Unbelievable: I have to assume that GONY has been covered by a VNN reviewer but the copy has been lost amid server switches. Particularly given the huge amount of positive ink spilled on the Rings trilogy in the WN world, I find it incredible that nobody in Linderland has mentioned - let alone garlanded praise upon - this awesome, painstakingly detailed and utterly unflinching masterpiece.

C'mon - I can't be alone on this. Rivers, Gott, Cat Lady....somebody! - help a nigga out here.

C'mon - I can't be alone on this. Rivers, Gott, Cat Lady....somebody! - help a nigga out here.[/QUOTE]

The Cat Lady reviewed it for VNN and it was one of (if not the) best movie review ever to appear here.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/lettersOct-Nov03/111103lynchgangsofny.htm

Movie Review: 'Gangs of New York'

by T.C. Lynch

30 March 2003

I finally saw "Gangs of New York," and I wish that I had gone much sooner. "Gangs" is an absolutely magnificent movie, the best movie I have seen since "The Two Towers." It is Martin Scorsese's best movie -- ever. Better even than "Taxi Driver," which has been my favorite of his films until now. But "Gangs" is now closing its run in theaters all over the country, so see it if you still have the chance, for it is an unforgettable experience on the big screen.
I am in general agreement with Erik Meyer's letter about "Gangs" posted on the V-DARE site (http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_010503.htm), and I recommend that you read it.

"Gangs" is the story of the conflict between two criminals, Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day Lewis) and Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo di Caprio), in New York's "Five Points" during the American Civil War. Bill the Butcher is the head of the "Native Americans" gang, fighting for the interests of those who descended from the original settlers and founders of the United States against recent immigrants, primarily from Ireland. The immigrants are represented by the "Dead Rabbits," a gang led by "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson).

The prologue of "Gangs" is set around fourteen years before the main story. The Dead Rabbits and the Native Americans meet to settle, by the "ancient laws of combat," who has control over Five Points. The battle is the most savage and gut-wrenching I have seen on screen since "Braveheart." In the end Priest Vallon is mortally wounded and then dispatched by Bill the Butcher while young Amsterdam Vallon looks on in horror. Orphaned, he is taken to a reformatory, where he nurses his resentment, gets into a lot of fights, and dreams of revenge.

All grown up, Amsterdam returns to New York, joins Bill the Butcher's gang, and gains first his trust and then his love, becoming the son he never had. And the love of Bill the Butcher is not something to be spurned. Not because he is a dangerous criminal who might take revenge, but because he is a truly heroic and noble man, one of the most remarkable characters in film and literature -- ever. And his portrayal by Daniel Day Lewis is one of the greatest film performances -- ever. (Given the mounting exposure of Jewish evil in the world, it only makes sense that Lewis and Scorsese were passed over in the Oscars. The Jew Brody received the Best Actor and the Jew Polansky the Best Director Oscars for what must be the six millionth holocaust flick, "The Pianist.")

Torn between his feelings for Bill the Butcher, who is the greatest man he has ever met, and the dead father he barely knew, Amsterdam chooses revenge. Not that Amsterdam is unable to appreciate Bill the Butcher's greatness. But in the end he succumbs to his own smallness. His chosen method of revenge is equally small and cowardly. Instead of meeting Bill the Butcher in open combat, as "Priest" Vallon did, Amsterdam tries to assassinate the Butcher "like a sneak thief" with a throwing knife while he is celebrating the anniversary of his victory over the Priest.

It is an act of revenge that dishonors not only Amsterdam, but also his father, who was cut from the same noble stuff as Bill the Butcher. The Butcher respects him as the "only man he ever killed worth remembering." It is a brutal irony that Priest Vallon was better honored by the man who killed him than by the son who avenged him.

The assassination fails, and Bill the Butcher leaves Amsterdam alive, to experience the shame of his cowardice and defeat and perhaps to recover his honor, just as "Priest" Vallon once let a defeated Bill the Butcher live to redeem himself. The Butcher's mistake is that such tactics only work against honorable men, and Amsterdam Vallon is not an honorable man. Amsterdam Vallon is supposed to be the hero of this film, but he is utterly despicable, and he never redeems himself in the end.

"Gangs" proves that director Scorsese is a genius of subversion. Like Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver," Bill the Butcher presents a coherent and compelling critique of the society of his time. And like Travis Bickle, Bill the Butcher is portrayed as a psychopath and a criminal. But both Bickle and The Butcher are alienated and "maladjusted" because they are idealists frustrated by the corruption of the world around them. They take to violence only because society falls short of their ideals. They see violence as the only way to restore the proper order of things. They are instruments of a higher justice, a justice that requires the system be overthrown.

Hollywood would never allow the sentiments of Travis Bickle or Bill the Butcher to be uttered by heroes, but they think it safe to put them in the mouths of villains. Smugly conventional people will, of course, dismiss anything said by a criminal or a "psycho," no matter how coherent and compelling. But people with minds accept the truth no matter who speaks it. People of honor admire heroism no matter who displays it.

Bill the Butcher is a far more articulate hero than Travis Bickle, and "Gangs" presents a far more complex criticism of American society than "Taxi Driver." According to Bill the Butcher, America is not an "idea" like freedom or equality. It is not a political or economic "system" like capitalism or democracy. America is an organic community, a community of blood: a community purchased by the blood of its founders to safeguard the blood of their posterity. Bill the Butcher's father spilled his blood fighting for America. Bill the Butcher was born in this country. And that, to his mind, should count for something. He has a birthright, a blood right, not a mere abstract "human" right that does not distinguish him from a Hottentot or a Papuan.

Because of his philosophy of Blood and Soil, Bill the Butcher is opposed to immigration. He sees immigration for what it was then, and what it is now: A tool by which raceless, rootless men dispossess Americans of their birthrights. In "Gangs" the two representatives of this type are Abraham Lincoln and Boss Tweed.

In a brilliant sequence, Scorsese shows how Lincoln's men took desperate young Irishmen right off one boat, enlisted them in the Union army to dispossess Southerners of their birthrights, and then loaded them onto another boat -- while at the same time offloading coffin upon coffin of his victims. This is why Bill the Butcher throws a knife into a poster of Lincoln and starts a riot at a performance of "Uncle Tom's Cabin." He sees that Lincoln's artificial "Union" devoted to the "proposition" of equality is the mortal enemy of an organic community based on blood. The blood of White men is more valuable than the blood of Blacks. So there is no reason for White men to die for the freedom of Blacks.

Boss Tweed uses immigrant votes to defeat nativist candidates, running the same people through the polls again and again until the votes cast outnumber the potential voters. Don't laugh. That is how your votes are being nullified today.

Another category of raceless profiteers on immigration are the businessmen who use it to depress wages, paying an Irishman a nickel to do the job an American once did for a dollar. Nothing, apparently, has changed.

The main objects of Bill the Butcher's wrath are the Irish, but it is clear that he opposes the Irish because they are immigrants, not the immigrants because they are Irish. Indeed, the man in the film he admires most is Priest Vallon, and he employs Irishmen in his gang. This is important to note, because one effect of "Gangs" is to exacerbate Irish resentment against the American establishment and promote a mindless attachment to open borders, because, after all, the Irish were unwelcome immigrants too. Just for the record: I love Irish people, Irish literature, and Irish folk music. But that does not blind me to what I like to call "the Irish Question."

[contd]

[T.C. Lynch review of "Gangs of New York" continued...]

There is an Irish Question for the same reason that there is a Jewish Question: the Irish are good at holding grudges, and they have carried their grudge against the English to America, directing it against the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who founded and used to run this country. The divisive presence of the Irish was an important factor in the rise of our present Jew-dominated system, and although the Irish are slated for eventual extermination along with the rest of us, they still enjoy a higher status in the propasphere than any other White ethnic group.

That's why Americans all celebrate Saint Patrick's Day, but not Saint George's Day. That's why on television and in the movies so many of the positive White characters (crusading liberal attorneys, meddling social workers, sensitive cops, and all manner of career girls) have Irish names. That's why the multicultural "Rainbow Confederates" of the League of the South promote the myth of a "Celtic" Confederacy in a pathetic attempt to align themselves with a Jew-approved White ethnic category, which in effect would assure them only of being on the LAST cattle car to the extermination camps.

In this context, Amsterdam Vallon can be seen, not merely as an individual Irishman, but as a symbol of the Irish Question. He has inherited a grudge. He is sick with self-pity and eaten up by resentment. He tosses his Bible in the river when released from the reformatory, but uses the Catholic Church as a rallying place when it suits him politically. He even prays for victory. In his resentment against Bill the Butcher, the American of Blood and Soil, he allows himself to be used by Boss Tweed, the rootless System man, to strip Americans of their birthrights. He is too stupid, or too blinded by his own pettiness, to see that the system he is aiding will in the end destroy him and his kind too.

The fact that the same System is at war with both Americans and immigrants is underscored by the backdrop of the film's climax: the great New York draft riots of 1863. When the System began to draft men into the Union army, but allowed the rich to buy exemptions, the poor rioted. Politicians and Blacks were lynched; the military was called in to restore order; thousands were killed. Scorsese's handling of the riots is brilliant. (They were especially satisfying to me because he smashes and burns all the props and accessories from his worst movie, "The Age of Innocence." These were so obtrusive that the film seemed like a cross between Merchant-Ivory and the Home Shopping Network.)

"Gangs" has been criticized because the riots overwhelm and literally obscure the battle between Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam Vallon. But that's the point. The great tragedy of this film is the tragedy of the White race as a whole: We are divided by language, culture, religion, and ancient, senseless grudges, which drive the best of us -- the Bill the Butchers and Priest Vallons -- to slaughter each other, when we should be uniting to destroy the System that was, and still is, destroying us.

* * *

NOTE: archive page "VNN original articles" was updated two days ago. All of our articles EXCEPT the database period are online and accessible. Note that T.C. Lynch has an author's page here:

http://www.vnnforum.com/main/tclynch.htm

three things I best remember from Gangs,

1) the music when they're all getting ready for the first gangfight. awesome. drums and irish tin whistles.

2) bill the butcher throwing potatoes at the irish and saying, "I'd kill every single last one of them if I could"

3) bill the butcher tapping his glass eyeball with a knife over his steak dinner

That bill the butcher was fucking great. Priest was too. The Amsterdam kid was thin broth compared to the other two characters.

Today we may regard the Irish as our racial brothers and welcome here, and rightly so, but do we not sympathize with the Natives? I did, big time.

The Cat Lady reviewed it for VNN and it was one of (if not the) best movie review ever to appear here.

I'll be damned if you aren't 100% correct.

I have always admired Scorsese - never more so than in the 90s when his mastery of moviemaking technique reached full-blown virtuoso status; although I haven't always liked his movies - principally in those same 90s, when his style of complete immersion into the (increasingly nastier and nastier) stories he was telling often left him adrift without a moral compass. Just because critics and audiences salaam'd before him for GOODFELLAS, CAPE FEAR and CASINO doesn't negate the fact that the world would be a better place had every single character in those pictures, major and minor, been violently killed before the opening credits. That's not to say they aren't great moviemaking: Jesus, the compositional fireworks alone (Scorsese employs every type of shot in the lexicon of moviemaking in these pictures) make the trip memorable, if not worthwhile. But like too many modern-day artists, he's grown so deathly afraid of sentimentality that he allows no honest sentiment whatsoever to seep in. The results were the kind of conscience-free odes to psychopathic ruthlessness that had every nigger gangbanger on Earth applauding (and taking cues from). And it wasn't just the niggers who were absorbing the 'lessons', either.

So, when GANGS finally opened, I went with mixed emotions. Unlike much of the audience, I was already familiar with the Five Points/Murder Alley historical era of NYC; that GANGS was to incorporate the Draft Riots as well seemed to me a daunting task, but - if he was firing on all cylinders, the way he had been for MEAN STREETS/TAXI DRIVER/RAGING BULL - Scorsese was clearly the man for the job. But would he bother to risk including an honest-to-God hero this time, or drown us in 3 hours of Max Cady and Nicky Santoro one more time?

Well, you can refer to TC's take on GANGS for my answer. Bill the Butcher is his greatest character, and GANGS his greatest picture, precisely because Bill is a hero; a flawed and tragic three-dimensional hero (as all the great heroes of art must be) who inspires and terrifies us at the same time, because he sounds a chord within us that has been outlawed from our memory for so long that we could no longer be sure it was ever played at all - let alone that it was, and is, part of who and what we are. At long last, New York City and the filthy, overcrowded, industrialized 19th-century North has been granted its own Ethan Edwards. I felt not just enthralled or vindicated, but reclaimed.

It took me a year to realize it, though. Like TC, I first saw GANGS theatrically; and in that darkened theater, it was both too much and not enough. The sheer scope and detail - the lived-in quality - of the recreated New York was purest Scorsese: this, after all, is a director whose strengths and failings both stem from his determination never to flinch or look away (no other filmmaker so embodies Colette's directive to "look for a long time at what pleases you, and a longer time at what pains you"). You're so dazzled, and sucked right into, the myriad physical details of his 1862 Bowery, that the characters and their story seem almost a secondary matter - a distraction - on first viewing. (You also understand why he went to Italy to create this bygone world - it was the only way he could get all of the details right, and still bring the fucker in for under $100 million!)

Also, I knew that compromises had been forced upon the production, both for box-office insurance (ie, DiCaprio and Diaz) and to repel the type of Fox News attack-dogs 9/11 had loosed (portions of the narration, the final montage sounding a forced note of "through all this bloodshed a mighty city will grow" - talk about sentimentality!) It was hard not to be irritated by them at first sitting - the entire Diaz subplot, for one thing, could have been profitably trimmed, or excised entirely. As it is, it provides one subplot too many that cramps the flow of the final 45 minutes of GANGS. (Why the dvd chose not to feature Scorsese's original 3-hour-and-40-minute cut of the picture is either going to go down as one of the Great Lost Opportunuities....or cost me another 30 clams when it does emerge in ten years' time as a Special Limited-Edition Release, or whatever the ballyhoo of the moment will dub it.)

Still and all, GANGS knocked me out; but it didn't really nail me to the floor me until I had my own copy to pore over. Because if ever there was a movie that demands multiple viewings, it's this one. It's only on your third, fourth, fifth time around than you can absorb the deeply subversive content of what can only be called THE seminal WN motion picture. When Daniel Day-Lewis, wrapped in that flag, tries to haltingly explain to DiCaprio the bond of honor he shared with Priest Vallon; pauses, lost for words, and then tenderly murmurs, "I never had a son.....civilization is crumbling...God bless you", the aliens and usurpers in our midst will hear only puzzling non-sequiturs - but White men who capitalize the "W" will intuitively ache in sympathy with his inability to articulate his sense of loss, and realize they are in the presence of forebears we can only hope to somehow measure up to. If there is a message in GANGS OF NEW YORK, it is that the America we only think was lost to us with Wilson and FDR had been wrenched from us far longer ago than that, by the small crawling men we have been force-fed as giants ever since. "I know your works", Bill snarls at Boss Tweed (a brilliant Jim Broadbent) near the climax of the film: "You run neither hot nor cold, and I spew you out of my mouth." Where, previously, his contempt for Tweed was delivered with cold amusement at the mealy-mouthed duplicity of this proto-Jew, this last salvo of despisement is delivered as a final gesture of defiance from a man who understands the "rising of the tide" has at last swamped the shoreline, but who cannot face his Waterloo any differently than he has ever faced anything. There are half-hearted murmurings in the script alluding to Bill the Butcher being a dinosaur, inflexible and outmoded and doomed for it; but Day-Lewis and Scorsese's camera put the lie to this in no uncertain terms. Bill can't betray who he is and what his life means merely to survive to see a world where a black man and a shanty immigrant will be judged his equals by a court's edict; he will "cross over whole".

The rest of them - charlatans and quislings all, presided over by the corrupt and traitorous shadow of The Great Emancipator in every particular - don't even realize they have souls to sell. (If they weren't Dead Rabbits before, they are now.) That Day-Lewis' final words - "I die a true American" - were the verbatim dying sentiments of the real-life model for his character, Bill Poole, only underscore the deep and abiding tragedy of his passing. But it takes a few viewings to fully understand that the tragedy is not his, but ours.

In the previous decade, I thought Scorsese's finest work was a pair of documentaries about filmmaking: A PERSONAL JOURNEY THROUGH AMERICAN FILM and MY VOYAGE TO ITALY, in which he reflected upon the two distinct schools of motion pictures that he was equally drawn to - the impeccably-crafted Hollywood genre films of yore, and the ragged-but-real documentary approach of the Italian neo-realists. Seemingly these were two parallel strains which could never be joined together seamlessly. Until GANGS OF NEW YORK, his masterpiece. Every thinking, feeling white person should see this movie.

My apologies for running on like this, but I wanted to get these thoughts on "paper", while they were still percolating in my head.

Aw c'mon Alex. You're one of the biggest Anglophobes on the planet. Have you forgotten that the Irish fought against the hated Lincunt, as well as the hated Negroid? The WASPs embraced the Negroid over the Irish. This is a documented fact. The WASP aristocracy hated the Irish with a passion, and treated them worse then niggers, so you can't blame the Irish for buying into this whole "victim" thing. Scorcese intended Gangs Of New York as a pro-immigrant movie, but that backfired, and instead it works as a pro-White movie.

The fact that the same System is at war with both Americans and immigrants is underscored by the backdrop of the film's climax: the great New York draft riots of 1863. When the System began to draft men into the Union army, but allowed the rich to buy exemptions, the poor rioted. Politicians and Blacks were lynched; the military was called in to restore order; thousands were killed. Scorsese's handling of the riots is brilliant. (They were especially satisfying to me because he smashes and burns all the props and accessories from his worst movie, "The Age of Innocence." These were so obtrusive that the film seemed like a cross between Merchant-Ivory and the Home Shopping Network.)
The WASPs and their beloved Negroids got what they deserved! I salute you, my Irish brothers!

First time I heard about the movie, I assumed it was just a way to show that "Look, Whites join criminal gangs too! It's not about race, it's about poverty!" Haven't seen the movie, but I see no reason to discard of that suspicion.

Also, "America was made in the streets," what kind of nonsense is that? It was shaped by White, Germanic nature, nothing else. It is blood that makes a country's character, yet this movie's slogan seems to support the Marxist lie that countries can be twisted and shaped no problem.

And as reviewers wrote back then, it showed how awfully racist Anglos were against the poor Irish. Well, I would have cheered for the Anglos: they had lived there for a long time, and by the time the Irish arrived, the country was already shaped, no longer a "nation of immigrants". The Americans were perfectly justified in trying to defend what was theirs.

On a related note, I've never understood the widespread appeal of the ubiquitous fait accompli-argument of multicult lore. "It turned out alright in the end, didn't it?" Yeah, in a pig's ass. Do these people lack the ability to envision alternative paths of development? Wait, don't answer that.

I saw a messed-up tape of the movie once, so I'll have to see it again, but it is impressive. Bill the Butcher is captivating; more interesting than any other recent character I can recall. He has a wry, slightly teasing, seen-it-all-before way that is compelling, doubly so in that it's not effete like a librarian-academic but ready to flare into literal bloody war at any moment.

My favorite scene is when he goes to see someone connected with the voting fraud, and makes a snide comment about democracy, then casts his vote with a cleaver in the guy's back. Real politics, as his actions show, is about killing, and in the movie this old way is replaced by cheap, shitty, Wal-mart democratic politics, which is about lying, the better to steal. For those of us who live in small Missouri towns with "exposes" on retailers selling too many cold medicines and not reporting sales to cops, the better they may track and hobble methcreants, and big public health ads for poower little girls suff'ring from second hand smoke, this is a great vicarious pleasure. Really - am I the only one who sees these fucking tv ads and wants to rise up and murder these smarmy, sanctimonous, pandering, nation-wrecking assholes called politicians? Of course not. We all feel that way, even the ones who participate in the "advance auction of stolen goods." What a disgusting system. Yet we tolerate it. What kind of men are we? The question answers itself.

In Missouri - and each of you could cite examples from your own states - we show-me slaves have Bob Holden heroically bragging about how he stood up to the evil legislature that only wanted a 99.9% increase in NEA budgets, whereas he held out for 102. This is what it comes to. Lying and stealing vs killing and taking. The latter is more respectable. Bill the Butcher puts his meat on the line. Boss Tweed, his mealy mouth.

I don't like "Irish" politics - lying. I like German politics - killing. If you think I'm making a rhetorical point, no. There is a difference. We, and by we I mean our jew-controlled media, berate the Germans as evil and sheeplike at the same time. But I've been there and seen how it works, seen the German mentality. The Germans are less sheeplike than Americans, hence less democratic. The Germans fought, just like Bill the Butcher, to ward off the real, direct, physical threat of jew-communism back around WWI. Americans were scared shitless of NOTHING, just as they are today by threats of "terrorism" issuing from Assclump's own Lox News. The gutless pre-Kwans allowed the constitution to be thrown out by the Anglomaniacs selling our country out to the forces of Anglo-Zion. Mencken was the only one who stood up, or almost the only one, just as John Peter Zenger did to the British, just as Martin Luther did to the Catholic church, just as the SA and Freikorps did to jew-communists. Nobody brags about what Germans have done, it's just there in the historical record. It can't even be hidden or lied away by professional jews in their A&E documentaries. The clear something-based superiority of the SS folk they interview by comparison with the seedy, shifty-eyed weepy "survivors" is unmistakeable, no matter what angle they hold the camera. Irish? English? What's the difference? Very little.

There is something deeply shitty about democracy. Like christianity, it appeals to the laziest and greediest impulses in all of us. It makes direct appeal to love of flattery and "something for nothing." It may appeal to our better instincts a la "sacrifice," but never for the genuine good of the nation, just the latest sordid material advantage the ruling zionists and plutocrats espy abroad.

Whatever else a democrat may be, he is not a man. We all instinctively know the truth, which is that voting is simply a tool by which one segment of the elite can use the masses of inferiors to hold down the rest. Why should a failed potato farmer get an equal share in the future of Bill the Butcher's community, when he has done nothing to earn and build that community, merely walked down a gangplank into the middle of it?

Democracy vs Butcher politics is the difference between buying some shrink-wrapped meat in the grocery vs raising the calf, slaughtering it, and cooking it yourself. No great man has ever said a word in defense of democracy. The movie vividly dramatizes Lenin's point that politics is who does to whom. We Whites are done to, and unlike Bill the Butcher, we don't do anything about it. Our immediate instinct on seeing him take control of his future is "Can he do that? How can he do that?" We are brainwashed. The jews control us because they don't act like there's some Holy Referee overseeing things, whistle between lips. Their actions are all that matters. That is in fact the case. Religion sanctifies the cowardice called prayer; it introduces a fatal fatalism, a belief there's agency other than the immediate and visible. There is not.

You're in the box. Draw your neck out the collar and swing like Babe Fuckin' Ruth. If ya've got a little swagger in yuz, you might even point.

I posted my comments about the 'Great American race' prior to seeing this film last week on telly. It confirms my belief that the American race was murdered in the 1860s and what we have now is a gaggle of squabbling nationalities known collectively as Amerikwans. Trembling lipped for the potato-starved Irish (ZOG midwife to the IRA), the poooowwwer Polish, the dumbass self-effacing British, the German golem, the papist wop; in other words the long reach of the Amerikwan into the Old World, substantiates me further. Who dares call himself a native American and think nothing of the Indian? 'Beware of foreign influence' - R.I.P. c.1865

I liked the movie until the last 15 minutes where they made all the niggers look like poor innocent victims.

The thing I liked the most about the movie were the white gangs; especially the Bowery Boys. I knew nothing about them until this movie jarred my attention. They called themselves Native Americans, because they were the first whites there. I guess the origins of that title had nothing to do with teepee shitskins afterall.

I guess that would make me a "native" too then since my family has been on this continent for at least 300 years.

I saw a messed-up tape of the movie once, so I'll have to see it again, but it is impressive. Bill the Butcher is captivating; more interesting than any other recent character I can recall. He has a wry, slightly teasing, seen-it-all-before way that is compelling, doubly so in that it's not effete like a librarian-academic but ready to flare into literal bloody war at any moment.

My favorite scene is when he goes to see someone connected with the voting fraud, and makes a snide comment about democracy, then casts his vote with a cleaver in the guy's back. Real politics, as his actions show, is about killing, and in the movie this old way is replaced by cheap, shitty, Wal-mart democratic politics, which is about lying, the better to steal. For those of us who live in small Missouri towns with "exposes" on retailers selling too many cold medicines and not reporting sales to cops, the better they may track and hobble methcreants, and big public health ads for poower little girls suff'ring from second hand smoke, this is a great vicarious pleasure. Really - am I the only one who sees these fucking tv ads and wants to rise up and murder these smarmy, sanctimonous, pandering, nation-wrecking assholes called politicians? Of course not. We all feel that way, even the ones who participate in the "advance auction of stolen goods." What a disgusting system. Yet we tolerate it. What kind of men are we? The question answers itself.

In Missouri - and each of you could cite examples from your own states - we show-me slaves have Bob Holden heroically bragging about how he stood up to the evil legislature that only wanted a 99.9% increase in NEA budgets, whereas he held out for 102. This is what it comes to. Lying and stealing vs killing and taking. The latter is more respectable. Bill the Butcher puts his meat on the line. Boss Tweed, his mealy mouth.

I don't like "Irish" politics - lying. I like German politics - killing. If you think I'm making a rhetorical point, no. There is a difference. We, and by we I mean our jew-controlled media, berate the Germans as evil and sheeplike at the same time. But I've been there and seen how it works, seen the German mentality. The Germans are less sheeplike than Americans, hence less democratic. The Germans fought, just like Bill the Butcher, to ward off the real, direct, physical threat of jew-communism back around WWI. Americans were scared shitless of NOTHING, just as they are today by threats of "terrorism" issuing from Assclump's own Lox News. The gutless pre-Kwans allowed the constitution to be thrown out by the Anglomaniacs selling our country out to the forces of Anglo-Zion. Mencken was the only one who stood up, or almost the only one, just as John Peter Zenger did to the British, just as Martin Luther did to the Catholic church, just as the SA and Freikorps did to jew-communists. Nobody brags about what Germans have done, it's just there in the historical record. It can't even be hidden or lied away by professional jews in their A&E documentaries. The clear something-based superiority of the SS folk they interview by comparison with the seedy, shifty-eyed weepy "survivors" is unmistakeable, no matter what angle they hold the camera. Irish? English? What's the difference? Very little.

There is something deeply shitty about democracy. Like christianity, it appeals to the laziest and greediest impulses in all of us. It makes direct appeal to love of flattery and "something for nothing." It may appeal to our better instincts a la "sacrifice," but never for the genuine good of the nation, just the latest sordid material advantage the ruling zionists and plutocrats espy abroad.

Whatever else a democrat may be, he is not a man. We all instinctively know the truth, which is that voting is simply a tool by which one segment of the elite can use the masses of inferiors to hold down the rest. Why should a failed potato farmer get an equal share in the future of Bill the Butcher's community, when he has done nothing to earn and build that community, merely walked down a gangplank into the middle of it?

Democracy vs Butcher politics is the difference between buying some shrink-wrapped meat in the grocery vs raising the calf, slaughtering it, and cooking it yourself. No great man has ever said a word in defense of democracy. The movie vividly dramatizes Lenin's point that politics is who does to whom. We Whites are done to, and unlike Bill the Butcher, we don't do anything about it. Our immediate instinct on seeing him take control of his future is "Can he do that? How can he do that?" We are brainwashed. The jews control us because they don't act like there's some Holy Referee overseeing things, whistle between lips. Their actions are all that matters. That is in fact the case. Religion sanctifies the cowardice called prayer; it introduces a fatal fatalism, a belief there's agency other than the immediate and visible. There is not.

You're in the box. Draw your neck out the collar and swing like Babe Fuckin' Ruth. If ya've got a little swagger in yuz, you might even point.

damn, damn yer good!

Overall, I'd say it was an OK movie. Bill The Butcher - good character and made it worth watching, charismatic, ballsy, the kind of white man that made non-whites shit their pants and would still do so today. It's a shame Daniel Day Lewis is a jew though. Of course, my favorite part is when Bill The Butcher calls that irishman an irish nigger and smashes his head with a sledge hammer. ;)

What I didn't like about the film was how Scorsese was trying to have three different plots going on at once. Guess that was a lame attempt to pull in a female audience. I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

Your poor opinion of the 'Great American race' is similar to the one many Americans have of the English. There is a common perception of them as being an effete race of pale, submissive nerds with bad genes and bad teeth, being conquered and out-bred by the more robust immigrants from former colonies.
Homosexuality is strongly associated with the 'race.' Cross-dressing seems a major component of "British humour."
All of your leaders are either Jews or their stooges and have been for decades. Much of your "nobility" has been supplanted by wealthy Jews.
It is thought that the best of England's genetic pool was destroyed in the World Wars and the men of today descend from the weaklings, servants, and cowards left behind.
Pretty good theory, huh? Your post seems to bear it out.
Are the Geordies the most decadent and stupid of the remaining Whites of England?

I posted my comments about the 'Great American race' prior to seeing this film last week on telly. It confirms my belief that the American race was murdered in the 1860s and what we have now is a gaggle of squabbling nationalities known collectively as Amerikwans. Trembling lipped for the potato-starved Irish (ZOG midwife to the IRA), the poooowwwer Polish, the dumbass self-effacing British, the German golem, the papist wop; in other words the long reach of the Amerikwan into the Old World, substantiates me further. Who dares call himself a native American and think nothing of the Indian? 'Beware of foreign influence' - R.I.P. c.1865

I'd take your comments more seriously, and I'd be more inclined to take offence if you could actually point England, much less Geordieland, out on a map. Amerikwans know two pieces of geography - Amerikwa, and the 'Mudderland,' straight outta the Old World. The stereotype of Amerikwans - to which I never alluded in merely asserting the truth about the post-1865 American character as one destroyed by immigration and the Old World chauvanism of the immigrants - is that they are fat cunts, ignorant as fuck, weak (yes, your melting pot too!), religious to the point of ludicrousness, unwilling to defend their birth right, soft because unaccustomed to hardship, the diametric opposites of stoics (and your tearful homage to the shitness of England seems to prove that), humourless fucks, et al. All of your leaders are either Jews or their stooges and have been for decades. Flagrant decadence is strongly associated with the non-race (sex changes, outrageous pornography, feminism, hippies, nigger-pelvic music, etc).

Clearly you are offended by home truths. Unlike in Amerikwa, no Englishman peddles that lie that we are a great nation anymore. Your post seems to bear the average Kwanners lie out, huh?

Are people who compare themselves to their polar opposites (Cato) the most decadent and stupid species of the present occupiers of the American continent?

You're a Republican in November.


Your poor opinion of the 'Great American race' is similar to the one many Americans have of the English. There is a common perception of them as being an effete race of pale, submissive nerds with bad genes and bad teeth, being conquered and out-bred by the more robust immigrants from former colonies.
Homosexuality is strongly associated with the 'race.' Cross-dressing seems a major component of "British humour."
All of your leaders are either Jews or their stooges and have been for decades. Much of your "nobility" has been supplanted by wealthy Jews.
It is thought that the best of England's genetic pool was destroyed in the World Wars and the men of today descend from the weaklings, servants, and cowards left behind.
Pretty good theory, huh? Your post seems to bear it out.

It looks like I'm not the only one offended by home-truths. Nor the only one making broad generalizations on a subject he has little or no first-hand knowlege of. I'll wager that I know more of England than you do of the states.
Shall we agree that "Anglos" on both sides of the pond are deplorable?
But still kin?

The Stranger
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk --
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to.
They are used to the lies I tell,
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf --
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Rudyard Kipling



I'd take your comments more seriously, and I'd be more inclined to take offence if you could actually point England, much less Geordieland, out on a map. Amerikwans know two pieces of geography - Amerikwa, and the 'Mudderland,' straight outta the Old World. The stereotype of Amerikwans - to which I never alluded in merely asserting the truth about the post-1865 American character as one destroyed by immigration and the Old World chauvanism of the immigrants - is that they are fat cunts, ignorant as fuck, weak (yes, your melting pot too!), religious to the point of ludicrousness, unwilling to defend their birth right, soft because unaccustomed to hardship, the diametric opposites of stoics (and your tearful homage to the shitness of England seems to prove that), humourless fucks, et al. All of your leaders are either Jews or their stooges and have been for decades. Flagrant decadence is strongly associated with the non-race (sex changes, outrageous pornography, feminism, hippies, nigger-pelvic music, etc).

Clearly you are offended by home truths. Unlike in Amerikwa, no Englishman peddles that lie that we are a great nation anymore. Your post seems to bear the average Kwanners lie out, huh?

Are people who compare themselves to their polar opposites (Cato) the most decadent and stupid species of the present occupiers of the American continent?

You're a Republican in November.

Angle,

People who generalize like You do about white nations are usually pricks, in my never so humble opinion. Am I to generalize about the UK? No. Because I'm not an asshole. My I add however that I have been to "Geordieland" and I must say I was underwelmed. I did meet some decent people there however. I have been to England. Have You been to the states?

You say that nobody thinks Britain is a great nation. No Shit? Well America, like it or not, is the most powerful nation on earth right now. The average lemming even understands this. How that power is used remains a problem.

In closing may I say most cordially: "Fuck off back to sweet Geordieland!........Prick!"

It looks like I'm not the only one offended by home-truths. Nor the only one making broad generalizations on a subject he has little or no first-hand knowlege of.


'Little knowledge of'. What? Something you disagree on? The old argument - 'I disagree with you so you are an idiot.' Fuck you 'Cato.' Have you actually read the post I refer to? Thought not. You would then realize that I'm hardly an Americanophobe, lamenting as I do the lost opportunity for greatness witnessed in the last 100 years of 'Kwan history.


I'll wager that I know more of England than you do of the states.


You're on.

Firsthand is the keyword you choose to omit.
I sense that you wish to argue. I don't. You may chase your tail for all I care.
I never said you were an idiot nor did I say "fuck you."
I still say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Sorry your feathers got ruffled.

I saw your thread, you think someone should make a clever movie. I agree.

Millions of White Americans, especially in the South are of British descent; English, Scots-irish, Scots, and Irish. They are likely as "pure" as today's islanders. The natives of the islands themselves are racially the result of invasions by aboriginals like the Picts, Celts, Romans, Angles &Co., and Normans.

I'm sure that you are a doughty history-buff. Any challenge over our relative prowess on the subject is as moot as who can beat the other in a fist-fight. I'll not offer to fly there to challenge you on that either.

'Little knowledge of'. What? Something you disagree on? The old argument - 'I disagree with you so you are an idiot.' Fuck you 'Cato.' Have you actually read the post I refer to? Thought not. You would then realize that I'm hardly an Americanophobe, lamenting as I do the lost opportunity for greatness witnessed in the last 100 years of 'Kwan history.





You're on.

And I was getting ready with popcorn and everything! This is an outrage!

Hey, did you read Blue Hotel By S. Crane yet? What about that Swede?

And I was getting ready with popcorn and everything! This is an outrage!

People who generalize are the only ones found in grand Dictionaries of Quotations, because the epigram wins out over the 10000000 page treatise when it comes to clarity of expression, or what is the same: truth-telling. Stereotypes are true. Especially unflattering ones. Why Jews hate generalizations, that's. Increasingly, I'm finding Americans hating generalizations. You'll not note, along with MOMUS, that my comments on America were not one-sidedly judgmental, particularly those in which I speculated that the long-dead American race could've surpassed the Greeks in greatness.


My I add however that I have been to "Geordieland" and I must say I was underwelmed.


Aye, I believe you... It's on that landmark map of London of yours - right next to Xanandu. lol


Powerful? I said 'great', not powerful.

Like other petty little flag-wavers, you bite the dick that feeds you.


Angle,

People who generalize like You do about white nations are usually pricks, in my never so humble opinion. Am I to generalize about the UK? No. Because I'm not an asshole. My I add however that I have been to "Geordieland" and I must say I was underwelmed. I did meet some decent people there however. I have been to England. Have You been to the states?

You say that nobody thinks Britain is a great nation. No Shit? Well America, like it or not, is the most powerful nation on earth right now. The average lemming even understands this. How that power is used remains a problem.

In closing may I say most cordially: "Fuck off back to sweet Geordieland!........Prick!"

My, what an irate and foul-mouthed mood this Geordie is in. Inarticulate with fury. Something about the Yanks. He thinks he sees flags being waved and it causes him to make disgusting homosexual remarks.
Suffice it to say that he is in a mighty dudgeon, a foot-stomping snit.
His dog has been thoroughly kicked, the wife cuffed, and the children screamed at but he still howls with rage.
Somebody tell him that he is correct in all that he asserts (whatever the hell it is). Perhaps, then, he will settle down and make that movie he spoke of.

People who generalize are the only ones found in grand Dictionaries of Quotations, because the epigram wins out over the 10000000 page treatise when it comes to clarity of expression, or what is the same: truth-telling. Stereotypes are true. Especially unflattering ones. Why Jews hate generalizations, that's. Increasingly, I'm finding Americans hating generalizations. You'll not note, along with MOMUS, that my comments on America were not one-sidedly judgmental, particularly those in which I speculated that the long-dead American race could've surpassed the Greeks in greatness.





Aye, I believe you... It's on that landmark map of London of yours - right next to Xanandu. lol


Powerful? I said 'great', not powerful.

Like other petty little flag-wavers, you bite the dick that feeds you.

My, what an irate and foul-mouthed mood this Geordie is in. Inarticulate with fury. Something about the Yanks. He thinks he sees flags being waved and it causes him to make disgusting homosexual remarks.


How pithy, you twat. Too many McDonald's Happy Meals maketh ye lose your appetite for nuance. Condescension is a poor substitute for argument.
I despise the kind of flag-waving displayed by Spandau, predicated as it is upon misunderstanding - one, he misconstrued an opinion of mine as an attack upon Americans; two, he thought I did this from a position of chauvanistic support for my own country (otherwise he wouldn't have launched an uncalled-for attack on England); and three, he's the kind of thin-skinned loser - a popular species in the US, as 9/11 proved - who as soon as the chips are looking down and foreigners begin taking pot-shots, so to speak, swathes himself in the stars and bars, votes Rupublican, renames chips 'freedom fries,' and cries to the plangent strings of the national anthem. That's woman's stuff - emotion defeating logic.


Suffice it to say that he is in a mighty dudgeon, a foot-stomping snit.
His dog has been thoroughly kicked, the wife cuffed, and the children screamed at but he still howls with rage.


Somebody tell him that he is correct in all that he asserts (whatever the hell it is). Perhaps, then, he will settle down and make that movie he spoke of.


What movie? Where did I mention a movie in my post about the American race?

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=80401#post80401

I believe it was you who bit the non-existent bait with your post that began, 'Your poor opinion of the 'Great American race'. I don't have a poor opinion of the American race - because there isn't anything close to an American race in 2004, only a miscellany of dual-loyal immigrant bigots, with a 9/11-inflated sense of national unity close to showing its true colours as a once-great nation turned to shit by old world romanticism and the hyper-atomisation of its parts.
'Beware of foreign influence' - a noble sentiment, and one entirely unfeasible in the America of the flood-gates of Ellis Island, c.1870, onward. I also lauded the idea of American nativism as seen in the film, and in documents passed down from the 19th century in which an American race shows itself to be in gestation; but, as per usual with VNNFers, that has gone down the shitter as soon as one makes a remark that is able to be construed as disparaging in proximity to an argument. Then one must roll out the red carpet and let the cock-chompers have their flame-walk.

"I despise the kind of flag-waving displayed by Spandau, predicated as it is upon misunderstanding - one, he misconstrued an opinion of mine as an attack upon Americans; two, he thought I did this from a position of chauvanistic support for my own country (otherwise he wouldn't have launched an uncalled-for attack on England); and three, he's the kind of thin-skinned loser - a popular species in the US, as 9/11 proved - who as soon as the chips are looking down and foreigners begin taking pot-shots, so to speak, swathes himself in the stars and bars, votes Rupublican, renames chips 'freedom fries,' and cries to the plangent strings of the national anthem. That's woman's stuff - emotion defeating logic." - Angle.

So I'm a Republican now? You spew shit but You can't take it. What I said was not an attack on England, but on You my little Englander. Actually I would'nt mind swathing myself in the Stars & Bars as that was the battle flag of the Confederacy. If You are going to talk shit about whole nations, get yer facts straight. And thin-skinned? Possibly, about as much as You old chum.

If You are going to talk shit about whole nations, get yer facts straight.


Same difference. Usually it's the southerners who're your greatest patriots, whether for ZOG or not.