— Counter-Currents —


[1]1,010 words

On the surface, there is nothing new or unique about Taken (2008). Audiences thought it was just another summer action flick with guns, car chases, and explosions. So what makes this movie so much better than the rest? The story is implicitly pro-white and anti-immigration as well as explicitly in favor of traditional masculine—and Aryan—virtues. There are very few movies to come out of Hollywood that portray traditional Western values without judgment or distortion. Taken falls into the category of such rare films as The Family Man and  A History of Violence [2]—wildly entertaining movies that make no apologies for promoting conservative white values.

Taken is the second of three films by the writer/director team Luc Besson and Pierre Morel. Besson has been in the film industry for decades and is probably best known for writing and directing The Fifth Element, a sci-fi film with a cult following. Morel is a relatively new director, but already he has been entrusted to direct Frank Herbert’s (and David Lynch’s) masterpiece, Dune. Together, Besson and Morel are becoming well-known for concise scripts (none of their movies go much beyond the 90-minute mark), decisive male heroes who usually rely solely on intuition, and filming on location in Paris.

Spoiling the story does not spoil the movie, but if you wish to see it first, then skip to the next paragraph. In Taken, Bryan Mills, an ex-spy played by Liam Neeson, loses his beautiful wife and daughter to a disgustingly rich man, Stuart, who is the epitome of the Jewish-materialist spirit. Ostensibly, Stuart can provide the women with everything they want; he even bought Kim, his 17-year-old stepdaughter, tickets to follow U2 on its European tour with a friend. Kim is too young to legally leave the country without her biological father’s permission, and she knows her dad is far too responsible to allow his naïve daughter to do something so dangerous. Thus Kim and her mother deceive Bryan into consenting by promising that she is going to Paris to study art. Upon arrival, the two bright and attractive girls are kidnapped by immigrants and sold to human traffickers. Bryan goes to Paris and turns it upside down in his search for Kim. After an exhilarating chase, he rescues her at the end of the film. Although formulaic, the movie is competently directed, the action is exciting and suspenseful, and the revenge is served refreshingly cold.

The first act introduces Bryan and contrasts him with his ex-wife’s husband, Stuart. Bryan is an exemplar of Aryan nobility. He may be poor in money, but he is rich in spirit, whereas Stuart is just the opposite. Bryan lives in a small apartment, his family has left him, and he’s gone into retirement in order to see more of his daughter. Bryan’s career made him absent for much of Kim’s childhood and left him with little money, but it is apparent that he loved his family and sought to support them with the skills he had to offer. Bryan is a warrior through and through, and a warrior’s skills do not always support families in the modern world. Likewise, Bryan laid down strict rules and was very protective of his women, which turns out to be quite prudent given the desirability of white women to non-white predators and their vulnerability in modern society. But to modern eyes, Bryan is mean for being more concerned with protecting his family than spoiling them with material possessions.

If that’s the case, then Stuart is a great guy. He is rich, permissive, and profligate. He gives his wife and Kim everything they desire. Although the actor playing Stuart is not of Jewish descent, the character epitomizes Semitic materialism. He lives in a material world where satisfying a child’s consumer desires is more important than teaching moral virtues or even securing her physical safety.

The relative dominance of Bryan and Stuart are reversed the second act. Kim has been kidnapped. Stuart is indirectly (or I would argue directly) responsible, but he’s nowhere to be found. Bryan’s warrior skills, however, aren’t so worthless all of the sudden. I found myself laughing in inappropriate places because Bryan’s cold, ferocious violence is so gratifying. I believed him when he threatens, “I’ll tear down the Eiffel Tower if I have to.” In the end, no amount of money can save Kim—only her father’s devotion and action.

Taken does not beat around the bush with the immigration question: Albanian immigrants are blamed for an increase in crime. These aliens are the epitome of evil: kidnapping attractive young white women and selling them as sex slaves. They drug the girls in order to both disorient them and create an addiction that keeps them from wanting to break free. Kim is a virgin, and is thus a top value commodity. She is sold to an Arab Sheikh. Although Taken should be commended for making moviegoers aware of such evils, it also conceals the truth about human trafficking: the ringleaders are mostly Jews, and the destination for most such women is Israel.

Taken has a happy ending for Kim. She is rescued from her abductors. Her virginity is intact. She seems to recover quickly from the trauma (including the death of her friend). She may even end up being a pop singer thanks to a friend of her dad. In this way, Taken is not true to life but echoes Hollywood’s constant refrain that the world is still all right beneath its problems.

For in real life, warriors like Bryan are in short supply. Taken may, however, increase their numbers, since it presents the white warrior winning in the end. Yes, nobility may entail self-sacrifice. It may require that we forgo the temptations of material affluence. But when conflict arises—and we will only see more of it, as our lands are flooded with predatory non-whites—it is Bryan’s Aryan virtues that will save us in the end. Taken is an inspiration and a call to action—to remain true to the spirit of our people even when it seems that all is lost.