High Noon

Not rated yet!
Fred Zinnemann
1 h 25 min
Release Date
27 March 1952
High Noon is about Will Kane, the sheriff of a small town in the New Mexico Territory, who learns a notorious outlaw he put in jail has been freed, and will be arriving on the noon train. Knowing the outlaw and his gang are coming to kill him, Kane is determined to stand his ground. He attempts to gather a posse from among the local townspeople.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

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



Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)

 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
PJ Media Staff7
PJ Media

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The 20 Best Films of the 1950s
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Sabrina (1954) Trailer', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Editor’s Note: This is an expansion of Kyle Smith’s list of the 10 best films of the 1950s published here in June. I’ve asked Kyle to expand his series as PJ Lifestyle begins offering more lists, articles, essays, and blog posts exploring culture, art, technology, and history by decade. Last month he expanded his ’80s list to a top 20 here and his '60s list here. Do you disagree with Kyle’s choices? Do you have your own ideas for lists of movies or other cultural subjects? Which years and what subjects would you most like to see covered at PJ Lifestyle? Email: DaveSwindlePJM [@] gmail.com Also check out Kyle’s top 10 movie picks for the ‘30s,  ’40s, ‘70s,  ’90s, and the ’00s before he expands them to top 20s.In the 1950s, the Golden Age of Hollywood faded and glorious old-school films like The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur began to give way to grittier, wised-up films like those of Billy Wilder, creating an interesting tension between impish youth and pompous elders. Here’s one critic’s list of the twenty best films of the decade.20. Sabrina (1954)Billy Wilder’s romcom starred the unmatched trio of Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart and William Holden as a poor chauffeur’s daughter and the two rich brothers angling for her after ignoring her while she was growing up under their noses. Though effervescent and elegant, the film had typically Wilder-ish dark touches, such as the scene where the title character nearly succeeds in committing suicide. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/10/4/the-20-best-films-of-the-1950s/ previous Page 1 of 20 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • The 10 Best Films of the 1950s
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Dial M for Murder (1954) Official Trailer - Alfred Hitchcock, Grace Kelly Movie HD', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 10. Dial M for Murder (1954)Alfred Hitchcock was in his prime, making Vertigo, Rear Window and North by Northwest this decade. None of them made this list. His lean, witty, sophisticated, expertly-plotted murder-mystery starring Ray Milland and Grace Kelly is his tightest, most focused film of the decade, suffering from none of the languors and excesses of the other three (particularly Vertigo). There isn’t a wasted moment in it, and the finish is a knockout.  class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/6/29/the-10-best-films-of-the-1950s/ previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • High Noon for America
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media Jamie Glazov’s previous book, Showdown with Evil, was a collection of interviews he’d conducted over the years with resonant figures in the political world and authors of international standing. Glazov has now followed suit with High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown, a collection of symposia, dating from 2008 to 2011, which he hosted and then compiled. These consist in the main of erudite and compelling discussions treating of the major issues of the day: the threat of radical Islam (a blatant pleonasm), Communism and the heritage Left, the waning of American power and influence, and the gradual but accelerating atrophy of the Judeo-Christian faith community which formed the bedrock of Western civilization.High Noon is a compendium that deals with “the really big ideas,” as Daniel Greenfield writes in his review of the book, which are in effect “too big for answers, only for observations.” Big ideas, we might add, do not typically beget small responses or narrow perspectives—except, of course, from the terminally deficient—and the vistas these symposia open on the history of political thought and practice encompass horizons of provocative reflection. They traverse the contemporary via dolorosa from the misnamed “Arab Spring” (“really,” Glazov says, “just an Islamic supremacist Winter”), to the resurgence of “the Evil Empire” controlled by KGB thug Vladimir Putin, to the tragedy of the politically correct, self-constraining, defeatist culture of the West that refuses to even name the enemy that plots its destruction, to the demonic nature of the ideological Left making common cause with a ruthless and dedicated adversary, to questions of economic independence and spiritual authenticity.Some of the symposia are retrospective, examining the forces that have driven the events we are now experiencing ("The Red Arabs"; "The Shadow of the KGB"). Others are almost uncannily prospective, if not prophetic, as, for example, the discussion on "The Mismanaged War Against Libya," in which the participants point out that the aftermath of the revolution may eventually prompt us to regard the murdered Gaddafi with nostalgia. Recent events in Benghazi confirm their prescience.The volume, then, is distinguished not only by its archival substance and empirical wisdom (a synonym for clear-sightedness and common sense), but by the impressive variety of its subjects, arguments, insights, and sources of authority. Naturally, given the diversity of the dramatis personae and the fact that these installments are essentially conversations, there will be some unevenness in quality, tone, and rhetorical elegance, and several tend to range beyond the titular subject of the book, but the level of debate and reasoned formulation remains consistently arresting. And a number of the symposia are virtual knockouts, theatrical-like performances that merit extension, as I imagine, into the genre of the “philosophical film,” like "My Dinner with Andre," "The Quarrel," and "Mind Walk." This, to my mind, constitutes the book’s peculiar and distinctive strength. The symposia that fit into this category each generate a kind of storyline and create a sense of intellectual tension, modulated in talk, that render the comparison apt. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/blog/high-noon-for-america/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • I Hate Israel! I Hate America! I'm a Muslim! I've Got it All! Let Me Be Your Leader!
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Rubin Reports  Scene: A nightclub in Morocco.Abdul: "I’m sorry, sir, this is a private room."German official [from the Nazi-controlled DeutschBank]:  "You dare not keep me out of here!"Rick: "Your cash is good at the bar."German official: "What! Do you know who I am?"Rick: 'I do. You’re lucky the bar’s open to you."--“Casablanca,” (1942) By Barry Rubin First it was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution. Hey, he said in effect, Yes, I’m a Persian, Yes, I’m a Shia, but I hate Israel and want to destroy it! And besides we’re all Muslims. So let me lead the Middle East. I know the way to kick the Americans out of the Middle East, too. By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Iran was popular for a while. But the Arabs and Sunni eventually found other heroes, and some became frightened of Iran’s power. Then there was Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi dictatorship. Hey, he said in effect, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am a Godless atheist who kills believers. But I not only hate the Americans and Israelis but I also hate the Shia and those Shia heretics. So let me lead the Middle East. I know how to defeat them! By force!  And the blood spilled and behold, Iraq was popular for a while. But then he led Iraq to disaster, and was defeated and then killed. Then there was Usama bin Ladin. He said, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am no trained cleric. But I hate the Americans. What? Oh, yes, forgot about that one. I also hate Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force! So let me lead the Middle East. By force!  And the blood spilled and behold, Usama bin Ladin was popular for a while. And then he was killed, too. Then there was Muhammad Fadlallah of Hizballah. He said in effect, I am an Arab, though a Shia. I am a cleric! I have it all. I hate the Americans (though many of them don’t even realize it) and Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force!   See, I won the war! Oops! Spoke too soon, heh!  And the blood spilled and Fadlallah was popular for a while, Lebanon was in ruins though, still, Hizballah seized state power there. But he sided with Iran and the Syrian dictatorship so the Sunni Arabs waxed wroth. And now, there is Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood and they can say: We’re Arab! We’re Muslim! We’ve got it all, including the most respected Sunni Islamist in the world as our guide! We don’t need no stinkin’ Persians or Shias! (Film reference: “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”) Soon we will take over Egypt. We hate the Americans and Israel. We know how to defeat them! By force! True, Egypt lost in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and, ultimately, in 1973, too. Still, a few Allahu Akhbar’s will take care of that. True, if we were aggressive we might lose all that U.S. aid but what’s money compared to the Will of Allah and the prospect of heaven? Besides, America is collapsing; Israel is losing its support—the more concessions, the more aggressive we will be. And we have our Hamas friends. There is something different this time, however, since there is still another savior of Islam in the field: Turkish President Recep Erdogan. He says: True, I’m not an Arab but I’m Sunni. And I hate the United States, though I don’t say so in public. And I know how to defeat them: by force! Let’s go and fight! And the Arab League leaders erupt in cheers and chant his name. Then the Muslim Brotherhood discovers he is too subtle for them, he wants to keep the Islamism secret until all power is seized and they disagree with that strategy.Still, Erdogan is making his leadership bid. Here he is at the Arab League foreign minister's meeting: “It is time for us to take responsibility for our common future....We are entitled to meet the righteous demands of our people using any legitimate means.” Note two phrases: "our common future" means forget about Arab nationalism. All us Muslims got to stick together. Seeing Turks as Europeans is an obsolete notion for him. Ninety years of secular, Western-oriented nationalism is over. "Any legitimate means" means the right and need to go to war against Israel. Of course, the U.S. government still acts as if nothing has changed, that Turkey is not just a reliable ally but an especially honored role model, star ally. Incidentally, don't waste any time on the lies and denials, here's Turkey's foreign minister explaining the new policy of Turkey being leader of the Middle East as he secretly expressed it to a meeting of high-level ruling party officials and as made available to us by Wikileaks. And let’s not forget Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser; and Syria’s Assad dynasty; and, of course, Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasir Arafat. All of them also had the same basic program. All of them failed miserably and left their people worse off.I keep thinking of George Costanza of "Seinfeld" explaining, "You think sickness like that grows on trees? Nobody is sicker than me, nobody....I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I got it all!" There were some others—King Abdallah of Jordan; Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt; Bashir al-Gemayel of Lebanon. They were all murdered, though, by other locals. King Hussein of Jordan isn’t around any more. So let’s see, demagogues who back terrorism and violence, hate the West, and refuse compromise fail miserably and become heroes. Moderates who want to focus on economic progress (including here Husni Mubarak) and peacemaking are jeered and killed or deposed by their own people. Might there be a pattern here?    Meanwhile, like Bart Simpson, President Barack Obama and other Western leaders keep writing on the blackboard one hundred times: Now, if only we prove to them we’re their friends they’ll like us.Maybe, say the Europeans, if we recognize a Palestinian state they will like us! Maybe if we say enough things about Muslims they’ll like us! After all, it is all our fault, or Israel’s fault, that they are angry. They couldn’t possibly want a revolution based on a radical ideology followed by a repressive dictatorship because that’s what they really want!Reminds me of the lyrics to “I Hope I Get It” from “A Chorus Line”: “I think I've got it.I think I've got it.I knew he liked me all the time.Still it isn't over….What does he want from me?What should I try to be?”In other words,  Western leaders aren't protecting their interests. They're auditioning for the role of Middle East hero against those who can say they are a Muslim or even an Arab. Guess who's going to get the part? Are they going to persuade the producers that they hate Israel more than Qaradawi or Erdogan or Fadlallah? That they will promote Islam as well as people like that? That they will kick the West (that is, themselves) out of the Middle East?In contrast, a Gulf Arab, who hates all this stuff, gave the alternative in a private conversation: "I don't want an American president to behave like an Arab. I want an American president who will behave like an American."The United States and Europe should be preparing to audition for a very different part in a very different production. How about "Casablanca" or "High Noon"? Obama might be better advised (and it would be less of a stretch) to go out for the Noel Coward role for "In Which We Serve." Or even "The Four Feathers" in which a coward finds his inner hero.(Warning: Watch only the 1939 version.) Funny, they don't make films like those any more.They better start making politicians like that very soon! The good news: If you are reading this you have already learned. Explain it to everyone you know. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/9/22/i-hate-israel-i-hate-america-im-a-muslim-ive-got-it-all-let-me-be-your-leader/ ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Big Hollywood, Then And Now
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll In the latest edition of their "Poliwood" series at PJTV, Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd compare today's Hollywood with the Academy Award winners and nominees of 50 years ago, including such films as:All About EveSunset BoulevardHigh NoonThe Caine MutinyBridge On The River KwaiOn the Waterfront Ben HurIn contrast, today's Hollywood? This headline says it all: "The Decade That Superhero Movies Beat Video-Game Movies." class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/12/31/big-hollywood-then-and-now/ ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • 7 Movies That Show You The Masculine Ideal
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Action movies are just as American as motherhood, apple pie, and capitalism. Movies like Unforgiven, Gladiator, Rooster Cogburn, Conan, Dirty Harry, Die Hard, The Dark Knight, High Noon, Man on Fire, Red Dawn, Tombstone, and True Grit speak to men in a primal language that transcends the story line on the screen. Men like these films because they capture qualities we'd like to think we have ourselves. We like the idea of being billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne and fighting crime in our spare time, pointing a gun at a punk and asking him if he feels lucky, or responding to the question, "What is best in life?" with "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!" While there are dozens of deserving action movies, there are seven that are particularly good at revealing parts of the male psyche.1) First BloodJohn Rambo is a damaged character. His fighting in Vietnam left him with mental problems, made him ill-equipped to fit into society, and led to him ultimately having a difficult and lonely existence. However, there are two things about him that make the character click with men. The first is this:Teasle: Are you telling me that 200 men against your boy is a no-win situation for us?Trautman: You send that many, don't forget one thing.Teasle: What?Trautman: A good supply of body bags.Rambo doesn't pick the fight, but when he is backed up against a wall, he is a one-man army. This theme is repeated over and over in action movies because it's something men aspire to all the way down in their souls.The other, more subtle thing that makes Rambo appealing is that he shares a grievance that most men have on some level or another: his sacrifices are largely unappreciated. He went through hell to do what had to be done, paid a terrible price for it, saw his suffering shrugged off by men unfit to say his name, and was left holding the bag. There are millions of men who feel the exact same way. They've provided, they've struggled, they've done things they didn't want to do for other people, and, ultimately, they found that it wasn't valued. That makes it easy to relate to a character like Rambo, even if you're not planning to shoot at anybody with a machine gun. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/3/13/7-movies-that-show-you-the-masculine-ideal/ previous Page 1 of 7 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Don't Back Down
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Unexamined Premises If there's anything more tiresome than listening to conservative complaints that the media hates them and the polls are rigged -- amazing how that meme turned around in a hurry after last week's debate! -- it's listening to Hollywood conservatives complain that they've been blackballed by the Industry due to their political views. While this may be true in some cases, particularly in the "below the line" crafts, it's difficult to reconcile with the larger picture -- which is that "conservative" movies do get made. And "liberal" movies. And movies with no political point of view at all. Amazingly, even in Hollywood, not everything is about politics.Because the movies that do get made are, by Industry standards, "good movies," which is to say scripts that are well-crafted and well-executed on the page, that somehow will speak to the Zeitgeist two years from the minute the exec picks it up, can be made for a reasonable amount of money (always excepting superhero tentpole films), and won't get the exec fired the next day.In fact, based on my perhaps atypical experience, I would say very few things are politically tinged at the working level. ( I know that many of my screenwriter colleagues are going to disagree with me on this one.) I've worked with one of the great producers, the late Daniel Melnick -- a good old-fashioned red-diaper baby and proud of it -- and our relationship was warm both personally and professionally. I count among my friends some of the most famous, and famously liberal, names in the Industry. If a conservative can't work with progressives in Hollywood, he or she is going to be very lonely and very unemployed. As I wrote in 2009 in Dan's obituary:One final point, and it’s important, especially these days: politics never entered into our relationship. It’s not that we didn’t discuss them, but it was after the fashion of Yankee fans versus Mets fans: it never affected our professional and personal love for one another. Dan was a classic NY/LA liberal. I was, well, the multilingual son of a Marine Corps officer who had spent much of my career in eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union, who was there at the Berlin Wall with a sledgehammer when the Wall came down 20 years ago next month. But – and this is a truth I keep pounding home on both sides of the contemporary political divide in our wonderful town – none of that mattered if the story was served. And that’s the way it should be. In the end, in our business, story – and execution – will out. The rest is, or should be, commentary.Sure, as John Fund notes over at NRO, the critics are hating Won't Back Down, while audiences are loving it. But so what? That says more about the skewed state of American journalism these days -- even sportswriters and food critics now feel free to toss in a Bush or Romney drive-by when the spirit moves them -- than it does about filmmaking. And I highly doubt whether Maggie Gyllenhaal or Viola Davis chose to attach to the project because of innate conservative sentiments.The first lesson any fledgling screenwriter learns, or should learn, is to write a part an actor wants to play. Your script is not primarily about its music cues, its philosophy, its social consciousness, its crackling dialogue, or its politics. It's about getting made, which means it's about character.Especially yours.By the way: the most "conservative" movie ever made was written by a card-carrying Communist. Enjoy: var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'High Noon: "Waiting for Frank Miller" Sequence', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); (Thumbnail on PJM homepage based on a modified Shutterstock.com image.)****Dr. Helen responds at PJ Tatler. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/10/8/dont-back-down/ ]]>
    (Review Source)

Brett Stevens3

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • High Noon (1952)

    High Noon (1952)

    by Brett Stevens on June 20, 2015

    Taking up the same underlying material that propelled the tales of Jesus Christ and Socrates, High Noon involves the sheriff of a small town who has just retired to get married. Most agree that he has reformed this small town and made it safe, and they want him to just sign off and ride away. Then comes news: the brother and allies of a man he put away for murder, but has been exonerated, await the arrival of this radical killer on the noon train, at which point they plan to do in the sheriff. The film takes place on one morning in the time leading up to that event.

    High Noon makes for difficult watching because it transports us to another time and then metaphorically shows us the eternal human struggle: do we acknowledge reality and act on it, or retreat into the comfort of denial, narcissism, compensation, apologist and solipsism? This film ultimately takes the form of a psychological drama with most of it focused on the efforts of the sheriff to prepare for the confrontation and perhaps to find someone, anyone, who will take his side. He faces four gunslingers and any knocking down of the odds would radically increase his chance for survival. Instead, the townspeople invent a creative series of excuses: it is easier and cheaper to work with the bad guys, the job is thankless, the town is not worth it, and the odds are too bad. Somewhat shocked that the people who have benefited from his transformation of the town from an unsavory place to a successful one have nonetheless forgotten this and effectively betrayed him, the sheriff makes his will, and prepares himself to go it alone.

    Expert cinematography and editing use techniques ahead of their time to increase tension in a steady upward path interrupted by many strange detours into the human mind. Gary Cooper makes the lead character complement that with his laconic, forthright and masculine character. He makes the sheriff into a character both robotic and expressive, a nervous constant searching gaze complementing his ready hands. This portrayal seems more accurate for a smart man facing multiple enemies and near certain death than the usual flippant cowboy stereotype. As critics noted at the time, nearly everyone in this movie is seating, a psychological device that enhances the tension within. This builds up to a series of combat scenes that, as far as a movie can be, are intensely realistic. Unlike most cowboy movies, the bullets here feel real, and the gunplay is not showmanship but lethal intent. Each character works systematically to act as programmed, drawing the movie toward is deadly conclusion.

    Characters in this film — and it is ultimately a cinematic book, where story drives visuals and not the other way around — struggle with the tensions of human life in a way that shows how frustratingly simple and broken we are. The new wife who turned Quaker to be pacifistic after her brother and father were killed must decided whether having a good outcome is worth an evil method, and whether evil can be banished by method (non-violence) at all. The townspeople who acknowledge that the sheriff has saved the town from being a criminal wasteland, but want to believe that nothing needs to be done except absorbing a few costs created by these criminals. The deputy enraged by his own cowardice, lashing out at the sheriff for making all of them look bad by not knuckling down to be a good cuck chicken-man. Finally, the sheriff himself, aware that he is not wired in a way that allows him to ignore imminent evil, and giving himself to his fate with grim determination even as there is little chance he will survive.

    Published at the height of the Korean War, High Noon served as a reminder that people would rather sacrifice truth for convenience, and it takes rare and uncivilized men to reverse that — and that these men are our only hope. While the useful idiots, armchair critics and chattering neurotics of the suburbs will always prefer inaction and making deals with the devil to confronting evil head-on, the path to destruction begins with those steps, and no matter how it is justified as prudent, moral, pragmatic, pacifistic or compassionate, such behavior is always the same thing: cowardice. Resonant with truth of human behavior as told in a setting that is both comfortably removed and yet wove into our DNA in the West, High Noon teaches the point of Socrates and Jesus that reality is not optional and cowardice is death.


    Tags: , , , , , , ,

    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
    (Review Source)
  • Dylann Roof manifesto
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Dylann Roof manifesto

    by Brett Stevens on June 20, 2015

    Reprinted here for your browsing convenience without censorship. Our posting this does not necessarily constitute endorsement nor rejection of the views described within.

    I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.

    The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

    From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race, and I can say today that I am completely racially aware.


    I think it is is fitting to start off with the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is the biggest problem for Americans.
    Niggers are stupid and violent. At the same time they have the capacity to be very slick. Black people view everything through a racial lense. Thats what racial awareness is, its viewing everything that happens through a racial lense. They are always thinking about the fact that they are black. This is part of the reason they get offended so easily, and think that some thing are intended to be racist towards them, even when a White person wouldnt be thinking about race. The other reason is the Jewish agitation of the black race.
    Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average dont think about race in their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to.
    Say you were to witness a dog being beat by a man. You are almost surely going to feel very sorry for that dog. But then say you were to witness a dog biting a man. You will most likely not feel the same pity you felt for the dog for the man. Why? Because dogs are lower than men.
    This same analogy applies to black and White relations. Even today, blacks are subconsciously viewed by White people are lower beings. They are held to a lower standard in general. This is why they are able to get away with things like obnoxious behavior in public. Because it is expected of them.
    Modern history classes instill a subconscious White superiority complex in Whites and an inferiority complex in blacks. This White superiority complex that comes from learning of how we dominated other peoples is also part of the problem I have just mentioned. But of course I dont deny that we are in fact superior.
    I wish with a passion that niggers were treated terribly throughout history by Whites, that every White person had an ancestor who owned slaves, that segregation was an evil an oppressive institution, and so on. Because if it was all it true, it would make it so much easier for me to accept our current situation. But it isnt true. None of it is. We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons.
    Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished. I have read hundreds of slaves narratives from my state. And almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these narratives the slaves told of how their masters didnt even allowing whipping on his plantation.
    Segregation was not a bad thing. It was a defensive measure. Segregation did not exist to hold back negroes. It existed to protect us from them. And I mean that in multiple ways. Not only did it protect us from having to interact with them, and from being physically harmed by them, but it protected us from being brought down to their level. Integration has done nothing but bring Whites down to level of brute animals. The best example of this is obviously our school system.
    Now White parents are forced to move to the suburbs to send their children to “good schools”. But what constitutes a “good school”? The fact is that how good a school is considered directly corresponds to how White it is. I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared, and brainwashed to fight. Why should we have to flee the cities we created for the security of the suburbs? Why are the suburbs secure in the first place? Because they are White. The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape niggers and other minorities.
    But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”? And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances to live among negroes? No one, but someone has to.

    Here I would also like to touch on the idea of a Norhtwest Front. I think this idea is beyond stupid. Why should I for example, give up the beauty and history of my state to go to the Norhthwest? To me the whole idea just parralells the concept of White people running to the suburbs. The whole idea is pathetic and just another way to run from the problem without facing it.
    Some people feel as though the South is beyond saving, that we have too many blacks here. To this I say look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. Speaking of South Africa, if anyone thinks that think will eventually just change for the better, consider how in South Africa they have affirmative action for the black population that makes up 80 percent of the population.
    It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of the population we could take it back completely. But by no means should we wait any longer to take drastic action.

    Anyone who thinks that White and black people look as different as we do on the outside, but are somehow magically the same on the inside, is delusional. How could our faces, skin, hair, and body structure all be different, but our brains be exactly the same? This is the nonsense we are led to believe.
    Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races?
    A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.
    In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done in history, they were White. But when we lern about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black. For example when we learn about how George Washington carver was the first nigger smart enough to open a peanut.

    On another subject I want to say this. Many White people feel as though they dont have a unique culture. The reason for this is that White culture is world culture. I dont mean that our culture is made up of other cultures, I mean that our culture has been adopted by everyone in the world. This makes us feel as though our culture isnt special or unique. Say for example that every business man in the world wore a kimono, that every skyscraper was in the shape of a pagoda, that every door was a sliding one, and that everyone ate every meal with chopsticks. This would probably make a Japanese man feel as though he had no unique traditional culture.

    I have noticed a great disdain for race mixing White women within the White nationalists community, bordering on insanity it. These women are victims, and they can be saved. Stop.


    Unlike many White naitonalists, I am of the opinion that the majority of American and European jews are White. In my opinion the issues with jews is not their blood, but their identity. I think that if we could somehow destroy the jewish identity, then they wouldnt cause much of a problem. The problem is that Jews look White, and in many cases are White, yet they see themselves as minorities. Just like niggers, most jews are always thinking about the fact that they are jewish. The other issue is that they network. If we could somehow turn every jew blue for 24 hours, I think there would be a mass awakening, because people would be able to see plainly what is going on.

    I dont pretend to understand why jews do what they do. They are enigma.


    Hispanics are obviously a huge problem for Americans. But there are good hispanics and bad hispanics. I remember while watching hispanic television stations, the shows and even the commercials were more White than our own. They have respect for White beauty, and a good portion of hispanics are White. It is a well known fact that White hispanics make up the elite of most hispanics countries. There is good White blood worht saving in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and even Brasil.

    But they are still our enemies.

    East Asians

    I have great respent for the East Asian races. Even if we were to go extinct they could carry something on. They are by nature very racist and could be great allies of the White race. I am not opposed at all to allies with the Northeast Asian races.


    I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke. People pretending like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets. Many veterans believe we owe them something for “protecting our way of life” or “protecting our freedom”. But im not sure what way of life they are talking about. How about we protect the White race and stop fighting for the jews. I will say this though, I myself would have rather lived in 1940’s American than Nazi Germany, and no this is not ignorance speaking, it is just my opinion. So I dont blame the veterans of any wars up until after Vietnam, because at least they had an American to be proud of and fight for.

    An Explanation

    To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I dont see anyone doing anything about it. And it pisses me off.”. To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.”.

    I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

    Unfortunately at the time of writing I am in a great hurry and some of my best thoughts, actually many of them have been to be left out and lost forever. But I believe enough great White minds are out there already.

    Please forgive any typos, I didnt have time to check it.

    All quoted contents by Dylann Roof at LastRhodesian.com.

    Tags: , , , , ,

    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
    (Review Source)
  • Blackway (2015)
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Directed by Daniel Alfredson Enderby Entertainment Group 90 minutes The tagline says, “sometimes revenge is the only answer,” but that misses the point of this film, which sets a classic Western plot in the northeast US forests. A man, connected to moneyed interests, menaces a small town, and a group of three misfits sets out […]
    (Review Source)

John Nolte1
Daily Wire / Breitbart

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Countdown: The 165 Greatest American Movies Ever Made (16-40)
    Dog Day Afternoon (1975) Sal, Wyoming’s not a country. Director Sidney Lumet takes the true story of one of the most inept bank robberies in history and makes it better, much better, into something sublime and urgent and hilarious and unforgettable. Lumet makes you feel like a fly on the wall as a bizarrely entertaining life-moment unfurls in early-seventies Brooklyn. No one famous is involved. Nothing of any consequence happened. Life happened, and life is always so much more fascinating than anything else.   Dazed and Confused (1993) Let me tell you this, the older you do get the more rules they’re gonna try to get you to follow.  The best movies transport you someplace else, into deep space or medieval times or Kypton. In Dazed and Confused, writer/director Richard Linklater transports you to a simpler place: a small Texas town in 1976 where we join a group of suburban high school kids on their last day of school. Without breaking the spell with intrusive nostalgia or sentiment, Linklater effortlessly follows 20 different characters and a half-dozen subplots over 24 hours. There is sex and beer and weed, but still an innocence to it all; to those magic high school
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff3
Counter Currents Publishing

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • “Duke” Morrison as Metapolitical Icon John Wayne
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]4,924 words

    The lighted pixels never go dark on John Wayne in the TV sphere. In the four decades since his passing, one can turn on a TV set at any time of day or night and there will be a John Wayne film being played on some channel.

    When looking at John Wayne’s performances, many critics point out that John Wayne always plays John Wayne. However, he himself said, “That guy you see on the screen isn’t really me. I’m Duke Morrison, and I never was and never will be a film personality like John Wayne. I know him well. I’m one of his closest students.”[1] [2] He never changed his name to John Wayne, didn’t instinctively respond to the name “John,” and registered for the draft during the Second World War under his Morrison name.

    Duke Morrison’s character John Wayne represented many things, the nuance of which will be further described below, but on the surface, John Wayne represented the white American ethnic group, as well as industriousness, seriousness of purpose, honesty, and courage. The character John Wayne was, and is, the embodiment of American manhood in its perfected form.

    Looking back at John Wayne’s career, one can see that the entire Western genre was carried on his shoulders. After he passed away, the number of Western films and TV shows dropped off. Westerns that were produced after his passing, like Silverado [3] (1985), never quite capture the magic that John Wayne brought. One possible reason for this loss of sparkle is that the dialogue in post-Wayne Westerns became crass and vulgar. Another possible reason is that Western movies have become afflicted by Negro-tokenism as in Silverado, Unforgiven [4] (1992), and The Magnificent Seven [5](2016). Furthermore, post-Wayne, an excessively romantic view of the Indians has crept into the genre, as in Dances with Wolves [6] (1990). Even the word “cowboy” was defined by John Wayne. During his lifetime, the word implied virtue and integrity; after his death, the word retreated back to the delinquent gang of insults from whence it came.

    John Wayne’s example has even influenced this author’s life choices, although I cannot even remotely presume to describe myself as the perfect embodiment of American manhood. I’ve probably been in more schoolyard fistfights than necessary due to the example of John Wayne’s many righteous fisticuffs broadcast on Saturday matinee reruns. When I played the trumpet in my middle school band, I mastered the themes [7] to The Comancheros [8] (1961) and [9]Rio Bravo [10] (1959). He also influenced my choices about what to do during the summers of my childhood and adolescence. I didn’t take the easy opportunities provided by my family to go to church camp, where one had an opportunity to flirt with a large group of young ladies while time-wasting for The Lord. Instead, I focused (more or less – girls still were a distraction) on becoming an Eagle Scout. Once I learned to drive and had my Eagle Scout Badge, I spent my summers working on a cattle ranch on the western Great Plains. When I was in the Army in Iraq and other overseas locations, I made decisions based on what I thought John Wayne would or would not do; this probably sounds both more reckless and awesome than it actually was.

    Duke Morrison, aka John Wayne, was also a man of the Right. He self-declared as a man of the Right; he admitted it up front and often. Towards the end of the Second World War, he became politically active and served four terms as President of the anti-Communist Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. Wayne’s closest friends were among Hollywood’s most strident anti-Communists, including Ward Bond [11] (1903-1960) and the very attractive Hedda Hopper [12] (1885-1966). He didn’t like Senator Ted Kennedy. Duke didn’t even like the New Deal, and publicly supported Richard Nixon from 1960 until Nixon’s resignation.

    Origins, Iowa Privilege, and Personal Life

    John Wayne was born Marion Morrison to Mary Alberta Brown and Clyde Morrison in Winterset, Iowa in 1907. His mother’s lineage was colonial stock Pennsylvanian and Irish. His father was of Scots-Irish and old New England Puritan/Yankee stock. [13] His grandfather [14] had served in the Union Army during the Civil War. John Wayne’s parents had a rocky marriage, and his father had a rough time making his career as a pharmacist work. The family bounced around Iowa until they decided to farm on some land in California that Wayne’s real estate agent grandfather owned.

    By the time the Morrison family got to California, the American frontier was closed. All the remaining open land was in the desert. The Morrison’s farm failed due to the harsh conditions, and so the family moved to Glendale, California, where Wayne would grow up right next to the central location of the nascent motion picture industry.

    Although Wayne’s family continuously hovered near poverty during his childhood, his background was really a big advantage to him. He had Iowa Privilege. He came from a culture that rewarded honesty and hard work. Wayne was indeed honest; his biographers all attest to this. If, for example, he said he met the famous Wild West lawman Wyatt Earp, researchers determined that he probably did meet him. His parents also remained married until Duke was out of the house, despite the fact that his mother was a grievance-collecting woman who was difficult to like. John also made his own luck. He took good advice every time he heard it. His biographer, Scott Eyman, describes many instances where Wayne took good advice, including deciding not to be cruel, learning self-defense, continuing to find work in films even when they were “B” movies, and maintaining a good public image.

    Duke was acting as early as high school. He got his foot in the door of the film industry in the prop department, through his college football coach’s contacts. Eventually he moved into minor acting roles; there, he got a credit as Duke Morrison in the 1927 movie, Seeing Stars [15]. Eventually, he was noticed by the director Raoul Walsh, and the first movie he starred in as “John Wayne” was The Big Trail [16] (1930). This film has sweeping cinematography, but is fundamentally flawed. The plot plods along like a wagon train drawn by oxen, and is as dry as the desert. The soundtrack is also lacking. To top it off, the film was released right after the Stock Market crash of October 1929. As a result, Wayne’s first starring role was a flop, and it sent him into the B-movie circuit for a decade.

    However, this was still a blessing for Wayne. He became a household name to young moviegoers throughout the 1930s. His work ethic helped, too. Wayne worked 12- to 14-hour days, and often did his own stunts. It was in the B movies that Duke Morrison became the physically imposing and graceful John Wayne. He also behaved professionally. He showed up to do a scene knowing his lines, and learned everything else involved in making a movie, such as where to put the props, lights, and so on.

    John Wayne’s career revived when he was picked to play the Ringo Kid [17] in John Ford’s classic Stagecoach [18] (1939). His flashy entrance [19] in that film remains one of his finest. As the camera zooms in while he twirls a rifle, it is an example of teamwork, and the most important aspect of professionalism: mastering the basics. Indeed, the prop department had to modify the rifle to make it twirl without getting caught. The cameraman needed to adjust both the focus and angle to catch it, while Wayne had to move gracefully and make the just the right expressions while following the camera. Wayne also understood that every scene is dependent upon two factors: what the camera’s lens can pick up and how that image will impact an audience.

    Wayne was married three times. All of his wives were of white, New World Spanish background (Hispanic is not a race). He would come to regret divorcing his first wife. His second wife was a train wreck of personal issues, and she dragged him through a nasty public divorce. His third wife was a solid helpmeet, even though they eventually separated but did not formally divorce. Duke also drank a great deal. He liked Mexico – indeed, all of Latin America – and its people. He enjoyed manly pursuits, especially sailing. He was well-read, and was talented at playing cards and chess. Off the set, though, he had a hard time figuring out what to do with himself.

    John Wayne also struggled with cancer. He smoked an average of six packs of cigarettes per day and lost a lung in 1964. He also starred in the 1956 epic, The Conqueror [20], that was filmed downwind of an area that had been used for nuclear weapons testing. Many of the cast and crew got cancer or died of cancer [21]. Wayne was no different. He was felled [22] by stomach cancer in 1979. In both cases, he fought the disease as hard as he could. After losing a lung, he still did many of his own stunts, and he wore a wetsuit to appear to look more fleshed-out at his final public appearance [23].

    Unavoidable Fodder for the Comments Section: My Opinion of John Wayne’s Work

    Everyone’s got an opinion about John Wayne’s films, so I’ll brush over what I think here and dive into his really serious works further on – there will be overlap. The best of his bad movies is probably The Big Trail, as well as Angel and the Bad Man [24] (1947). My favorite movie, which is fun from start to finish, is The Quiet Man [25](1952), where the leading lady was the goddess Maureen O’Hara. My second favorite is Fort Apache [26] (1948), followed by Hatari! [27] (1962). His best movie is The Searchers [28] (1956), and other great movies include Stagecoach [18](1939), The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance [29] (1962), The Sands of Iwo Jima [30] (1949), True Grit [31] (1969), and The Cowboys [32] (1972). The best of his more obscure films, in my view, is The Sea Chase [33] (1955). My favorite movies where Wayne had smaller parts are The Longest Day [34] (1960) and How the West Was Won [35] (1962). But I dislike Rio Bravo [10] (1959) and its various remakes.

    John Wayne as the Personification of (White) American Manhood in Different Situations

    Duke Morrison created John Wayne between his first starring roles in 1930 until he became an A-List actor in 1939. With Red River [36] (1948), Duke had become an expert at playing John Wayne. With that in mind, we can see how an archetype of the epitome of (white) American Manhood behaves in various situations. As the embodiment of American Manhood, John Wayne wrestled with modern situations in Island in the Sky [37] (1953) and The High and the Mighty [38] (1954). Many of John Wayne’s movies are nostalgic – (white) Americans making North America their own through Manifest Destiny.

    Manifest Destiny was a metapolitical idea whereby Americans believed that Divine Providence had foreordained that white settlers should continue westward until they occupied the entire North American continent. This meant not just the conquest of America itself, but expansion across the Pacific as well. Indeed, during the Spanish-American War (1898), the biggest American imperial gains were not in Cuba, on whose behalf the war was alleged to be waged, but rather in the Pacific. Americans would go on to capture parts of Samoa in 1899. After the Second World War, the Americans absorbed even more Pacific islands, and for a time even turned Japan into a semi-colony [39]. Indeed, the fact that America chose to fight the Communists in Korea has shades of Manifest Destiny. The US Marines at the Chosin Reservoir [40] were not much different than Custer’s Seventh Cavalry at Little Big Horn. And when Kennedy was inaugurated as President in 1960, Manifest Destiny was still ongoing – which was part of the reason for his involvement in Vietnam.

    Nearly every Western that John Wayne starred in has Manifest Destiny [41] as a central theme, although later on his Westerns explored other ideas as well. This is so obvious that not much needs to be mentioned about it. It is likewise clear that John Wayne’s Pacific War movies – such as They Were Expendable [42] (1945), Back to Bataan [43] (1945), and Flying Leathernecks [44] (1951) – were all Westward Expansion movies, with “the Japs” serving as Indians. Admittedly, there are other issues explored in these films, but the main idea remained “Westward Ho!”

    America’s expansion across the Pacific was different from its earlier expansion in one vital regard: the natives didn’t vanish. This created a new set of circumstances for the American public.
    As the Cold War picked up in Asia, Americans realized they had to justly rule and valorously defend the racially different Orientals that they had only just previously been interning and killing. The films which deal with this contradiction include The Barbarian and the Geisha [45] (1958), Donavan’s Reef [46] (1963), and The Green Berets [47] (1968). John Wayne’s films from this period are similar to the view of Asia that we get in other works of the period, especially those of James A. Michener.

    Duke Morrison and Military Service

    Although he registered for the draft, John Wayne didn’t enlist during the Second World War. He did go overseas with the USO on morale tours, but he didn’t take the oath and wear real stripes. Wayne would come to regret this decision later in life. Since the war, military service has come to be seen as a marker of manhood in American life. It is believed that this sets a person apart and above all others.

    However, as a man who has served in combat, and given that men (and some women) in my family have served in every conflict from the Global War on Terror back to the Spanish-American War, I can say this is all hogwash. Every military career is swiftboatable [48], and John Wayne’s would have been especially so. When the war broke out, Wayne was 35 and a lifelong smoker. He likely wouldn’t have qualified for the Infantry or as Combat Aircrew. If he had ended up in the Coastal Artillery Corps [49] in Los Angeles. he might have served in 1942’s Battle of Los Angeles [50], which would have made him a laughingstock as he took increasingly public pro-Vietnam War political stances in the 1960s. Had he joined the Signal Corps and made movies, he still would have been criticized. There, he’d have been moved around for photo ops and training films, but would not have seen much action. He was in an impossible position.

    Military service also carries with it a major flaw; that is to say, people follow veterans’ ideas, even if those ideas are bad. For example, Senator John McCain’s policy positions after 1991 were increasingly irrational and disastrous, yet very few people could effectively stand up to him. After all, McCain had been a POW in ‘Nam and a “war hero.”

    Ultimately, military service is merely a garnish on a career, and today any American “fighting for freedom” is embarking upon a pointless endeavor. In most circumstances, America’s military fights people who are not the enemies of the country, but rather they are the enemies of whatever foreign pressure group has better lobbyists in Washington. It’s been that way for at least a century. The First World War was exactly this sort of conflict. Likewise, the Second World War – at least as far as Germany and Italy were concerned – was the result of pressure groups rather than national interest. In America, courage that really counts is defending the white American people domestically. John Wayne did that. His first genuine metapolitical work was Big Jim McClain [51] (1952), where he fought Communists in Hawaii.

    The Road To and From The Alamo: John Wayne as Metapolitical Activist

    John Wayne’s major project – one which he poured his fortune and soul into – was The Alamo [52] (1960). He directed and starred in it alongside Richard Widmark and Lawrence Harvey. When watching it, one sees that Wayne as Davy Crockett isn’t fighting Santa Ana and his army of mestizos, but rather America’s domestic Left wing and the Communist side of the Cold War. He even got some funding from conservative Texans to make a movie as a counterpoint to the Leftist, anti-white movie Giant [53] (1956).

    John Wayne’s direction of The Alamo should be viewed as a lesson in good leadership. Wayne deftly handled the logistics of the project – it was filmed on location in rural Texas. He even had train tracks built to maintain supply lines. He kept production going even in the teeth of several tragic deaths among the cast and crew. He also managed to get his mentor, John Ford, out of the way when he showed up uninvited and started giving orders. He was able to keep big-ego actors working for him even after arguments that almost became fistfights. Indeed, although all of Wayne’s friends knew that he’d thrown his heart and soul into the project, a great many of them worked against him in some way throughout. James Arness, for example, didn’t show up for a meeting where he’d have been offered to play the role of Sam Houston.

    Although Wayne successfully completed the project, moviemaking is a for-profit business. The Alamo’s costs had spiraled out of control. To finish the project, Wayne threw in all his own cash, mortgaged his film company’s stock of movies, and mortgaged his house. While many Americans went to see it, the film didn’t make any money in the short term due to its massive cost. However, it should be carefully analyzed, as it represented the strengths and weaknesses of the Right just as the racialist, non-white political Left was about to sweep into power through Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. The Alamo’s strengths and weaknesses are as follows.


    • The story’s pacing is poor. There are long subplots that don’t push the story along. Among other slow stretches, Davy Crockett (John Wayne) tries to woo a “damsel in distress” (Linda Cristal). There is also a big bar-fight scene between The Alamo defenders that serves no real purpose. Outside of science fiction and dystopian works, Right-wing fiction has yet to match that produced by Leftists.
    • It is a metapolitical work for the anti-Communists who were fighting the Cold War. It is not an accurate depiction of what actually transpired during the Texas War of Independence. In reality, the conflict was a clash of civilizations between the Spanish-ruled mestizo civilization and the American Anglos. In the actual battle, the Mexicans deliberately killed Texans outside the bounds of Christian chivalry. In John Wayne’s epics, the Texans gladly fight to the death and the Mexicans honorably killed them. As a result of this, the movie is awkward.
    • Santa Ana (Ruben Padilla) is played as something like an anti-Communist military dictator similar to Chile’s Pinochet rather than someone more shifty – like Vicente Fox.
    • John Wayne makes what we call today the “Boomer conservative” philosophical error of mistaking a form of government (muh Constitution) for a form of government that is an expression of a particular people. Wayne as Davy Crockett makes this mistake when he says [54], “Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose . . . Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.” All African nations are republics . . . does that make your heart warm?
    • John Wayne portrays blacks as loyal and self-sacrificing citizens-to-be. He ignores the fact that blacks in the 1960s were embarking on an insurgency that would leave cities in ruins up to the present day. For example, Jethro (Jester Hairston) throws himself in front of Mexican bayonets [55] to allow his master, Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark), to fight a few seconds longer. This also is an entirely inaccurate view of black loyalty during a military crisis. Blacks are uneven [56].


    • These can be boiled down to one paragraph, but they are big strengths. The cinematography and music are outstanding. The Alamo was awarded an Oscar for Best Sound and a Golden Globe for its music. The battle scenes are also very well done. Clips of the Mexican army were used in other films, including How the West Was Won. And this tale does show how to behave in a dignified way under terrible pressure.

    John Wayne and Race

    It is important to note that, while John Wayne was well-read, he lived in a time when the distribution of information and its framing was tightly controlled. There were only two serious Right-wing books that “went viral” while John Wayne was politically aware and active. The first was The Iron Curtain Over America [57] (1951) by John Beaty, and the second was The Dispossessed Majority [58] (1972) by Wilmot Robertson. We don’t know if Wayne did or did not read them. If he had a racial view, it could best be described as implicit white supremacy. During the North American phase of Manifest Destiny, the white man advanced and the red man disappeared. During its Pacific phase, the white man ruled over natives who did not vanish, but who were left prostrate following wars. Thus, Wayne didn’t need to think hard about race.

    Wayne’s statements on the matter were all over the map. On one hand, he made statements in reference to his football career such as, “If the player on the other side of the scrimmage line is as good or better than you, you don’t care what color, religion, or nationality he is, you respect him. I’ve tried to live by that all my life.”[2] [59] These sentiments were balanced by more frank talk in an interview with Playboy magazine [60]: “. . . [W]e can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility.” He also told reporters [61]:

    We’re being represented by men who are kowtowing to minorities where they can get votes and I think it is bad for our country. And I’m sad to see minorities make so much of themselves as a hyphenated American. I wish they’d all get to thinking that they’re Americans, as they should.

    Duke Morrison was unable to come to terms with the racial conflicts that were increasingly consuming America as he aged into his golden years. But there is one thing to note, namely that his best movie – and quite possibly one of the best movies ever made – was The Searchers, where Duke’s character John Wayne, the personification of (white) American Manhood, played a man driven to fight –  racial holy war style – the Comanche who had killed his family. The movie is quite dark. Wayne is hostile to his mixed-race sidekick (Jeffrey Hunter). The Comanche rape and murder white women. Both sides mutilate the bodies of their racial enemies’ dead. In a way that many white advocates today might understand, in the movie’s haunting final scene [62], Wayne’s character Ethan is cut off from white civilization, although his actions were necessary for that civilization to exist at all.

    John Wayne and the J-Communists

    The Cold War was a large and complex thing, but one aspect of it was that Communism was a Jewish ideology masquerading as a universalist Christian heresy. At least this was true until the Soviet Union became ruled by ethnic Russians, who sided with the Arabs against Israel after 1967. Throughout John Wayne’s lifetime, Communism was on the march, and the Soviet Union was a real force to be reckoned with. Additionally, a great many people in Hollywood, especially Jews, were active Communists to one degree or another.

    John Wayne was an anti-Communist. It is possible (but not certain) that he was a member of the John Birch Society. He gave many public speeches against Communism. And many of his friends were Jew-wise anti-Communists.

    He also worked to get the former Communist, Carl Foreman [63], blacklisted [64]. Wayne felt that Foreman’s movie High Noon [64] (1952) was an inaccurate and subversive reading of Americanism. In it, the Sheriff (Gary Cooper, who was himself an anti-Communist) must protect his town from some returning criminals. The townspeople refuse to join the Sheriff’s posse and cower in fear. The Sheriff must face the criminals alone. High Noon is an excellent film, and it has several interpretations. White advocates can easily identify with Cooper’s solitary stand for his community.

    One note about the blacklist: After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, Spanish cultural forms entered a golden age. In the Jew-free England between Edward I and Oliver Cromwell, England produced Chaucer and Shakespeare. Judging from these examples, one can see that Jews bring down the culture of their host society. During the era of the Hollywood blacklist, the worst Jews were cut off from the culture industry, and those remaining had to toe the line. The 1950s became a mini-golden age of American culture. The songs from that time are excellent. Even today, “oldies” remain very popular. Turn on a TV channel that specializes in re-runs, and nearly every show will have been produced in the 1950s. Walt Disney’s greatest works also originated during a time when no Jews worked in his company.

    Westerns Beyond the Westerns: John Wayne’s Serious, Later Work

    After the challenges of The Alamo, John Wayne made a series of what film historian John McElwee has called “comfort Westerns [65].” These films [66], like North to Alaska [67] (1960) and The Comancheros [68] (1961) are well-made and easy to watch action films. A number of these films are also whitopian, such as the war picture In Harm’s Way [68] (1965). Some of the comfort Westerns aren’t that good, however, like Cahill, United States Marshal [69] (1973). Part of John Wayne’s ethos was to always keep working, and as a result, not all his films were great. Nonetheless, his later movies have a seriousness that needs to be discussed.

    The Green Berets is the only movie made[3] [70] during the Vietnam War that was sympathetic to American efforts there. At the time, it was subject to many protests. Oliver Stone considers it “racist,” which misses the considerable empathy shown by Wayne for the South Vietnamese characters. The movie has aged well, its story is good, the pacing is on, and the death of Sergeant Petersen (Jim Hutton) still has an emotional impact. Manifest Destiny’s final moments played out on April 30, 1975 in Saigon, so there is a poignancy in that the actor who best personified Manifest Destiny played a soldier in Vietnam.

    The Undefeated [71] (1969), set during the Civil War, has an opening battle scene that is really well done. The movie tells the story of a group of Union Army vets trying to sell horses to the French in Mexico. They must eventually pick sides in the Mexican-French Conflict and team up with a group of Confederates who are going to join the French. While it is a whitopian comfort Western, it does attempt to get Americans to end their differences over things like the Confederate Battle Flag and work together. The firing squads [72] depicted in it aren’t too far removed from what was really going on in Latin America during the Cold War, either.

    In True Grit [31] (1968), while Glen Campbell is miscast, it does show that the old values of Iowa Privilege still matter. Wayne would win an Oscar for this role. True Grit has an insidious side, though. It spawned a subgenre in which an old white guy does a successful rear-guard defense of the values and people of white Western civilization. However, this subgenre is easy to subvert. Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino [73] (2008) is another example, but in it, Eastwood’s character represents white American manhood sacrificing himself in a non-white vs. non-white conflict.

    Chisum [74] (1970) loosely follows the story of the New Mexico Territory’s Lincoln County War [75]. Like all great art, the movie can represent real-world situations beyond its original surface meaning. In this case, what should be an impartial law enforcement agency becomes an agent for one sociopolitical faction against another. President Nixon, who is said to have liked the film, would come to be the victim of a disgruntled senior FBI official colluding with the mainstream press and the Democratic Party – the sort of behavior which continues today.

    The Cowboys [76] (1972) was the first film that depicted Baby Boomers as being a disaster of vice, poor judgment, and self-absorption. John Wayne must get his cattle to the railhead at Belle Fourche, South Dakota with a group of children who are too young to be Boomers. Along the way, he toughens them up and teaches them how to be men. In the end, he is shot in a cowardly way [77] by a knave with a hippie hairstyle right out of Woodstock (played by Bruce Dern).

    And lastly, John Wayne’s swan song is The Shootist [78] (1976). If John Wayne ever subtly alluded to the ongoing Sub-Saharan-fueled crimewave then plaguing America’s cities, it was when he depicted scenes of Anglo or Mexican muggers getting shot after some corny lines by Wayne. This happens in The Undefeated, Chisum, and The Shootist [79]. It’s still escapism. John Wayne plays only an implicit white supremacist, not an actual one. But such a mugging (featuring an Anglo as mugger) opens John Wayne’s last movie. It wasn’t supposed to be Wayne’s last, but fortunately, from an artistic perspective, it was. (Wayne only acted in commercials [80] following this film.) In it, John Wayne must face old age, and the film’s greatness becomes apparent if one sees it after caring for aging parents or grandparents.

    John Wayne has ridden into the sunset, and yet his work lives on. His life and work should provide inspiration to whites for centuries.


    [1] [81] Scott Eyman, John Wayne: The Life and Legend (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), Kindle loc 106.

    [2] [82] Ibid., Kindle loc. 778.

    [3] [83] Yes, I know, John Wayne doesn’t hook up to the static line before jumping!

    (Review Source)
  • From Odd John to Strange Love Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Love the Bomb
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]4,887 words

    Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb [2]
    Director: Stanley Kubrick; written by Peter George, Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern
    Columbia Pictures (1964) 

    General “Buck” Turgidson: Hmm . . . Strangelove? What kind of a name is that? That ain’t no Kraut name is it, Stainesey?

    Mr. Staines: He changed it when he became a citizen. Used to be ‘Merkwürdigliebe.’

    General “Buck” Turgidson: Well, a Kraut by any other name, uh Stainesey?

    The German word “Gemeinschaft” means “A spontaneously arising organic social relationship characterized by strong reciprocal bonds of sentiment and kinship within a common tradition.” In this context the discussion of the post-apocalypse society living in mine shafts at the end of the film presents an interesting double-entendre. Dr. Strangelove’s remarks about the participants in the new society spontaneously accepting new social norms and having “bold curiosity for the adventure ahead” is especially germane. Also, General Turgidson’s admonition to “not allow a mine shaft gap” at the end is a particularly vivid pun.[1]

    Toward the end of my reflections on Olaf Stapledon’s queer utopia, Odd John, Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb [3] put in a brief appearance.[2] I think a closer look at how the movie appears in the light of our reflections would be interesting.

    I would suggest that despite its status as a classic “black comedy,” and whatever the intentions of its creators to reveal the modern world as a dystopia, the film can be seen as presenting a series of increasingly perfected — though somewhat claustrophobic — utopian Männerbunde.[3]

    Each is a group of men (with one small exception to the rule[3]), cut off from the rest of the world, operating by its own rules. As we’ll see, the B-52 is a closed tube in the upper atmosphere, with oxygen masks for emergencies; we only see it open up when Maj. Kong forces open the bomb bay doors to his doom. Burbleson Air Force Base is, cinematically, nothing but Gen. Ripper’s office — even his en suite bathroom is unseen — with some second unit cut-aways to show the storming attack. Then there’s Gen. Turgidson’s motel room, followed by The War Room, which is obviously sealed off and perhaps underground; Turgidson freaks when the Russian Ambassador enters (“He’ll see the Big Board!”); then Strangelove’s mine shaft vision.

    Each unit includes one outsider, like “Fido” at John’s colony: RAF Captain Mandrake, Turgidson’s female “assistant,” James Earl Jones as the anachronistic black pilot,[5] and the Russian Ambassador whose appearance in the War Room freaks out Turgidson.

    Additionally, each utopian segment ends with a symbolic ejaculation, a destructive opening to the outside: the iconic scene of Maj. Kong riding the bomb down, “Bat” Guano shoots the Coke machine and gets a spurt of soda in the face; Turgidson’s last words in the motel room are “Blast off!”; a climactic pie-fight was cut from the War Room scene, which now ends with the compulsively saluting Strangelove rising erect from his wheelchair; his utopian vision ends with the equally iconic montage of phallic mushroom clouds.

    Each, in some sense, fails, but as we’ve seen with Odd John, this is just a genre convention of utopian writing; the final group will succeed beyond its own imagination. And each climaxes with a big smile.[6]

    For once, TV Tropes has got it exactly wrong:

    World Gone Mad [4]: Every single group of people are various sorts of insane, incompetent, and/or incapable of focusing on the important subject at hand. Except for the bomber crew, who are all well-trained and manage to adapt to the various obstacles in their path. Too bad they’re the one group that desperately needs to fail.

    1. Burpleson Air Force Base

    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel! Colonel, I must know what you think has been going on here! […]

    Colonel “Bat” Guano: I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your preversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts. Now MOVE!

    Or in practice, the executive office of Base Commander Gen. Jack D. Ripper. Apart from a couple cutaways during the Army’s attempt to retake the base, and the business with the Coke machine and the telephone booth in the corridor, we are entirely with Gen. Ripper’s private realm. Although the rugby balls and Greek grammars have been replaced with bombs, rifles, and bullets

    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Shoot it off! Shoot! With a gun! That’s what the bullets are for, you twit!

    the atmos’ is more like a British public school. Gen. Ripper commands not men but “my boys.”

    General “Buck” Turgidson: [reading Gen. Ripper’s last communication] “My boys will give you the best kind of start, 1,400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won’t stop them now.”

    There’s even intra-mural rivalry:

    General Turgidson, with all due respect for your defense team my boys can brush them aside without too much trouble.

    And while the base troops do eventually surrender – “My boys let me down” [7] – we’ll see that at least one plane in the Attack Wing will get through.

    General “Buck” Turgidson: Mr. President, if I may speak freely, the Russkie talks big, but frankly, we think he’s short of know-how. I mean, you just can’t expect a bunch of ignorant peons to understand a machine like some of our boys. . . . if the pilot’s good, see, I mean, if he’s really…sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs], you oughtta see it sometime, it’s a sight. A big plane like a ‘52. VRROOM! There’s jet exhaust, fryin’ chickens in the barnyard.

    President Merkin Muffley: Yeah, but has he got a chance?

    General “Buck” Turgidson: Has he got a chance? Hell, Ye…ye…

    So Peter Sellers’ role as Group Captain Mandrake, ex-RAF pilot, is quite appropriate here. He’s a slightly slow on the uptake senior boy, getting some private tutoring from the Headmaster;[8] it’s a reversal of the Boy’s Own Mag world of Stalky & Co., where the playing fields of Eton have simply become the theatre of war.

    Base Commander Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, in the name of Her Majesty and the Continental Congress come here and feed me this belt, boy!

    The lesson Ripper imparts is, of course, his famous “purity of essence” meme, the original “conspiracy theory.”[9] Along the way, though, he gives Mandrake a history lesson that will become important at the end:

    General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?

    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don’t think I do, sir, no.

    General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    As Trevor Lynch has noted here on several occasions: in the modern world, only madmen are allowed to articulate the truth.[10]

    Burpleson is ultimately taken back by the Army, and General Ripper, true to the public school ethos, “does the right thing, old chap” and commits suicide.[11] This is the darkest utopia (note the cinematography) but even so, it’s, as we’ve said before, only a genre convention, not an admission of defeat.[12] Indeed, we’ll see that Ripper’s vision — rule by the elite — will come to pass.

    To lighten the mood, and provide the real ending, we have Mandrake’s monkeying around with the pay phone, and “Bat” Guano’s encounter with the Coke machine. It’s the audience that can be expected to smile when “Bat” fires his rifle and gets a Coke facial in return — “a Coke and a smile,” as the ad would say a few years later.[13] Meanwhile, the utopian, anti-economic scarcity note is again sounded as Mandrake doesn’t have enough money for the phone, and “Bat” sneers at the idea of “going into combat with loose change in my pocket.”

    1a. The Motel Room

    The Motel Room is an odd little scene, that does little but show us Gen. Turgidson being summoned to the War Room in the midst of a tryst with his “assistant.” It’s as much a closed environment as Ripper’s office — later we’ll see Ripper enter the bathroom to shoot himself, here Turgidson enters the scene from the bathroom. More connections: Premier Kissoff will be caught in a similar tryst during the War Room scene, and the General’s “assistant” will turn up in the Playboy centerfold viewed by a crew member onboard “The Leper Colony” (her ass covered with an issue of Foreign Affairs, nudge nudge) and presumably is the unwanted caller to Turgidson in the War Room,

    General “Buck” Turgidson: I told you never to call me here, don’t you know where I am? . . . Well look, baby, I c-, I can’t talk to you now . . . my president needs me!

    but otherwise it has little to do with the rest of the film. I suspect it’s here to establish Gen. Turgidson’s, and by extension the rest of the “boys’” hetero cred; otherwise we might be suspicious, since he contemns Kissoff for his tryst as a “degenerate” (another “prevert” for the “Leper Colony” no doubt) and other than shouting “Blast off!” he doesn’t seem to have much interest in Miss Foreign Affairs, prefering to answer the call of his President.

    2. “The Leper Colony”

    The men will cheer and the boys will shout
    The ladies they will all turn out
    And we’ll all feel gay
    When Johnny comes marching home.

    The B-52 and the War Room are the most famous segments. I say “the” B-52 since although Ripper clearly orders a “wing attack” and we see dozens of vectors on The Big Board,[14] but only one plane is ever shown. The B-52 is code-named “The Leper Colony,” which “designates the crew as incompetent, even degenerate,”[15] but also sounds Odd John’s themes of island utopias of physically deformed social outcasts that seem retarded but get lots of high-tech things done.

    Major T. J. “King” Kong: Stay on the bomb run boys, I’m gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek.[16]

    As IMDB noted above, the crew is actually quite competent, even heroic and self-sacrificing; an ideal Männerbund. It’s impossible not to be rooting for them, and unlike IMDB, I think Counter-Currents readers, at least, will find their goal quite admirable. And what Aryan male wouldn’t want to go out riding an ICBM onto Laputa?[17]

    The precise function of Plan R, and the CRM 114 coding device, which is not to be able to receive, recalls Odd John’s use of psychic techniques to confuse anyone — as here, both Soviets and Brits — nosing around the island. We can’t tell from the angle but he might be taking his iconic bomb ride on the one designated “Dear [Odd?] John.”

    3. The War Room

    The culminating utopia, in many senses, is of course the War Room. Several of the themes we’ve noted are tied together here. It’s a macho environment where women only intrude from the outside: first, Gen. Turgidson receives an unwanted call from (presumably) the woman — his secretary, not his wife — we saw him with earlier (in another closed environment — a motel room — where another unwanted call sends him to the War Room).

    General “BuckTurgidson: I told you never to call me here, don’t you know where I am? . . . Well look, baby, I c-, I can’t talk to you now… my president needs me!

    Then, to bring the Russian premier to the Hot Line requires the Ambassador to reveal his secret rendezvous:

    Russian Ambassador: Our Premier is a man of the people, but he is also . . . a man, if you follow my meaning.

    Gen. Turgidson erupts with outrage at the Premier being a “a degenerate atheist commie!” which is odd, since, apart from the hypocrisy, the Ambassador’s comment should be lessening the homoerotic implications of Turgidson’s spurning his girlfriend to serve his President’s needs.

    Perhaps he is offended by the implication of Kissoff (note the name) actually consummating the act, since Turgidson never seems to:

    General “Buck” Turgidson: I know how it is, baby. Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky’ll be back here before you can say “Blast off!

    Maj. Ripper earlier clarified the code of the Männerbund:

    Base Commander Jack D. Ripper: Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake . . . but I do deny them my essence.

    Only in the “modern world” would this be construed as madness or, heavens, “repressed.”[18]

    But don’t get them wrong; when needed, under the appropriate conditions, these boys can get the job done!

    President Merkin Muffley: Is there really a chance for that plane to get through?

    General “Buck” Turgidson: Mr. President, if I may speak freely, the Russkie talks big, but frankly, we think he’s short of know-how. I mean, you just can’t expect a bunch of ignorant peons to understand a machine like some of our boys. . . . if the pilot’s good, see, I mean, if he’s really. . . sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs], you oughtta see it sometime, it’s a sight. A big plane like a ‘52. VRROOM! There’s jet exhaust, fryin’ chickens in the barnyard.

    President Merkin Muffley: Yeah, but has he got a chance?

    General “Buck” Turgidson: Has he got a chance? Hell, Ye . . . ye . . .

    And a good thing, because they will be called on to perform heroic service. That’s because despite all the cheers and smiles all around, the recall efforts end in failure, and “The Leper Colony” gets through. But wait, this isn’t the end, really; there’s more! This leads us to the Final Utopia, Strangelove’s “post-war future.”

    4. Strangelove’s “Astonishingly good idea”

    As all the Gloomy Guses sit around waiting for the Doomsday Machine to blanket the Earth in a “radioactive shroud,” something remarkable takes place. Despite “acting as cartoonishly evil [5] as possible,” Strangelove is suddenly revealed as the smartest, and sanest, man in the room.

    [T]here’s a brief scene with the president demanding to know who would create a doomsday device; the camera lingers on Strangelove, calmly smoking in the shadow, the president off-screen. A few minutes later, Strangelove casually suggests the mine shaft survival plan, a new system of government, including who lives and who dies. For all intents and purposes, he takes over the US government right then and there, in front of its actual leaders, who are oblivious. Nobody said the Only Sane Man [6] has to be a good person.

    Just like Odd John,

    He looks and speaks like a Looney Tunes [7] character, but everything he says is coldly rational.

    Strangelove’s dark glasses recall John’s “eyes like caves.”[19] Although his mechanical arm with a life of its own references both Rottwang and Robot/Maria from Metropolis (another curdled utopia); not only mad scientist but like Robot/Maria he seems to have two natures, embodied in the mechanical arm, not unlike Odd John’s ability to operate on two levels of consciousness, personal and communal.[20]

    While we might imagine his arm was injured in an experimental accident, like Rottwang, or that he was crippled in the war, like Baron Evola, none of this is made explicit; Strangelove, like one of the freaks in John’s troupe, could have just been born that way. In any event, the prospect of nuclear annihilation — “brighter than a thousand suns” — literally erects him, just as Baron Evola asked to be wheeled to a window so that he could die like his Aryan ancestors, upright and facing the rising sun.

    But is it the end; death and destruction? Before that climax, Strangelove has narrated his seemingly well-rehearsed utopian dream, which deserves to be quoted in full:

    Dr. Strangelove: I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy. . . heh, heh . . . at the bottom of ah . . . some of our deeper mineshafts. Radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep, and in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.

    Muffley: How long would you have to stay down there?

    Dr. Strangelove: Well let’s see now ah . . . cobalt thorium G. . . . Radioactive halflife of uh, . . . I would think that uh . . . possibly uh . . . one hundred years.

    Muffley: You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?

    Dr. Strangelove: It would not be difficult, Mein Führer! Nuclear reactors could, heh . . . I’m sorry, Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country, but I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.

    Muffley: Well, I, I would hate to have to decide . . . who stays up and . . . who goes down.

    Dr. Strangelove: Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.

    Muffley: But look here doctor, wouldn’t this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguished that they’d, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

    Dr. Strangelove: No, sir . . . excuse me . . . When they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [involuntarily gives the Nazi salute and forces it down with his other hand] Ahhh!

    Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

    Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious . . . service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

    Russian Ambassador: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

    It’s all there, the whole National Socialist utopia, complete with self-selected elite and selective breeding.

    While Strangelove is conventionally seen as a “black comedy” in which the post-war doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) is ruthlessly satirized, we can see, in the light of our earlier reflections on the utopian genre, that once Kubrick or his co-writers settled, likely unconsciously, on the multi-utopian structure, he was committed to the fact that the logic of utopia leads to an apparently – but only apparently – disastrous conclusion.

    The final segment then, is not really a fiery Götterdämmerung, at least not for Strangelove and Co.[21] It is not Strangelove’s comeuppance, but his triumph.

    We Will Meet Again: The memorable final montage plays the song of the same name over images of atomic explosions, implying the two superpowers are destined to trade blows ever after.[22]

    A sappy WWII Brit tune; we’ve met the Nazis again; we [today] will all meet again — this time the “Allies” will wipe out each other, and the only German (“a Kraut by any other name”) in the room is the only one still standing.

    We don’t know how much time passes from Strangelove’s exultant “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk”[23] and his initial baby steps,[24] to the Doomsday machine going off. Strangelove & Co. are presumably already protected in the War Room, and may have had time to put together some version of Strangelove’s mineshaft utopia.[25]

    If so, Kubrick’s film has foreshadowed Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow (which returns the favor by ending with a hapless soldier riding a V-2) which Dale Carter has analyzed[26] as presenting the posthumous triumph of the Third Reich in the form of the Kennedy-led space race:

    In this book, Carter draws on Thomas Pynchon’s novel ‘Gravity’s Rainbow’ to define the post-World War Two period as the ‘Rocket State’, a social form salvaging elements of the defeated Nazi ‘Oven State’ to create a totalitarian capitalist order. The rocket, based on Nazi military technology, is a central element of this as the launch vehicle for both nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the Apollo programme, highest point of the propagandist spectacle or, as Carter calls it ‘the Orpheus Theater’ where at the conclusion of Gravity’s Rainbow the spectators watch the screen as the rocket heads towards their destruction.[27]

    Much as Strangelove & Co. must have watched the Big Board, we watch the final montage. Muffley himself recognizes the ominous parallels:

    Muffley: I refuse to go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.

    Turgidson: Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books.

    Each utopia has superficially failed, but each sets up the final one (the final solution?) which has succeeded, although the logic of the utopian genre requires, as we saw, that this one too apparently fail, spectacularly.

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.[28]

    Fail Safe?[29]

    In a final, ironic — or rather, utopian — reversal, the bombs are dropped on the Allies, and after this new “holocaust” all the messy aspects of eugenics — exterminating the unfit — are left behind, leaving only the pleasurable eugenic tasks of Kraft durch Freude, with the males called upon to perform heroic services on specially selected females. Everyone is smiling in anticipation, and even Ambassador de Sadesky joins in:

    Russian Ambassador: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

    See, if you squint at Dr. Strangelove through the utopian lens we’ve provided, where the apocalypse is just a genre convention, it’s clear that the Nazis come back, and this time they win![30] I like to think this would bring a smile to Savitri Devi herself.[31]


    1. An anonymous bit of “Trivia” at the Internet Movie Database, here [8].

    2. “‘The Wild Boys Smile’: Reflections on Olaf Stapledon’s Odd John,” especially footnote 10 of Part Three, here [9].

    3. Each of the main three would have featured Peter Sellers, playing the “Only Sane Man [6]” each time, “but a sprained ankle prevented him from getting into and out of the B-52 set, so Slim Pickens was added to the cast to play ‘King’ Kong.” TV Tropes, Acting For Three: [10]Peter Sellers [11].

    4. “Fanservice [12]: Precisely one female character appears in this movie. General Turgidson’s mistress and secretary, heard in one scene and seen in a bikini in another. She is also a Playboy [13] centrefold.” – TV Tropes

    5. Like the “Tuskegee Airmen,” black pilots are a modern Liberal myth; see Paul Kersey’s Stuff Black People Don’t Like, passim, such as “Black History Month Heroes — Sky Marshal Tehat Meru of Starship Troopershere [14].

    6. Kong’s “yippe-yi-ay” on the bomb, Turgidson’s “Blast off!” to his secretary, Strangelove’s iconic Risus sardonicus. Ripper’s suicide would not seem to fit; this is why, as noted, the segment has two endings. When “Bat” Guano takes the Coke stream to the face, the audience can be expected to laugh — it’s a “black comedy” after all — and this ties in with what Murphy said about the Wild Boys’ smiles — they invite the audience into participation.

    7. “A Father to His Men [15]: When the base falls Ripper feels let down and remarks that the soldiers were like his children. It rings as true as anything else he says. Mandrake manages to obliquely mock him.

    Mandrake: I’m sure they all died thinking of you, every man jack of them . . . Jack.” – TV Tropes

    On the contrary, I would suggest that “man jack” suggests the utopian union of Jack Ripper and his boys, symbolized by Mandrake, as does Mandrake’s fake nostalgia for earlier helping Ripper with the machine gun: “You said, ‘feed me’ and I fed you Jack . . .”

    8. And we know where that’s going: “No Sense of Personal Space [16]: As Ripper gets drunk, he starts getting uncomfortably close and hands-on toward Mandrake, suggesting a possible [17]explanation [18] for his sexual issues.”

    9. At the time a well-known hobby horse of the Right, it’s surprising how it continues to be a kind of cargo cult on the Left. Concern about using early PR techniques “after the war” as Ripper correctly notes, to convince local governments to allow a poisonous industrial waste product into the water supply, seems tailor made for the Left, especially after all the Rachel Carson business and modern concerns with GMOs etc. Apparently, the “commie plot” angle led it to become a shibboleth, like the “innocence” of Hiss or authenticity of “folk” music, constantly invoked as a test of loyalty (oddly enough, the Right had the same idea about loyalty tests). Only Alexander Cockburn, Stalinist that he was, seemed to have the guts to challenge the Left. Indeed, good-thinking sites like HuffPo now attack anti-GMO activists as “creationists of the Left;” GMOs, fluoridation and even circumcision, if not climate change, seems to be one of those “scientific facts” only known to American Leftists, puzzling the rest of the world.

    10. “Dangerously Genre Savvy [19]: General Ripper may be demented but he knows his trade; he’s shown as an experienced and competent leader who invokes, anticipates and discusses very relevant tropes.” – TV Tropes.

    11. Even a light-hearted romp by a Catholic author ends with Lord Peter himself recommending, successfully, suicide to the club bounder in The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club [20] (1928).

    12. The bathroom suicide recalls the one in Advise and Consent which we discussed here [21].

    13. The comedy is so deliberate that “the actor’s head was too high when the stream began to spew toward him, and he can be seen lowering his face down into it to produce the full comedic effect.” – IMDB, “Goofs [22].”

    14. “Bombers on the Screen [23]: The primary purpose of The Big Board [24].” – TV Tropes.

    15. “Dark Roots: Humor and Tragedy in Doctor Strangelove [25]” by Caran Wakefield.

    16. No one since seems to understand WTF Kong is talking about, but I note the connection to the harelipped “Tooth Fairy” in Manhunter, which I referenced before in discussing the ugliness and deformity of Odd John’s horde.

    17. “La puta” of course is “the whore,” in line with the obsessive sexual symbolism of the film, but also a reference to Swift’s airborne utopia of scientific cranks; as we’ll see next, taking out Laputa will make way for Strangelove’s very different, solidly based ge-mineshaft utopia.

    18. See Andy Nowicki’s meditations on the demeaning subtext of the macho “Game” theorists; for example, “Trouble in Twilight” here [26].

    19. “Cool Shades [27]: Dr. Strangelove’s teashades.” – TV Tropes.

    20. “Evil Hand [28]: Dr. Strangelove has one, which seems to act on Strangelove’s violent and Nazi subconscious. The portrayal was so influential that the real life condition “alien hand syndrome” is also known as “Dr. Strangelove Syndrome”. – TV Tropes.

    21. Cf. the iconic boys’ book, Kipling’s Stalky and Co.

    22. TV Tropes, Dr. Strangelove [29].

    23. Strangelove’s lapse into German links him to the equally deceptive failure at the end of Hesse’s Demian: “In the very last sentence of the novel Sinclair addresses Demian, his recently departed friend and mentor, as ‘mein Führer’.” Mark Harmon, review of Gunnar Decker’s Hesse: Der Wanderer und sein Schatten in the TLS (14 September, 2012); available here [30].

    24. “Physicist Isidor Rabi noticed Oppenheimer’s disconcerting triumphalism: “I’ll never forget his walk; I’ll never forget the way he stepped out of the car . . . his walk was like High Noon . . . this kind of strut. He had done it.” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer [31].

    25. Itself an obviously phallic notion: satirizing the “missile gap [32]” — a lie about the aged Eisenhower that helped put virile Kennedy in the White House; Turgidson demands that “Mr. President, we must prevent a mineshaft gap!”

    26. Dale Carter, The Final Frontier: The Rise and Fall of the American Rocket State (New York: Verso 1988).

    27. An outdated webpage at http://www.oocities.org/redgiantsite/moon.html [33] which also includes an excerpt from Carter’s book.

    28. Samuel Beckeyt, Worstward Ho (1983).

    29. In a replay of the whole “Incredibly Strange Creatures” kerfuffle that we referenced before, “Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove were both produced by Columbia Pictures. . . . Director Stanley Kubrick, adapting Peter George’s [34] novel Red Alert [35], insisted the studio release his movie first (in January 1964). “Fail-Safe” so closely resembled Red Alert that George filed a plagiarism lawsuit. The case was settled out of court.” —http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-Safe_%281964_film%29#Lawsuit [36].

    30. Albeit an underground triumph, which does fit in with many “Nazi survival” mythologies.

    31. Although she wouldn’t like that bit about “animals raised and slaughtered.”


    (Review Source)
  • An Offering to the Beast of Political Correctness: A Review of the 2018 Death Wish
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    1,382 words [1]

    Death Wish
    Directed by Eli Roth
    Screenplay by Joe Carnahan
    Starring Bruce Willis, Vincent D’Onofrio, Elisabeth Shue, Dean Norris, & Kimberly Elise

    All the hype about the recent reboot of the film Death Wish being an “Alt Right movie” is just that—hype, and no more. The original, reviewed here [2], has much more relevance to today’s Dissident Right—even after forty-five years—than the current film has after just as many minutes.

    Still, the 2018 Death Wish remains a tolerably good film with some solid suspense, creative action, and genuinely creepy moments. Director Eli Roth also does a fine job of updating the story so that the lone vigilante who roams the mean streets now has to deal with phone cameras and social media. Set in Chicago, Roth makes good use of the cityscape to propel the narrative, especially the city’s famous L-trains.

    Instead of being an architect, Paul Kersey is now a surgeon. Surprisingly, the film contains some implicit and explicit pro-gun messaging which is the same as in the original and leads to a snazzy payoff at the end. On a technical level, the remake even surpasses the original in some ways. Where the original lags a bit in the middle during Paul Kersey’s psychological transformation from private citizen to coldblooded vigilante, the remake maintains a crisp pace throughout. Thankfully, the remake abandons the freaky, modernist score of the original and instead employs music more suitable for the above-average action-thriller it has turned out to be.

    In the ways that count, however, the remake doesn’t even come close to excelling the original. The 1974 Death Wish did not try to be great art. It resonated with audiences because it was pulp fiction rendered red in tooth and claw and because it gave expression to real fears that white Americans were losing control of their major cities. Further, it was as honest as a film could be at the time.

    To achieve this, Charles Bronson turned in an unforgettable performance. Admittedly, he’s not the most versatile actor. But when the script called for him to keep his mouth shut while hunting muggers, there was none more fearsome. Sort of like a cross between Charlie Manson and Genghis Khan, Bronson’s Paul Kersey personified the anger and contempt many whites were feeling as they saw their once-great cities slipping away from them. Bruce Willis, the lead in the 2018 remake, inspires none of this. He’s bald, he’s doughy, and at sixty-two, he’s far too old. Further, he is cast against type. He needs wisecracks and clever dialogue in order to exhibit his particular charm and wit. “Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.” Yeah, there was nothing as memorable as that in this script. Willis is certainly not a bad actor; he’s just not convincing as a sullen, lone wolf killer. After his family is attacked, he seems to just sleepwalk through the rest of the film. Perhaps he was haunted by Bronson’s performance, or tried a little too hard to emulate it?

    Another nit to pick involves the cartoonish fighting in the remake. In the original, we see the following primitive pattern: mugger encounters Kersey. Mugger draws weapon on Kersey. Kersey shoots mugger. Kersey shoots mugger again to make sure he’s dead. Kersey runs away. This might not be terribly exciting to modern audiences, but it depicted the reality one would most likely experience when dealing with muggers in such a fashion. In the remake, the two Kersey women attempt to fight off their three male attackers. And they do pretty well, too, until the attackers decide to shoot them. This is pure feminist nonsense. In the remake, Kersey grapples with a bad guy who dies when a bowling ball lands on his head and causes him to accidentally shoot himself in the mouth. And these are not even the worst examples. Oh, and there’s gore. Lots of gore. Make sure to close your eyes at the very end of the scene which takes place in a mechanic’s shop. Some things you just cannot unsee.

    On a deeper level, Death Wish fails in its treatment of race. As I pointed out in my review, the original is in many ways about the legitimate white reaction to non-white crime that was surging in our cities at the time it was made. Yes, in the original, an unrealistic half of the criminals were white. But I am willing to overlook this and attribute it to making political concessions to the egalitarian mores of the day.

    Where the original made concessions to the beast, however, the remake bows down before it and then shows it its neck. It does this by making almost all of the bad guys Kersey encounters either white or unclassifiably dark (i.e., not black), and whenever we find a black baddie, there is always something that exonerates Kersey’s treatment of him. But, as with most Hollywood movies these days, the evilest of the evil are always white, in spite of the fact that blacks are responsible for most crime [3], especially in places like Chicago.

    I will run through the exceptions right now. Early on, a Hispanic tips off the bad guys regarding Kersey’s home address. He is tattooed, snarly, and suitably thuggish. So far so good. The first muggers Kersey encounters are black, who proceed to kick the shit out of him. (This is before Kersey acquires a gun.) Yes, these are bad guys, but they come out on top. Beating up on whitey is one way for an anti-white Hollywood to appease anti-white audiences. Then there’s the nigger gangbanger named Ice Cream Man. Kersey shows up to his crib in broad daylight and just wastes him. Yes, this remains true to both the vigilante theme of Death Wish and what would likely happen in reality. However, Kersey learns about Ice Cream Man from a little black kid whom Ice Cream Man had shot. Catch that? Hollywood requires a perfectly innocent black victim before Kersey has the right to take out a black criminal. Kersey’s white victims certainly do not require such consideration.

    This leads to my final issue with Death Wish. Where the original deals with vigilantism and all the moral quandaries it entails, the remake deals more with revenge (or, really, justice), which gives the thinking man far less to chew on. (I’m reminded of the hilarious motto of the Tick, an ironic superhero if there ever was one: “Evil is bad! And Good isn’t!”) In the original, no attempt is made to find the three thugs who attacked Kersey’s family. But in the remake, revenge against these three becomes the very point of the story.

    Also, by giving the villains names and over-the-top agendas, the remake fails to capture what was so evocative and menacing about the original, where the criminals were all nameless, predatory, and real. In 1974, we were lashing out at the incomprehensible evil which was eating away at our cities. There can be no resolution to that. In 2018, however, we are going after Knox, Joe, and Fish, because Knox, Joe, and Fish broke into Paul Kersey’s house and murdered his wife. Kill those three and that’s all the resolution you need.

    The ending encapsulates this dichotomy perfectly. Kersey is home with his recovering daughter when the last remaining bad guy predictably breaks in again, this time with a pair of trained killers armed with automatic weapons. We are no longer on the streets where vigilantism is morally ambiguous, but at home, where self-defense is sacrosanct. And because this is Kersey’s home turf, he’s able to set traps for them and whack them one by one. Sound familiar?

    Go to High Noon. Go to Witness. Go to freaking Home Alone. This schtick has been done before. Did the filmmakers not realize they were spoiling their film by opening it up to comparison with a whole host of earlier films, including Home Alone? By indulging in such cinematic clichés and cartoonish violence, as well as by paying such obsequious homage to political correctness, Death Wish only disappoints. It takes a perfectly good film premise and turns it into a comic book that does nothing more than entertain while pretending to be edgy. Better it just entertain.

    Spencer J. Quinn is a contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You [4].

    (Review Source)

Devon Stack1
Black Pilled

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • How Boomers Were Taught to Hate (Themselves)
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton1
Right Wing Film Geek

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Drugstore Cowboy
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Drugstore Cowboy

    A recent White House occupant fancies himself as a cowboy, only it’s not Dubya, but, according to the London Daily Telegraph (this is where it’s available in September 2007) it’s the Sensitive-90s-Dad-In-Chief.

    I loathe armchair psychology, but seeing a single movie 30 times in eight years is *so* unnatural that it’s hard not to speculate. Eisenhower and Bush 2.0 have each seen HIGH NOON also, but only three times and once respectively (and Ike was president when the movie was new fercryinoutloud). It’s not unusual for a professional critic or a really hard-core CINEMANIA-caliber film geek to see a film that often — my records are seeing THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER 12 times in two years (but then none in the next eight) and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS 22 times (but over almost 15 years). But this is the guy so intent on saving the world from The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and getting Osama bin Laden in December 2000 that he didn’t have time to notice the Rose Law Firm billing records, the raw FBI files on Washington’s top Republicans or any of that. And he was so focused lake a laser beam on the economy and Bosnia that he vulnerable to the stalking of cigar-wielding interns (especially while discussing Bosnia). How did he find the time to see a movie 30 times?

    Numerous critics have long noted how HIGH NOON is “really” an anti-McCarthy allegory of the lone man abandoned by others’ cowardice in the fight against evil. Does it not seem typical of Clinton that he would see HIGH NOON 30 times? Maybe he just loves the movie, but it would be entirely consistent with what we know of Clinton’s self-dramatizing and narcissistic personality that he’d see himself as a lone defender of right, a modern-day Gary Cooper headed for a showdown with the black-hatted trio of Gingrich, Hyde and Starr. To give another example of the same phenomenon, he once explained some stretch of ineffectuality in an interview with The Washington Post by quoting from Chapter 6 of Macchiavelli’s THE PRINCE about the difficulties of “founding a new order of things,” thereby implicitly comparing Hillarycare, the moter-voter bill, gays in the military and Midnight basketball to (some of the examples Macchiavelli uses) Romulus founding Rome and Moses leading the Israelites into the Holy Land. The good St. Nick has a lot to teach us about politics, but that be wack.

    Further, the choice of *that* Western, as opposed to, say, STAGECOACH or THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE or the Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns, is also instructive in terms of what it says about Clinton’s self-image and that of a significant swatch of Boomer public opinion (and Clinton is nothing if not the blue-state ego-ideal of his generation). When Europeans-in-place and Europeans-in-spirit call Dubya (or America in general) a cowboy, they’re referring, however accurately, to a certain image — an impetuous, dashing, ruthless taste for violence. Yosemite Sam basically. But Will Kane is a different kind of Western hero, one more acceptable to Our Sensitive Era — tortured, alone, only resorting to violence by clear-and-present necessity. And he even gets bailed out at the end by his wife …

    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...


    Ha-haIn "Michael Haneke"

    Virginia Film Fest Day 4In "Virginia 2009"

    Camp is not deadIn "Clint Eastwood"

    August 7, 2003 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , ,


    1. I agree with everything you said. Except that it’s so unnatural to see a movie 30 times. We already go see enough crap only once because it was marketed. Any love of a good movie has its own honor. The natural thing is to go see the next lame hipster cyberviolence instead right?

      Comment by filmbuffoon | February 22, 2009 | Reply

    2. […] times — to see HOTEL RWANDA, THE AVIATOR and PAPER CLIPS. I once had some fun here about Bill Clinton seeing HIGH NOON 30 times. But seeing only three movies once each in two months just doesn’t give one much to chew on, […]

      Pingback by Bush’s film tastes « Rightwing Film Geek | November 26, 2017 | Reply

    3. Awesome blog! Do you have any hints for aspiring writers?

      I’m hoping to start my own site soon but I’m a little lost on everything.
      Would you propose starting with a free platform like WordPress
      or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I’m completely confused ..
      Any suggestions? Bless you!

      Comment by mutilateadoll2unblocked.net | May 19, 2018 | Reply

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    (Review Source)

The Weekly Standard Staff1
The Weekly Standard

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Can 'Darkest Hour' Avoid the Pitfalls That Have Plagued so Many Churchill Films?
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Steven F. Hayward

    It may well be impossible ever to make a film adaptation of The Great Gatsby that can successfully live up to the full majesty of the novel.

    (Review Source)

Mark Steyn2
Fox News

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Star Wars
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Stabilize your rear deflectors! From a galaxy far far away - the summer of 1977 - Star Wars is back, rebooted for the 21st century and in hopes that after a decade's time-out the series has shaken off its turn-of-the-century "prequels", agreed even by
    (Review Source)
  • Westward the Women
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Guest columnist Kathy Shaidle hates westerns, yet still has a bit of a soft spot for this 1951 film, she writes in this week's Mark at the Movies.
    (Review Source)

Hugh Hewitt1
Salem Radio Network

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Lost Angeles Times: Mutiny On The Not-So-Bountiful
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Because very few people outside of Los Angeles (and, increasingly, anyone in southern California) cares about the Los Angeles Times, the ongoing collapse of the worst major newspaper in America gets little ink.  With rumors that daily circulation has slipped below 800,000 and with advertisers fleeing the daily package of hard-left agenda journalism that goes unread even in the homes where it is delivered, Chicago based parent The Tribune Company has declared the need for more belt-tightening, and the paper’s editor Dean Baquet has said no.  “High Noon” it isn’t, because people cared how that movie ended.  But now a new twist, both amusing, and deeply embarassing to journalists everywhere. A handful of uber-liberals and usual suspects have sent a pitiful letter to the Tribune Company begging it to leave the paper alone.  (They brand themselves “civic leaders,” which is a term of accordian-like expandability, though not one of humility.) They like their pet, you see, and they like it just as it is, no matter how low circulation dips or how much better served the shareholders of the Tribune Company would be served by new editorial management and direction. The Tribune Company’s CEO wrote back  –a polite but firm brush-off that didn’t even mention the obvious fact that if the paper was so beloved by civic leaders, why didn’t the people they led buy the paper? The disaster that is the paper is the result of new media’s rise, the relentless contempt the editorial room feels for the average southern Californian, a ridiculous work ethic that would make a trade union man blush, and finally the ingrown insularity of the old media world caving in on itself.  There isn’t a new breath of new thinking anywhere in the paper.  Of course it is going to suffocate.  Unless it dies of embrassment first at having to rely on the protestations of value of those it is supposed to cover.   ]]>
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff3
The Federalist

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Top 10 Westerns Ever Made, Plus 10 More Deep Cuts
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    With their clear-eyed moral messaging, Westerns are a great antidote to much of the modern filmmaking landscape, where audiences are often asked to identify with the bad guy.
    (Review Source)
  • Here’s A Dueling List Of The Top 8 Westerns, Plus Actual Deep Cuts
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    ‘The Top 10 Westerns Ever Made, Plus 10 More Deep Cuts’ was deeply disappointing to this film buff. So here’s a deeper, better, alternative list.
    (Review Source)

Murray N. Rothbard (a.k.a. Mr. First Nighter)1
The Mises Institute

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Arts and Movies - Vol. 18.7–8, July–August 1984
    (”High Noon” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Red Dawn, dir. by John Milius.
    It’s not only the Supreme Court that follows the election returns. Hollywood, too, does its bit, and movie theatres have been increasingly filled with right-wingy patriotism, like the rest of the media this endless summer. I went to see Red Dawn expecting a bout of anti-Soviet warmongering, bat instead was pleasantly surprised. This is hardly a great picture, and is indeed flawed. But Red Dawn is an enjoyable teen-age saga, and, apart from right-wingy pro-NATO credits at the beginning of the film, it is not so much pro-war as it is anti-State. The warfare it celebrates is not interstate strife, but guerrilla conflict that the great radical libertarian military analyst, General Charles Lee, labelled “people’s war” two centuries before Mao and Che.
    The beginning of the picture is exciting, if idiotic. Cuban, Nicaraguan, Mexican and other Commie Hispanic troops, headed by Soviet advisors, parachute into and successfully conquer the entire prairie MidWest, from the Rockies to the Mississippi. In the opening sequence…


Andrew Klavan1
PJ Media

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

    Want even more consensus?

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

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

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

    Record a webcam review!

    Or anonymous text review:

    Submit your review

    Create your own review

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

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

    Share this page: