources arise — the archetypes of Atlas and Prometheus — thus robbing us — like Zeus — of our destined freedom and rendering Technology out of our control; this is the “crisis” of Technology that concerned Heidegger.

    Only by accessing this realm can we consciously develop the world culture than alone can encompass the world-conquering Technology of Atlas and Prometheus.

    So, Prof. Jorjani proceeds to review of the voluminous evidence for the whole spectrum of psi phenomena, from telepathy to reincarnation, and the arguments — such as they are — against the legitimacy of paranormal studies.[18]

    Here’s where I think the main flaw in the book lies, at least in terms of rhetoric. Prof. Jorjani seems to feel compelled to present every fact, every case, every experiment, to be found in his no doubt considerable files. I get it, I think; parapsychology is still a fringe endeavor, and he knows that he has to bulk things up to get his reader to at least suspend disbelief a bit. But after a while, this reader begins to feel he’s being hit over the head with a complete CD set of the Coast to Coast AM archives.[19]

    More positively, one might say that however valuable the material to his point, and necessary to have all this material to hand in the context of, say, a doctoral defense — the origin in praxis, as the author might say, of the text — it might be better handled these days by presenting the interested reader with links to the material online. The same can be said of later chapters dealing with Japanese pop culture and the UFO investigations of Jacques Vallée.

    In the next two chapters, dealing with Descartes and Kant, Jorjani shows how “both of these defining thinkers of the modern age built their rational systems on a terrified suppression of the spectral,” constructing a “crippled kind of science that, for all its apparent technical power,” left the soul in the hands of dogmatic Abrahamic revelations, and “forestalled the revolutionary promise of witchcraft and Renaissance alchemy — which could have extricated us from Judeo-Christian Medievalism.”[20]

    It was fun to be back in school again — this time with Dr. Pinto’s rival, Dr. Deck, and his Early Modern and Late Modern surveys. Unlike Dr. Deck, who operated under the fruitful delusion that they were all trying to sound like Hegel but more or less failing, Dr. Jorjani lets them speak in their own voices, dishonest as they may be (Descartes a Jesuit agent, Kant a craven careerist seeking tenure) and lets Schelling speak in his propria persona as he teased out, from the inadvertent hints Kant left in his third Critique, the nature and necessity of a new science of the soul, which would be a return to the alchemical tradition aborted by Christian mediaevalism[21] while still retaining, suitably tamed, the achievements of Western science.[22]

    This new science would be imaginal — there’s that word against — since ideas, for Schelling, are the concrete unity of, and thus transcend, both things and their concepts, and thus are more real than either.[23] And as such it will be spectral, its ideas presenting a spectrum between thing and concept, and thus archetypal, these ideas being overarching types.

    Or, shall we say, rooms; and as the Japanese supposedly say, you are whatever room you are in.

    By thus once more freely allowing us to be concerned with archetypes, this new, alchemical science will enable us “to more consciously intuit the archetypes or aesthetic ideas” which since Descartes have been “unconsciously determinative of technological science itself,” and thus transform our relations with those archetypes: Prometheus and Atlas.

    As a result of our inhabiting these two particular archetypes, “nature is taken account of through a projection that anticipates its future course in a calculative manner.”

    Once we have allowed ourselves to re-experience these archetypes, we can, with Heidegger, recognize that “both Nature and its history have [been] objectified” by “a projection that anticipates its future course in a calculative manner” [Prometheus] and “History, including Natural History, is framed as a rigorous schematization of the past as ‘fact’ “ [Atlas], and that this “occludes the ‘worldhood’ of the world.”

    There is much else that could be discussed, but I think we have reached a point where the reader might want to offer some response.

    In his discussion of paranormal phenomena, Prof. Jorjani is much concerned with the dangers of these phenomena in themselves; indeed, this fear, perhaps more than an ideological interest in Science, is the motive for its occultation by Descartes, Kant, and even Schelling (who feared these “titanic” powers in the hands of men of artistic but perhaps not moral or democratic inclinations.

    It’s a basket of deplorables that deserves to be quoted in full:

    Telepathy calls into question the privacy of one’s thoughts and the integrity of one’s personal agency. Clairvoyance could empower perfect strangers to see into one’s bedroom or office at any time, and if employed by the enemies of a state, it would shatter the very foundations of national security in relation to state secrecy. Precognition confronts us with the great temptation to stop crimes before they have been committed by essentially arresting people for “thought crimes,” and it also endangers the stability of the stock market. Psychokinesis could be used to commit the most perfectly untraceable crimes, and perhaps psychokinetic ability, once recognized and amplified by belief, poses an even greater danger on account of unconscious and uncontrollable negative intentions. Recognizing that memories of past lives do, in some cases, actually signify the reincarnation of a previous personality, forces us to ask questions concerning private property, family ties, sexual taboos, gender identity, and the prosecution of past offenses that would require redefining our entire legal system.

    Let’s confine ourselves for simplicity to experiments with remote viewing. These are very much like the imaginal processes Neville discusses and which give rise to our talk about being whatever room you are in. Discussing one experimenter’s experience, Prof. Jorjani says that one researcher

    [D]iscovered that although you “can actually access that person mentally” . . . this process requires the operative to “be feeling the target person’s feelings and actually thinking the target person’s thoughts” until his “way of thinking actually becomes your way of thinking,” so that even after the session is over, “you are left with some remnants of that target person’s emotions, thoughts, aspirations, attitudes and morals.”

    “Feeling” intensely enough to “be” or “become” something is indeed the key to what Neville describes modestly as “a simple method of changing the future.”[24]

    On some occasions, a total breakdown of communication occurred as a consequence of the remote viewer actually coming to be there at the site, instead of “remotely viewing” in in a detached enough manner [so] as to be able to report his findings.[25]

    Neville does speak sometimes as if one could influence or manipulate the future, or individuals, at will and indeed almost accidentally.

    By the power of imagination all men, certainly imaginative men, are forever casting forth enchantments, and all men, especially unimaginative men, are continually passing under their power. Can we ever be certain that it was not our mother while darning our socks who began that subtle change in our minds? If I can unintentionally cast an enchantment over persons, there is no reason to doubt that I am able to cast intentionally a far stronger enchantment.[26]

    In his more considered works, however, such as Out of This World, he presents a fully developed, four-dimensional grid model of the phenomenal world,[27] reminiscent of the Hindu doctrines synthesized by René Guénon and more recently by Michael Hoffman, who speaks of a “block universe” of total determinism as the essential element of mystical experience.[28] Creation is finished,” as Neville says, and the omniscient viewer can view past, present and future as one continuous stream.

    However, faith is the actual substance of that which is hoped for. It is the evidence of the thing you want which you do not see in the outer world. That which you want to do or be has already been created. Therefore, it actually does exist. It is possible to bring into your world anything in creation by your belief that you already have it. Faith that what you want is already a fact is the means by which you activate the invisible state. That state then is later reflected in your outer world. Creation is finished. God can create nothing that is not already existent. Faith or belief that you already are or have that which you desire is the only means by which to experience your desires. No limitation is imposed on that which you can have except your failure to assume possession of the quality or thing desired.[28]

    The real “secret” of “magick” or any kind of paranormal power, is that one can only wield it if one has already identified one’s own will with God’s (already accomplished and presumably morally sound) Will (Crowley’s “Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel” if you prefer), thus obviating any concern for a world of warring magicians.[30] Schelling’s Titans are tamed, or, as Jordani interprets Kant’s doctrine of the Genius, “it is Nature acting through the nature in the subject that produced beautiful art.”

    This kind of serene confidence,[31] like the assurance of the Calvinist that he has already been saved, is unavailable to Jorjani, since he argues for the truth, or at least the pragmatic value, of William James’ indeterminate pluralistic universe.

    Allow the way, Jorjani even goes James one better, dismissing “absolute” morality along with the omniscient and omnipotent God; later, in his fascinating chapter on how the Japanese ret-conned Buddhism into a pragmatic, titanic worldview that suited both Mediaeval Japan and the post-war confrontation with Promethean Global Technology, he applauds the loss of strict moral preparations as the foundation of Zen practice.

    William James versus Neville; another battle of the magicians![32] Ironic, since James was one of the staunchest supporters of the New Thought movement, or the “Religion of Healthy-Mindedness” as he called it.[33]

    Is this a conflict of world views, or can it be adjudicated empirically? In terms of those “endless reports” of James, it would seem that the block universe bids fair to be as common, if not more common, a paranormally revealed truth than any kind of Jamesian indeterminism.[34] What one accepts as data, and how one interprets it, would seem to depend on one’s motives, or one’s prior choice of a worldview, and that’s where we came in.

    So while I would suggest that the concern over what we might call person to person psi is somewhat overblown, the fact remains that it is rightly perceived as a grave threat — by and to the Powers that Be. For it removes the role of middleman that both Church and State have arrogated to themselves.[35] Jorjani rightly links the pagan Titans to the Biblical account of “original sin,” and infers correctly that the return of Prometheus, in the post-Christian context, can only be seen as the return of Lucifer.[36]

    Similar questions arise with reincarnation. Jorjani seems quite convinced by the research and evidence presented by Ian Stevenson — quoting it extensively in the chapter of psi, as well as later in reference to Zen — as many others have been. I confess that I, like many other others, remain unconvinced, as most of what I see here can be subsumed under what Evola, also a sceptic, called “psychic residues” that survive physical death — so yes, materialism is wrong — but do not amount to any sort of substantial egoic survival.[37] Perhaps the wisest counsel on this subject was given by Marco Pallis: as with everything else in samsara, all here is chaos and confusion, so it would be best to not stick to any dogmatic views.[38]

    In any event, Prof. Jorjani admits that Stevenson’s evidence also knocks any notion of the reality of karma into a cocked hat, but is fine with that, and later praises Zen for dropping this idea along with, as we’ve seen, moral prerequisites for practice. No sila, no karma, no problem. And again, this seems a function of his Jamesian universe of, as Feyerabend would say in another context, “anything goes.”

    All this talk of karma and sila leads us to later chapters where Prof. Jorjani attempts to deal with the imperialistic history — and apparently, essence[39] — of Western science and technology.

    Here is where one can discern what may be the central within the work. One the one hand, Prof. Jorjani expresses concern over the personal, social, and even cosmic dangers possibly unleashed by the widespread acceptance and development of psychic powers;[40] although we’ve suggested these fears may be a tad misplaced. On the other hand, he is most emphatic that the archetypes of Prometheus and Atlas are inherently not merely world-picturing or even world-transforming, but in fact world conquering.[41]

    Of course, this is “a new kind of empire” —

    One that could potentially conquer the whole world through its oceans, but without subjugating it under a vertically-oriented transcendental order.

    Hellenization is occurring through ideas of archetypes that are not merely psychological types of one particular society — namely, those of Prometheus and Atlas.

    Jorjani attempts to take some of the sting out of this “new kind of empire” by shifting his focus a bit and exploring the more primordial, pre-rationalist foundations of Greek thought in Heraclitus, finding there — as did Heidegger — common themes shared with Taoism.[42]

    The Greeks established the first imperial milieu of immanence, which conquers chiefly by seducing others to become party to its polity and to creatively transform it.[44]

    This leads to a very interesting chapter on the Far East (to be Eurocentric for a moment) where Buddhism, imported from Aryan India, interacted in an idiosyncratic way — fruitful for the post-atomic future; Buddhism being shorn, as we’ve seen, of its morality and overdeveloped metaphysics, while Taoism was forced to abandon its Pollyanna-ish notions of a common, benevolent human nature under the impact of Buddhist teachings of no-soul and Emptiness.

    As a result, Japan — free of the distorting influence of Cartesian science and Abrahamic religion[44] — was both willing and able to meet the West[45] on its own terms, and even provides useful guidance — “from Godzilla through Akira, and on to Neon Genesis Evangelion” — on how we can develop a post-atomic world culture.

    The period of intense intellectual and spiritual encounter between Western and Japanese thought in the first half of the twentieth century culminated in traumatic atomic bombings,[46] which . . . represent an even deeper metaphysical confrontation, and one that, on account of . . . unique character of Zen, effected a Promethean/Atlantic metamorphosis of the Japanese psyche. . . . It was, for these prepared minds, a direct encounter with the essence of techne.[47]

    But the general point here is that metaphysically grounded cultures, like China and Japan, need have no fear of loss by amalgamating with the expansive Promethean culture of the West (“the necessarily world-colonizing force of a civilization seeking forbidden godlike knowledge”), and much to gain (and vice versa, of course).[48]

    Perhaps this is the paradox any “pragmatic” or “pluralistic” — and Titanic — philosophy reaches. In the Nietzschean clash of incompatible cultures (like the incommensurable paradigms of science) one will prevail, ending all the fun. But if ours wins, it’ll be different: it’s not based on an idiosyncratic revelation, and while it imposes a mandatory horizontal grid, it demands no vertical ideological allegiance; nor is it rootless nihilistic utilitarian rationalism. Instead, it’s only based on the pragmatic skepticism of the cheerful gods themselves, whose archetypes we share. Be glad! Methinks one has heard this before.

    You there in the water,
    why wail to us?
    Hear what Wotan wills for you.
    No more gleams
    the gold on you maidens:
    henceforth bask in bliss
    in the gods’ new radiance![49]

    Loki! Another Hermetic trickster![50]

    In his last two chapters, Jorjani tries to settle his accounts with the Abrahamic religions and argues that “many of the ‘miraculous’ occurrences recounted in the scriptures of revealed religions make much more sense if they are read as historical narratives of paranormal phenomena,” especially in comparison with contemporary UFOlogy.

    It’s an interesting idea, but the more general Ancient Astronaut theory, it depends on regarding the Old Testament as being in some strong sense historical, which it isn’t. Even if one insists that some kind of historical kernel for the myth to grow around, it, like the historical Jesus, is lost to us and thus as good as nothing; all we have are the myths.

    The scientific revolution in Biblical studies has already occurred, and has relegated most of the Bible to sheer myth — questioning the existence of figures like Moses or Solomon or even, in extreme cases, Jesus and Paul[51] — leaving “the Bible as History” behind, to be argued over by fundamentalists and cable TV theorists.

    Here again, a comparison with Neville is illuminating, since Neville was rather avant le lettre in his understanding of the Bible as already really being more like the Hermetic, or Titanic/Promethean literature that Jorjani prefers anyway:

    In his eyes, all of Scripture was nothing other than a blueprint for man’s development. “The Bible has no reference at all to any person who ever existed, or any event that ever occurred upon earth,” Neville told his audiences. “All the stories of the Bible unfold in the minds of the individual man.” Neville depicted Christ not as a living figure but, rather, as a mythical master psychologist whose miracles and parables demonstrated the power of creative thought.[52]

    Prof. Jorjani does raise an important caveat here:

    The authors of these books of the Bible were in many cases aware of what is allegorical or symbolic imagery, and so we are distorting the text if we read narratives that are intended to be historical, including those that set forth a precognitive history of a future yet to come, as purely allegorical or symbolic rather than factual.

    Indeed, Israel Regardie made the converse point about Neville’s relentlessly allegorical interpretation of the whole Bible:

    Occasionally one does feel that Neville is hard-pressed extracting psychological meaning from certain sections of the Bible. That is the difficulty in using, for the thin end of one’s psychological wedge, a book which is so crammed with heterogeneous and diverse stuff that is clearly not psychological.[53]

    Still, if the Biblical authors were aware of history as a genre, and intended some sections to be read as history, it hardly proves that they were and are history, any more than the stories of a pathological liar, a victim of brainwashing or false memories,[54] or simply a poor historian; that is a judgement for us to make.[55]

    Of course, this seems like I’m taking the side of an established paradigm against a brash new upstart — exactly what Feyerabend would deplore. In fact, this kind of challenge from left field is exactly what any dogma needs.

    No, I only mean to suggest that Prof. Jordani should deploy his armament of psi elsewhere; he needs to challenge the main citadel itself, the Principle of Analogy or of Continuity of Experience, that has, since Hume, guided Biblical criticism.[56] Once the field of paranormal phenomena is admitted as evidence, the whole field of Biblical studies could be entirely revolutionized — again.

    There is a common thread in all this; as we’ve seen, whether it’s personal psi powers that cut out the need for Church, State or, as Feyerabend would insist, the Church of Science, shaping our own post-mortem existences, or tossing aside Semitic revelations as alien-inspired control mechanisms,[57] Prof. Jorjani’s “project of developing a non-mechanistic science of the future” is also a project of “cultivating a spiritual aristocracy of post-human supermen.”[58]

    We must “become god-like beings ourselves”; remember, “a man is whatever room he is in,” and Prof. Jorjani ultimately returns us to where we came in, suitably transformed:

    It is neither Moses nor Muhammad, but Prometheus and Atlas who embody the spirit of James’s “alpine eagle” perched on the precipice. . . . Mankind is about to be gifted with a new world — but only if we can bear it, and only if we can steal it. [Italics his]

    When Prof. Jorjani mentions that Gojira (what we call Godzilla) is a “fusion” of the Japanese words for gorilla and whale, and that his origin lies in the US underwater nuclear tests that accidentally irradiated a Japanese fishing boat, I expected to see him make the connection to Moby-Dick, but in vain.

    Is not Melville’s novel America’s spectral epic?[59] Do not the post-atomic Japanese stubbornly continue their whaling industry?

    Is not Ahab our Prometheus with his never healed wound, our Atlas with his obsessive sea charts tracking the great White Whale around the globe, ultimately our Lucifer?[60] And does he not unite a cosmopolitan crew (including Jorjani’s beloved Zoroastrians) behind his Faustian quest?[61] And does the last sight of the Pequod conjure up the fraternal statues with which Prof. Jorjani started his — and our — voyage?

    A sky-hawk that tauntingly had followed the main-truck downwards from its natural home among the stars, pecking at the flag, and incommoding Tashtego there; this bird now chanced to intercept its broad fluttering wing between the hammer and the wood; and simultaneously feeling that ethereal thrill, the submerged savage beneath, in his death-gasp, kept his hammer frozen there; and so the bird of heaven, with archangelic shrieks, and his imperial beak thrust upwards, and his whole captive form folded in the flag of Ahab, went down with his ship, which, like Satan, would not sink to hell till she had dragged a living part of heaven along with her, and helmeted herself with it.[62] Now small fowls flew screaming over the yet yawning gulf; a sullen white surf beat against its steep sides; then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago.

    And yet perhaps it is appropriate that Melville goes unmentioned: it would be immodest. For Prometheus and Atlas is our nonfiction Moby Dick, Titanic in its scope and intention, stuffed with encyclopedic lore, cosmopolitan and yet essentially American, and Prof. Jorjani is our “pagan harpooner” folded in the flag of Ahab. One hopes, of course, that it receives a better reception than its spectral predecessor.

    Buy it, and be damned!


    1. A supposed “Japanese saying” intoned by Bert Cooper at the revelation of Don Draper’s secret identity in Season One, Episode 12 of Mad Men, “Nixon versus Kennedy.” For more on this meme, see my End of an Era: Mad Men and the Ordeal of Civility (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015). The significance of Bert, his office filled with Japanese décor, intoning this bit of pseudo-oriental wisdom will be made clear in what follows.

    2. The Dead Talk Back (Merle Gould, 1957)

    3. That’s ‘modernity’ according to Google Translate.

    4. Indeed, were I not loath to open up more cans of worms than necessary, I might even compare it, for breath of vision, encompassing science (including parascience), religion and politics, though perhaps with rather more philosophical rigor, to Da Free John’s Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the White House! Prophetic Wisdom about the Myths and Idols of mass culture and popular religious cultism, the new priesthood of scientific and political materialism, and the secrets of Enlightenment hidden in the body of Man (Middletown, Cal.: Dawn Horse Press, 1980). See the Preface by Ken Wilber, if that would constitute a recommendation for you rather than a red flag.

    5. “Graduate School with Heidegger,” here [4].

    6. In fact, his treatment of the French early modern dualists and materialists — Descartes through La Mettrie to Sade — whom I’ve always found all too clear but pointless, is literally enlightening, and almost made me want to join up with les philosophes.

    7. Saul Kripke of Harvard, not (?) Sheldon Cooper’s nemesis on The Big Bang Theory.

    8. The exemplar here, as we will see, being Feyerabend, who, although an Austrian — and a Luftwaffe ace — operated, along with his mentors Lakatos (Hungarian Jew) and Jewish fellow Austrians Popper and Wittgenstein, out of the London School of Economics (or, in Wittgenstein’s case, Cambridge); for more on my LSE crush, see my “Dachau Blues: Applying History to Science & Science to History,” here [5]. Appropriately enough, Prof. Jorjani plies his trade at a similar institution, the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

    9. As a more personal aside, I was reminded of nothing so much as Prof. Pinto, the little goateed Marrano at the University of Windsor who attempted to teach us the secrets of Heidegger; see “‘A General Outline of the Whole’: Lovecraft as Heideggerian Event,” here [6] and reprinted in The Eldritch Evola … & Others (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2014). Actually, having been converted from the study of mediaeval philosophy by discovering (in Brentano’s show window in 1962) that Sein und Zeit had been translated, his journey into modernity had, by 1975, taken him so far as to offer a course in epistemology whose main text was . . . Paul Feyerabend’s just-published Against Method (London: New Left Books, 1975), which now becomes Prof. Jordani’s companion text to Being and Time. For those unfamiliar with Feyerabend’s book, the Analytical Table of Contents and Concluding Chapter are reproduced here [7].

    10. If “poetic” seems an odd term to describe a dissertation, the reader will soon see why it suggests itself.

    11. The reader will perhaps notice that I am moving backwards through the text, for my own not entirely perverse reasons.

    12. “No Greek or Roman commoner could have imagined that a descendant of the Celtic barbarians would someday most definitively appropriate the persona of Ulysses.” Touché, and pari passu!

    13. Similarly, I pointed out how Halston figured as an “Aryan entrepreneur” who built a headquarters office of glass and light, overlooking St. Patrick’s, saying that thus placed he never needed to go to church. Later, Peter Gatien would simply buy an old Episcopal church in which to house his entheogenic drug and dance driven pagan revival. See “Halston and Gatien: Aryan Entrepreneurs in the Kali Yuga,” reprinted in Green Nazis in Space! (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2016).

    14. The author is cognizant of the role of “bad guys” like the Joker in conveying Traditionalist themes under the radar of popular culture; see his “Gotham Guardian: Will the Real Batman Please Stand Up?” here [8] and reprinted in the forthcoming anthology from Counter-Currents: Dark Right: Right-Wing Readings of Batman.

    15. And Heidegger agrees. In a remarkable passage, Prof. Jorjani discusses an imaginal exercise conducted by no less than Heidegger himself in his Zollikon Seminars, in which participants are asked to “make present” the Zurich central train station. Heidegger insists that “such ‘making present’ directs them towards the train station itself, not towards a picture or representation of it,” his conclusion being that ‘We are, in a real sense, at the trains station.” (Quoting from Zollikon Seminars: Protocols, Conversations, Letters [Northwestern, 2001], p. 70.

    16. Or maybe not [9]: “NASA have now revealed that the constellations are no longer in the same place they were 3,000 years ago and there is in fact a 13th star sign, called Ophiuchus. This new star threatens to completely jumble up the whole order of the zodiac world.” Science announces!

    17. Prof. Deck, in his own PhD thesis, says that “Plotinus’s philosophy does not, generally speaking, contain demonstrations in Aristotle’s meaning of the word. Nor do his writings, in most cases, seem to reproduce any genuine avenue of discovery. . . . His presentation, probably also his thought, is “spiral” rather than linear. He does not so much prove his propositions and notions as accustom his hearers and readers to their truth. The result is that it often seems that he is proving conclusions by premises and premises by conclusions — actually he is elaborating an Intuition, building up its specific conceptual apparatus, connecting it with the other parts of his thought, rendering it plausible and acceptable.” Nature as Contemplation in Plotinus by John N. Deck, thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Toronto, 1960; online here [10]. This “spiral” thought is, as I have pointed out many times, elsewhere, at odds with the “circular” thought embodied in such figures as Pythagoras, leading to such distorted views as the Western musical system and the idea of “reincarnation,” a possible inconsistency in Prof. Jorjani’s thought that we will explore later.

    18. “Have you been hearing some weird stories recently? About telepathy, the fourth dimension, or ghosts? Oh, it’s true!” Dr. Aldo Farnese, The Dead Talk Back (Merle Gould, 1957). CineDome notes [11] that “Farnese’s lecture . . . almost puts [Criswell’s] to shame. Instead of The Amazing Criswell’s zealous vigilance [12] over a UFO cover up, Farnese delivers a full retread of Victorian era spiritualism, complete with a demonstration of a modern take on the 19th Century safety coffin and a “scientific” radio that can tune into the voices of spirits! Filmed just two years before both Plan 9’s release and The Twilight Zone hitting the air, it’s hard to tell if Krasker’s smug talk is due to an outdated script, too late for its 1930s spiritualist audience, or if it’s brilliantly prescient of the “scientific” paranormal film trend that would begin exactly two decades later with Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) and end with Prince of Darkness (1987).”

    19. “These never-ending reports,” as William James says — favorably — in an essay quoted early on. Elsewhere Prof. Jorjani’s instincts are sounder; he cuts off a list of “the most bizarre features of [Heidegger’s] ontology [which] appear to have been lifted right out of the occult aether wherein Schelling developed them” with a laconic “I could go on, but I do not want to tire the reader.”

    20. Feyerabend, in an anecdote note quoted here, was asked why, if he believed witchcraft was as solidly founded as physics, he took a plane to a conference rather than using a broom, replied “Because I know how to use a plane.”

    21. For more on Kant’s crypto-parapsychology, see Kant on Swedenborg. Dreams of a Spirit-Seer and Other Writings. Edited by Gregory R. Johnson; Translated by Gregory R. Johnson and Glenn A. Magee (Swedenborg Foundation, 2003). Jorjani’s use of Schelling (and Bruno) recalls Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology and Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (Boston: Shambhala, 1995), which has a similar range of topics and sweep of narrative; see my review in Alexandria 4 (Grand Rapids: Phanes Press, 1997), and Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything (1996), chap. 17 (pp. 297–308).

    22. Feyerabend writes in Against Method: “Greece developed and progressed because it could rely on the services of unwilling slaves. We shall develop and progress with the help of the numerous willing slaves in universities and laboratories who provide us with pills, gas, electricity, atom bombs, frozen dinners and, occasionally, with a few interesting fairy-tales. We shall treat these slaves well, we shall even listen to them, for they have occasionally some interesting stories to tell, but we shall not permit them . . . to teach the fancies of science as if they were the only factual statements in existence. This separation of science and state may be our only chance to overcome the hectic barbarism of our scientific-technical age and to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised.”

    23. Islamist Henri Corbin and archetypal psychologists like James Hillman or Thomas Moore (another Windsor philosophy grad!) have discussed what they call the “liminal” rather than “spectral” nature of the imaginal realm.

    24. See Feeling is the Secret and my Afterword thereunto. The method described there involves as a first step adopting “the state akin to sleep” which Schelling calls wakeful sleep or a sleeping wakefulness,” which, as Jordani notes, is today called “lucid dreaming.” As I describe there and elsewhere, this is the method of alchemical transformation practiced, somewhat haphazardly, by the Tooth Fairy and Buffalo Bill, and taught by Dr. Hannibal Lecter. As Will Graham, the titular “manhunter” explains to his son, “I tried to build up feelings like the killer had, so l would know why he did it ‘cause that would help me find him. . . . But after my body got OK, l still had his thoughts in my head. . . . Kevin, the ugliest thoughts in the world.” For more on Manhunter, see my “Thanks for Watching: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 1 [13]“ and “Phil & Will: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 2 [14].”).

    25. Recall Heidegger’s train station exercise.

    26. Prayer, The Art Of Believing, Chapter Three, “Imagination and Faith.”

    27. As Jesus says, “In my Father’s house there are many rooms.”

    28. “The experienced world can be modelled as an ultimately unchanging, 4-dimensional spacetime block. The time axis combines with the 3 dimensions of space to form a 4-dimensional block universe, or crystalline ground of being. Conceiving of the world as a fixed spacetime block leads to the astonishing potential of experiencing ego death, because the logic of ego’s control power is coherently disrupted. If one consistently adopts the mental model of the block universe, the usual sense of exerting the power of initiation/choice disappears, and the logic of personal self-determination effectively cancels itself out.” See his “Timeless Block Universe Determinism” here [15]. Cf. Alan Watts, “Zen and the Problem of Control,” in This Is It and Other Essays (New York: Vintage, 1958).

    29. “Imagination Creates Reality,” lecture transcript here [16].

    30. See my “Battle of the Magicians: Baron Evola between the Dancer & the Druid,” here [17]. Remarkably, I just now heard this point made very nicely on a cable TV show about Satanism: “Crowley said ‘Do what thou wilt,’ and people think that means do whatever you want. But what he meant was discover your purpose in life, what you’re here for, and through yourself into accomplishing that.”

    31. “We may live victoriously, not because we have any power within ourselves, but because when we give ourselves to God, He gives Himself to us. This is the great key to humble self-confidence.” — Norman Vincent Peale. See “The Secret of Trump’s A Peale,” here [18].

    32. See my “Battle of the Magicians: Baron Evola between the Dancer & the Druid,” here [17].

    33. “The philosopher James is often credited with legitimizing mind-power metaphysics in his classic Varieties of Religious Experience (1902); but in this much shorter work [“Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results (1898)] powerfully argued for a practical spirituality, which could be measured in the conduct and happiness of daily life.” Mitch Horowitz, “Fifteen Positive Thinking Books that Could Change Your Life,” here [19].

    34. See the research collected by Hoffman at his site [20].

    35. Most obviously, the Catholic monopoly on the Eucharist, now largely a placebo anyway. Protestants are no more comfortable with such radically independent figures as Blake; Neville, who received initiation directly from a black Ethiopian rabbi, had no use for churches and rituals. “The central figure of Christianity is the Human Imagination. When you accept this as the first principle of religion, then all governments, rituals, and external worship will have heard the trumpets of Joshua. All of the buildings that are of any structure than that Rock — which is your own wonderful Human Imagination — will fall.” (“God Speaks to Man,” 1-18-1968, online here [21]). Michael Hoffman documents the role of entheogenic substances and the war against them by Church, State and even academia, ranging from the hysterical “War on Drugs” to the evangelical insistence that Jesus and friends never drank anything but grape juice; see his website. For documentation of the role drugs in the rise of Western culture generally, normally ignored or denied by academics, see The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization by D. C. A. Hillman, PhD (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2014). According to a commenter at [22], “The cute little secret in television writing currently is micro-dosing LSD. From what I hear, many writers are loving it. Heightens awareness and creativity, and you write like a mo’ fo’. Show runners like it too. Apparently, you can pull multiple all-nighters and be quite productive. I think they’re dosing 30-50 micrograms. Just enough to get you going, not enough to be seeing trails.”

    36. For the general background, see Evola, The Hermetic Tradition (Inner Traditions, 1995) esp. the Introduction to Part One, “The Tree, the Serpent and the Titans,” and my discussion of Lucifer in the title essay of Green Nazis in Space!

    37. See “The Problem of Immortality,” “Various Commentaries” and “The Doctrine of the ‘Immortal Body” reprinted in Introduction to Magic: Practical Techniques for the Magus (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2001).

    38. See his letter on reincarnation published in the 1967 Winter edition (Vol. 1, No. 1) of the journal Studies in Comparative Religion, online here [23].

    39. “Techno-scientific development is a world colonizing-force.”

    40. Both in his initial discussion of these powers in Chapter Two, as well as in his consideration of the various myths of Atlantis.

    41. The idea that cosmopolitanism and colonialism are opposed he finds to be “bizarre and ahistorical.”

    42. Even here, he can’t help but find that “these core insights into the ungraspable are more clearly apprehended by Pre-Socratic Greek sages such as Heraclitus than by their Asian counterparts.” In this he recalls to my mind Michael Hoffman’s confession of finding Oriental sources on entheogens largely useless, since they seem incapable of conceptual thought, expressing everything in terms of dragons and blossoms and other frivolities. (Personal communication).

    43. A common motif of films in the mid-Cold War era is the seduction of the Soviet or Chinese, masses or nomenklatura, by Western gee-gaws. In Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick, 1964), Ambassador de Sadesky (a rather Jorjanian touch, that) bemoans the fact that “We could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year.” In The Manchurian Candidate (Frankenheimer, 1962) Dr. Yen Lo teases his Soviet host in New York: “Profit? Fiscal year? Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Beware, my dear Zilkov, fires of capitalism are highly infectious. Soon you’ll be lending money out at interest. [Chuckles].” He then says he must race off to Macy’s, for Madame Lo has given him “a most appalling shopping list.”

    44. As we’ll see, a particular bete noire of Prof. Jorjani.

    45. And Heidegger, who found many of his most enthusiastic and culturally influential students in Japan.

    46. “The spectral significance of the promethium sky over Japan” is “the thunderbolt of Zeus stolen by Prometheus.”

    47. Or, in less anodyne language, “The atomic bombings drove this understanding deeper than the intellect and blew apart the façade of traditional Japanese culture.” To which I imagine the book’s future Japanese readers (I hope Arktos is working on that translation) will respond with a hearty “Dōmo arigatō, Prof. Jornani!”

    48. This would appear to be the “second stage of empire,” as delineated by Edward Luttwak in The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third [24]: “During the first century A.D., Roman ideas evolved toward a much broader and altogether more benevolent conception of empire… men born in lands far from Rome could call themselves Roman and have their claim fully allowed, and the frontiers were efficiently defended to defend the growing prosperity of all, and not merely the privileged.”

    49. Richard Wagner, Das Rheingold, Scene Four, fin.

    50. “Certain attributes of Pormetheus are even perversely reflected in the persona of Hermes, as if in a distorting funhouse mirror.”

    51. See “Tales of the Christos Mythos,” my review of Kenneth Humphreys’ Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate Heresy, here [25].

    52. Mitch Horowitz, “The Substance of Things Hoped For: Searching for Neville Goddard,” online here [26]; quoting from Your Faith is Your Fortune (1946)

    53. From his The Romance of Metaphysics (1946), reprinted as the Introduction to Mitch Horowtiz, ed., The Power of Imagination: The Neville Goddard Treasury (Penguin/Tarcher, 2015). Horwitz agrees: “While Neville could quote from Scripture with photographic ease, one is left with the impression that he sometimes strained to fit all of it within a psychological formula.”

    54. Again, The Manchurian Candidate. “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”

    55. “Ezekiel’s vision at the Chebar River is cited by flying saucer buffs as proof that space people have been visiting earth since biblical times. If one reads Ezekiel’s entire account, however, it is clear that the only space person visiting the Chebar is Mr. E. himself. His ‘wheel within a wheel’ is less a scientific observation than it is a whoozy hallucination.” Ken A. Smith, B.A., Ken’s Guide to the Bible (New York: Blast Books, 1995), pp.66-67.

    56. If this story — walking on water, virgin birth, etc. — were told today, would we consider it possible true, or undoubtedly fictional or delusional?

    57. Identified by the Church of the Sub-Genius (a Jorjanian notion?) as “the orbital space god JHVH-1.”

    58. If not necessarily a “race of atomic supermen, who will conquer the world!” a la Dr. Wornoff of Ed Wood’s Bride of the Monster, aka Bride of the Atom, a suitable sobriquet for modern Japan.

    59. “Why upon your first voyage as a passenger, did you yourself feel such a mystical vibration, when first told that you and your ship were now out of sight of land? Why did the old Persians hold the sea holy? Why did the Greeks give it a separate deity, and make him the own brother of Jove? Surely all this is not without meaning. And still deeper the meaning of that story of Narcissus, who because he could not grasp the tormenting, wild image he saw in the fountain, plunged into it and was drowned. But that same image, we ourselves see in all rivers and oceans. It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of life; and this is the key to it all.”

    60. “From Hell’s heart I stab at thee!”

    61. This even brings us round to the paranormal, since Starbuck is the parental nickname of Agent Scully [27], the skeptical investigator of the X-Files.

    62. As Prometheus brings down fire from Heaven, Satan in his titanic fall drops the emerald stone from his crown, or forehead, which lapis exillis becomes variously the Grail, the alchemical Philosopher’s Stone, or the Green Lantern’s ring.



    (Review Source)
  • Counter-Currents/North American New Right Newsletter: June 2012
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    1,061 words

    [1]Editor’s Note:

    Due to travel to deal with a family medical emergency, our June newsletter has been delayed. To save time, I have decided to post it on our front page rather than send it to our mailing list.

    Dear Friends of Counter-Currents,

    On June 11, Counter-Currents celebrated our second anniversary of going online. We are also launching a major fundraising drive.

    In June of 2010, we had 6,145 unique visitors. In June of 2011, we had 28,629 unique visitors. In June of 2012, we had 55,112 unique visitors. This is real growth in readership and impact. Thank you, our readers, writers, and donors, for making this possible.

    1. Our Readership and Web Traffic

    If you visited us in June, you were one of 55,112 unique visitors. These visitors paid us 110,246 visits. The pages you viewed were among the 400,141 pages viewed in last month.

    Month Unique Visitors Number of Visits Pages Viewed “Hits” Bandwidth
    June 2010 6,145 10,328 70,732 200,824 6.08 GB
    July 2010 9,387 17,329 119,254 348,172 10.01 GB
    August 2010 12,174 22,348 93,379 333,614 10.17 GB
    September 2010 17,063 34,510 147,051 580,550 16.39 GB
    October 2010 17,848 35,921 140,365 611,367 17.93 GB
    November 2010 26,054 48,336 171,833 915,553 26.39 GB
    December 2010 26,161 50,975 192,905 1,101,829 27.79 GB
    January 2011 28,583 60,005 198,249 1,736,067 34.06 GB
    February 2011 29,737 61,519 213,121 2,081,558 40.13 GB
    March 2011 29,768 62,077 220,053 2,485,001 52.21 GB
    April 2011 20,091 58,037 223,291 2,729,449 54.65 GB
    May 2011 36,596 78,103 274,841 1,334,472 47.59 GB
    June 2011 28,629 57,920 264,928 1,004,128 22.78 GB
    July 2011 30,186 66,093 416,309 1,952,047 71.23 GB
    August 2011 40,002 81,012 502,282 2,083,593 53.18 GB
    September 2011 45,427 88,782 422,902 481,909 11.67 GB
    October 2011 45,590 90,444 337,137 468,197 17.78 GB
    November 2011 44,445 88,824 330,664 339,521 14.22 GB
    December 2011 49,845 97,223 337,881 344,210 13.65 GB
    January 2012 56,633 107,644 408,373 433,736 21.38 GB
    February 2012 53,345 99,607 376,288 411,915 14.43 GB
    March 2012 55,572 106,029 441,170 475,719 16.36 GB
    April 2012 56,772 110,029 421,446 428,678 16.08 GB
    May 2012 56,323 111,533 400,243 404,483 15.70 GB
    June 2012 55,112 110,246 400,141 404,162 13.66 GB

    As you can see, our traffic has remained pretty much plateaued since January. This has been our pattern: growth spurts, followed by a few months plateaued.

    2. Our Blog

    In June, we added 78 posts to the website, for a total of 1,830 posts since going online on June 11, 2010. We also added over 600 new comments.

    3. June’s Top Twenty Articles (with date of publication and number of reads)

    1. Ava Moretti, “Pick-Up Artists [2],” June 18, 2012, 3,252
    2. Gregory Hood, Review of Scarface [3], February 27, 2011: 3,248
    3. Daniel W. Michaels, “Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe [4],” April 21, 2011: 2,746
    4. Andrew Hamilton, “White Survival and its Enemies [5],” June 8, 2012, 2,541
    5. Greg Johnson, Frequently-Asked Questions, Part 2 [6], June 8, 2012, 2,478
    6. Trevor Lynch, Review of Ridley Scott’s [7]Prometheus, June 9, 2012, 2,330
    7. Irmin Vinson, “Some Thoughts on Hitler [8],” April 20, 2011: 2,245
    8. George Hocking, “Is Darwin the Enemy? [9],” April 26, 2012, 2,236
    9. Andrew Hamilton, “Batman Returns: An Anti-Semitic Allegory? [10],” June 22, 2012, 2,054
    10. Trevor Lynch, Review of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo [11], February 10, 2011: 1,560
    11. Jef Costello, “Fight Club as Holy Writ [12],” January 9, 2012: 1,472
    12. Edgar Lowe, “Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee [13],” June 1, 2012, 1,291
    13. Greg Johnson, “Introduction to Aristotle’s Politics,” Part 1 [14], June 21, 2012, 1,247
    14. Greg Johnson, Frequently-Asked Questions, Part 1, June 5 [15], 2012, 1,179
    15. Collin Cleary, “Heidegger: An Introduction for Anti-Moderns,” Part 1 [16], June 4, 2012, 1,178
    16. Andrew Hamilton, “Hitler’s Speeches [17],” May 30, 2012, 1,167
    17. Jef Costello, “Breaking Bad: A Celebration [18],” April 3, 2012: 1,103
    18. Patrick Lebrun, “The Front Nationale’s Tactical Winning Streak Continues [19],” June 22, 2012, 1,075
    19. John Morgan, “Ray Bradbury: R.I.P. [20],” June 6, 2012, 1,069
    20. Andrew Hamilton, “The Sense and Nonsense of War [21],” June 15, 2012, 1,052

    Congratulations to Patrick Lebrun for his first Counter-Currents article, which made our top 20. Congratulations also to Ava Moretti and George Hocking for their first top 10 articles.

    Congratulations to Andrew Hamilton for four top 20 articles in June. Greg Johnson had three, Trevor Lynch and Jef Costello both had two.

    Our perennial favorites, Daniel Michaels on Stalin’s plan to conquer Europe, Irmin Vinson on Hitler, and Gregory Hood on Scarface, were in our top 10 yet again.

    Six of our top 20 articles are about movies and television: Gregory Hood on Scarface, Jef Costello on Fight Club and Breaking Bad, Trevor Lynch on Prometheus and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (which has been in the top ten for 7 months now), and Andrew Hamilton on Batman Returns.

    Since Hollywood and the television industry are the primary media of anti-white propaganda, racially conscious analyses of movies and TV are highly effective at drawing traffic and combating enemy propaganda. (See Trevor Lynch, “Why I Write [22].”)

    4. Where Our Readers Are: The top 20 Countries

    Our web statistics program gives us a country-by-country breakdown of our readership. Here are the top 20 countries:

    1. United States
    2. Great Britain
    3. Canada
    4. Germany
    5. Sweden
    6. Australia
    7. The Netherlands
    8. France
    9. Italy
    10. Poland
    11. Portugal
    12. China
    13. Finland
    14. India
    15. Norway
    16. Brazil
    17. Japan
    18. Russian Federation
    19. Mexico
    20. Spain

    5. Where Our Readers Are: The Top 20 Cities

    1. London
    2. New York City
    3. San Francisco
    4. Sydney
    5. Melbourne
    6. Stockholm
    7. Chicago
    8. Los Angeles
    9. Houston
    10. Philadelphia
    11. Lisbon
    12. Toronto
    13. Mexico City
    14. Seattle
    15. Dublin
    16. Berlin
    17. Vancouver, B.C.
    18. Vienna
    19. Athens
    20. Edinburgh

    Seven of our top 20 cities are in the United States. Four are on the West Coast of North America: San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Vancouver, B.C. Two are in Canada: Toronto and Vancouver. Two are in Australia: Melbourne and Sydney. Eight of them are national capitals: London, Berlin, Stockholm, Lisbon, Mexico City, Athens, Dublin, and Vienna (which is making its first appearance) — nine if you count Edinburgh.

    6. Upcoming Book Projects

    These are the titles that are at one stage or another in the editorial process. Beyond the first three titles, these are in only the roughest chronological order.

    13. Kerry Bolton, Artists of the Right: Resisting Decadence, ed. Greg Johnson (July)
    14. James J. O’Meara, The Homo and the Negro: Masculinist Meditations on Literature, Politics, and Popular Culture (July)
    15. Juleigh Howard-Hobson, “I do not belong to the Baader-Meinhof group” and Other Poems (August)
    16. Trevor Lynch, Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (August)
    17. Savitri Devi, The Lightning and the Sun (September)
    18. William Joyce, Twilight Over England, with an Introduction by Greg Johnson
    19. Francis Parker Yockey, The World in Flames and Other Essays, ed. Kerry Bolton
    20. Saint-Loup, Hitler or Judah? A Second Nuremberg Tribunal
    21. Derek Hawthorne, Above the Clouds: Arnold Fanck, Leni Riefenstahl, and the Metaphysics of Sex (on the German mountain films)
    22. Collin Cleary, L’appel aux dieux (French translation of Summoning the Gods)

    Counter-Currents has now taken over the Savitri Devi Archive’s Centennial Edition of Savitri Devi’s Works. The next volumes will be new editions of And Time Rolls On and The Lightning and the Sun. Other longer term projects include Anthony M. Ludovici’s Confessions of an Anti-Feminist: The Autobiography of Anthony M. Ludovici, ed. John V. Day, Julius Evola’s East and West: Essays in Comparative Philosophy, a new edition of Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay with an Introduction by Greg Johnson, and a collection of Alain de Benoist’s essays on Ernst Jünger.

    7. Our Summer Fundraiser

    On June 11, our second anniversary, Counter-Currents launched a new fundraising campaign. Our aim is to raise $25,000. We have raised just over $4,000 and have a long way to go. If you have not yet contributed, now is a good time. Please visit our donation page here [23].

    * * *

    Once again, I want to thank our writers, donors, and proofreaders; our webmaster/Managing Editor; and above all, you, our readers for being part of a growing intellectual and spiritual community.

    Greg Johnson
    Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd.
    & North American New Right


    (Review Source)
  • New from Counter-Currents!Dark Right: Batman Viewed from the Right
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]795 words

    Greg Johnson & Gregory Hood, eds.
    Dark Right: Batman Viewed from the Right [2]
    San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018
    222 pages

    Hardcover: $30 [2]

    Paperback: $16 [2]

    Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [3]

    Why is Batman a staple of Right-wing discussions and memes? The entire superhero genre is inherently anti-liberal, for even though superheroes generally fight for liberal humanist values, they do so outside the law. They are vigilantes, and vigilantism only becomes necessary when the liberal system breaks down.

    But the character of Batman, particularly after being rebooted in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and developed in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, is not just anti-liberal, but decidedly Right-wing. The essays in Dark Right show us why, focusing on Traditionalist, masculinist, and New Right themes in Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, but also exploring other films, comics, and graphic novels.

    Dark Right includes essays by the leading cultural critics of the New Right, including editors Greg Johnson and Gregory Hood, plus Trevor Lynch, Jason Reza Jorjani, Christopher Pankhurst, Will Windsor, James J. O’Meara, Zachary O. Ray, Jonathan Bowden, Spencer J. Quinn, David Yorkshire, and Andrew Hamilton.

    In Praise of Dark Right

    “Few on the Right understand the importance of engaging popular culture like Dr. Greg Johnson and Gregory Hood. This collection of essays is not just a reminder of why their work is so vital, but also why they represent two of the most stalwart leaders and thinkers of the Dissident Right.”

    —Paul Kersey, Stuff Black People Don’t Like

    Dark Right is a landmark collection, demonstrating the power of New Right ideas for understanding popular culture—and the power of popular culture for inspiring Right-wing thought and action. Read this book, and I guarantee you will want to join the League of Shadows.”

    —Jeff Costello, author of The Importance of James Bond

    Table of Contents

     Editors’ Introduction—Gregory Hood & Greg Johnson — 1

    The Dark Knight Trilogy

    Batman Begins—Trevor Lynch — 11

    The Dark Knight—Trevor Lynch — 15

    The Dark Knight Rises—Trevor Lynch — 27

    The Order in Action: The Dark Knight Rises—Gregory Hood — 39

    Conservatism’s League of Stupidity: Christopher Nolan as Fascist Filmmaker?—Gregory Hood & Luke Gordon — 50

    Gotham Guardian: Will the Real Batman Please Stand Up?—Jason Reza Jorjani — 67

    Superheroes, Sovereignty, & the Deep State—Greg Johnson — 83

    Caesar Without Gods—Christopher Pankhurst — 95

    A Dark Knight without a King—Will Windsor — 105

    The Ponderous Weight of the Dark Knight—James J. O’Meara — 116

    Batman vs. Superman

    Man of Steel—Trevor Lynch — 126

    Superman & the White Christ: Man of Steel—Gregory Hood — 131

    Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice—Trevor Lynch — 141

    Justice League—Trevor Lynch — 146

    Comics & Graphic Novels

    The Alt Knight: A Retrospect of Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns for the Current Year—Zachary O. Ray — 150

    Batman: The Dark Knight Returns—Trevor Lynch — 161

    Batman & the Joker—Jonathan Bowden — 165

    Arkham Asylum: An Analysis—Jonathan Bowden — 169

    Batman as Comedy—Spencer J. Quinn — 176

    Tim Burton’s Batman Movies

    Tim Burton’s Batman: Putting the Gothic into Gotham—David Yorkshire — 181

    Batman Returns: An Anti-Semitic Allegory?—Andrew Hamilton — 191

    Index — 203

    About the Authors — 217

    About the Contributors

    Jonathan Bowden (1962–2012) was the author of Pulp Fascism: Right-Wing Themes in Comics, Graphic Novels, & Popular Literature (Counter-Currents, 2013), Western Civilization Bites Back (Counter-Currents, 2014), Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics (Counter-Currents, 2017), and many other books.

    Luke Gordon writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.

    Andrew Hamilton is the author of many essays and reviews, principally for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.

    Gregory Hood is the author of Waking Up from the American Dream (Counter-Currents, 2015) and many essays and reviews. He is a staff writer for American Renaissance (

    Greg Johnson, Ph.D. is the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing and the author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (Counter-Currents, 2010; second, expanded ed., 2016), New Right vs. Old Right (Counter-Currents, 2013), Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country (Counter-Currents, 2015), In Defense of Prejudice (Counter-Currents, 2017), and You Asked for It: Selected Interviews, vol. 1 (Counter-Currents, 2017).

    Jason Reza Jorjani, Ph.D. is the author of Prometheus & Atlas (2016), World State of Emergency (2017), Lovers of Sophia (2017), and Novel Folklore (2018). His website is

    Trevor Lynch is a pen name of Greg Johnson and the author of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (Counter-Currents, 2012) and Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (Counter-Currents, 2015).

    James J. O’Meara is the author of The Homo & the Negro (Counter-Currents, 2012; second, embiggened ed., 2017), The Eldritch Evola … & Others (Counter-Currents, 2014), End of an Era: Mad Men & the Ordeal of Civility (Counter-Currents, 2015), and Green Nazis in Space: New Essays on Literature, Art, & Culture (Counter-Currents, 2015), as well as many other essays and reviews.

    Christopher Pankhurst is the author of Numinous Machines (Counter-Currents, 2017).

    Spencer J. Quinn is the author of White Like You (Counter-Currents, 2017) and Reframing White Nationalism (Counter-Currents, 2018).

    Zachary O. Ray writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right. His blog is Plugging Out, [4]

    Will Windsor writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.

    David Yorkshire is the editor of Mjolnir Magazine, [5], and the author of many essays and reviews.



    (Review Source)
  • Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Greg Johnson & Gregory Hood, eds.
    Dark Right: Batman Viewed from the Right
    San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018
    222 pages

    Hardcover: $30

    Paperback: $16

    Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [1]

    Why is Batman a staple of Right-wing discussions and memes? The entire superhero genre is inherently anti-liberal, for even though superheroes generally fight for liberal humanist values, they do so outside the law. They are vigilantes, and vigilantism only becomes necessary when the liberal system breaks down.

    But the character of Batman, particularly after being rebooted in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and developed in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, is not just anti-liberal, but decidedly Right-wing. The essays in Dark Right show us why, focusing on Traditionalist, masculinist, and New Right themes in Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, but also exploring other films, comics, and graphic novels.

    Dark Right includes essays by the leading cultural critics of the New Right, including editors Greg Johnson and Gregory Hood, plus Trevor Lynch, Jason Reza Jorjani, Christopher Pankhurst, Will Windsor, James J. O’Meara, Zachary O. Ray, Jonathan Bowden, Spencer J. Quinn, David Yorkshire, and Andrew Hamilton.

    In Praise of Dark Right

    “Few on the Right understand the importance of engaging popular culture like Dr. Greg Johnson and Gregory Hood. This collection of essays is not just a reminder of why their work is so vital, but also why they represent two of the most stalwart leaders and thinkers of the Dissident Right.”

    —Paul Kersey, Stuff Black People Don’t Like

    Dark Right is a landmark collection, demonstrating the power of New Right ideas for understanding popular culture—and the power of popular culture for inspiring Right-wing thought and action. Read this book, and I guarantee you will want to join the League of Shadows.”

    —Jeff Costello, author of The Importance of James Bond

    Table of Contents

     Editors’ Introduction—Gregory Hood & Greg Johnson — 1

    The Dark Knight Trilogy

    Batman Begins—Trevor Lynch — 11

    The Dark Knight—Trevor Lynch — 15

    The Dark Knight Rises—Trevor Lynch — 27

    The Order in Action: The Dark Knight Rises—Gregory Hood — 39

    Conservatism’s League of Stupidity: Christopher Nolan as Fascist Filmmaker?—Gregory Hood & Luke Gordon — 50

    Gotham Guardian: Will the Real Batman Please Stand Up?—Jason Reza Jorjani — 67

    Superheroes, Sovereignty, & the Deep State—Greg Johnson — 83

    Caesar Without Gods—Christopher Pankhurst — 95

    A Dark Knight without a King—Will Windsor — 105

    The Ponderous Weight of the Dark Knight—James J. O’Meara — 116

    Batman vs. Superman

    Man of Steel—Trevor Lynch — 126

    Superman & the White Christ: Man of Steel—Gregory Hood — 131

    Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice—Trevor Lynch — 141

    Justice League—Trevor Lynch — 146

    Comics & Graphic Novels

    The Alt Knight: A Retrospect of Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns for the Current Year—Zachary O. Ray — 150

    Batman: The Dark Knight Returns—Trevor Lynch — 161

    Batman & the Joker—Jonathan Bowden — 165

    Arkham Asylum: An Analysis—Jonathan Bowden — 169

    Batman as Comedy—Spencer J. Quinn — 176

    Tim Burton’s Batman Movies

    Tim Burton’s Batman: Putting the Gothic into Gotham—David Yorkshire — 181

    Batman Returns: An Anti-Semitic Allegory?—Andrew Hamilton — 191

    Index — 203

    About the Authors — 217

    About the Contributors

    Jonathan Bowden (1962–2012) was the author of Pulp Fascism: Right-Wing Themes in Comics, Graphic Novels, & Popular Literature (Counter-Currents, 2013), Western Civilization Bites Back (Counter-Currents, 2014), Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics (Counter-Currents, 2017), and many other books.

    Luke Gordon writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.

    Andrew Hamilton is the author of many essays and reviews, principally for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.

    Gregory Hood is the author of Waking Up from the American Dream (Counter-Currents, 2015) and many essays and reviews. He is a staff writer for American Renaissance (

    Greg Johnson, Ph.D. is the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing and the author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (Counter-Currents, 2010; second, expanded ed., 2016), New Right vs. Old Right (Counter-Currents, 2013), Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country (Counter-Currents, 2015), In Defense of Prejudice (Counter-Currents, 2017), and You Asked for It: Selected Interviews, vol. 1 (Counter-Currents, 2017).

    Jason Reza Jorjani, Ph.D. is the author of Prometheus & Atlas (2016), World State of Emergency (2017), Lovers of Sophia (2017), and Novel Folklore (2018). His website is

    Trevor Lynch is a pen name of Greg Johnson and the author of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (Counter-Currents, 2012) and Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (Counter-Currents, 2015).

    James J. O’Meara is the author of The Homo & the Negro (Counter-Currents, 2012; second, embiggened ed., 2017), The Eldritch Evola … & Others (Counter-Currents, 2014), End of an Era: Mad Men & the Ordeal of Civility (Counter-Currents, 2015), and Green Nazis in Space: New Essays on Literature, Art, & Culture (Counter-Currents, 2015), as well as many other essays and reviews.

    Christopher Pankhurst is the author of Numinous Machines (Counter-Currents, 2017).

    Spencer J. Quinn is the author of White Like You (Counter-Currents, 2017) and Reframing White Nationalism (Counter-Currents, 2018).

    Zachary O. Ray writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right. His blog is Plugging Out, [2]

    Will Windsor writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.

    David Yorkshire is the editor of Mjolnir Magazine, [3], and the author of many essays and reviews.

    (Review Source)

Morgoth's Review

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • Batman Returns: An Anti-Semitic Allegory?
    Nationalism, Hollywood, Movies, Multiculturalism, Morgoth, Propaganda, Politics, Multiculturalism, Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff3
PJ Media

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Top 10 Cinematic Portrayals of DC Comics Villains
    Lifestyle Warner Bros. recently announced an aggressive slate of films based upon DC Comics properties which will share a single cinematic universe, an answer to the successful franchise which Marvel Studios has built since 2008’s Iron Man. The DC slate opens with 2016’s Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, and will continue the same year with Suicide Squad, which director David Ayer recently described as “The Dirty Dozen with supervillains.”In the comics, the Suicide Squad boasts DC’s B-list villains, characters like Deadshot and Captain Boomerang. However, if rumors now circulating prove true, the cinematic interpretation of Suicide Squad may boast A-list villains like Lex Luthor and the Joker. Reports claim that bombshell actress Margot Robbie has been cast as Harley Quinn, and that Oscar-winner Jared Leto is in talks to play Joker.In any case, the roster of DC Comics villains portrayed in live-action film is about to explode. Before that happens, let’s consider where the existing rogues gallery ranks. Here are the top 10 cinematic portrayals of DC Comics villains. var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Batman Begins (3/6) Movie CLIP - The Doctor Isn't In (2005) HD', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); #10. Cillian Murphy’s ScarecrowWhen it was announced that Christopher Nolan would be rebooting the Batman franchise years after Joel Schumacher piloted it into the ground, no one could have predicted how definitive the result would become. Among the bold moves made in re-imagining the property was featuring lesser known villains, including the Scarecrow.Actor Cillian Murphy took what could have easily been a camp character and grounded him in a believable reality. Dr. Jonathan Crane served a vital narrative purpose befitting his nature as a criminal psychologist obsessed with fear. Fear stood as the dominant theme in Batman Begins, as Bruce Wayne turned his fear against the criminals holding an unholy grip upon Gotham City. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • How Western Civilization Lost It at the Movies
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll "Movies really have become awful, haven't they?" Ace writes. And who can argue with him?I don't mean politically; sure, there are a lot of liberal zingers put into movies for no very good reason, except to make the filmmakers think they've done something positive with the piece of shit project they're foisting on people.Hollywood has always made most movies for a juvenile crowd. A producer, I think his name was Zanuck, worked out the logic like this: Girls will see anything boys will see, but boys will not see most things girls will see. Younger kids will see anything that older kids will see, but older kids will not see things made for younger kids. Adults will see most things that older teenagers will see, but older teenagers will not necessarily see things that adults would see. Therefore, the correct money-making demographic to make a movie for is a 17 year old boy.Read the whole thing, and follow Ace's link to screenwriter Eric Heisserer, at the appropriately named industry blog The Bitter Script Reader.So is the real problem the declining intelligence and taste of the average 17-year-old male, or is it the declining intelligence and taste of Hollywood, or do the two -- along with the declining intelligence and taste of the American education system -- combine to form the complete Red Queen’s Race to the bottom? I'd blame the latter scenario, especially after contemplating what the average 17-year-old male likely dug when he went to the movies over the years:1950s: Alfred Hitchcock’s best decade, and loads of war movies, both pro and con (Strategic Air Command, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Paths of Glory, et al). 1960s: The birth of the James Bond movie franchise, plus big-budget middlebrow epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, and Dr. Zhivago, plus the rise of the counter-culture, with Dr. Strangelove, Blowup, Bonnie & Clyde, 2001, and the Beatles’ movies.1970s: More Bond, rock movies (Woodstock, Gimme Shelter), B-movies/exploitation/violence galore (Easy Rider, Clockwork Orange, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, Taxi Driver, Death Wish, Dirty Harry), the Godfather movies, and then the rise of Spielberg and Lucas, which led to…1980s: The Empire Strikes Back, ET, Jedi, Blade Runner, the Star Trek movies, Platoon, Wall Street, Full Metal Jacket, and the SNL movies (Stripes, Trading Places, Ghost Busters, et al). Plus plenty of horny teenager movies (Fast Times, Risky Business, etc.)1990s: T2, the Batman movies, and the omnipresent summer action movie with Arnold, Bruce, Tom, Harrison, et al. Plus the 1998 digital mind-f*** movies: The Matrix and Dark City. And Titanic,  which brilliantly combined the chick-flick with an ending filled with plenty of digital FX and carnage for the boys.2000s: Brit-lit such as the Lord of the Rings and Narnia, the horrible but exceedingly profitable Star Wars prequels, and wall-to-wall superheroes.2010s: Avatar and even more superheroes. Did I mention the superheroes?Sense a trend here? And don't forget -- a tiny percentage of the most aggressive of those moviegoers in the '70s and '80s are the ones who headed to Hollywood to write today's drek. Their idea of deep and complex middlebrow culture aren't the books that inspired Hollywood's golden age, but the actual movies themselves. Or as John Podhoretz wrote at NRO on the eve of 9/11, "A century dominated by movies has left the movies starved for inspiration."Even beyond that mammoth dumbing down of the average hit movie's writing when middlebrow culture was nuked and paved by the new left, after 9/11, the combination of PC and fear of failure completely numbed Hollywood, resulting in the Big Screen's current malaise. And oddly, television's renaissance, a topic that Mark Tapson discusses at, in his review of television critic Alan Sepinwall's new book, The Revolution Was Televised: The Cops, Crooks, Slingers and Slayers Who Changed TV Drama Forever:In “an interesting role reversal” with the movie biz, the TV revolution gained momentum as “the 21st century slowly saw the extinction of the middle-class movie. If a film couldn’t either be made on the cheap or guarantee an opening weekend of $50 million or more, it was out.” That meant that studios began to depend heavily on big-spectacle blockbusters (something I touched on in the previous article in this series). “Movies went from something really interesting,” as The Sopranos creator David Chase put it, “to what we have now.”That left a growing void of more artistically and dramatically compelling fare–a void that television filled with Sepinwall’s list of the dozen American TV shows “that changed TV forever,” as his subtitle puts it: The Sopranos, Oz, The Wire, Deadwood, The Shield, Lost, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 24, Battlestar Galactica, Friday Night Lights, and, of course, Mad Men and Breaking Bad.As an example of this revolutionary fare, Sepinwall points to the balls-out opening of Breaking Bad, in which former sitcom father Bryan Cranston’s character–a middle-aged, cancer-ridden chemistry teacher wearing saggy tighty-whities and a gas mask–careens down a desert highway in a mobile meth lab, a dying pair of drug dealers on the vehicle floor behind him. At the end of that jaw-dropping sequence, your inevitable two responses are “What the hell was that?” followed by “More, please. Now.”The revolution didn’t materialize ex nihilo: “The millennial wave of revolutionary dramas,” Sepinwall writes, “was built on the work put in by a group of other series” that paved the way: cop dramas like Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue, the hospital dramas St. Elsewhere and ER, the sitcom Cheers, the “MTV cops” of Miami Vice, the hallucinatory Twin Peaks, The X-Files, and others.But hey, cheer up movie fans, because help is on the way. Who's up for Ridley Scott's production of Monopoly: The Motion Picture?!Or this: "What Hell Hath Disney-Lucasfilm Wrought? ‘Star Wars’ Meets ‘Extreme Makeover.'"Update: In addition to the dumbing down of American culture via PC, I should have mentioned how the need for a film to compete in a worldwide marketplace can also dumb down the writing. Tapson addressed this in his previous essay:As an example, [David Denby] notes that 2010’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which he calls “a thundering farrago of verbal and visual gibberish,” grossed $1 billion worldwide in a month: “Nothing is going to stop such success from laying waste to the movies as an art form.”It doesn’t help that international audiences now account for two-thirds of box office receipts. Denby feels that this makes studios gun-shy about making their movies about anything. “Aimed at Bangkok and Bangalore as much as at Bangor,” Denby writes, “our big movies have been defoliated of character, wit, psychology, local color.” He cites director Christopher Nolan’s Inception as an example of “a recent trend in which big movies have been progressively drained of meaning.”That essay/extended blog post by Tapson is also well worth your time. class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)

John Hanlon2
John Hanlon Reviews

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • “Dumbo” Review
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Dumbo Review
    Director Tim Burton is well-known for his ability to create unique landscapes in his cinematic creations. He created such a landscape in Batman and its sequel Batman Returns. His new film reunites two of the stars from the latter picture and brings them into a world of its own. Instead of Michael Keaton starring as Batman and […]
    (Review Source)
  • "Dumbo" Review
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    (Review Source) Staff1

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The search for wholeness in society, personality, and romance (Mark Wegierski)
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    The search for wholeness in society, personality, and romance (Mark Wegierski)

    by Enda Miller on August 11, 1970

    The search for wholeness in society, personality, and romance

    By Mark Wegierski


    The critique of contemporary dualism is an important aspect of the over-all critique of late-modern, Western society. One of the facets of this critique is pointing out the fact of the triumph, on the one hand, of excessive rationality (as in the economic and technological spheres), and, on the other, of excessive irrationality (for example, in terms of certain elements of personal lifestyle, in the extremal aspects of some contemporary popular music, and in the burgeoning acceptance of various “occult” beliefs). Both these trends seem to increasingly expand at the expense of what was once the rooted ideational centre of the society. (This distinction is similar to Daniel Bell’s perception of a rational, economic sphere of society, which is at odds with the antinomian, cultural sphere, as described in his book on “post-industrial” society, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism). It is also reflected in one of the catchwords of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: “adults at work; infants at play”.

    Another interesting aspect of this critique is to look at the increasing incidence of the disappearance of a properly-balanced psychological identity among men, vis-à-vis sexual relations with women. On the one hand, one sees the ravenous, hypersexual “stud”; and, on the other, the cerebral and introverted “square” or “geek”. What was once the basic traditional male identity in this regard (which might be loosely described as “the hero or knight-errant questing for his lady” — or the ideal-type of the “gentleman”) has come under the fire of both radical feminists and “sex-educators”, who seek to disenchant traditional gender identities and relations. The balance of strength and sensitivity seems to have split (or been forced to split) into these two oppositions.

    Ironically, the spirit of romance and of the masterful male is often maintained today — if in a highly derogated fashion — in much of standard, heterosexual-male-oriented pornography. It might even be argued that the impetus of male desire towards increasing extremity in such pornography, is largely in reaction to the emerging society-wide triumph of a neopuritanical feminism, which basically seeks to abolish those dangerous, masterful aspects of men. A more critical view of this phenomenon would see it as part of the over-all, heightened sexual obsession of society — for example, in rock music, television, video, advertising, and film, as well as in that peculiar North American combination of softcore sex and hardcore violence, typified by the so-called “teen slasher-flicks” — which is a social excess existing in parallel to that of the antisexual (or antiheterosexual) type of radical feminism, both of which feed off of each other at the expense of the rooted ideational centre.

    The emerging problem in male-female relationships, for most young women, is that the “stud” is exciting but often too cruel; the “geek”, decent enough but unexciting. Two popular movies which showed “masterful” men with a sadistic streak were Nine-and-a-Half Weeks (with Mickey Rourke) and Wall Street (with Michael Douglas). The phenomena of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s theatrical-operatic interpretation of The Phantom of the Opera; Tim Burton’s Batman epics; The Beauty and the Beast television series; as well as the good knight dressed in black in Ladyhawke (who fights an evil, heretical bishop dressed in white) could be explained psychologically as representing some of the attempts for “the whole man” to re-emerge, in a world dominated by various contemporary correctitudes.

    In a similar but somewhat less-positive vein, there is as well today the emerging popular obsession with male as well as female vampire-figures, typified by the Anne Rice novels (and many other works in this subgenre), Francis Ford Coppola’s rendering of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, with its motif, “Love Never Dies” (which is only one of several recent movies on a similar theme), as well as the television series Forever Knight, which portrays the half-shaded, twilight figure of a “vampire-cop”. There has also appeared a major network television series, Vampire: The Masquerade, which had much romance and mystique, but little horror. Indeed, vampire romances are now a recognized pulp subgenre.

    It may be argued that female psychological identity itself (vis-à-vis sexual relations with men) seems to have fragmented into at least three different aspects (although some of these divides were present, to some extent, in many traditional societies) — the faithful but unexciting wife or companion (or nice but not very sexual friend); the sexual temptress; and the completely independent woman. The synthesis of the positive elements of all three of these aspects seems to occur ever-more infrequently. The latter two aspects do arguably appear as united in a character such as that played by Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct (who, like the two quasisadistic male figures mentioned above, veered towards the psychologically problematic); or by Michelle Pfeiffer as “Catwoman” in Batman Returns; as well as by the pop-idol Madonna (who is similarly tinged). But it might also be pointed out that many of these very sexual women often fail to achieve (in the real world) what should be remembered is the natural result of sexual relations between men and women. They are thus sexual but not fecund.

    An interesting phenomenon is that typified in many young adult females, who tend towards incredibly intense obsessions with idealized “teen idols”, who are very sexual figures to them, but where actual sex, in the vast majority of cases, can never take place. The more average men who are sexually available often become perceived as either too rough or too weak, and generally inadequate. There are clearly a large number of areas today where the critique of excessive opposing extremity, as in personal psychology, social issues, politics, and culture, can be highly instructive.

    Mark Wegierski is a Canadian writer and historical researcher, published in Alberta Report, American Enterprise, American Outlook, Books in Canada, Calgary Herald, New Brunswick Reader, Review of Metaphysics, Telos, and The World & I, among others. An article of his about Canada was reprinted in Annual Editions: World Politics, 1998-99 (Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 1998).


    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
    (Review Source)

Kyle Smith1
National Review

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Dumbo Gets off the Ground, Barely
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Tim Burton’s live-action remake of the beloved animated classic is an adequate entertainment, no more and no less.
    (Review Source)

NPI / Radix Journal Staff1
Radix Journal

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    We’ve forgotten who we are: explorers, pioneers… not caretakers. (Joseph Cooper) There’s an unwritten rule with movies: the more you expect from one, the less you get from it. Another unwritten rule is that a remake is, in most cases, not as good as the original. Christopher Nolan seems to be the great rule-breaker of today’s film industry. When he took on the project of salvaging the Batman franchise after Joel Schumacher had almost destroyed it (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin), who could have predicted he would release a trilogy that would almost completely eclipse Tim Burton’s two first opuses (Batman and Batman Returns), which were actually really good? When Interstellar‘s trailers started to catch my attention, and it was evident that Nolan was attempting a remake of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, I thought that the stakes were too high this time. How dare Nolan challenge The Master? Interestingly, Christopher Nolan has often been described as Kubrick’s heir, partly because of the two directors’ common propensity to cut the Gordian Knots of established filmmaking. Kubrick was one of the very first moviemakers to use a nonlinear narrative, in The Killing (1956), and Nolan went even further in Memento (2000), which recounts the fragmented story of an amnesiac whose memory is rebooted every five minutes. The comparison between Kubrick and Nolan is even apter in the case of Interstellar. Indeed, Interstellar is more than a remake of 2001. It is 2001, only way, way better. If Kubrick was film’s Copernicus, then Nolan is its Galileo. Before raising Radix readers’ eyebrows, I should mention that Nolan’s improvement upon Kubrick’s 1968 movie is not due to technology. Unlike many futuristic movies these days, Interstellar is two-dimensional, and though there is, of course, an important use of CGI, it is not what defines the movie (and it is worth noting that in technical terms, 2001 has aged quite well). I could go as far as saying that Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity (2013) was graphically much more audacious than Interstellar. But it would be missing the point: though Interstellar takes place in outer space, it is not about space conquest. Much like 2001, Interstellar is about biological evolution, the meaning of human existence, Mankind’s destiny, and God. And though there is an important reflection on artificial intelligence in Interstellar, supercomputers are here reduced to the status of farm animals. There is no equivalent of “HAL,” arguably 2001‘s central character. The prominence of humans in the scenario made the casting a matter of ultimate importance. Whereas the actors of 2001 could easily have been replaced with others, Matthew McConaughey’s performance in Interstellar already is, and will remain indispensable. Though not as famous as Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception), and still mostly known for starring in a string of interchangeable “rom-coms,” McConaughey has recently proven as a man of both wit and emotional depth. With only a few minutes of screen time in Martin Scorcese’s The Wolf of Wall Street, released last Winter, McConaughey managed to play the movie’s most famous scene with a simple “money mantra” (or whatever it’s supposed to be). McConaughey also appeared on TV this year. In HBO’s True Detective, he plays officer Rust Cohle. Down in Louisiana’s post-industrial rubble, he and detective Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson) are investigating a series of murders committed by the local elite in a ritual, Satanic fashion, leading some website editors to analyze True Detective as a “conspiracy theory” series. Commenting on the “tomb of the American Dream” he and Hart have to muddle through, Rust Cohle has some lines that echo those of Nolan’s comic-book heroes and villains: “The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door.” In Interstellar, McConaughey, starring as Joseph Cooper, doesn’t fail to provide the spectator with catchy lines. But before I start quoting, perhaps some contextual elements are in order. The story takes place in the United States, or rather what used to be the United States. Joseph Cooper, a former engineer and pilot who had to retire after a crash, is now growing corn to provide for his two kids and his father-in-law. Cooper’s wife died a few years before the story begins. She had a tumor that, had it been diagnosed in time, would have been curable. But the lack of proper medical devices and qualified physicians sealed her fate. Cooper was wise enough to plant corn instead of wheat, corn being (for now) the only crop which resists a blight that is ravaging plantations. The earth, both with a small and a capital “e,” is dying. The rotting plants turn into dust, which, due to frequent windstorms, makes it harder and harder for people to breathe. Field fires are commonplace. Harvests hardly reach survival levels. Apocalypse has come, not with a bang but with a whimper. Though early 21st-century technological devices keep being used as long as they work, civilization has globally reverted to a pre-Industrial Revolution level: most human activity is oriented towards food production. Cooper’s elder son, Tom, whose intelligence is only slightly above-average, will have to study how to grow corn in high school. More and more, boys learn their fathers’ trade, as it used to be before the 19th and 20th centuries’ division of labor. Cooper’s daughter, Murph, is much more like her father. She seems to be endowed with a kind of “shine” that allows her to feel a part of reality that the five senses cannot detect. Unlike her brother, she knows that “something is wrong” in the present state of affairs. She doesn’t live by the rules, because she feels that rules are dooming her family. Though—or rather because—her intelligence is vastly above-average, she has troubles with her teachers at school. On her spare time, she tries to figure out what “ghosts” want to communicate to her. Although Cooper doesn’t believe his daughter’s “ghosts” stories, he supports her in her personal experiments. One day, she detects a signal that resembles geographical coordinates. Cooper, who has noticed anomalies in his automatic ploughing machines’ functioning, believes it is due to a magnetic field, whose center has been located by Murph. He decides to go there, and his disobedient daughter manages to hide in his pickup truck and go with her father. (Promethean Nolan likely means that all evolutionary leaps are made by rebels, like Columbus in his time.) It turns out that the mysterious site is nothing less than a covert NASA base. Once the pride of the world, NASA has gone underground since government credits have been cut in favor of agriculture. (But as “Paul Kersey” wrote, in today’s “real world,” space conquest has been abandoned to the benefit of “Diversity.” At least humans in Interstellar have the excuse of starvation.) In a very short-sighted manner, what remains of the government thinks that Mankind’s dire situation justifies that “frivolities” like space exploration make way to more essential endeavors like farming. (History school books are orwellianly rewritten to describe Apollo 11 as a hoax.) SLIPPING THE “SURLY BONDS OF EARTH” Here I am reminded of an episode from TV animated series Archer. In the twelfth episode of the third season, Commander Tony Drake (with Breaking Bad‘s Bryan Cranston’s exalted voice) explains to curvy quadrooness Lana why space colonization is the right answer to “here and now” problems: Drake: You think space exploration is a boondoggle?! Lana: Well, come on, in this economy?! Drake: Exactly! Now, more than ever, is when we need to look to space for the solutions to Mankind’s problems. In just two hundred years, Earth’s population will exceed her capacity to produce enough food. And even as the famines begin, global war will erupt as fresh water becomes scarcer than gold. But if we begin now, using the lessons learned aboard Space Station Horizon, a small group of brave colonists can terraform Mars. And Mankind can finally slip the surly bonds of Earth, to live forever… AMONG THE STARS!!! “Slipping the surly bonds of Earth” is exactly what Professor Brand (Michael Caine), a NASA researcher, has to offer Cooper. Brand wants Cooper to lead an expedition with Brand’s daughter (Ann Hathaway) to a black hole located near Saturn’s rings (which is reminiscent of 2001‘s black monolith revolving around Jupiter). Beyond this black hole is another stellar system, in a faraway galaxy, with three planets apparently similar to Earth both in gravity and atmosphere composition. The expedition’s mission is to find out whether one of these exoplanets can be terraformed. Cooper faces Ulysses’ dilemma. Should he stay in Ithaca or should he go conquer Troy? And Penelope’s dead anyway. As painful as it is for him to leave his children and his home, Cooper decides to go. He begs his daughter to forgive him and explains to her that he has to live at last. To live, that is, to exist beyond food, shelter, and reproduction. To put the Greater Good above one’s family’s interests (or rather to understand that the latter depends on the former). To follow one’s Destiny, even if said Destiny is tragic. And, for those who have that rare power, to bring Mankind to a higher level of consciousness, mastery, and being. Cooper knows when he leaves that his chances of seeing his family again are very thin. Not only is the journey long and dangerous, but spacetime is different on the three exoplanets: one hour there amounts to seven years on Earth. Which means that the expedition, named Lazarus after the Christian saint who came back from the dead, is a race against time. Even if Cooper manages to make it, he might be back when there’s nothing left to save on Earth (a little like in the first Planet of Apes). And, of course, when his kids are dead. But he accepts the challenge, which appears to be Mankind’s last chance. Pr. Brand informs Cooper that corn will also die out eventually. Even worse, the Noah’s Ark-like vessel ready to follow Cooper’s pioneer expedition is, for now, too heavy to overcome Earth’s gravity. NASA’s calculation is that Cooper will get back when the scientists on Earth have managed to make the vessel fly, due to the spacetime difference between the two stellar systems. If this “Plan A” doesn’t work, they’ll turn to “Plan B”: a light shuttle with fertilized eggs aboard will leave with a few colonists to the New Earth; the rest of Mankind will be left to die. (I wonder what will annoy conservatives most this time: surrogate motherhood or the idea that not all human lives have the same value?) Thanks to these eggs, a new Mankind will be recreated. As Brand puts it, “We must think not as individuals but as a species.” Later in the movie, Cooper will throw the line that prompted me to write this review: “Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here.” A PHILOSOPHICAL CHALLENGE TO IDENTITARIANS Interstellar is problematic for Identitarians, who follow two simple principles: Blood and Soil. If the former is only shaken by Nolan (more on that below), the latter is completely crushed by the British Faust. Indeed, space conquest means that Man will not dance around the same wooden totem pole for Eternity like Hobbits, which Identitarianism often boils down to. But I think Instellar is a challenge rather than a stop sign to Identitarians, at least for (Pan-)European ones. As I mentioned in my debut article at Alternative Right (my very first article in the English language, by the way), this “Let’s do as our ancestors have always done” motto may suit Indian tribes, but it is unworthy of Sons of Europa, whether the “European New Right,” which is neither European in spirit nor New nor even right-wing, likes it or not. “We are the heirs of conquerors,” fellas. Our distant ancestors had to “slip the surly bonds” of the Pontic steppe so they could reach a higher stage of evolution in their millenial upward journey. Of all people, Americans should understand that reality better than any of their European brothers, which is actually the reason why I decided to “slip the surly bonds” of my beloved Hexagone two years ago (which answers the usual question I’m asked: “Why are you doing all this?”; that’s why). The real founding of America—when the Mayflower left Plymouth, not when the “Holy Scrap” was written down—is not even four centuries old, a period of time, in strictly evolutionary terms, that’s merely a blink-of-an-eye. If evolution keeps its course (I think it will), there will be a Mayflower spaceship someday. Let’s just hope that it won’t be crammed with Puritans. As for the “Blood” part of the Identitarian motto, it is also challenged by Nolan, but in a more subtle way. Viewers will have noticed that the Lazarus expedition comprises one Black man, and a woman whose name could be Jewish. Well, call me a “race traitor” (but again, traitors are firstly those who betray Europa’s spirit) if you will, but I didn’t hide under my seat in terror. Let’s not forget that Art shouldn’t be confused with Politics, something the Right has never understood, and the Left less and less understands, which is why its works of art are getting embarrassing. The second reason why I don’t mind seeing non-Whites in a European expedition is because as Oswald Spengler put it, “those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them.” What is more traitorous: non-Whites appearing in a clearly European movie, or great-grandsons of Acheans, Romans, Franks, and Vikings placing their hopes in this or that model of car? (“Both are equally abhorrent” is an easy, common, but… wrong answer.) There are, in my opinion, two competing strains of Identitarianism, whose opposition can be summed up thusly: “What is Mine is Fine” VS. “What is Fine is Mine” (Due to Prince Harold’s history-shifting shipwreck on Picardy’s shores and the Battle of Hastings that ensued, the rhyme also works in French: “Ce qui est mien est bien” VS. “Ce qui est bien est mien.”) I explained that in an interview at AltRight with Alexander Forrest: We can recognize the various strengths of [other] civilizations and take inspiration from the noble and inventive things they engendered. That is exactly what the West used to do best. To use a very basic example… the Arabs produced coffee long before the West adopted it and transplanted it to the Americas. Today, the most refined coffee is brewed in Italy. It is the essence of our civilization to take what is best in other civilizations and improve upon it. The worst aspect of “Blood and Soil” rigidity is that it deprives those who stick to it of a telos, of a final cause that would transcend their individual lives and therefore enable them to pass their dreams down to their descendants, until the time when these dreams can be put to practice. I believe such a dream should be space conquest. I obviously won’t live it, nor will my children, and I don’t think my grandchildren or even my great-grandchildren will. And therefore, in the meantime, a European Home should be established so as to make the carrying out of this dream possible and even thinkable (the rewriting of history books about Neil Armstrong’s giant leap is one of Interstellar‘s most important scenes). But this European Home would’t be sustainable—it wouldn’t even see the light of day, since its founding is, in itself, a project involving several generations from conception to realisation and therefore requires transcendence to survive the bite of time—if there wasn’t an idea bigger than us, an idea that will mean the same thing in one century as it now does. It is time we cultivate this idea instead of doing as if it was still “five to midnight” and we had to “act before it’s too late.” It is not five to midnight. It is five past midnight. The night is still dark and cold. Predators of many kinds prowl around the camp. Ghastly screams echo in the void. Waiting for the Dawn, torch-bearing guards keep the fence, and poets recount glorious tales around the fire, while everybody looks to the stars.
    (Review Source)

Mark Steyn1
Fox News

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Batman at Eighty
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Happy birthday to Batman, who made his debut eight decades ago in Detective Comics, issue number 27. It was dated May 1939, but actually hit newsstands in March that year. Batman made his screen debut in 1943 - see the somewhat saggy long underwear at
    (Review Source)

Soiled Sinema1
Soiled Reviews

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • Coraline
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Coraline is a 3D adventure brought to the screen by the mind that has delivered us James and the Giant Peach , The Nightmare Before Christ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff1
The Federalist

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Tim Burton’s ‘Dumbo’ Is A Dark But Beautiful Celebration Of Individualism
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Tim Burton's 'Dumbo' conveys to viewers that from now on, we must look to ourselves for freedom, not to larger-than-life fantasies.
    (Review Source)

Cross Walk

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • A Special Behind-the-Scenes Look at Disney's New Dumbo Movie!
    (”Batman Returns” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Enjoy a special behind-the-scenes look at an extraordinary family film.
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
Misandry Average rating:  
Affirmative action Average rating:  
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
Anti-God Average rating:  

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️ Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻  Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page: