|March 4th, 2014||#1|
VNN Original Movie Reviews
Movie Review: "Blue Caprice" (2013) and "Sniper" (2010): An Examination of Media Treatment of the Affair Involving the Black Snipers Who Terrorized Washington, D.C., in October 2002
By Alex Linder [index]
March 4, 2014
Remember this back in 2002? Snipers driving around D.C. shooting people?
These graphics will refresh your memory.
all of the D.C. victims - but not all of the victims
means and method
John Allen Muhammad, formerly Williams - the older guy, father figure to the younger
Lee Boyd Malvo, the teen looking for a father
The two were caught in 2002. Muhammad was executed in 2009. Malvo remains in jail, too young for death penalty. Has apologized, said he was brainwashed in a 2012 interview. "Hurting people hurt people," he says. The interview is worth listening to:
Sniper: 23 Days of Fear in Washington D.C. came out in 2010:
The other is Blue Caprice, and it came out in late 2013.
Blue Caprice (2013) poster - notice "based on" - i.e., speculative, not limited to facts
I'll get to the movies below; in a nutshell, they're both worth watching. The 2010 pic is a normal whodunnit. You get all sides, with main focus on Chief Moose, the black cop in charge of the investigation. More interesting is Blue Caprice, which focuses almost entirely on the relationship between the older man and the trusting teen he turns into a sniper.
After watching these, I went back and read a bunch of material on the two. I didn't follow the story that closely when it happened, although I used to live in D.C. My lip curled as I watched the usual suspects spin things the usual way. The hysteria offered a textbook example of Rahm Emanuel's "
In similar vein, after the affair ended, various parties sued Bushmaster and got a huge settlement, over $2 million. It was Bushmaster's fault their legally purchased weapon was used to murder people. The company may not be done paying. Read the story here. It's similar to suing a bar because someone gets drunk, leaves, and subsequently does some kind of damage. When you teach self-esteem in schools, haters-gonna-hate in popular culture, have a million lawyers with their mouths open like baby birds, and a leftist press so crooked it has to screw its capris on, to twist the late Hunter Thompson, notions of personal responsibility fly right out the window.
So, the leftists used the fear generated by these snipers to chip away at both personal responsibility and the Second Amendment - turning the crisis, per the jew's advice, into a win-win. And of course, anytime there's a serial killer on the loose, the jewsmedia leap to blame white men, with all the profiling glee they insist is racist when, say, New York cops apply it quite rationally to blacks and browns. So it was here. Both media and FBI were sure they were dealing with white killers. Proved wrong, they simply moved on. Apparently there was no white advocacy group to pressure them for an explanation or apology. Who knows if lives might have been saved if any official party had been willing to consider the radical notion that a bunch of murders might have been committed by, gasp, black men.
* * *
People love to use terms they think make them sound educated. 'Psychopath' is one. "Seek help" or "needs professional help" are others. They get little jolts of suborgasmic pleasure via these diurnal emissions. You can veritably see them appreciating the figure they're cutting, nodding sagely both literally and mentally at the clipped professional wisdom they fancy they're Pez-ing. I'm a Dr. Drew too! fairly drips off these gerbils of what-they-think-is advanced mentation. They like to say 'appropriate' if they're on the right. Or 'responsible.' They like to talk glibly of rehabilitation and civilization and tut over positions barbaric if they're on the left. As if they know what any of this means, or how to achieve it. You ever seen a bunch of sand fleas hopping around? They're not just an insult, eructations show up in the Annals of Real Human Thought.
Most people are in love with their own opinion, and don't recognize its true worth. Even when it's proved to them their opinion is wrong, they pull it back to protective cover, like a mom with an ugly baby. Example: a guy gambles (or invests, if you prefer his term) in the stock market. When his stocks go up, he rationally attributes the gains to his own genius. When they go down, he generously apportions the blame to his adviser or general market forces. Humans can think, to an extent, but the greater portion of their brains seems dedicated to self-interest and self-protection rather than to right-reasoning.
Perhaps it goes too far to say that people are self-regarding idiots with little capacity for analysis and less for objectivity. Perhaps it doesn't. People generally have to be humbled before they can learn anything, before they can see anything for what it is. Even then, it's often not enough. People generally are so ego-oblivious they can't take lessons from anyone else because they truly believe they are somehow different. It's not a rational thought, it doesn't rise to the level of considered belief, it's much deeper than that. Sometimes they can be knocked out of this self-drunkenness, often they can't.
It's real easy to call someone a psychopath after the fact. If the term had any real meaning, the user could identify psychopaths before they act. No one has been able to do this, notice. Anyone can look at someone and say he's a crazy, volatile guy who may well kill someone. The 'professionals' can't do any better, notice. They will point to brain scans, but so what? Ninenty-nine percent of people x-rayed have messed up backs, but only a few have back pain at any given time. Do you suppose it is any different with brain scans? I doubt it.
One more time...if analysis is genuinely valid, it mustn't settle for merely explaining what happened the day after, it must allow us to predict, the greater degree of certainty the better, what is going to happen before it happens.
What I've come a long way to say is that the white-nationalist school of media analysis has immense predictive power. You neutrals or antis ought to listen to what we're saying, not because we're us but because we're right. Every single time, about things from black-on-white murder to jew-on-Muslim warmongering. Every single time we called it out of the box. The rest played catch-up. I mean, you have your smartest conservatives -- William F. Buckley and George F. Will, for two -- like retarded little children ten years after the fact coming to realize that the WMD and the wars they were pretext for were concocted by the Jewish Bilge Machine. White Nationalists alone decried the War for Israel from day one. WN alone! Not even the libertarians can claim that, because they're ideologically committed to race-denial. They reject race or tribalism as motives a priori, and simply refuse to see evidence. White nationalists, by contrast, despite every inducement from the System and its wenchmedia, refuse not to see. We are the only ones who discuss, who dare to discuss, the jewish agenda driving every single thing you see on television, read in the newspapers, and hear from politicians.
Three schools of media critcism, but only one is consistently right
The leftist school contents itself with explaining media content and decision-making as functions of corporations seeking profits. It can be demonstrated a thousand times over (for example, jewish Hollywood's refusal to fun The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson, indeed its vicious, coordinated attempt to undermine it at all stages - this movie that ended up generating the better part of abillion dollars) that this isn't accurate, but the leftist school refuses to acknowledge or alter its theory, it just bleats and repeats.
Let's slow down and consider the Gibson movie "Passion" for a second.
Which demonstrates that in fact and contrary to leftist media theory, jew-controlled mass media corporations put politics ahead of profits. Profits are important. Politics are more important. You will never see any acknowledgement of this fact, this proven fact, in any controlled-media piece of media criticism. All you will ever see, literally 100% of the time, is the same old blather about corporations-pursuing-profits. No thought or actual evidence need apply.
Two top media critics are Mark Crispin Miller, a jew, and Robert McChesney, a non-jew. Here they are in action, spouting the company line.
Since corporations pursue profit, put profit over people, all the usual blather, we need more media owned and controlled by government. More "public" media. Which amounts to, if you've ever heard NPR, the same thing: a bunch of jews jewing jewily, this time in the name of the American public, rather than as a giant ostensibly neutral (but actually politically biased) corporation.
Yeah, if there's one thing that will really reform our mass media, it's having them overtly controlled by the state rather than merely prostituting for them. Removing even the option not to buy their output, since these state media are always funded by taxes on the people they despite - normal white earners.
Leftist media critics are a happy and helpful part of the complex they conceal with their canting about corporations and their closed-mouthedness about ki...the unChristians running things, shall we say. They are a necessary and integral part of the problem - the concealant masquerading as critic.
Turning to the conservative school of media criticism, we find bitter young fogeys exhausting themselves in impotent whining about unfairness and double standards. Conservative media critics never have or will utter the word jews or refer to the jewish agenda; indeed, they'd rather die. Even though the most cursory overview of the industry fairly screams "look at all these jews running around!", a feeling very akin to flipping a light and seeing a counter overrun with cockroaches. No, the media are simply unfair out of some unfathomable bigotry, apparently. The tacit working assumption among the conservatives, apparently, is that if they're whined at enough, they media will start treating the conservative position fairly. I've never really understood how the conservative gets from A to B on that, I'm not sure they do either. It's one of those journey-is-the-destination things. It's all about the whining, apparently, for they keep it up decade after decade to no appreciable result, yet show not the slightest interest in altering their approach. It would be almost unfair to quote Joe Sobran on professional conservatism, which certainly encompasses the likes of the late lizard-lipped Reed Irvine's professional whingers at Accuracy in Media: "[It] was all a game; a way of making a living." In the end, the conservative media critics, like professional conservatives generally, including Republicans, are simply collecting shekels from the pissed off part of the population that hates the media and the direction the country is headed. But they have no plans to do anything about them, just complain. Complaining is profitable. There is a very large market for the right-whine. After all, that's the section of the population with money - older whites.
The white nationalist school of media criticism alone cuts to the chase: it alone gives you, the reader, what matters: not just the agenda, but who sets it and why.
It's really pretty simple. When you understand what jews are, and what they want -- that they operate as a tribe and see ordinary white people as their enemy to be defeated and dispossessed, their racial stock mixed out of existence, their lands taken over by jews and helpful coloreds -- then you can interpret every single story you come across in media they control, which is about 99% of what's out there. If you don't understand this, the media will seem curiously twisted, full of things left unsaid and things said that don't really sound right.
Turning back to our story, in the case of the D.C. snipers, we're ten years past the events. So necessarily I will be applying WN analysis after the fact. But it doesn't matter. You'll see how right it is. And then little ol' you can apply it to the next racial affair you come across. It doesn't have to be something big. It could be something small. Same rules apply, and they are unvarying.
The White Nationalist (WN) school of media analysis asserts this:
- the most basic and meaningful fact about the mass media is that they are owned/operated by jews
This is easily verified. Then it becomes merely a matter of understanding who jews are, and what they're up to. That's beyond the scope of this review to prove, but suffice it to sum up that jews are anti-white. Whites they see as a threat, and in order to defuse that threat, and dispossess and destroy whites, jews buy up mass media. Control over mass media allows the tribe to systematically and comprehensively misrepresent reality to their own racial political advantage. This ownership and controlled misrepresentation has been going on for a long, long time in the US, and before that in Europe. Jews didn't own all our mass media when they arrived in the US between 1880 and 1920, but not long after that they did. Today their control is nearly seamless - apart from the Internet. They control tv completely in the US. They own the top few papers that still have actual readers and haven't gone out of business yet. Hollywood is jewish from head to toe to excised dick tip.
Once you understand that the mass media are owned by white-hating anti-white jews, the rest falls naturally into place. Jews believe that whatever is 'good for jews' is the highest good. They are a race known for brazen lying, historically, and they exhibit that capacity in spades in every medium they control.
If you're confused by the persistent and curious bias you detect in what you see on television, you shouldn't be. Let me clarify it for you. What you see on tv is jewish hatred of whites, whether you're watching a skewed news report about the D.C. snipers speculating that they're white men, or you're watching a fictional movie treatment of same in which there is not a single mention of the shooters' antiwhite animus (we'll get into this below).
The desire to destroy whites defines the mass media, and it can be laid completely at the feet of the jews owning those media and deciding what goes out over the airwaves into hundreds of millions of living rooms.
White nationalists argue, correctly, that jews use their media control to denigrate whites and to degrade the society they built. Their ultimate wish is to see whites disappear. Yes, the hatred is that deep. That is the ultimate end to which all their propaganda, all their lying, all their reality-reversal and coverage-distortion conduces. The conservatives yammering on about bias and double standards are simply - silly. Once you understand what's actually going on, how profoundly hateful and antiwhite it is you will never listen to conservative media analysts again. They will seem childishly beside the point. It's an intellectual version of "
I hope so. . . .
Turning back to our story, without knowing anything other than unknown gunman/men were shooting people, the WN media critic would make these predictions re the jewsmedia coverage:
And it doesn't matter whether it's the news reports during or the movies made after the affair, the same exact agenda-pushing and reality-skewing takes place.
So those are the predictions. We know the basic story. Now we must study and ascertain how the killers saw themselves. What was their mission - in their eyes? What did they intend to do, and why?
If a picture's worth 1000 words, how much are pictures with words worth? Quite a lot, when it comes to showing mindset and motive. Take a look at these drawings made by the Malvo in jail after his capture. Read the words carefully.
Not hard to see motivation, is it? Racial hate of whites mixed with jihad.
(Here you can read typical neocon spin on the above from Investors Business Daily, which is very much part of the neo-con circuit in D.C.)
Notice all these drawings were collected by the neocon site "creeping sharia." They use the snipers for their own agenda: stirring up hatred of Muslims. Notice these jews/right, just like their jews/left brethren, ignore the anti-white racial motive on the part of the killers and focus solely on the jihad ideology.
Media 101: Mass media generally divide into jews/left and jews/right. Jews/left play this story as random shootings by disgruntled psycho and brainwashed boy. They ignore Muahammad's Muslim ideology, and they ignore his hatred of whites. Jews/right portray this as jihad-crazy Muslim out to destroy America. Of course there are elements of truth to both characterizations. But notice what's most important: both sides leave out that these two hated whites. That's what matters to us, of course. And that's why we need a white nationalist media. They alone will represent our interests and look at things from our point of view. Whites should never be satisfied with a jew speaking for them or to them. Listen to these idiotic Christian radio shows. How often their 'expert' is some jew/right. The audience is too gullible to grasp the game being played. You shouldn't be. You should see things for what they are, undeceived, unwilling to look away, unwilling to obey jew-set taboos and limits.
There's much more we can adduce to demonstrate the killers' motivations, intentions and racial agenda.
Muhammad had a three-stage plan:
The point is: this is the probative (as the lawyers say) evidence. This is what sheds high-wattage light on the happenings. With these sorts of specifics, you are equipped to understand what was going on in the heads of the killers. You have at last the true and necessary context for understanding these crimes.
We're showing you here how journalism is properly done. We're not trying to push an agenda, we're trying to unearth the relevant facts explaining the motivation of the killers, without pre-set conclusions. And we have. You now have have given you the tools which are the pertinent facts you need to grasp what's going on here in the most basic sense. You now understand what the killers themselves thought they were doing, what they intended to do. You have the who and the why. That should be enough for you to judge them.
Yet the media in 2002 laid out none of this. There were bits and pieces here and there, but they came much assembly required. The media could play down the part about shooting whites only because when he tried to reduce his plans to the real world, Muhammad found he simply had to take such targets as presented themselves. That necessary opportunism resulted in a more or less truly random mix of victims, a grabbag of the types you would find in the D.C. area, which is made up of immigrants and transients. So the media could semi-plausibly not-really-mention the stage-one plan to murder WHITES but could go with their favorite standby: these were 'random' murders. But we now know, they were not. They were the victims the anti-white killers were forced by circumstances to settle for. Their intent was always to kill whites. Since jews don't value white lives, the true motives of the shooters were kept off stage.
By contrast, imagine if Muhammad were a white man named John Lee Boyd who planned to murder six blacks a day with his sniper son Jesse. In that case, the racial animus would be front and center in the controlled media. It would be the lead. All other aspects of the story would be filtered through the lens: racist-shooting-rampage. But since Muhammad and Malvo's intended victims were white, their animus anti-white (i.e., the same as the media's), the motivating hate goes unmentioned. Malvo and Muhammad hate whites just as much as the jews behind The Washington Post. They just favored a more direct form of attack.
If two white men with an anti-black animus had been the shooters, the jew analysts and news actors would emphasize it was mere expediency that led John White Does to shoot non-blacks; if he'd had his way, all his victims would have been niggers. He's racisss. They would have brought out the racial angle instead of suppressing it. Again, absolutely predictable. Any white nationalist could have told you before the fact how the jewsmedia would have played it.
Now that we understand the artists' plan - for murder can be an art as well as literature or music, surely - and we understand the media bias, let's delve into the case from the cop angle, rather than the criminal. See if there's anything interesting we can dig up there.
First, the lead cop in all this is Chief Moose. He's black, and he's head of Montgomery Country police. Montgomery County is the Maryland suburb right outside D.C., where some of the shootings took place. Moose consults with the FBI when it becomes clear what's going on - that there's a traveling killer or killers who is sniping people all around the greater D.C. area.
What would white nationalist analysis predict beforehand about a black top cop? (Remember - if a school has any genuine analytical value, it allows us to PREDICT what we're going to find BEFORE we find it.)
What would a white nationalist analysis predict we might find:
As for b), the white nationalist would know that the feds are indoctrinated by the ADL to believe that white men are serial killers, driven by political motives, likely to be the type behind this sort of crime. He would know that the FBI would only slowly and with great unwillingness abandon their jew-trained prejudice. They would cling to it despite evidence to the contrary. Their refusal to abandon their bias and go with facts might lead to bad advice put out to the public and murders that could have been solved more quickly if the feds let the evidence rather than The Agenda drive their investigations.
So it more or less was; the facts do line up with WN predictions:
- Moose wouldn't have been hired if he were white. He came from Portland. He had several checks on his record. He had an anger management or emotional control problem which was to be in evidence over the course of October 2002. No way a white man gets hired as police chief with the derelictions Moose had.
- the feds yet again got a profile wrong. As one serial killer warned them, in a different case, they get too narrow too quickly, trusting their profile before they have the facts to confirm it in a particular case. This tunnel vision hurts their investigation. In this case it was someone at one of the shooting scenes reported seeing a white panel van drive off. That set the tone. It just had to be white guys!
- perhaps the bottom line as concerns the police was their incompetence: the only reason the snipers were caught when they were was their own mistake. They called up the feds to demand money, and in the course of the call mentioned a crime in Montgomery. Not Montgomery County, Maryland, Montgomery, Alabama. Huge mistake. They'd left a partial fingerprint at that scene. It was on state file. Alabama forwarded it to the FBI. Now the cops knew who they were looking for. Four hundred agents came up with nothing - it took the killers calling in and bragging to make the break in the case. After that, the end came pretty quickly. They put the news on the air about the blue Caprice they were using as their shooting nest, and soon a trucker noticed it in a rest stop in western Maryland. D.C. is the capital of a vast and rich if disgusting empire; people drive fancy foreign cars, not ten-year-old American sedans.
To sum up, media coverage of this month-long crime spree fit white nationalist predictions perfectly. The media simply ignored the killers' stated racial motives. Both media and cops assumed the killers were white without any factual basis, and advised the public from this assumption, and were slower to correct it than had they been honest brokers. Now...how would the movies portray the crimes and coverage?
* * *
Movies are part of the jew-operated mass media/political System, so the white nationalist will look for the same bias in the movies themselves as in the newspaper and tv coverage of the actual crimes. And the same for any reviews of the movies. There's an entire world there. Everything dovetails. The assumptions are all the same, hence the treatments are all the same. Crime, coverage, movie about crime, review of movie about crime - it's all of a piece. You get the same bias no matter where you look. If you accept the assumptions that drive 100% of the mass media you ingest, it will never occur to you that there is a different and better way of looking at things.
Only the white nationalist worldview can explain all this, because the System never questions its own assumptions. Anything outside the ideological sphere equals There Be Monsters. In 2014, those (map) monsters are called "hate." Yes, it really is that simple and dumbed down, exactly as Orwell presented it. There is what my old partner coined The Propasphere, the world of propaganda, and there is Hate. How ridiculous is that? Yet most people have no problem with it.
We could go on, but there's little point, as any additional predictions we'd make fall under the same umbrella: the people controlling the media are anti-white. They skew their reporting in predictable ways. When it comes to crime, they simply deny racial motives among blacks that are both there and common - motives they themselves through their teaching and reporting have done much to stoke and nourish. When it comes to the much rarer white-on-black crime, they play up racial motives. Whites are always the bad guys, never the victims. No matter what the FBI crime stats say.
These killings are now over a decade old. The older guy has already been executed years ago. Don't see that around D.C. much, and you can well believe that the fear he struck into the self-important denizens of that region accounted for the comparative speed of the process. In our serial killers thread, we see an execution of an Oklahoma man in 2014 for a murder he committed in 1988. That's pretty typical - 25 years or so. John Allen Muhammad was executed in 2009. His process only took seven years. One standard for gliberals, another for ordinary folks. Same with guns, same with death penalties. But we stray...
Before seeing these movies I didn't know all that much about the D.C. snipers. I remembered what happened, generally. Couple guys shot up people around the D.C. area. The investigation was led by a black named Moose. That I remembered. That he was a clown with a white wife, that I remembered too. That he and the FBI were looking for a white man or van and ignoring counter-evidence, as in that case down in Louisiana - that was the main point in my mind.
What I didn't know BUT COULD GUESS BECAUSE I HOLD WHITE NATIONALIST POLITICAL VIEWS was that if I dug into the case, I would find numerous interesting facts, small or large, that the media were concealing for their usual judeo-leftist political reasons. And that is exactly the case, as shown above.
Let me lay it out. These two killers were father and son, psychologically. The father set the agenda, the son was his tool. So the father is where we look to find the motives. The motives are multiple. They break into two main camps, the personal and the political. We've already covered the political. We haven't discussed the personal:
1) like many white men, the black man John Allen Muhammad hated the System because it stripped him of his children and gave them to his wife. He was, for this reason, at war with the System.
2) compounded with his System hatred for personal, family-related reasons, Muhammad bore a racial animus against whites. His original name was Williams. He converted to Islam. He was a member of the Nation of Islam! Did you know that? I don't ever remember hearing that when this story was in the news. The NOI has distanced himself from him, but it's true:
Now, per our WN assumptions, we would assume the two points above were either DOWNPLAYED or IGNORED completely, depending on what the media felt they could get away with. CNN wouldn't even call the guy by his conversion name Muhammad, they insisted on calling him Williams. These are 'reporters,' right? Then why do they act like concealers? Everything in illiberalism is like that: it is the opposite of what its name denotes. Like those fish that have eye spots on their tails.
Do you see how deceptive that is?
Butterflies do it too.
But humans aren't animals. They're created by god. They're different. They would never try to fool you, or use mimicry or be parasites. Even though those things are legion throughout the animal world. Misdirection is everywhere in nature, but certainly not among humans. Because we're god's children. We're special and different.
The media are there to spread enlightenment and knowledge, and provide a forum for the public to discuss issues that matter, and reach a democratic consensus.
If you believe that...you're too short for this ride.
Deception is everywhere humans are, and it's our first recourse, not our last.
I ask again: did you know that John Allen Muhammad was a member of Nation of Islam? I sure don't remember hearing that mentioned. And I'm a specialist in this stuff, you might say.
That's how well it's hidden. You have to do the digging and connecting yourself. The reporter not only doesn't help you, he actively hinders you. You have to fight the 'reporter' for the story! how remakable is that?! He throws up dissimulations and misdirections like a bird leading you away from the nest. The rotten eggs she's protecting are the liberal agenda.
Everywhere in nature is misdirection, fakery, deception - and murder.
Humans are no different, for they are part of nature too, no matter what your favorite religious tome asserts.
Yet, this is god's world, if you go in for that horseshit, as most weak-minded people do. I can't help that you're an idiot. I'm trying to. I just don't think based on experience my reasoned enlightenment will do much. But don't blame me. I didn't create what I discuss. I'm just describing it accurately. Sounds "hateful" doesn't it? That's how you've been trained to think of anything that is clear and without disclaimer or obeisance to common taboos. We have been reduced to a point at which anything straight sounds cold and threatening, and is probably hateful. We have been made into mental veal by the System, we can't even stand on our own two legs because our mental muscles are too weak.
So this guy Muhammad and the teen he's trained to snipe hate the System and hate Whites. They'd like to destroy them all. To do this, Muhammad develops a three-stage plan. It might sound crazy, but that's what was going on in their heads.
You have to take these guys as you would any artist. The media won't do that, but it's the right way to look at it. When I guy makes, say, a movie, or writes a novel, the reviewer should ask: what was he trying to do? did he achieve it? That's the only fair way to judge him. NOT to pretend he was doing something he SHOULD have done, or something that YOU wanted him to be doing. But that's how the media play things. A man is never allowed his own agenda. Look at my own wikipedia entry. I'm not a white advocate, not a writer. I'm an anti-semite. I'm not allowed my own agency and self-description. I get what they put on me. What matters about me to them is that I hold a belief they don't like, and their dislike of my view is strong enough that they feel it defines me, and use their power to try to make it so wherever they control things.
So it is with everything. The media won't give anyone his manliness and agency, as I did Muhammad above. They won't say: here is this man. Here is what he thought he was doing. Here is what he intended to do. Here is what he actually did.
That's would be the starting point of honest reporting and analysis. But you never get that in System media. Because they exist to promote a political agenda. And agenda that is anti-white and, from our white racial view, dystopian (it tends toward a world most whites would find extremely uncomfortable), and rejects reality as insufficiently supportive of their politics. Since reality won't conform to judeo neo-communism, it must be cut and tampered with, in the manner of Procrustes, who cut off men's legs so they would fit the bed.
When you open a newspaper or turn on a tv, you don't get reality, you get agenda.
You get jews vomiting hate on white men, metaphorically.
Know that, pilgrim.
Now some things are just interesting, and this white-hating, System-hating negro's master plan, outlined above, is one of them. He's a negro, so you wouldn't expect it to be particularly well thought out or carried out, but nevertheless, it's interesting to see what he had in mind.
Later on Blue Caprice, John continues:
Interesting bit I came across:
None of what is described in that article is fully communicated by the movies. That article amounts to a depiction of what life is like for many, many niggers - a sort of desultory wandering among huge broods of relatives committing whatever crimes seem most promising in the moment, whether ID fraud, credit card scam or armed stickup. No white man could do what Muhammad did: travel around the country, back and forth to the islands, staying with distant cousins and friends in a dozen different cities. Whites simply don't live like blacks. They don't have these masses of relatives, for one thing. They don't have the milieu blacks do; they lack the criminal sea in which to swim. The fact is, committing crime is nigger normal. If you commit crimes, other blacks aren't going to turn you in. They're far likelier to help you or try to get a piece of what you've stolen. They may not even like crime, but to no black on earth is crime anything but a normal part of everyday life. They're used to crime. It's just business as usual in the black community, and black community is very much a euphemism, as their 'community' is basically just a loose agglomeration of individual woolies collecting around this or that white-built subsidized housing complex; a disorienting tangle of drugs, crime, unclear family relationships and sexual sniffing. Blacks on the run seem have a lot more options for staying low to the ground than whites do, as we watch Muhammad, in the article linked above, run from Washington State to Nevada to Louisiana back to Washington, to Alabama, on to Washington, D.C. Black behavior really doesn't analogize well to white behavior; the races live in very different mental spaces, and this reflects in the physical environments they create and prefer. Needless to say, the movies don't touch on any of this. They do show the shooters moving around, but they fail to capture the true flavor of this life, as the newspaper article comes closer to.
As for the movies, Blue Caprice is the better of the two. Not precisely a good movie, but a decent one, it focuses on the relationship between the man and the boy. It shows how Muhammad built Malvo up. Muhammad had lots of problems, but he took time to teach discipline to a kid not his own who really needed a father. That was the essential thing. The rest was just specifics related to the mission.
BC shows Muhammad as motivated more than anything by anger at the System ripping his family apart. Giving his kids to his woman, and then hiding their location from him, although he eventually figures it out. This is yet another motive downplayed by media coverage. In many ways, Muhammad might be a typical white man, as there are millions fitting his category - angry at a System they feel has abused them. Muhammad was in fact attempting to rectify this situation through a master plan aimed at bringing down the entire System. That's how angry he was. One of his victims was someone who had testified against him at his trial. In fact, he was carrying out all these 'random' shootings so that he could then kill his ex without drawing suspicion. In the movies, he did spy on his ex-wife and children, but never shot her or contacted them, all this while he was driving around shooting other people. Of course, just as the media have no interest in giving their readers or viewers the truth about race and crime, nor do they have any interest in giving their readers the truth about men and the family courts. But that was a major motivator here.
In summary, Blue Caprice is reasonably effective in showing how a fatherless child came under the wing of someone with serious anger, who turned him into a successful mission-agent. There's not really much more to it than that; the film is all about the relationship, not focused on the crimes at all.
My notes from D.C. Sniper: 23 Days of Fear, focusing on race and the way the moviemakers portray the cops and press coverage:
- opens with Chief Moose in bed with his attractive white wife.
- at one of the cop/FBI confabs, white guy suggests shooters might be African-American, another white guy shoots him down, Moose says nothing.
- white suspect shown in bed watching tv, hanging Confederate flag, sticking hand down his pants, wearing wifebeater. Gets rousted by cops, but he aint the one. Just a nice chance to promote the racist redneck stereotype we've all seen a million times. No mention of racist profiling. They're looking for an angry white guy with a military background who has purchased a rifle recently.
- see nig getting near-angry look listening to tv announcer say they're looking for a white man in a white-panel van.
- as you'd expect right from the start we hear "he [the shooter] hates everyone," so we know it's not racial.
- shows Moose getting emotional at press conference. He's from Portland, Oregon. Was disciplined repeatedly for outbursts, forced to attend anger management classes. Hired by Doug Duncan back in 1999. The movie spends some time on this relationship between the white county executive and the black police chief. Primarily concerning how they handle the press.
That's about it. Whether the personal drove the political, or vice versa, in the end they were part of the same mishmash in John Muhammad's head. As for the media, I'll leave the summary to this internet commenter from back when this stuff was hot (The Beltway Snipers, Ten Years Later):
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 4th, 2014 at 10:27 AM.
|March 7th, 2014||#2|
An Uncommon Drug Dealer; or: How I Became a Regulations-Atheist and Learned to Sift Evidence and to Calculate Contingencies Like a Man; but in any case
A Review of Dallas Buyers Club
By Alex Linder [index]
March 7, 2014
[Great movie. If you haven't seen it, see it before you read this detailed review.]
Freedom and responsibility - or regulation and slavery.
Those are the paired options. Pick one.
Ron Woodroof picked the first. This is his story.
This is a fantastic movie, and the whitest in spirit I've seen in years. It involves a Texan lowlife who gets what queers mis-renamed AIDS (from the original Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease - GRID) and how he goes about keeping himself alive. There he conflicts with the FDA, whose main mission in life is to cover its ass and to make sure its ability to regulate hotdog contents (and everything else, including all medicine/supplements/foodstuffs) goes unchallenged by mere humans.
This is not only the whitest, it's the most American movie I've seen in a long, long time. Just to say that is to risk that readers who don't know any better will lump me in with the flaggots and patriotards. But there's no other way to put it. Woodroof consistently ignores authority. He mocks and attacks and disregards doctors. He repeatedly rips IVs out of his arm. He ignores FDA regulations or finds clever ways around them. He disrupts meetings. He does his own research, and draws government-unapproved conclusions. He prints up and passes out his findings. He interrupts press conferences and petitions judges. Whatever he needs to do to remove obstacles between sick people like him and the medicine they need to keep living, he does. Whether it's legal or not. Whether his friends like his company or not. Whether authority approves or not.
That's the American spirit. Seizing the initiative. Being practical, honest, helpful, enterprising, creative and daring. All these things exhibited in spades by early, real Americans are exhibited in a direct and manly and pleasing way by this gaunt and grimy little Texas outlaw.
The America we've become loves to hate Texas and Texans. Why? Because it fears them. They don't need its central authority. They have the audacity to rely on their own authority. They don't need the higher liberal wisdom out of D.C. They aren't willing to accept Bureaucrat Jesus as their higher power the way the tedious totalitarian vegans and assorted urban wimps and academic tools and journalist apparatchiks are. Texans are men. Liberals? Eh...not so much.
Did I say this is a great movie? This is a great movie. McConaughey won best actor for his portrayal of Ron Woodroof and he certainly deserves it.
* * *
Now let's dig in and really look at some of the contents, and think about them. What do you say, li'l reader-friend? You up for that? Of course you are....
The scene opens to an American flag held by a kid on horseback circling a rodeo ring. What could be Americaner than that?
Then it moves to Matt McConaughey fucking a woman...wait...a woman and a man...in one of the darkened bull chutes. So we know right off we're dealing with an omnisexual. No morals, either. Electrician/roustabout/rodeo rider Ronald Woodroof is booking bets on one of the rides. Talking about Rock Hudson being a cocksmoker, letting all that fine Hollywood pussy go to waste. Mere minutes after fucking a dude in a rodeo stall! His rider loses, he takes off running to escape his customers. He punches a cop to get himself arrested and escape the lynch mob at his heels.
Woodroof's character is established in the first five minutes: he's a scrawny little Texas no-account, but with a sharp brain, a strong will and uncontrolled appetites.
Back at his place, he passes out on the floor; Wranglers so slack you can't make out a buttock. McConaughey lost a ton of weight for this role, he's truly gaunt and skinny-sickly as needed in this AIDS pic. Very believable; totally committed; perfectly executed. He should win an Oscar for this role. He did.
The skinny cowboy coughs and passes out, hears high-pitched buzz as he starts to fade. He wakes up in hospital.
That's one of the best things about this movie: the characters come across as real people. Dallas Buyers Club is not a morality play. There are bad guys and good guys, but all characters are plausibly motivated. The good guys aren't angels, just men acting rationally-pragmatically to solve a problem; and the bad guys aren't devils, they're people following protocols and laws devised to offer genuine protection. Even the transvestite, Rayon, played very skillfully by Jared Leto, isn't over the top, which is about the only time I've ever seen that. I hate transvestites and sex freaks, but the Rayon character is plausible as a real person with real motivations, not just your typical drag-queen-being-a-drama-queen.
Woodroof has swagger:
Nor is there a religious bone in his body. Not a prayer is made. Not a single visit to church or from a preacher. The one scene in which it appears he's petitioning Lord Standby over votive candles...pulls back to reveal he's in strip club. Can you cause your own finger to crook? Then what need have ye of God? Religion is unmanly. That's why it's so popular with women of both sexes - weaklings who prefer to wait and hope rather than take and make. Religion has no part of this picture, because it's about a man about the manly business of making things happen.
So what does this bad ol' boy do after his diagnosis, which he rejects? He snorts coke, drinks Jack, parties with hookers. It's July 1985. His journey is just beginning.
Despite his bravado in the hospital about mixed up blood tests, he knows he's bullshitting. He begins to research AIDS. He recalls screwing a junkie, and realizes that in fact he really does have HIV. Not just fags get it. To Woodroof, the fact that he has sex with men doesn't make him a fag since he doesn't act or dress or speak like a fag. At least, I think that's the mentality. Because he appeared to believe he didn't have HIV because he wasn't a fag. But if you screw men, that does kind of make you a fag, almost by definition, if you're a man. This was the one thing in the movie I found a little confusing, if it's not as I portray it.
At this point, I might take advantage of my age and reprise some GRID history for you younger than me. If you don't remember the eighties, here's what happened in a nutshell. The term 'homophobe' was apparently invented in 1969. But it was never heard anywhere until the mid-late eighties. Reagan was president. Queers in NYC and San Francisco began to show up with weird skin lesions, Kaposi's sarcomas. It was 'gay cancer.' The name GRID was created. Soon political fags had their mainstream media buddies change it to AIDS, the better to sell the disease to the public. Fags whined and whined because Reagan didn't mention AIDS in public speeches. They simply refused to take responsibility for their own behavior in spreading the disease. As documented in the first major book about AIDS, Randy Shilts's And The Band Played On, in which he, among other noxious doings, documents his fags' community refusal to let the politicians take the most basic public hygiene measures to prevent the spread of the disease, namely shutting down its incubators - the queer bathhouses in San Francisco, to be most particular. So fags didn't want to own AIDS. They wanted to blame the disease on Reagan, and threaten the public through the conniving media that anyone could get it, so better cough up disproportionate research funding. And that's pretty much how it went. Queer love means never having to say you're sorry. It means no one ever describes your behavior honestly, let alone forces you to accept responsibility for it. Fags spread AIDS. Fags endangered the public. Fags got rewarded with a hugely disproportionate share of research funding - something that continues to this day, nearly forty years later. Such is the power of Big Fag and backers.
That's the nutshell. Read the thick Shilts book if you want the details.
Now, the first drug that really popped up on the AIDS scene as a potential solution or at least disease inhibitor was AZT. In DBC, the doctor says, and I assume it's true, AZT was originally developed and then shelved in the sixties as a potential cancer treatment. Essentially it does an agent orange on human cells. And if any of the cells are cancer, they die too! As the general said, In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it. It's simply too toxic for people to get any lasting benefit from.
But...this was not known or appreciated in the early-mid eighties. Fags were dying. Fags were desperate. They wanted AZT at any price. They protested the FDA until it relented. Then they started taking AZT and dying pretty quickly. The most famous opponent of AZT was queer jew playwright Larry Kramer, who abstained from AZT, and believed that was why he was still alive while all his friends were dead. He was the founder of the main fag activist organization back then, ACT UP.
All this stuff was the stuff of mainstream media coverage back in the day, three decades ago. This is the time period in which this movie takes place - 1985 forward.
Dallas Buyers Club dramatizes the essential problem of regulation: everything comes down to someone making a choice. Who should that be? Given that humans have a religious belief, a real faith, in authority, they prefer the comfortable lie -- that degreed, professional authority can make us safe via laws and regulation -- to the uncomfortable but manly and liberating truth - there is no safety. All you get with regulation is higher taxes and fewer choices. A bureaucrat now makes decisions for you. And you get the cold pleasure of paying him to remove your freedom. What if his choices involve not minor decisions but vital ones - matters of life and death (as a professor screamed at me when I used 'vital' for something too light)? Then you might find you don't feel all that safe. Then you might wish the choice were restored to, I don't know, you. This is the stuff of drama, and great fodder for a great movie.
FDA food and drug regulation may sound fine when you have a cold and need an antibiotic and can't buy one without a prescription from a doctor. That's just a minor hassle, not too expensive. I mean, it would be much cheaper and easier to diagnose yourself and simply buy what you need off the shelf, and only go to a doctor for the hard stuff... but it's less fine when you have 30 days to live, think AZT is going to save you, and the FDA won't let you have any.
Then what do you do?
This movie dramatizes this conflict better than any movie I've seen. If I'm not mistaken, the director Jean Luc Vallee and the writers Craig Borden and Melisa Wallack come down heavy on the side of freedom. If they aren't libertarians, they surely created a wonderful vehicle for expressing the let-people-make-their-own-decisions side of the question.
We debate abortion as a 'choice.' Even though there are at a minimum two people involved - the mother and the child. But in the case of a drug, there's only one person involved - the guy who decides whether or not to ingest something. Only his body is affected. How in the world is government justified in telling someone who is supposed to die in a month that he can't take this or that pill to try to prolong his life?
It is self-evident to me the government has no business getting involved in regulating anything medical. It does a bad job of it. Thalidomide, which produced whopping numbers of horribly deformed babies, was approved by the British equivalent of the FDA. The regulatory body was telling women to take it! Like I said...
There Is No Safety.
It's scary, isn't it? But it's true. There is only risk calculation, more accurate or less accurate.
We must not let our fear overcome our reason. We must acknowledge that freedom and the responsibility that comes with it cannot be taken away without our manliness departing with it. There is simply no subcontracting the most basic decisions, among which number which substances you allow into your body - and the selection of guiding criteria by which you make your way. It's perfectly fine, perfectly manly, to take into account what some private, voluntary association -- like Consumer Reports -- says about a particular product. The difference between a CR and the FDA is that the former can't compel you, only offer you evidence and advice you find more or less persuasive. The latter can forcibly prevent you from doing what you want, and throw you in jail if you don't go along with its regulations. It makes the decisions. It is king. You are its subject. All in the name of safety....safety that turns out to be fewer choices and higher prices on closer inspection.
You might think regulation, or regulatory power, is boring, but it's not. All the neat stuff with McConaughey may seem to be the movie, but at its heart, this is a deadly serious movie about regulatory power. And yes, the reason I love this movie is half ideological. I love McConaughey's acting, something I never particularly liked before, although he is excellent in HBO's True Detective. But I like this movie because it shows the conflict between two very different outlooks on life, and if I'm not mistaken, it comes down very hard on the side I'm on: the side of the man over the side of the machine. Be aggressive. Make things happen. If authority is wrong, don't obey it. That doesn't mean cheat or break rules for their own sake, it means ultimately we do follow rules because we think they're right. And if ultimately we don't think they're right, we shouldn't obey them. It's not a light thing to disobey laws, but it's not a light thing to obey them either - the latter point is the one that is usually lost.
I don't know about you, but I never signed off on any sheet before I was born agreeing to follow any particular set of laws. Did you? You can't a priori impose on me or anyone any kind of moral duty to follow rules I had no hand in designing, don't necessarily agree with, and never agreed to play by in the first place.
As we have seen, this Texas turd blossom is not a man to put up with bullshit. He runs his own life, and is very assertive on this point. "Do I look like a rodent to you," he says to the doctor pushing AZT at one point. Hell, no. He looks like a man. A man who needs curing badly. So if the government says he can't have AZT, that's not the final answer. That just means one route is closed. Others are open. He will open them.
Woodroof connects with an orderly to get some AZT. When that runs out, he gets the address of a debarred doc down in Mexico. There he learns that, what do you know, AZT is poison, at least as being administered in current trials. Rather, he should be taking A, B, and C drugs and vitamins and minerals and proteins.
Do you see what Woodroof is doing? He's taking responsibility for his own life, for his own health, for his own choices. This is no joking matter. The defrocked doc leads him back to better health, as the AZT had ravaged his immune system. He realizes there's a big market up north for the effective treatment the ex-doc in Mexico has come up with. He strikes a deal and packs his trunk and heads back to Dallas.
He sets up a club, and runs it out of a fleabag motel. I mean, if it's not legal to sell drugs the FDA hasn't approved...then he'll give them away. Join his club, pay $400/month dues, get all the medicine you need free. Boom. All of a sudden he's taking business away from the hospital. He's healing people rather than hurting them. As he says later on, we handle five time as many patients, and we have 1/10th the death rate.
What makes someone a doctor? An M.D.? What if he can cure someone or heal someone or merely help someone without having a degree? Is he then not a doctor because some third party hasn't signed off on it? Even if his patient customer is happy? Is the thing the thing or are the externals the thing? I mean, if an M.D. is such an inherently august thing, then why is it afraid to go out in the market and compete with other practitioners? Why must all other forms of medicine, all other potential healers, be denied the chance to serve patients, and the M.D. alone accorded legal opportunity and respect?
Again, this is the question of the market versus regulation in dramatic form. Woodroof is a businessman. He never once says anything about helping people. He just does help them. While making a profit. That's another wonderful thing about this movie. In every other case, the writers would have Woodroof making some melodramatic speech about helping people and the usual sanctimonious, quasi-religious blather. It's so much more effective when it comes in the form of a Texas criminal conman with both balls and brains simply doing what works -- good old American pragmatism -- and telling anyone who needs to hear it the simple facts of the matter. AZT doesn't work. It kills people. He has found a way that keeps them alive; it doesn't cure them, but it definitely get them healthier. And now the FDA is coming down on his ass. He gets harassed by the IRS, too. The government doesn't care if people die of AIDS. It cares about successful challenges to its authority and monopoly. In fact, those are all it cares about.
There's a further, subtler problem with regulation. One that pretty much only libertarians talk about. It's not just that you lose your money and freedom when you agree to let Bozo the Bureaucrat, who is usually some penny-ante tyrant like jew
What libertarians know is that, in very short order,
The entire scam, if you will, is built around the false conception that safety is some kind of absolute, some kind of childishly simple matter of black and white, rather than a comparative term in a world of shifting circumstantial contingencies and calculated risks. Who better than the guy taking the pill to make the assessment? He's the one paying the price if he's wrong. The system works best if the man carries his weight. He gets the freedom; he accepts the responsibility that is the other side of that coin. Of course, Americans don't like to do that nowadays. They want to cherrypick. They want freedom until things go bad, then they want to blame or sue someone else. But it can't work like that.
If you have a regulatory body like the FDA, then drug companies have to spend billions on lobbying in order to get their drugs approved instead of someone else's. It becomes a matter of who you know and how much you spend. It's better that businessmen spend time trying to serve the public what it needs and wants than trying to hustle up regulators and pay off lobbyists in D.C.
Like I always say to those with religious faith in government regulation, watch daytime tv. What do you see between the terrible shows? Nothing but ambulance-chasing lawyers prospecting for complainants to join their class-action suits against FDA-approved drugs. But...but...how can that happen? They were approved? By real priests, I mean, bureaucrats!
Have you ever had a prescription? Did you ever look at the pages that come with the bottle? Or the label? The listing of the side effects? How often is outright death not listed among them?
Safety? There is no safety. There are just varying levels of risk.
"If it's strong enough to help you, it's strong enough to hurt you." No matter how many billions are spent on clinical trials, that adage will remain the bottom line, whether your drug is FDA-approved or you-approved.
I consider it self-evident that a completely free market in medicine is far superior to the regulated socialism we have now. Let people choose whom they go to, and let them buy what they like, for whichever reasons they come up with. Medical prices go nowhere but up precisely because of government involvement, yet uniformly in the controlled anti-market media, government involvement - increased government involvement or outright takeover - is presented as the solution rather than as the problem. But here I begin to stray too far. See our relevant thread on what should be done about health care in the politics section here.
Self-reliance used to be nearly the top American not just value but characteristic. Bugger off, England, we can do for ourselves. We did. We still could. But now we need our parents in Washington to sign a permission slip if we want to extend a nose-picker deeper than 1.2 millimeters into the nasal canal. Only a double-degreed expert with an M.D. from Johns Hopkins and a Ph.D. from the Colorado School of Mines is qualified for an extraction like that. Q-tip?? What are you, a madman?
You ever notice how racism, sexism, homophobia and the sundry other leftist junior devils and freedom all go together? Woodruff, bisexual though he be, is a definite anti-queer, misogynist and probably racist too, thought it never comes up, except that he seizes the initiative to get an ambulance for an illegal alien trapped in some machinery. He's willing to fuck or do business with pretty much anyone. He respects people as they present themselves, no matter his preferences or biases, which is all you can reasonably ask. It's all a white man would ask anyway, since white men don't pursue others into the privacy of their own bedrooms and hearts the way totalitarian judeo-leftists do. Demanding people ritually distance themselves from any thought, belief, statement or sentiment the jew-leftist deems Unutterable is, in the reality-based community, demanding that they shutter their rational component and board up their sense organs. Real men don't use religion. Or its queer nephew, secular, post-christian leftism.
Woodruff returns to the hospital. No appointment. He just seizes the initiative. None of this waiting amid passive obese women for 1.5 hours to see a doctor, the way the rest of us do, just show up and scream. Maybe you didn't hear me, woman, he says, assuming one of the women is another nurse. "Are you fucking deaf?" "No, I'm a fucking doctor." She walks around the corner. "I like your style, doc." That's where respect begins. He assumes a woman in white coat is a nurse. In the real world, so what? That's merely rational. In leftist world, it's cause for tears.
It's the same with 'Rayon,' the transvestite he meets in the hospital and later goes into business with. Contrary to some things I've read, Woodroof never changes his basic attitude toward anything in this movie. He's not a sentimental type. But he can feel others' pain. He can also feel whether they are true or false. He can see what needs to be done and do it. It's not at all like he comes around and thinks fags are good, the way some seem to think. He does stick up for Rayon because he/she is his partner, not because he thinks sex freaks are some kind of abstractly great thing. Woodruff stays true to his principles. He may be a criminal, he may steal from people, but he's honest and helpful more often than not.
Unlike liberals, he doesn't go in for self pity either. There's only one spot where he lets out the sorrow of his situation. Sitting alongside the road, fingering his gun, considering suicide. He lets out a cry. But that's the only time he gives in to sorrow and self-pity. Next thing we see, he's firmed up down in Mexico meeting the doc who will teach him the truth about AZT. You can't say Woodroof is a great kind of man, but he's legitimately tough, and he makes the necessary things happen. And they are mostly good things. You want more, go dig up a nun. It's not like that ugly Albanian broad ever cured leprosy, she just threw water on the lemurs and raised money off their big wet eyes.
Mixed motives rule the world. Businessmen serve the public far more than government workers or idealists.
That is an adult truth which many physical adults will never understand.
"I want to be loved for me." Translation: Don't criticize me or I'll cry. It doesn't work like that. You want to be loved; you should want to be lovable. You should make yourself lovable.
Businessmen have to serve people to make money. Politicians and bureaucrats do not. It is the practical mission of the press to reverse this truth, which is why they always describe businessmen as greedy (when greed comes up) and never bureaucrats. It's just like race, where whites are always guilty until proven innocent and blacks are always the injured party.
The movie shows the main character interacting with two doctors at a Dallas hospital. They represent, along with the blond-male FDA bureaucrat (the movie's lone concession to judeo-Hollywood stereotypes - the use of the common trope of evil white blond male antagonist), the institutional forces the man-trying-to-get-drugs must cope with. Slowly Woodroof wins over the female doctor, Saks. He demands she give him AZT. (The hospital is conducting clinical trials for the FDA.) She says, "That isn't how it works." We really get the strong and well devised contrast between the masculine energy and initiative of the man Woodroof and the much more staid, authority-respecting, law-abiding female. Over time, he wins her over, half by his personal charms, half intellectually, as he not only provides her the research to prove his arguments about AZT, but demonstrates it on the street as well. It finally dawns on her, HE is ACTUALLY DOING what SHE is supposed to be doing but ISN'T doing. In fact, since AZT is literally killing people, she is doing the opposite of what she's trying to do. She is honest enough that she can only ignore this so long. In the end, she forces the hospital to fire her, and joins his side. It's reminiscent of the fireman Montag in Fahrenheit 451. He's a book burner. To him, at the start, as he's been told by authority, his bosses, ideas are bad and threatening things, and it is the quite-proper role of the earnest fireman to put out their carriers - books. So you burn books. That's your job. He is a straight, just like this she-doc Saks and most women are. But he's smart enough and just open enough, again like her, to eventually be brought around by better ideas emitted from a sexually charming personality he's captivated by. Most people aren't so much dumb or evil as conventional and lacking in imagination. If you can stir them, you might move them. Montag and Saks both come around to the other side, once the've been introduced to the right ideas, and had enough time to let them gestate, and observe them in action.
And let's get theoretical. If you're a thinking man, like me, this movie raises in very dramatic form, the question: what gets us to a solution fastest? Regardless of my hatred of bureaucracy and government, if we have a difficult problem before us, how do we find the solution the quickest? We have this disease that is killing people. That needs to stop. How do we stop it?
Generally, by opening it up. Let everyone try to come up with something, and see who wins. That's how the market works, and the market is quite effective.
The she-doc, representing official authority, says "That isn't how it works" when Ron demands AZT. See - in a monopoly M.D.'s office, you're not the customer. You're merely granted an audience with the medical pope. That isn't how it works, she says? Well, that isn't how government works. But who died and made government boss? She says, WHEN the drug is proven to work and IF you fit the profile, THEN you can get it. This to a man diagnosed with 30 days to live! This is the sort of professional deformation and just plain not-getting-it that comes from spending your vital years in a miserably lit classroom dungeon listening to someone yapping. Woodroof is a man of the rodeo ring and bar and cathouse. He needs something that works - now. Not some theory. Not some process. Not some protocol or system. Just something that works. And if it's not known what works, then how the hell do you have all these rules about who can try what?
Regardless of his lack of degrees or background, Woodroof shows what a lone, rational white man can do. He solves the problem himself. He does the research. He rationally figures out the options from reading the medical literature - the different drugs being used to treat AIDS in countries around the world. Any man of normal intelligence can understand a question like AIDS without a medical degree. Any man of normal intelligence with AIDS can figure out the best policy for his own treatment. This movie demonstrates that in spades. Even if the government is against you, and passes laws against what you need to do, you can still work around it and get done what you need done. That's a lesson for white nationalists, surely. If Ron Woodroof had kept it legal, he would indeed have been dead in 30 days. He decided to live. The white cause is not up for vote; neither can it be destroyed by outlawing it, as the jews and servants attempt today to do in Greece.
Woodroof didn't follow the law, but he remained loyal to his business partners. Twice he wound up in the hospital; both times he refused to say where he got his drugs.
The only racism in the film is classism from the wannabe tranny:
Repeatedly Woodroof exits the hospital bed against doctor's orders. "What...get a morphine drip and fade away...? I prefer to die with my boots on." This is a not a guy who speaks in sentences which end in dithery uplifts.
Random good things about this movie...
- Leto deserves praise for not talking too rapidly. That is a common failing of actors portraying transvestites. There's a good scene at the end with his conservative father, where the dad is breaking as the kid makes a last appeal. Again, there's a refusal to resort to the usual stereotype; in most movies the father would have spewed some kind of angry bible-flavored condemnation. Here he doesn't really say anything, you can just feel his pain at, uh, having a blueberry for a daughter, so to speak.
- The pacing is excellent. DBC does not drag in a single place over two hours. That's an accomplishment. Somebody put a lot of thought into this movie, and it paid off.
- "I'm not running a goddam charity. $400 or no drugs." There's a long line out door. The director keeps this hard. He doesn't allow any false sentiment or I'm-helping-people sanctimony or self-righteousness to creep in. It's stronger for that - because it's so obvious what Woodroof is doing is helping people. That he's making a profit - so what? That's how things get done in this world. I am not going to dig into the writers and director, but if they're not libertarians, I'd be surprised. This film could have been custom-designed to make dramatically the points libertarians make intellectually.
- Funny line: Rayon gets high during business hours, Woodroof tells the black secretary she's now in charge, and "watch over that fucking monkey."
- "I say what goes in my body, not you." That ought to apply to our body politic, too.
- As the FDA throws up new obstacles, or new drug research evolves, McConaughey finds new connections, traveling to Amsterdam, China, Israel. The FDA seizes his alpha-interferon from Japan. He talks to his lawyer, who tells him: "The FDA said Japanese doctor - no legal standing. They make it up as they go along." Now there's an idea to play with. The people making and enforcing the law are just as human as Woodroof. They don't necessarily play by their own rules any more than he does. They're all about ends, more often than not. Are their ends better than his? No.
- Like most businessman, the fact that he's playing outside federal regulations doesn't mean he doesn't care about quality control. That's a point too subtle for most Regulation Jesus beliebers to grasp: either something is overseen by God Government, or it's the Wild West. Woodroof says he has his own process. If he doesn't trust what the "whitecoats" give him, he sends it to his lab in Seattle. And he uses it on himself.
- I repeat: anyone of normal intelligence can understand the tradeoffs involved in using a serious drug. that's why regulation makes no sense. if doctors are better than others at curing disease, then why are they afraid to prove that on the open market? At a court hearing, the FDA guy says: "Mr. Woodroof, I'm afraid you are nothing more than a common drug dealer." Woodroof respond: "Goddamnit, people are dying, and y'all up there afraid we gonna find an alternative without you." That's pretty much it.
- Never once does Woodroof relent in his attitudes, nor claim he's trying to help people. he just cites facts. He just keeps doing what is rational and what does in actual practice - work.
In the end, let's just sum up by saying McConaughey wins. Who would ever have thought it? Like most, I thought he topped out with his famous line in
In the end, McConaughey, like Texas, like Ron Woodroof, is better than his detractors. And that goes for white men too. //
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 16th, 2014 at 08:31 PM.
|March 9th, 2014||#5|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Off the reservation
Any movie that,it takes more than a dozen words to explain; really ain't worth the time.
Trying to reason Why a niggers does "anything"; is like asking your dog why he shit on the rug. Niggers don't "think", they can only react. White people believe that we have trained niggers to plan, reason and act over the past 200 years; when, in fact, every stinking nigger on the planet already knows that all niggers act on instinct, like all other animals.The nigger's "instincts" for survival, obviously being far superior to whites- in present day culture,unfortunately.
My movie critique:
Lawrence of Arabia-How Israel was invented, as tons of fucking Turks get killed.
ChinaTown- Corruption, perversion in the 1930's,directed by a flaming pervert himself.
The Searchers-The Duke kills lots of stinking Indians in Utah's Monument Valley
Last edited by SUNOFSPARTA; March 11th, 2014 at 12:19 PM.
|March 10th, 2014||#7|
|March 10th, 2014||#8|
|March 10th, 2014||#9|
I mean, the more effort you put into your review, the better. But the best, or most popular reviews we ever ran, were by Mark Rivers (see VNN 1.0), and they were short and quite funny.
There are different ways to do it. I do long intellectual reviews of very few movies in order to bring out certain evergreen political lessons. One can also write, as Rivers did, snarky squibs pointing up anti-White tropes in the latest slop from the 'wood.
There are many ways to skin a Katz.
|March 10th, 2014||#10|
Diversity = White Genocide
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Movie Review: Jaws (1975)
Implicit Jewish Propaganda in Steven Spielberg's Jaws
Jaws is a 1975 American thriller film directed by Steven Spielberg and based on Peter Benchley's novel of the same name. The prototypical summer blockbuster, its release is regarded as a watershed moment in motion picture history. In the story, a giant man-eating great white shark attacks beachgoers on Amity Island, a fictional summer resort town, prompting the local police chief to hunt it with the help of a marine biologist and a professional shark hunter. The film stars Roy Scheider as police chief Martin Brody, Richard Dreyfuss as oceanographer Matt Hooper, Robert Shaw as shark hunter Quint, Murray Hamilton as the mayor of Amity Island, and Lorraine Gary as Brody's wife, Ellen. The screenplay is credited to both Benchley, who wrote the first drafts, and actor-writer Carl Gottlieb, who rewrote the script during principal photography.
A Light Unto Amity Island
Jaws the film includes a number of subtle pro-jewish and anti-gentile tropes. Spielberg, studio head Sid Sheinberg's favorite, had considerable artistic freedom in changing the story from the novel, revising the script (with the help of his friend Carl Gottlieb, also a Jew) and casting the leads. The extent of Spielberg's special relationship with the studio is shown by their willingness to allow him to go so far over budget and schedule without replacing him (back then it wasn't unusual for films to go through a couple of directors if there were too many screw ups).
But to the propaganda.
The villagers, a dumb gentile lynch mob
An unruly gang capable only of fleeing in panic or boating into disaster, the locals are helpless against the shark and their best efforts only make things worse. Unable to be trusted with guns they almost shoot a kid playing a prank.
The mayor (with his ludicrous anchor sport coat) is the main human villain of the film. He is a stereotypical greedy gentile fat cat, willing to risk the lives of the swimming public to keep the tourist money coming in. His underlings are no better, all conspiring to keep the beaches open against Brody and Hooper's advice.
Brody is the police chief, former New York City cop with an obvious Jewess wife (Spielberg, always a skilled Hollywood diplomat, cast Lorraine Gary, studio head Sid Sheinberg's real life wife) played by Jew Roy Scheider, tries to do the right thing and close the beaches, only to be overruled by the mayor. This leads to the death of a young boy, after which Brody pressures the mayor into hiring Quint to hunt down and kill the shark.
Hooper, a wealthy shark expert from the Oceanographic Institute, played by Jew Richard Dreyfuss, shows up and sets everyone straight with his scientific knowledge. Brody's Jewdar immediately senses a kindred spirit and they're united in their mission to overcome the foolish villagers and their corrupt leadership and defeat the shark. Spielberg was going to cast a gentile in this role, but after Dreyfuss was cast it was rewritten and Spielberg has claimed Hooper is his alter ego. But Hooper, unlike Spielberg who fled the set to escape being thrown in the water, is braver than the average Jew. In fact he willingly takes the greatest risk by climbing into the (supposedly) shark-proof cage to spear the great white with a poison harpoon. The shark, naturally, rips the cage to bits. By the end of the film Hooper, the most overtly Jewish character, is arguably the most admirable and courageous. Brody was along for the ride (until the ship starts sinking!) and Quint was doing it for money. Hooper chooses to get in the shark cage and face the dragon.
Quint is the one gentile hero, the most popular character with gentiles, and he has an important role in this passion play. Quint sacrifices his life fighting the shark. The gentile dies, the Jews live. Quint is noble because he will give up his life to save Jews. But being a foolish gentile he doesn't know how to kill the Great White. It's left to the wise Jew Brody to figure that out.
In the end Brody kills the shark with a technically impossible exploding scuba tank set off by a gunshot. The brave, wise Jew has saved the foolish goyim of Amity Island. Truly a light unto the villagers.
It should be mentioned that Dreyfuss and Scheider are never identified as Jews in the film. Gentiles were considered for both roles. Had the casting gone a different way the ending could have been adjusted. Or perhaps not. Spielberg may have been acting entirely on instinct when he just happened to end up with the gentile dead and the Jews alive. Or maybe he was grinning about what a great joke he had pulled. A joke that paid off big.
So what was the most successful movie of all time in 1975 (which was no accident, by the way, see below) conveys the following messages in a subtle and deniable way:
Jews are smart, brave, pure and honest.
Gentiles are stupid, dangerous and corrupt.
Gentiles can't be trusted with guns.
Gentiles will form a lynch mob at the first sign of trouble.
The only good gentile is one who dies saving Jews.
The Hollywood Jews really did cheat Spielberg when they didn't give him a best director Oscar that year. Maybe it went over their heads.
Universal spent $1.8 million promoting Jaws, including an unprecedented $700,000 on national television spot advertising. The media blitz saw around twenty-five thirty-second advertisements aired per night on prime-time network TV between June 18, 1975, and the film's opening two days later. Beyond that, in the description of film industry scholar Searle Kochberg, Universal "devised and co-ordinated a highly innovative plan" for the picture's marketing. As early as October 1974, Zanuck, Brown, and Benchley hit the television and radio talk show circuit to promote the paperback edition of the novel and the forthcoming film. The studio and publisher Bantam agreed on a title logo that would appear on both the paperback and in all of the advertising for the movie.
|March 11th, 2014||#11|
Join Date: Mar 2004
The same formula with EVERY Spielboig "film"; rinse, repeat, ad nauseum. And he's always had all the freedom in the world to allow him to make them that way - his fellow travelling evil tribesmen that have always been in power.
|March 11th, 2014||#12|
Diversity = White Genocide
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Hooper is the first instance of the Spielberg Magical Hebrew trope. The Jewish sage who explains what's going on to the dim but good hearted gentiles he's leading to salvation. This is the key to Spielberg's commercial success. He shows at least some gentiles as decent people who just need guidance from the right liberal or Jew. Condescending not bitter. To Kill a Mockingbird not Catcher in the Rye.
Other Magical Hebrews are Dreyfuss again in Close Encounters, along with François Truffaut as the UFO expert, the rabbi who explains how to find the ark of the covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) of chaos theory fame in Jurassic Park, and Schindler's Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern (The list is life!) in Schindler's List.
Gentiles who play the Quint role and give everything to save Jews include the Australian hunter in Jurassic Park and good old Oskar Schindler.
E.T., Spielberg's most successful film, is missing most of these tropes. I don't remember a single noticably Jewish character, though the government UFO expert who turns out to be a good guy is played by Jew Peter Coyote (born Robert Peter Cohon). E.T. was written by Melissa Mathison who is probably a gentile.
|April 13th, 2014||#13|
By Alex Linder [index]
April 13, 2014
Thumbnails of most of the movies i've seen so far in 2014 (that i didn't write serious reviews of). My goal this year is to see all the '70s films i've missed that are any good. I've already gone through all horror films and can say they all suck, that is a completely played-out genre. In chronological order...
American Hustle (2013) - typical 5/10 movie roughly about ABSCAM which only those over 40 will vaguely remember. For all the ink spilled, there really isn't anything to say about this movie, it's not bad, there are ok scenes, but it's not particularly coherent, nor is the story that interesting. More effort into look/feel of movie (vintage 70s clothes, let's say) than anything else.
Wolf of Wall Street (2013) - White nationalist point of interest: jew wearing horn rims with clear lenses to look more WASPy. Wife is his cousin. "I'm not going to let someone else fuck my cousin. If anyone's going to fuck her it's going to be me. [...] 60-65% chance the kid's going to be retarded." decent movie, far from great, 6.5/10. I don't find DiCaprio convincing as a dominant man. Did you know he speaks German fluently? The main character is a jew, Jordan Belfort, as is his sidekick, but he adopts a WASP cover and appearance for his investment firms, in the usual jewy way, just as Shleppy Cheatowitz becomes Bill Ross or Mike Greene. This movie has garnered much praise, but it's overrated because it's derivative; nothing in it that hasn't been done earlier and better in your Scarface (1983), a 10/10, and Goodfellas (1990), 9/10.
We're The Millers (2013) - degenerate sex (big black cop - Aniston) dovetails to porn fetish category. Has some really funny stuff but overall annoying because of wimpy-white-man meme. 6/10, because it has some genuinely funny stuff, particularly at start. a clever idea, fairly well but politically annoyingly executed.
Nebraska (2012) - savagely dreary movie shot in gray and white about the midwestern mentality. A rating doesn't make sense for this movie, watch it only if you want to learn how midwesterners act and think. It's overdrawn, but a caricature only works if based on elements actually there.
The Barrens (2012) - Forgettable. Jersey jejune, let's call it. I don't understand why people make movies that don't have anything interesting or new in them. Oh wait I do, it's money. The base of the human pyramid demands little, so this movie will keep getting made, even though it's devoid of any original or interesting horror twists. That goes for the horror genre, not just this movie. Only good use of this movie is rereading up on the origins of the Jersey Devil, and becoming reacquainted with the word cryptid. 4/10.
Sleepwalk With Me (2012) - basically the backstory of comedian Mike Birbiglia. Not terrible, not great, classic 5/10 movie.
The Descendants (2011) - dir. by Alexander Payne, perhaps the best director going. This is a good solid 7/10 featuring George Clooney and Hawaiian setting and interesting story.
Pontypool (2008) - not that good mock-zombie movie. Idea os interesting: virus spreads through words. Much could be done with that, but not literally as here. not worth watching. Good example of movie that is overpraised for its concept yet viewer's left shaking head, 3.5/10.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) - Philip Seymour Hoffman, the late. Decent movie, not great. 5.5/10.
Paris, je t'aime (2006) - vignettes about Paris from maybe 15 directors. only really good one is Alexander Payne's. Not worth watching.
Miami Blues (1990) - good, young Baldwin, very Aryan, when he was young and quick, instead of stout middle-aged. Worth watching. Didn't even recognize the female lead, she was so young, but she's well known. Jennifer Jason Leigh from the 10/10 Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982). give this a nice 7.5/10.
Cutter's Way (1981) - 6/10, with Jeff Bridges. Fairly interesting detective story.
The Driver (1978) - decent, with Bruce Dern, see him many decades later in Nebraska, aging sucks.
Breezy (1973) - decent movie, big '50s star Holden hooks up with hippy chick. This shit would never be made today, would be considered too close to pedophilia. you dont see adult men like Holden anymore anyway, 6.5/10. watch Holden and Kim Novak in Picnic (1955) if you want a good movie.
Prime Cut (1972) - mob battle between Chi-town micks and cornfield towhead cow- and womanflesh peddlers. Decent, with Lee Marvin and Gene Hackman, a big star back then. 6/10.
The Killer Elite (1975) James Caan and guy from Back to School (1986) who was in half the '70s movies (Burt Young). Ninjas. Not great not terrible, 5/10.
Across 110th Street (1972) - decent gangster flick about Italian mob vs niggers.
Klute (1972) - only reason to watch is to get a Dennis Miller allusion - not very interesting detective story featuring Donald Sutherland and Jane Fonda, 4/10. Skip it.
|April 27th, 2014||#14|
By Alex Linder [index]
April 27, 2014
Blackfish (2013) - 7/10. Documentary about keeping killer whales in captivity for public entertainment as at SeaWorld or former SeaLand in Canada. Turns out they sometimes kill people, you know, these whales, and management covers it up. Interesting things: just how WASPy SeaWorld and this foamy animal-training subculture is generally. The trainers are Brady Bunch types, as are the families who come to see the show. Management is dark and shadowy, don't hear much from them. They simply cover up what actually happens to preserve appearances, in every case. For it is the way of the WASP, whether high-end Episcopalian-illiberal elite, or low-end Baptist preaching dirt-eater. To the WASP, appearances are all that matters. Everything is trainer error, nothing is due to animal aggression. Nothing is fundamentally wrong with cooping up giant animals in small spaces. It's ok to lie about 'facts' (like the life length of the orca in captivity versus wild) as long as it makes the paying customers feel good. It may be that jews own SeaWorld, as they own most entertainment, from movie production companies to cruise lines, but the working environment, the subculture investigated in this film, is as WASPy as it gets.
Fun facts: 100% of male orcas get fin impotence, as it were: 'dorsal collapse' they call it. Their top fin simply flops over rather than stands erect. In the wild this only happens 1% of the time. It is impossible not to read a spiritual and symbolic significance into this. The bottom line seems to be that even if you genuinely care about the animals, and follow proper training procedures...the animals will never be wholly happy cooped up, and attacks on trainers will never be completely avoidable. In short, it's a grey area. It's cool to train and swim with giant sea creatures, and audiences enjoy and will pay to see such things, but it comes at a price to both the animals and the people who work with them. That's life in the big city, I guess. I don't feel compelled to respond to what's presented in any particular way (beyond appreciating learning that orcas apparently have evolved a brain structure related to emotion not found in humans), though the point of the movie tends toward the idea that this stuff is basically unhealthy, immoral and probably ought to be outlawed. I don't agree with that, but there are certainly valid points to be made against shops like SeaWorld. It's funny though, this great concern for whales all these ex-trainers have, now that they're no longer employed and paid by SeaWorld. Why, they act like killer whales when the trainers run short of fish rewards for proper behaviors.
And then there's this, which any WN will appreciate. It's one of the lies peddled by management, that the orcas you see in the family fun park are a real family - just like yours! Say two-three people:
Blue Jasmine (2013) - It's nice to be shocked every now and then. I really liked this movie. Give it 7/10. Have seen most Allen films, disliked most of them, not least because they're all overrated. All of them. Allen's a double-ugly jew - not just physically but mentally. This movie works better than the others because he's not in it. It's a character study of a WASP woman mentally fractured by her inability to parse her idea of herself as a high-minded high-ender with her actual low-rent circumstances. The reviews make no mention of the ethnic aspect here, but to me this movie works best as a study of elite WASP liberal obnoxiousness. Ordinary people aren't good enough for this woman, which I have no problem with, because to an extent it does betoken standards, but she has no call to ruin their lives, and this she does, without caring or even really noticing. Apply this woman's mindset to politics and you get what is called liberalism. Mere reality is far too crude and uncompelling for this case of head; it seeks refuge in ideological fantasies, not caring that this inflicts misery on everyone around it. It's all and always about how the WASP feels about himself; his picture of himself as preferring and exhibiting the highest and best in everything, yet while this taste can be real, it can also be merely fashion, and extremely destructive, and the WASP too often can't tell the difference or simply doesn't care. Jew Allen shows this WASP woman genuinely not caring that her wealthy lifestyle is a product of her husband's financial fraud - and in one crucial scene she does acknowledge that she basically knew it. She certainly knew it when out of anger she called the FBI on him, which had the unintended consequence of reducing her to the circumstances she hates so much she can't cope with them save through eyebrains filtered through xanax and vodka. All that matters to this WASP woman is successful social presentation and preserving one's place in the right circle. Particularly good is the scene in which Jasmine and her sister, who lives a working-class life, have drinks with the sister's fiance, an Italian greaseball mechanic, and his similarly low-rent friend. Blanchett has been widely praised, and rightly so. Just watching her eyes slide around like an uncomfortable snake as she tries to evade direct, reasonable questions from the men, desperately trying to pretend this is not HER actually doing THIS with THESE people...it's the whole thing in microcosm. The high-end WASPs are some of the most unappealing and dangerous people the planet has ever produced. A woman or man who thinks she has a beautiful mind is a danger to all around her. I'm not theorizing either, I've seen this directly in real life. There can't be enough movies made about the essential lousiness of the high-end WASP illiberal, even if it's a ratty, drecky shecky making them.
The Skeptic (2009) - 5/10, average horror film; not unpleasant, ok ending. I enjoy any movie with white men acting straight. The serious brother from Wings is a good example. Just a serious man talking and speaking and acting rationally. I like that.
Computer Chess (2012) - For a couple years in high school, chess was a big part of my life. I gave it up because I realized I could never be great at it, and I didn't particularly enjoy playing it seriously - in tournaments. Or at all. I found very much to be true what pro football coaches say: the pleasure of the wins is far outweighed by the misery of the losses. Tournament chess is the most physically wracking thing I've done. You wouldn't think that, would you? But try playing 3-4 high-pressure matches in one Saturday, with not much time in between, eating out of vending machines. It curdles your stomach and frays your nerves in the most irritating way. You're always one move from disaster. If you're playing someone lower ranked than you are, you should win. If you're playing someone higher ranked, you're usually beaten pretty soundly. It just isn't fun at all, except to a certain type. But for about two years, I was into it pretty heavily.
It's not a thing you can really develop a skill at either, is my impression from experience. The people who are great at it are born that way, as in most things. You can study openings and books all you like, but you're not going to get that much better. Unless you really enjoy it, there's nothing particular to be gained from playing it. As with languages, with chess you get all these claims about how it helps you in other areas of life, but this really isn't true. Success in chess is based on pattern recognition, and this is one of those things you either instinctively have or don't.
Computer Chess is a mockumentary about a computer chess tournament. Give it a 6/10. From the White point of view, shows the diversity of a handful of white men is more than the rest of the world combined, indeed it might be the only true or deep diversity going, the rest being skin deep. This genuine and interesting intra-white diversity is best captured in scene where the Cal-Tech nerd is in a hotel room with a New-Age couple there for a weekend of holistic healing complete with rebirthing. These familiar types are contrasted skillfully enough; there is more distance between these white ways of taking the world than is needed to encompass the comparatively shallow and limited inferior races. The Cal Tech kid is super nerdy, introverted, shy, intelligent, you know the type or stereotype; today we talk about Asperger's or call them 'spergy.' The couple is touchy feely irrational but warm-happy, as they try to draw the sharp, narrow kid into their sexual spumescence. He can stand it only so long before bolting, as we knew he must.
(Polish) Seksmisja (Sex Mission) (1984) - good, 7/10. Cheesy '80s movie but in Polish, of all things. A comedy. Similar set-up to Idiocracy. Two test subjects are put to sleep for science; they wake up much later than supposed to, in 2044, when women rule the world. Hijinkskis ensue! As always, fun to read misshapen subtitles: overcepting private conversations - overcept works for me in our age of drones. "We have slept through the best years of our lives! I was supposed to get an apartment in '98!" Now that's some echt Polish-communist humor right there, boy. Venerical, suiciders. "Why are they lying so much? for some higher ideals."Ah! That's that Pravda/Istina (noble-ideological 'truth' vs. gritty-street-factual truth; i.e., lie vs reality) difference I used to go on about in my earlier radio show. In any case, it's an enjoyable movie if you can find it.
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 27th, 2014 at 11:24 AM.
|March 10th, 2018||#15|
Join Date: Jan 2017
Drive, the most Anti Semitic film in 2011
Drive is the most Anti Semitic and best film in 2011
Drive is a 2011 American neo-noir crime thriller film directed by Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn. The screenplay, written by Hossein Amini, is based on James Sallis' 2005 novel Drive.
The film stars Ryan Gosling as an unnamed, Hollywood stunt driver moonlighting as a getaway driver.
|3 Weeks Ago||#16|
Join Date: May 2018
The REAL meaning of Jaws
(…) The image of Jews as sharks has also been around for a long time. Consider the idea of Jewish loan sharks, raising the "vig", or Shylock desiring his pound of flesh. Jaws feasts on multiple pounds of flesh in the film. Just Google Jews and Jaws and any number of images that have replaced the shark with a stereotypically Jewish caricature will come up.
The shark is depicted as an outsider who doesn't belong. A wandering, nomadic predator, Jaws is an unwanted presence in the small American coastal resort of Amity (which means ''friendship''). Amity was most likely the type of place that was probably restricted to Jews in the past. The film makes much of the town's close-knit nature and its white picket fences. It is populated by people with such gentile names as Quint and Brody. Jaws' invasion disrupts this quintessential all-American idyll, as if he was a metaphor for immigration.
Spielberg named the mechanical shark ''Bruce'' after his lawyer, Bruce Ramer. So not only is Jaws Jewish, he is also an attorney! Ramer later became national president of the defence organisation, the American Jewish Committee (1998-2001).
The very idea of having a Jewish shark as a protagonist raises the ugly head of the historic blood libel. It taps into age-old fears of the Jew as predatory, lusting after gentile women and the blood of young Christian children. Surely, then, it is no coincidence that the first victims in the film are a (presumably) non-Jewish blonde and a young boy. Indeed, the poster for the film plays on these fears in its depiction of a blonde female swimmer being menaced by the huge (read: phallic) shark.
And when one character states, ''It wasn't Jack the Ripper, it was a shark'', this allusion implicitly compares Jaws to the infamous Victorian serial killer who was also alleged to be Jewish.
Whenever Jaws appears the colour yellow is prominent in the background. Yellow has long been associated with Jews ever since it was the colour of the badge that Jews were forced to wear in medieval England and later continental Europe, culminating in the Jewish Star of the Nazi period and yellow triangle of the concentration camps.
Made only a couple of years after the Yom Kippur War, Jaws can also stand in as the tough Israeli Jew. A ruthless and efficient killer, he anticipates Spielberg's 2005 film, Munich. If you think this is a stretch, then read the reports of how the Egyptian media and authorities accused tourist-killing sharks of being Mossad-trained spies.
Certainly Spielberg seems to identify with the shark. He said that when he first read the novel, he found himself rooting for the shark, because the human characters were so unlikeable. This explains the high number of point-of-view shots in the film, where we see things from Bruce's subjective perspective, that is, of the shark (this was also dictated by pragmatic concerns as ''Bruce'', the mechanical shark, kept breaking down).
We can also interpret this as a projection of Spielberg's own sense of childhood otherness among a largely gentile population in which there were few other Jews. Spielberg recalled being physically bullied and subject to antisemitic comments as a child.
Another Jew is drafted in to help hunt down Jaws, possibly along the lines that it takes one to know one. A young, Richard Dreyfuss, whom Spielberg called his ''alter ego'', plays Hooper, the oceanographer and shark expert. In stereotypical fashion, he is the rationalist, sceptical intellectual, whose knowledge is invaluable in the shark hunt.
When Hooper takes to the seas with police chief Brody (Roy Scheider) and grizzled seaman Quint (Robert Shaw), Jackie Mason's quip ''Is there a bigger shmuck on this earth than a Jew with a boat?'' immediately comes to mind.
Stereotypically, Diaspora Jews have not been seen as a seafaring people and when we see Hooper initially neither are we convinced. He seems more like a student rabbi who has inadvertently taken a wrong turn.
Indeed, when he is aboard the boat hardboiled Quint gives him loads of stick, reflecting their public off-screen relationship in which they did not get on at all. Shaw accused Dreyfuss of cowardice and suggested that Dreyfuss would only have a career ''if there's room for another Jewish character man like Paul Muni.'' But Hooper does play to type at times. Like a stereotypical Jew, he is always eating (just like the shark who has no table manners, another stereotypically Jewish trait).
But Hooper proves himself to be tougher than that. When he faces off against Jaws, it is the diaspora Jew vs the tough shark and the former wins. Hooper is thus the brave Jewish outsider coming to the rescue of the gentiles.
He ultimately disputes Jackie Mason's quip about Jews on boats. In fact, he outlives Quint who becomes the shark's fifth victim (hence his name, Latin for five or fifth). In an act of possible retribution for his harsh treatment of Hooper, Spielberg stages Quint's death as particularly gruesome.