EXIT HOMOPHOBIA, ENTER HETEROPHOBIA: “SODOM” VOTERS PROVE DEMOCRACY IS EVIL

EXIT HOMOPHOBIA, ENTER HETEROPHOBIA: “SODOM” VOTERS PROVE DEMOCRACY IS EVIL

Scrawled in pink chalk on a Sydney pathway in the wake of today’s vote on the Sodom Law were two words, “Love Wins.”

This is a propagandistic slogan if ever there was one. We should know since we’ve come up with enough of our own.

Once you’ve understood the slogan’s referential function, deduced its expressive function, surmised its conative function, fathomed its phatic function and flipped by its contextual function you’ll realise what the slogan would properly mean separated from the sentimentality of its addresser is that “institutionalized love wins”. Once you’ve dealt with that dialectic you should be free enough from the propaganda to deduce that this has nothing to do with ‘love’.

Love doesn’t require the formal acknowledgement of an institution to prosper and in fact, it is more likely to stifle and suppress that love.

Moreover, you must grapple with the logic of tearing down the pillars of an institution to institutionalise that which the former pillars existed to ensure did not endanger the institution that was in place to safeguard against what the new institution formally validates. Meaning, there was, beyond what the Cultural Marxists who voted Yes perceive, more to the institution of marriage than “love”. Indeed, it was a social contract beyond enshrining the rights of deviant minorities into law.

But before we use the word deviant we must now readdress the contextual relevance of that word since deviancy can only really be determined by the majority of society and policed by its agents of social control, such as the media, lawmakers, academics, politicians, Waleed Aly and so forth.

Even here we have a problem since the degenerate homos who have won this “right” to smash apart a sacred pact between a man and a woman are not of themselves in the majority but the reverse. It is their agents who are in the majority.

gay
Consider this when putting shekels in the coffers of these corporations who have forced upon us the reign of everything abominable to a healthy society

For that matter, the vote only passed by a rabbit’s dick of 7% with some Labor electorates like ‘Calwell’ in Victoria, named after our Nationalist Aussie hero Arthur Calwell, doing us proud by voting No. Now it is down to the traitor political class to pass this bullshit law and applaud themselves for having totally fucked everything that this country once stood for. It is now in the hands of the banks, corporations, and the hedonistic consumers who keep their share portfolios fattening with profit. This same-sex marriage vote was, after all, pushed heavily by media and the corporations.

Anyway, having digressed for a moment, we have ascertained that the majority has granted the minority an unequal representation among the majority. If we tie that back to what social science once understood about deviancy we now have anyone from the former institution who is strident enough to hold firm to their beliefs cast on the outside of what society now upholds to be ‘normal’. The respectable is now the outsider and the deviant is the pillar of this brave new society.

Since we’re talking about institutions, it seems fair to acknowledge that garbage from the baby boomer generation who trampled this filth into our lives — who inculcated these Cultural Marxist codes into the heads of our youth via the institutions they took over — were the ones who loathed the very concept of the institution of marriage. Their lot burned their bras and jockstraps and went in for “free love” and threw things at Servicemen returning from the horrors of America’s doomed war in Vietnam.

lesbian-wedding-14.jpg
This is an SJW two-fer deal, yet get the dyke White woman with the black dyke and they may adopt a White male baby and kill it

Yet, here are the fruits of their decades of campaigning — they have killed the social and religious premise of marriage. They have redefined it and in doing so have set in motion an entire wheel of social changes that will exclude, criminalise, and disadvantage all of those whose ideological and religious convictions now place them as an “other”.

The despised “cisgender” White male; the devout Christian; the fervent social conservative are all now outside of that societal approval and therefore beyond the gates of the institution which ironically once upon a time they were the most ardent advocates for.

Any parent who doesn’t wish their child to be taught the finer points of buggery by a genderless freak reared in the social laboratory of modern society will be demonised, ostracised, and — if they aren’t just patronisingly dismissed as absurdly quaint — used as an example of that which is abhorrent to this newfangled society based on repudiated gender and opposition to the fundamentals of nature. Any Christian who refuses to accommodate a reception or conduct a marriage between freakish gender-confused parties will be sued, vilified, hounded, doxed, and probably beaten up by roaming squadrons of Nazi Dykes, Faggots, and Transgender Chemical commandos.

It will be ironic to see how they must now shuffle their hierarchy of victimhood to accommodate the obvious dissension of devout Moslems, which are still currently a protected species in the Social Justice Warrior red book.

Now they need another cause; now they’ve run out of steam there is another minority group whose interests must usurp that of the majority until there is nothing left but until the day invading armies of Chinese soldiers paint the walls with their soft, squishy, fucked-up, chemically-altered brains.

Yes, folks, we are on the road to being a PC Police State, just like England.

EDIT: After we went to press with this item out came the images from the unscheduled orgy at Hyde Park where fairies, fags, dykes, princesses, lady boys, he-girls and every kind of pervert combo imagined in this age of decadence, got straight down to exposing themselves and cavorting in a manner that would, in saner countries, have them all shot.

4660722000000578-0-image-a-39_1510748685748.jpg
A bizarre dyke with hairy legs, hairy armpits struts half-nude (blarrggggh) in a major Sydney park because that’s what the world will be like now that the Yes vote got through by a whisker.
4660904400000578-0-image-a-42_1510748699620
Broad daylight and the green-light signals for the degenerate exhibitionists. That’s nothing, but, wait till you see the latest dog-collars, leashes and leatherwear for next year’s Back to School uniforms!

oie_JhUXWGI010X4.jpg

 

Advertisements

THE MAN WITH THE IRON HEART AND NO PERSONALITY

THE MAN WITH THE IRON HEART AND NO PERSONALITY

The new film from French director Cédric Jiminez (The Connection, Aux Yeux De Tous) represents nothing but a series of opportunities to tell an interesting story which has been squandered through equivocation in narrative and a lack of detail in its script.

The Man With The Iron Heart, abbreviated to HHhH, has so many problems it is hard to know where to start; it is poorly edited, the nominally stellar cast is restrained by hamfisted writing and poor character development and it is difficult to discern what point, if any, the writer-director is trying to make.

The story centres on the 1942 assassination, in Prague, of SS General Reinhard Heydrich. We are given some snapshots of his former life as a Navy officer, his rise through the ranks of the NSDAP, and his ascension to the top echelons of the National Socialist hierarchy.

hhhh-h_2017
Jason Clarke and Rosamund Pike as Reinhard and Lina Heydrich: a strong woman and her unfathomable blob of a husband

This series of badly constructed jump cuts, flashbacks and flashes forward, introduces Jason Clarke as Heydrich, Rosamund Pike as his wife Lina, and the always excellent Stephen Graham as an eerily realistic Heinrich Himmler.

The trouble with this opening sequence, however, is that the writers assume that the viewer already knows who the characters are, the timeline of NSDAP history, and the events which led up to Hitler’s ascension to power in 1933; we are confident that the average moviegoer would have no idea where, say, Ernst Röhm or Heinrich Müller fit into the story

The Man With The Iron Heart, abbreviated to HHhH, has so many problems it is hard to know where to start; it is poorly edited, the nominally stellar cast is restrained by hamfisted writing and poor character development and it is difficult to discern what point, if any, the writer-director is trying to make.

Röhm and Müller appear as pop-up characters for mere seconds of screentime in HHhH, Hitler is absent altogether and highly significant events, such as the “Night Of The Long Knives” are glossed over in a way which might leave the average punter scratching his head in confusion over what he had just watched.

Kubis
The Czech resistance also suffers at the hands of director Jiminez

Clarke’s Heydrich comes across as a flat, even passive character; he is sometimes annoyed, sometimes explosively violent but he never has anything really profound or interesting to say.

We would assume that the writers were aiming for a steely, near psychopathic aura for the character, but the result is a dull and listless cartoon of a man whose personal motivations and deeper thoughts are never made clear.

Moreover, Jiminez plays it so safe with his “Holocaust” narrative that he almost strays into the area of heresy by the omission of pertinent details of the (((official))) WW2 story.

The repression of Czech resistance, the police actions and mass killings carried out by Heydrich’s SS units are, remarkably, even turned into boring vignettes in HHhH; to anyone familiar with the real story the film goes close to exculpating senior NS officials by effectively cutting them out of the picture.

Clarke’s Heydrich comes across as a flat, even passive character; he is sometimes annoyed, sometimes explosively violent but he never has anything really profound or interesting to say

You see, in opposition to the mainstream, Hollywood inspired story of the Holocaust there is a school of thought which puts forth the idea that the Final Solution was a criminal conspiracy carried out by elements within the SS in pursuit of their own objectives; that the true magnitude of the mass killings and ethnic cleansing was deliberately kept from Hitler and his inner circle.

By omitting Hitler from the film the director has, perhaps unwittingly, veered into forbidden territory. If the viewer is paying attention, he could easily form the impression that Heydrich really was the sole architect of the planned destruction of native Czech culture and the liquidation of ethnic minorities within his area of responsibility.

The second half of the film is utterly forgettable in spite of the introduction of some fine actors into the cast; Mia Wasikowska, Jack Raynor and Jack O’Connell form the nexus of the Czech resistance plotline but that too falls flat and fails to make an impact on the viewer, there is simply not enough meat on the bones of the characters for the script to be effective.

anthropoid
Jamie Dornan and Cillian Murphy in Anthropoid, fine actors who were clearly given good direction and a first-rate script by Sean Ellis

In contrast to HHhH we recommend the excellent film Anthropoid. The 2016 feature directed by Sean Ellis examines in detail the actual plot to assassinate Heydrich which was led by resistance fighters and British trained Czech special forces soldiers Jan Kubis and Josef Gabcíc.

Jamie Dornan and Cillian Murphy are altogether more convincing as Kubis and Gabcíc, their operation, codenamed Anthropoid, takes place amid a far more fraught atmosphere, a vision of Prague riddled with collaborators, cowardly resistance turncoats and Gestapo spies.

By omitting Hitler from the film the director has, perhaps unwittingly, veered into forbidden territory, if the viewer is paying attention he could easily form the impression that Heydrich really was the sole architect of the planned destruction of native Czech culture and the liquidation of ethnic minorities within his area of responsibility.

The supporting cast, though lacking the big names of HHhH are equally impressive; Charlotte Le Bon and Anna Geislerova acquit themselves well in their roles as resistance sympathisers Marie and Lenka, who sacrifice everything they hold dear to free their country.

Anthropoid2
Young love was thought the perfect cover in a city brimming with spies and collaborators

Due to superior writing, it is what is said in Anthropoid, as opposed to what is explicitly shown, but poorly explained in HHhH that drives home to the viewer the horrors inflicted upon the people of Czechoslovakia by the National Socialists.

The impact of the SS reprisals against those who aided Heydrich’s assassins as depicted in the former film is far more dramatic than in the latter simply because by the climax of the film one has begun to sympathise with the characters in Anthropoid, due to their being more well rounded and the actors working from a better-prepared script.

In the end, HHhH is a badly made Holocaust drama which fails to land any of its punches due to the limitations of that genre, even though it does appear, to the trained eye at least, to bend that tiresome narrative to some extent.

Anthropoid, on the other hand, is a film Australian Nationalists may relate to, being as it is a depiction of where true patriots can be taken in their fight for a free country; it shows in graphic detail the sacrifices required of resistance fighters in a struggle against a tyrannical colonial power bent on crushing the native society.

There is much in the story of Kubis and Gabcíc and the wider European resistance movements against National Socialist and, later, Soviet imperialism which should inspire Nationalists everywhere, Anthropoid, as an entertaining piece of popular culture is a good place to start.

Mother
Alena Mihulová, playing the heroic Mrs Moravec, who faces the Gestapo as the reprisal raids begin

BOURGEOIS PERVERSIONS AND THE TRAP OF GLOBAL EQUALITY

BOURGEOIS PERVERSIONS AND THE TRAP OF GLOBAL EQUALITY

If there is one demographic, or social stratum, which regularly draws the ire of UNA bloggers it is the waffling bourgeoisie and their nominally empty-headed offspring, who sound off like a battery of howitzers every time an issue of so-called “social justice” is inserted into public discourse.

Take young Frances Abbott, the middle child of Tony and Margie, who, channelling Mary Bennet, the middle sister in Jane Austen’s Pride And Prejudice, felt moved to put forth a Vlog on matters of love, romance and tier-one Lesbianism in support of same-sex marriage.

Quoting the experience of her aunt, Christine Forster, who is a middle-aged homosexual convert, Frances declared that people “cannot help who they fall in love with” and that “love is unexpected”.

Just in case it is not already painfully obvious, to form such opinions Frances Abbott must have led a sheltered life, as have the multitude of other nitwits peddling the “Love Is Love” message in order to guilt-trip voters into supporting SSM.

frances abbott
Bourgeois Bikini Babe Frances Abbott: all brawn, little brains

If homosexual relationships are based on love then it is clearly a completely different form of bond to opposite-sex unions; in which, as lifelong spinster Jane Austen herself observed, there are much more considerations than “love” to be taken into account when making a match.

In its most basic, and most commonly understood form the pair-bond between man and woman is based on a partnership to take on the challenges of the world together and raise children, if they are lucky the spouses will get along well and, in time, come to love each other.

Just in case it is not already painfully obvious, to form such opinions Frances Abbott must have led a sheltered life, as have the multitude of other nitwits peddling the “Love Is Love” message in order to guilt-trip voters into supporting SSM.

In most cases in which men and women marry for love, the unions quickly fall apart as the realisation hits home that such a marriage is lacking in substance, has no direction and no real reason to exist aside from the vanity, or unrealistic expectations of the spouses.

Pride pejudice
The Bennet sisters scan the horizon for well-endowed suitors

Of course we understand the reasoning behind the patter which upper-class twits such as Ms Abbott have been trained to parrot, we can never, ever describe homosexuality as a choice, nor credit homosexuals with the agency to make their own decisions; rather, according to Globalist social convention, they are subjects whose vital nature is simply something which has “occurred”.

Here we find another point of difference, which also gives the lie to the calls for absolute equality for all: heterosexuality is very much a choice, yet we are taught to believe that homosexuality is something which “just happens”.

muslims1
Guess which other global capitalist side project also poo-poohs the idea of free will?

Everyone over the age of consent has a choice in the matter of whether they engage with other people in sexual behaviour, or not; we all make that decision at some stage in our lives and even falling in love is a series of conscious steps and adjustments to our own lives by which we accommodate a partner.

If homosexuals are not going through these processes and are subject to the whims of some deity, or hidden forces in the universe then equality will remain a distant dream, regardless of the outcome of the postal survey and subsequent parliamentary vote.

Everyone over the age of consent has a choice in the matter of whether they engage with other people in sexual behaviour, or not; we all make that decision at some stage in our lives and even falling in love is a series of conscious steps and adjustments to our own lives by which we accommodate a partner.

Of course, we know full well why this meme has been propagated, that in fact most people who begin their intimate lives in the homosexual world are actually deprived of choice by virtue of, in the main, having been seduced and manipulated into that lifestyle by self-serving adults while in their early teens.

This detail, however, is beyond the scope of our discussion and, as we have stated before, we simply do not care enough about homosexuals, their tiny queer sub-culture or their struggles against normal society to develop an in-depth critique of them as people.

Orlando united
Omar Mateen was homosexual and Muslim, obviously  the Pulse nightclub outrage “just happened”

As ever, we at UNA are interested in the bigger picture and the picture of Globalist equality, that synthesis of second-generation Communism and multinational corporate hegemony, has come into sharp relief during the SSM debate; the man behind the curtain pulling the levers has been revealed.

It should fairly clear to all that globalist capitalists have something to gain from watering down the concept of free choice in the masses, that people who see themselves as subjects living under a doctrine of equality laid down by the bosses are more likely to be passive consumers than political agitators or dissident thinkers.

It should fairly clear to all that globalist capitalists have something to gain from watering down the concept of free choice in the masses, that people who see themselves as subjects living under a doctrine of equality laid down by the bosses are more likely to be passive consumers than political agitators or dissident thinkers.

“Things just happen” only to subjects, rather than workers in charge of their own fate; subjects are drafted into the military against their will, they are unfairly taxed, sold shoddy goods, given poor quality housing, or arbitrarily arrested and jailed; this is why most forms of monarchy, dictatorship and theocracy have such a bad reputation.

What “Love Is Love” in its proper context, globalist cosmopolitanism, ultimately boils down to is that we are all no greater or more able to master our own destiny than that young child whose choices are limited by the actions of the adults around them; that we are apt to just fall into situations and that it is advisable simply to go with the flow rather than resist or seek our own autonomy.

 

mateen-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8
Agents act, subjects are acted upon, inshallah

 

CTRL-LEFT ICONOCLASM IS PETTY AND DERIVATIVE

CTRL-LEFT ICONOCLASM IS PETTY AND DERIVATIVE

As the culture wars rage on, the Sydneyside Left have now outdone themselves in terms of boneheaded, historically illiterate dummy spitting.

The cretins have made a moonlight, anti-Australia Day graffiti raid upon several statues of historical significance, yet, simpletons that they are, they have managed to tag the wrong naval captain, the wrong colonial governor and the wrong monarch.

James Cook, what is more, made only short visits to Terra Australis, Lachlan Macquarie went home to London once his tenure was up and Queen Victoria, as far as anyone knows, never set foot upon her antipodean colony, none of them has any direct link to January 26, 1788.

Even more astonishing is the fact that all three were generally well disposed toward the native inhabitants of this new world, after the fashion of their time; Queen Victoria, in particular, was well regarded by her indigenous subjects, many of whom saw the monarchy as a mechanism of appeal against their treatment by often tyrannical colonial bureaucrats.

hyde-park
The suspected Hyde Park vandal and his handiwork

Macquarie was even something of a progressive on race relations when he arrived in Sydney in 1810, in our time he would be regarded as a “social justice warrior” and reformer, no administrator is perfect but he was one of the good guys, all things considered.

Of course the picture formed of the monarch by naive Aborigines desperate for the intervention of a greater power to alleviate their poverty and perceived ill treatment was probably wide of the mark, it nevertheless remained a part of their post-colonial folklore until the rise of the currently fashionable, revisionist stream of Australian historical story telling in the early 1970’s.

The cretins have made a moonlight, anti-Australia Day graffiti raid upon several statues of historical significance, yet, simpletons that they are, they have managed to tag the wrong naval captain, the wrong colonial governor and the wrong monarch.

1938-DayMourning
A photo taken in 1938: Protesting Australia Day is not a new idea, you just didn’t see many Whites doing it back then

We would like to point out that this current fancy for iconoclasm among the Ctrl-Left is but another piece of reactionary, copycat behaviour influenced by equally awful and misguided pseudo-socialist groups overseas, particularly in the United States.

Readers will notice that nowadays everything the Australian branch of the Ctrl-Left does is an attempt to directly transplant rhetoric and fashions in activism from other societies; this is due to the fact that their senior members had abandoned the traditional, Maoist influenced but Australian centred tropes popular on the left from the mid-1960’s.

Seattle had a Black Bloc in 1999, so Melbourne had to have one in 2000, New York had Occupy Wall St in 2011, Melbourne and Sydney had to have squatter camps and sit ins as well; rinse and repeat for Black Lives Matter, Opposition to the Trump inauguration and lately a Charlottesville solidarity rally.

These people have no shame, many of the wrinkled faces in today’s Lefty rent-a-crowd flash mobs, we know for a fact, were avid “China Line” Marxist-Leninists in their youth, throughout the following two decades they cynically used the imagery, poetry and folk culture of colonial White Australia as their central motif, in the hope of awakening the “natural Socialism” of the working classes.

Fremantle lefties
Flash forward and every Hippy-Dip White is on the bandwagon, but for how long?

Their hypocrisy has no limit, we have covered, as one example, the hue and cry over the use of the Eureka flag by Australia First Party and the attempt by elements of the new Ctrl-Left to “reclaim” the image in the name of Communists past.

Seattle had a Black Bloc in 1999, so Melbourne had to have one in 2000, New York had Occupy Wall St in 2011, Melbourne and Sydney had to have squatter camps and sit ins as well; rinse and repeat for Black Lives Matter, Opposition to the Trump inauguration and lately a Charlottesville solidarity rally.

So how does that sentiment fit in with their current iconoclastic play-acting and their mad rush to publicly denounce every White explorer, squatter and would-be Bunyip aristocrat of the 19th century?

Nationalists see our history as a continuum, one unbroken line of events in which the whole provides the context for the constituent parts and examining events in isolation is regarded as a fruitless pastime which can only lead a person along the wrong path.

January 26, 1788, and December 3rd, 1854 are inseparable in our political philosophy, to denounce one and attach symbolic virtues to another would be akin to demonising the heroes of Kokoda in 1942 while idealising the A.I.F who fought on the Somme in 1916, only a schizophrenic or a con-artist could wrap their mind around that way of thinking.

Ben hall
Ben Hall, thanks to the Commos everyone who went to school in the 1970’s knows that he was hunted from his station and like a Dog shot down

Right there we have the heart of the matter, the Ctrl-Left, Lily White in hue as it is, comprises a bunch of con-artists and hysterical nutjobs at the top who gather the ignorant and gullible as their acolytes.

This year they are talking about tearing down monuments and going all INGSOC on our national folklore and like their innocent tribal ancestors the urban Blacks are lapping up the lamentations of Ben Quilty, Julia Baird and Bill Shorten.

Nationalists see our history as a continuum, one unbroken line of events in which the whole provides the context for the constituent parts and examining events in isolation is regarded as a fruitless pastime which can only lead a person along the wrong path.

Trouble is, in years to come these same people may well be engaged in another colonial revival in an attempt to capitalise upon the growing discontent among the White workers and marginalised people forced to live under the heel of globalist capitalism.

Do not be surprised, dear reader, if in a few years you emerge from Southern Cross Station to be greeted by a hippy with a Henry Lawson moustache, in moleskins and a leather hat inviting you to the Socialist Alternative wool-shed dance and bush poetry evening.

To a Nationalist who has lived among these progressive dopes for many decades, this is all well within the realm of possibility and those urban Blacks will once again be pushed back to the status of a novelty act in the next failed Leftist play for the soul of the nation.

1989_swaggies
Even crappy lefty pub bands from the ’80s may be part of some theoretical Ctrl-Left attempt at Aussie cultural renaissance

THE LAST GASP OF THE LOVE GENERATION

THE LAST GASP OF THE LOVE GENERATION

If nothing else, the same-sex marriage “debate” reminds us, Nationalists, that mainstream politics is well and truly dead in the Australia of 2017, an observation which is more a cause for optimism, as opposed to despair.

In the campaign for marriage equality, we see laid bare all the worst elements of the moribund centrism inherent in the globalist cosmopolitan model; this brand of politics is no longer directed toward the masses, rather it is geared toward the tastes, whims and self-esteem of the individual.

Indeed, the very word “brand” sums up the state of affairs; the mainstream parties are producing policies in the form of brands, or product lines to be marketed to the consumer; rather than movements to inspire a class of people to collective action.

Taken in that light same-sex marriage is just another globalist branding exercise, it is the corporate ideal of the new capitalists; Google, Apple, Qantas, Facebook and Microsoft, along with virtually all major international business concerns are marketing Gay marriage as part of their consumer lifestyle package.

8669198-3x2-700x467
Gays have long been dismissed as a fringe group and for good reason

No wonder then that political parties would seek to latch onto this way of doing business. This personalised approach, this tailor made consumer experience, flatters the sensibilities and ego of the punter and it moves millions of iPhones, so it stands to reason that similar tactics could secure millions of votes.

Regardless of how the electors actually feel about homosexuality, the key factor for this political marketing strategy is that everyone should have the choice to marry a person of the same sex, for it is unacceptable for any corporation, or political party to deny freedom of choice; the customer is always right, are they not?

Indeed, the very word “brand” sums up the state of affairs; the mainstream parties are producing policies in the form of brands, or product lines to be marketed to the consumer; rather than movements to inspire a class of people to collective action.

Yes, same sex marriage is a niche product, some estimates project a figure of only around 23,000 Australian homosexuals who may want to tie the knot and statistics sourced from abroad, drawn from societies which have had legal Gay marriage for some time would appear to back up this assertion.

Think of Gay marriage as an obscure and poorly subscribed application on the Google Play Store, or a little known craft beer sitting at the back of the fridge in a trendy hotel; few people are going to actually take up the offer to buy the product, but from a business point of view it is better to have the goods on hand, just in case.

turkey gay
Traditional societies, such as Turkey give short shrift to bourgeois agitators

Just as the material output of the globalist companies: the gadgets, peripherals and software are tied in with the consumer’s desire to signal his socioeconomic status and his virtues, so the policy-as-product line must serve the same purpose: ordering an obscure beer, showing off a funky new app and voicing support for same-sex marriage all serve the same end.

From another viewpoint, the move toward legal Gay marriage is the culmination of the bourgeois egalitarian daydreams of the 1968 generation; having abandoned class struggle by the turn of the millennium they moved on to more, shall we say, esoteric criteria for universal equality; the greater the novelty of the cause, the higher the payoff in terms of virtue signalling.

Think of Gay marriage as an obscure and poorly subscribed application on the Google Play Store, or a little known craft beer sitting at the back of the fridge in a trendy hotel; few people are going to actually take up the offer to buy the product, but from a business point of view it is better to have the goods on hand, just in case.

If they have failed to civilise the Aborigines, if the Great Barrier Reef is dying in spite of their caterwauling and the Five Eyes sentinels at Pine Gap still sit glued to their engines of espionage, well, all the Boomers have left in the tank is “Equal Love”.

The slogan itself betrays the outdated and utterly bourgeois, cat-lady sensibilities of the movement; the idea that marriage is based on love sounds more like something the Bronte sisters might have cooked up than a progressive, 21st-century worldview.

As many commentators have pointed out, marriage is primarily a contract entered into by a man and woman in which they declare before their community, nation or church that they undertake to raise, support and care for their offspring to the best of their ability, so that the children grow to be members of the productive classes, as opposed to parasites, swindlers or outlaws.

Societies need procreation to continue and the institution of marriage is a basic insurance policy against the ill effects of poor parenting or family breakdown; we all have a vested interest in keeping families intact, healthy and on the right track, even in this age of social security programmes.

The slogan itself betrays the outdated and utterly bourgeois, cat-lady sensibilities of the movement; the idea of marriage being based on love sounds more like something the Bronte sisters might have cooked up than a progressive, 21st-century worldview.

This is why nobody really cares deeply about homosexuals in general and Gay marriage in particular, in the scheme of things they do not matter since they are so few in number and very few will ever have children; we simply have no need to be involved in their personal lives, unless they impose a cost of some sort upon society.

Gays make a song and dance about the way the straight world supposedly intrudes upon their lives, yet the fact is that we really do not give a damn about them, or their minuscule, Bohemian subcultures; the irony is that if they do start marrying and bringing children into their homes then they will be subject to a level of scrutiny and top-down interference from wider society which many would find intolerable given their present attitudes.

NOUSBasesjpg
The 1968 generation have always been guilty of putting style over substance

This is borne out in the interest shown by detractors of same sex marriage in the workings of families led by same-sex couples; the inquisition into the living conditions, health and future prospects of the children of Gays, or single parents for that matter, is merely an indicator of a healthy society in action, with an eye to its posterity.

In the end, the same-sex marriage policy only strengthens the hand of bourgeois do-gooders, religious busybodies and the nanny state by forcing gay couples to conform to societal norms if they wish to have a normal family life and productive offspring; it depends on one’s attitude toward the state and community intervention of this type as to whether this is viewed as good or a bad thing.

In the case of the postal plebiscite, we would suppose that most of our readers would either boycott the poll as an expression of contempt for mainstream globalist politics and disinterest in the outcome or vote no to a change in the marriage act on principle.

It makes no real difference, either way, so few people will ever take up the offer of a same sex union, even fewer still will have children and the mainstreaming of the Gay subculture will simply further diminish its standing in popular culture as the glaring differences between homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles are brought to light.

Homosexual life can never live up to the hype of the marriage equality movement, the option to marry will not suddenly cause Gays to abandon their crystal meth and steroid habits or curb their enthusiasm for the pursuit and seduction of teenagers, nor will it cause the rest of us to insist that they straighten up and fly right; the only opportunity it affords them is the chance to look like fools if they submit to the corporate inspired societal norms they supposedly despise.

all-rights-for-all

FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE REDNECK RIVIERA

FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE REDNECK RIVIERA

 

We promised ourselves when we started this blog that we would engage with globalist popular culture, rather than be po-faced stick-in-the-muds about it. To that end, we present a review of the new Netflix drama Ozark, as seen through White Nationalist eyes and with spoiler alerts.

The new Netflix ten-parter, Ozark is a slow burner, if ever there was one, the plotlines and character arcs take a few episodes to gel but, by the midway point, things really start to boil over and it has some interesting things to say about White America.

Accountant Marty Byrde (Jason Bateman) is partnered with the garrulous Bruce Liddell in a small financial planning business based in Chicago; their main customers, however, are a particularly terrifying Mexican drugs cartel, whose millions in illicit cash they launder.

Things quickly go pear-shaped when it comes to light that Bruce and some of their sub-contractors have been skimming money from the laundering operation; upon discovering the theft gang lieutenant Del, played by Esai Morales is forced to act to bring the treachery to a gruesome end, Marty being spared only because of his gift of the gab and assurances from his hapless partners that he was not in on the scam.

ozark-still
Jason Bateman and Laura Linney as the Byrdes, strangers in a strange land

Marty Byrde is a fast talker and a financial genius so he is able to buy himself and his family three more months of life after convincing Del that he can repay the gang their stolen funds and set up a new laundering operation far from big city scrutiny, in the “Redneck Riviera”, the Lake Of The Ozarks, in Missouri.

The flight to the countryside and the scramble to make up the shortfall in drugs money forms the backbone of the plot, however the cast of rural White characters then encountered by Marty, his wife Wendy, played by the criminally underrated actress Laura Linney and their teenaged children Jonah and Charlotte are gothic, menacing and surprisingly well devised.

These are not the pathetic victim archetype of Jesse Pinkman in Breaking Bad, nor are they the degraded psychopaths and losers of Justified or True Detective; they are post-GFC survivors, these river-rats, beachcombers, strippers, odd job men and farmers.

ozarkgarner
Marty Byrde meets the Langmores, one of a host of characters who want their piece of the action

There are the trailer dwelling local ne’er-do-wells, the Langmores who alternate between larceny and honest work to get by; guided by their imprisoned older brother via the hand of his mean, whip smart young daughter, Ruth, the family quickly see the opportunities inherent in an influx of dirty money into their community.

Marty’s road to redemption with the gang brings him into contact with sleazy dive owner Bobby Dean, corrupt Sherrif John Nix and eventually the deeply unsettling Hillbilly duo of Jacob and Darlene Snell, played to a tee by Peter Mullan and Lisa Emery, who have an illicit operation of their own to look out for and a low tolerance of outsiders.

The main storyline is interesting enough but it’s the subplots, supporting characters and mise en scéne, if you will, which caught the eye of our writers; to those who are used to seeing, at best, neutral portrayals of rural Whites on screen and, more often, the sadomasochistic (((Hollywood))) fetish of the Redneck as Pogrom in waiting, Ozark is refreshingly patient with its subjects.

These are not the pathetic victim archetype of Jesse Pinkman in Breaking Bad, nor are they the degraded psychopaths and losers of Justified or True Detective; they are post-GFC survivors, these river-rats, beachcombers, strippers, odd job men and farmers.

There is the almost, but not quite defeated hotel owner Rachel (Jordana Spiro) who enters a business arrangement with the Byrdes on the basis of knowledge, but not wanting to know, what her new investors are up to.

Rachel’s business seems doomed until she makes her deal with the Devil and like many of her neighbours, the dying old man Buddy Dikert who allows the Byrdes to take over his home as long as he can see out his last days as their tenant and Michael Mosley’s idealistic preacher, they exist in a sort of limbo forced upon them by economic circumstance and the actions of bureaucracies beyond their control.

ozark death.
Never cross a Hillbilly

Even the “Gay” character, Jason Butler Harner as F.B.I agent Roy Petty is nuanced; Petty is mean, manipulative and obsessive, using his sexuality as a device of power projection, much like the eminently unlikeable Joe McMillan, portrayed by Lee Pace in Halt And Catch Fire.

Woven through the episodes are glimpses of the condition of poor, rural American Whites; the growing problem of opioid addiction among older White people is explored, the hollow-eyed, middle-aged junkies sitting in their Bass boats and skiffs waiting for their dealer to deliver a fix in the middle of the lake are a particularly poignant sight.

The middle classes, as exemplified by the Byrdes and their former associates as well as the summer tourists from Chicago and St Louis who pour into the town are also given harsh scrutiny by the writers, the mutual distrust, alienation and loss of identity in the information age are all interesting plot points.

In all, Ozark, series one, sets a solid foundation for the next series, which we trust will be released by Netflix as soon as possible; far from being the usual, paranoid, (((Old-World))) tinged  anti-White drivel this program is unlikely to upset the sensitive WN viewer, it is actually an example of Peak TV which is worth watching.

cache-11214-0x0
Agent Roy Petty talking down to his negro ex-lover; he is more like a Gay Paris Trout than the narrative version of homosexual males