The Matrix

Not rated yet!
Director
Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski
Runtime
2 h 16 min
Release Date
30 March 1999
Genres
Action, Science Fiction
Overview
Set in the 22nd century, The Matrix tells the story of a computer hacker who joins a group of underground insurgents fighting the vast and powerful computers who now rule the earth.
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?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum). 

    ( ̄^ ̄)ゞ 
(☞゚ヮ゚)☞  No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Jay Dyer12
Esoteric Hollywood



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ 𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐘 🔥 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓 🔥 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 🔥 (𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • The Matrix (1999) –...


    By: Jay Dyer The Matrix, as I’ve joked many times, is one of those perennial topics in philosophy 101 classes that tends to evoke the most inane and mindless “philosophizing”...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Matrix Trilogy – Symbolism Analysis – Esoteric Hollywood 2 – Jay Dyer

     In this live stream we will cover Esoteric Hollywood 2, the many more films I cover in the sequel, and in particular the Matrix trilogy in-depth, the symbols used, the managed dialectics of Cold War cinema, the mafia in films, Polanski’s 9th Gate, Twin Peaks, Goonies, Time Bandits, MK ULTRA and mind control in […]

    The post The Matrix Trilogy – Symbolism Analysis – Esoteric Hollywood 2 – Jay Dyer appeared first on JaysAnalysis.com.

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 9/11, Fight Club, The Matrix,...

    Earth Radio Network with Dr. Truth invited on Jacksonville, FL, FM radio invited me on to discuss the book and new subjects, such as the music industry, its coopting for...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Avengers: Age of Ultron –...


    By: Jay Dyer Joss Whedon’s follow-up to The Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, is setting new box office records for Marvel, and has roughly the same degree of critical response...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Esoteric Hollywood 2 &...


     Alternate Current Radio Presents: Sunday Wire This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE with host Patrick Henningsen bringing you all the top stories from the US, Europe and internationally....

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Lucy (2014) – Esoteric...

    By: Jay Luc Besson has that rare, magical quality where his films teeter on the edge of being extremely mediocre and/or somewhat entertaining.  Similar themes run through his work, from...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Tron (1982) – The Ultimate...

    By: Jay “The grid. A digital frontier. I tried to picture clusters of information as they moved through the computer.  What did they look like? Ships? Motorcycles?  Were the circuits...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Jupiter Ascending –...

    By: Jay Dyer Jupiter Ascending was not a particularly memorable film. Full of CGI vomit, the last installment from the Wachowskis presented a sci fi opera that recalls Star Wars...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Peter Parker on 2001: A Space...
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    Our friend Peter Parker draws out even further insights from his angle. -Jay By: Peter Parker I’ve noticed the traditional “luciferian” formula of the atheistic type, generally goes like this....

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Inception: My Labyrinthine...
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    By: Jay Dyer Inception is one of the best films Hollywood has put out in years, and stands out as a diamond in a large stack of garbage.  If the liberals in...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Paranormal Activity 2: Poltergeists,...
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    By: Peter Parker So, I got dragged by a friend to go and see the film Paranormal Activity 2, despite the fact that I never saw the first Paranormal Activity....

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Dark City (1998) – Esoteric...
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    By: Jay I hate to harp on the same old thing, but the same old thing always manifests in films, and deserves to be harped on. Often what is considered...

    ...
    (Review Source)

The Unz Review Staff2
Unz Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Battling the Matrix and Freeing Oneself from the Roger Rabbit Mental World
    In 1999, a big hit movie was The Matrix. I went and saw it but I don’t recall it making much of an impression on me. At the time, my understanding of the world was pretty conventional. I believed the things I was told — for example, that a lone nut by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had shot President Kennedy, and another lone gunman named James Earl Ray later shot Martin Luther King. Of course 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, but, when it did, a couple of years later, I assumed that the official story was broadly true. In retrospect, I am not sure whether, at the time, I even knew the term “false flag terrorism”. Probably not. In general, I believed that the way to stay informed about world events was to watch CNN and the BBC or read the New York Times. I also held rather typical mainstream liberal/progressive views that a North American university graduate would hold. In short, I was a typical overeducated idiot. Not very long ago, since it was linked on a web page, I watched the famous red pill scene again and it was a shock. I thought: “But my God, that’s… that’s… absolutely uncanny!” So much had happened in the intervening decade and a half, and I had undergone such an intellectual evolution that, of course, my reaction to the scene was bound to be very different. It was really thought provoking. On further consideration, though, I realized that, as compelling as the red pill scene is, it still basically begs the question. In the real world, there is no such red pill, either at the local pharmacy or from the neighborhood drug pusher. So, how would a real-world Morpheus get Neo to perceive the Matrix that surrounds them? You see, the red pill is basically a sort of deus ex machina. The character takes the pill and voilà! If you think about it, it’s understandable that they introduce such a plot device. That way, the film avoids having to explain how the characters came to perceive the Matrix. Actually I can’t even imagine offhand how the movie would go about explaining that, but if it did, it would end up being a very different sort of film, much more complex and psychological. Too intellectual. It would bore most people. This way, the character wakes up without taking too much time away that could be better used in slick martial arts scenes, which are, after all, what most moviegoers want to see. Another interesting aspect of this is that, in the moral universe of the Matrix, the character must choose the red pill of his own free will. Morpheus gives Neo the whole spiel and Neo has to decide. Okay, obviously we know he’ll choose the red pill because if he chose the blue one, the movie would be over before it had hardly started. But he is offered the choice. If Neo had chosen the blue pill, the other characters weren’t going to jump him and pin him down and force him to ingest the red pill. Though, actually, come to think of it, for all we know, that was the backup plan. But no, I’m pretty sure that the ethos of the Matrix is that a person must consciously choose the red pill. In other words, people have the right to delude themselves. Another movie that came out a decade before that, the John Carpenter film “They Live”, has a similar theme, where the characters perceive a reality that others don’t. Like the Matrix, it has a deus ex machina plot device that “explains” how the characters come to perceive the nature of the world they are in. Instead of the red pill, it’s these special sunglasses. But there is a very basic difference in a somewhat analogous scene. When the main character in “They Live” wants his best buddy to see reality, i.e. put on the sunglasses, the friend adamantly refuses. However, the protagonist won’t take no for an answer and a really violent broken down fight ensues. Finally the main character forces his friend, kicking and screaming (and punching and head-butting), to put on the sunglasses and see reality. This crazy fight scene is also something that I perceive very differently watching it now than when I first saw it many years back. On the superficial level, the scene makes no sense. You just think: this is silly, nobody would go to such lengths to avoid trying on a pair of sunglasses. He would just humor his friend and try them on before it got to anything like that! On a deeper level, though, once one understands what the sunglasses represent, one cannot help but feel that, as over-the-top as the scene is, it is, on some level, far more realistic than the Matrix red pill scene. The adamant refusal of the character in “They Live” to put on the sunglasses is actually far more like the way people in the real world behave than when Neo eagerly grabs the red pill in the Matrix. It would be even more realistic if, instead of shouting “you crazy Mother” while fighting to avoid putting on the sunglasses, the character shouted instead: “You crazy conspiracy theorist!” (In fact, the “conspiracy theorist” label is the most basic weapon of these reality avoiders and this essay will address this question later.) BDQ, high IQ idiocy, and the Ludek Pachman Moment (LPM) Getting back to the real world, we still have the observable fact that some people perceive the propaganda matrix and others are oblivious to it, and we don’t have any red pills or sunglasses to explain this. Just as some people get calculus and others don’t, some people see through the bullshit and others don’t. That’s pretty clear… ORDER IT NOWNow, when it comes to calculus or other academic subjects, we have IQ; we say the higher IQ people do better at school, or at least it comes easier to them. However, the ability to see through the propaganda, bullshit generally speaking, does not seem to have much (if anything) to do with IQ. There are people with a very high IQ who are just completely helpless when it comes to seeing through the propaganda. The technical term for such a person is HIQI, or “high IQ idiot”. The term is not really as contradictory as it seems, since, properly understood, there is another kind of intelligence in play than IQ, that allows people to see through the bullshit. The technical term we shall use for this is BDQ, which stands for Bullshit Detection Quotient. The term “high IQ idiot” does not originate in this essay. A quick google search reveals prior usage here and there, but this essay may be the first to provide a formal definition of the concept: A “high IQ idiot” is somebody with a combination of high IQ and very low BDQ. There is an event that I recall from a book that I read a long time ago that, I think, illustrates the concept quite nicely. It’s a rather obscure book, probably out of print now, entitled “Checkmate in Prague”. The author was a chess grandmaster named Ludek Pachman. I read the book back in my teens when I was a fanatical chess player. It’s partly a memoir of the author’s chess career but is mostly a political memoir of his time in Czechoslovakia under communist rule and it culminates in his defection to the West some time in the early 1970’s. The event I have in mind goes like this: Ludek’s housekeeper is going off to the market to buy some food. As she is going out, Ludek tells her that he would prefer that she not buy pork. You see, Ludek had read some sort of popular science article that warned of how unhealthy it was to eat pork. He was concerned that he was eating too much pork and would prefer for her to buy beef or chicken instead. His housekeeper, surely not a very educated woman, responded: “Oh, that is all nonsense, Mr. Pachman. They are telling us that pork is unhealthy because, at the moment, there is a severe shortage of pork and they don’t want people to notice.” Ludek took this as an example of the kinds of misguided notions that uneducated people engage in. (I don’t believe he used the term “conspiracy theory”.) For Ludek, it was completely unthinkable that scientists would write an article like that saying that pork was unhealthy if there was not some real evidence that it was. Well, some months after this, Ludek was reading some popular science article and the article was extolling the health benefits of pork. Now, apparently, pork was by far the healthiest meat, much better for you than beef or chicken. It struck Ludek as rather odd that the scientific consensus on this could change so quickly. Ludek looked into the question and discovered that, now there was a huge oversupply of pork. It seems that the authorities had overreacted to the previous shortage and now there was more pork than anybody knew what to do with. Thus, the authorities were desperately trying to increase the demand for pork by putting out articles telling everybody how healthy it was. Many readers might chuckle at the above story, not think that it is very consequential. After all, when you think of the various abuses committed in communist regimes, a few porkies about pork surely do not rank very high. Nonetheless, this incident really did shock poor Ludek, and was, as I recall, one of the key events that caused him to turn against the communist regime and, ultimately, to defect to the West. He just really disliked living in such a corrupt, mendacious society, in which everything was a lie. (Whether Ludek was right to assume that the West was much better is another fascinating question, but is beyond the scope of this essay.) Now, what I would point out about this story is that Ludek almost certainly had a much higher IQ than his housekeeper. And he was also far more educated. However, his housekeeper immediately knew that these articles appearing in the press — denigrating (and later extolling) the eating of pork — were bullshit, while Ludek was taken in by them. In short, Ludek’s housekeeper had a much higher BDQ than Ludek did. Since I feel that the foregoing anecdote is such a good basic example of a certain phenomenon, I shall introduce some new terminology. This kind of realisation that Ludek has, when he sees how naive he has been and that his uneducated housekeeper, in a very basic way, is actually smarter than he is — let us call this a Ludek Pachman moment, or LPM for short. I believe that, for people who belong to what we could broadly call the Deep Politics Community or the Truth Community, the LPM is a very basic recurring theme. For example, Ron Unz has published a series of articles under the rubric of “American Pravda” in which he documents just how unreliable the American (and really, Western) media is. The facts that Ron documents are indeed compelling, but the articles can also be looked at another way: you see, besides just covering various factual material, he is recounting his own personal intellectual journey, his own personal “Ludek Pachman moment”, or perhaps really a series of LPM‘s. About a year ago, Jeff Brown wrote an article about what he calls the Great Western Firewall. He outlines at great length a series of facts, but properly understood, I would say that Jeff is also describing his own LPM. While Jeff Brown outlines a completely different series of facts in GWF than Ron Unz in AP, one could say that, in deep structure, if you will, they are broadly the same. In each case, the author is describing his own LPM, or a series of LPM‘s that constitute an overall awakening. The reason that I found the aforementioned articles by Ron Unz and Jeff Brown so compelling is that I myself went on a similar journey and it is still fairly recent. I surmise that the people who react negatively to those articles (and I recall that Jeff Brown’s GWF article got a lot of negative comments) are people who have not (yet) had their own LPM. I guess the most basic diagnostic self-test in this regard is that if you believe that the way you get educated about the world is to watch CNN and BBC and read the New York Times, then you have not yet had your own LPM. And certainly, if you still think that calling somebody a “conspiracy theorist” is some sort of meaningful insult, you are in dire need of your own Ludek Pachman Moment. BDQ and Roger Rabbit Artefacts (RRA’s) When I started thinking seriously about the whole BDQ issue, one aspect of it occurred to me fairly quickly. People have a strong baseline of bullshit detection capability when dealing with direct visual stimuli. By that, I mean pictures of things that are obviously absurd. For example, however low your BDQ happens to be, if somebody shows you a picture of a car with square wheels, you immediately identify this as impossible. So it stands to reason that if you want to bullshit somebody, it is easier to do so verbally than visually. I guess the issue is that a visual stimulus goes directly to some part of the cortex that, on a non-conscious, non-verbal level of reasoning, just immediately identifies the input as absurd and impossible. Along these lines, I thought about another movie I saw a long time ago. It came out in 1987, a year before “They Live”. I am thinking of “Who framed Roger Rabbit?”. That was, I think, the first movie in which human actors interacted seamlessly with cartoon characters. (There were other attempts before, I’m sure, but I think that Roger Rabbit took this to a very polished level.) I think that Roger Rabbit, i.e. cartoons being superimposed on reality, can be a nice metaphor for thinking about these kinds of issues. In fact, I believe that many an LPM that people have undergone is when it dawns on them that some story that is presented by the media is an RRN, a Roger Rabbit narrative. Though it was quite a technical achievement at the time, one thing is clear about this: everybody can identify which elements on the screen are cartoons and which ones are real. A cartoon building or a cartoon car just doesn’t look like a real building or a real car. And most certainly cartoon characters cannot be confused with a real human actor. So, again, when there is a direct visual stimulus like this, we all possess the wetware to identify effortlessly and immediately what is real and what is a cartoon, at least in a Roger Rabbit sort of movie in which cartoons and real people share the screen. So if we were watching one of those Bin Laden videos and some actual cartoon Arabs were to come out in the video, characters out of a Disney animated Aladdin or Sinbad, we would all presumably realize that the video is fake. While nobody has any problem identifying a cartoon image, people frequently do have problems with a cartoon narrative. In May of 2011, in the first version of what happened in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a White House spokesman claims that Osama Bin Laden, when cornered, tried to use one of his wives as a “human shield”. They did later change the story, but this first version is a clear case of a cartoon element being overlaid onto something that is supposed to be a real event. My terminology for this is RRA, which stands for Roger Rabbit artifact. Admittedly, since no photographic or video evidence was ever produced of this Abbottabad raid, it is not an RRA in the more literal sense of involving video fakery. (Video fakery is frequent in other hoax events, but not this one.) I still classify this as an RRA, since an event is alleged to occur that clearly emerges from a cartoon or Hollywoodian universe. You see, the “human shield” story requires Osama Bin Laden, who is ostensibly a real person in the real world, to exist mentally in a sort of cartoon universe. Upon realizing that agents of the U.S. government have arrived to liquidate him, he reasons that these are chivalrous individuals who would not shoot a woman. Therefore, he can prevent himself from being shot by getting behind a woman. People, let’s think about this: would anybody in the real world ever reason this way? Surely, anybody — and I mean outside of a Hollywood movie or comic book — on realizing that professional assassins are coming to kill him, would try to put as much distance between himself and his family members as possible. Putting them between him and the shooters would only get them needlessly killed as well! Properly understood, it does not at all matter that the authorities later denied the human shield story. It really doesn’t, because, you see, once you identify an RRA in the narrative, even if it is later amended, you know the whole thing must be fake. This is because there is really no way that an RRA can just slip into a real event. No, there must be actual fiction writers involved! And that means that the event really must be a hoax. Why would you hire Hollywood scriptwriters, say, to write a script for something that really happened? Also, professional writers don’t write that fast. They have to have had the script written before the event (allegedly) happened! When the story contains what is clearly an RRA, and then no actual evidence is ever provided that any of this happened, we can say that the event must be some sort of hoax. (To be clear, I don’t mean to say that nothing happened. Some operation of some sort occurred and possibly somebody was killed. Something happened but we have no way of knowing what it was! We do know, however, that whatever they say happened is not what happened!) I hereby propose a basic principle of detecting official bullshit: If there is a single RRA in an official account, then the whole thing is an RRN. BDQ and the ISIS Beheading Videos ORDER IT NOWIt was less than a year ago that I watched one of those ISIS beheading videos for the first time. I had frequently run into claims that they were fake, but had always refrained from watching any of them. I doubt I’m the only person in this situation. After all, even if you think there is only a small chance that you will see somebody really getting beheaded, do you want to take that chance? Still the problem remains: how do you resolve the issue other than looking and seeing for yourself? When I finally steeled myself and watched some of these videos, it was shocking. The videos were not just fake, they were comically fake! Chock full of Roger Rabbit artifacts. I have to admit that it was only afterwards that I realised something about this that should have been obvious. You see, really, the ISIS beheading videos had to be fake. In fact, some variant of this could, I think be a basic question on a BDQ test: Does a political movement ever make propaganda films that are designed to portray themselves as villains out of a comic book? Really, think about it. You know, even without checking, I am absolutely certain that you can go and look back at any of the propaganda films from Germany in the Nazi period or from Soviet Russia and they never portray themselves as evil. No! Of course not! They portray their enemies as comic book villains, not themselves! That these videos therefore must be fake really ought to be obvious to anybody with, let’s say, an average BDQ (which, we could say by analogy, with IQ, is 100). However, it is clear enough that, in the society in which we live, people who immediately see through the absurdity of this have much higher than the average BDQ, surely 120 or far higher, I would say. And, actually, though I am a bit ashamed to admit it, this did not immediately occur to me. I don’t know what my BDQ is currently since I have never taken a BDQ test (due to the little technical obstacle that they don’t exist). I am, however, quite certain that my BDQ is vastly higher than it was ten years ago! Another odd aspect of these fake ISIS beheading videos is just how much of an open secret it is that they are fake. Most of the western media pretends they are real, but occasionally, somebody doesn’t get the memo, it seems. So, for example, you have this deconstruction of one of the fake videos in the British newspaper, the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963039/Does-Isis-really-army-seven-foot-executioners-Experts-say-footage-beheading-Christians-Libya-FAKE.html You can see the actual fake video that the article refers to here along with some analysis: http://libyanwarthetruth.com/isis-beheading-video-libya-hoax This article quotes an informed source that says that these fake beheading videos are probably made by some production company in California, filmed possibly in Mexico (I guess because production costs are cheaper down there) or alternatively the work was outsourced to Europe, in which case it was probably done by a Spanish company. I have no way of verifying any of the above, but it rings true. In any case, it hardly matters whether the video was filmed in Mexico, Spain, or in Timbuktu. It’s fake. I think this particular video stars the infamous Jihadi Joseph. Jihadi Joseph, judging by his English diction, seems to have grown up in the United States. There are also Jihadi John videos. Jihadi John has an English accent. Basically, these black-clad knife waving native English speaking head slicers are stock comic book characters being portrayed by actors, thus an RRA, but the videos contain a host of other RRA’s, as you can see if you read the above-linked Daily Mail article. All that said, properly understood, the entire video is one big Roger Rabbit artifact, a cartoon being superimposed on reality. Now it does seem that there really are these thug/mercenary/gangster types controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq. It is also possible that they do execute people, maybe even a lot of people. However, these fake videos are really a kind of cartoon element being superimposed on what is really happening in the Middle East. The people behind all of this are crafting a kind of Roger Rabbit movie. The videos are so poor and so obviously fake that it must be that the people behind this have calculated (correctly) that very few people will actually watch the videos anyway. Besides this, and perhaps more importantly, very few western journalists will ever say openly that the videos are fake. This isn’t even a hypothesis. The Jewish-American feminist author Naomi Wolf, openly said that the beheading videos were fake and came under a very concerted character assassination attack. Here is just one example: http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/celebrated-feminist-author-turned-completely-insane-person-thinks-isis-beheading-videos-fake/ Ay, she has gone stark raving mad, the poor dear, claims the videos are fake. It’s so sad but hey, that’s what happens when you spend too much time conversing wit’ yer hoo hah… But seriously, I feel that, whatever one thinks of Naomi Wolf and the third wave of feminism, whatever that is, and despite my own inability to resist making a joke at her expense, I strongly feel she should be applauded for having the ovaries to tell the truth. She didn’t have to stick her neck out and she had to know what she was in for. People come under concerted attack for telling the truth about these things. Yet, for all of that, it is so well known in certain circles that these videos are fake that they are fodder for comedy. Consider this video put out by some Israeli comedians: The people who made this video simply take for granted that their public know that all these beheading videos are fake. I infer that anyway, because if their audience actually believed that the beheading videos were real, the skit would be outrageously tasteless. I’m not familiar with these comedians, but it really seems to me that they just assume that their entire audience is hip to the fact that all these beheading videos are fake. It may be that the targeted audience for this group’s comedy videos is a demographic with a far above-average BDQ. Wings on Pigs: the 9/11 Narrative Now, I have to make some comments about 9/11 because it is, by far, the biggest of the false flag psy ops. I’m loath to go on that much about it because there is so much material by now. Here we are 14 years after the event, and, like the JFK assassination, it has spawned a vast literature. Of course, like any body of work, it’s a mixed bag, but certainly, just as in the case of the JFK research community, there are some extremely capable people who have worked on this. I myself have not done any independent research. The only novelty I can bring to the table is presentational in nature. It’s the same basic ingredients but maybe I can present them in a somewhat fresh way. Here is a basic point to consider: the official 9/11 story is a WOP narrative. No, I don’t mean like the Godfather or Goodfellas. The WOP acronym stands for “Wings on Pigs”. Let me explain. There is a standard idiom in the English language: If pigs had wings, they could fly. Like any idiom or cliché, we rarely think about it, I suppose. But, one day (I guess because I’m a weirdo) I was actually thinking about this. It struck me that the idiom was obviously false. I mean, think about it. If you could somehow transplant the wings of an eagle, say, onto a pig, you think the pig could fly? Not that I have any background in any of the relevant scientific fields, but it really seems that a pig’s body is too heavy and dense and not the least bit aerodynamic. Surely the eagle’s wings will only work for the eagle, as the eagle’s body has the appropriate characteristics. So, on consideration, it occurred to me that the correct idiom really should be: Even if a pig had wings, it still couldn’t fly. So, hopefully you understand what I mean by a WOP, Wings on Pigs narrative. If you tell me a flying pig story, I can take two basic approaches. I can just say: sorry, pigs don’t have wings. Or if I want to be more clever about it, I could pretend to believe that, okay, maybe a pig could have wings, and then argue that, even so, given the properties of a pig’s body, it still can’t fly! In other words, a WOP narrative is when the story is so many degrees away from being possible that you could concede (just for the sake of argument, really, like pretending that pigs have wings) any specific point and it doesn’t matter: the story is still crazy! Much of the 9/11 truth debate centres around whether the fires that were burning in the buildings could have melted or weakened the supporting steel frame of the buildings sufficiently to cause a structural failure. Well, the answer, on investigation, is pretty clearly no. The fires weren’t anywhere near big enough or hot enough. Much more intense fires have raged far longer in steel-framed high-rises and not once has such a building ever collapsed as a result. Never. It really is that simple. (Propagandists try to complicate the matter by deliberately confusing the temperatures that can be reached in a blast furnace, but in the conditions of these fires burning this way in the open, they’re nowhere near hot enough.) This seems clear enough, but to make matters worse, even if we assumed that the temperatures of the fires were hot enough to significantly weaken steel columns (i.e. if we assume that pigs have wings) the result would never be this kind of straight-down symmetrical collapse. (i.e. the pig would still not fly!) The clearest case to consider is building 7, which was not even hit by a plane, and its collapse is on film from several different angles: What is fascinating about this is that the implosion of WTC building 7 is more impressively clean and vertical and symmetrical than even most controlled demolitions you can look at on youtube! There is an interview one can still watch on youtube where the late Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition specialist, when shown the building 7 footage for the first time (without initially being told that it happened on 9/11) expresses obvious admiration at how well executed a demolition job it is. He says: “Those guys really know what they’re doing.” At this point, anybody with a reasonably high BDQ would realize that the official story — that this building collapsed as a result of unplanned, uncontrolled fires — cannot possibly be true. If all of this is not enough, a further point to ponder is that demolition specialists sometimes mess up, on occasion spectacularly, and the demolition fails. Sometimes, the building just partially collapses, or tips over, or something like that. It is utterly preposterous that a perfect symmetrical collapse as we see in the video could occur just by fires spreading in an undirected, uncontrolled manner. It took me a decade to realise this, but a person with a higher BDQ could realise instantly that something this perfectly symmetrical has to be engineered. The above is how I came to realize that the official 9/11 story could not be true — that, in fact, it is preposterous. What is funny about this is that, once the spell was broken, I started realizing all the other absurd aspects of the story. Consider the hijacking part. Here is a basic BDQ test question: Would a terrorist mastermind ever send his agents to the target country for a suicide operation over a year before the operation? It really seems like the answer must be no. Just think about the following considerations: The willingness to kill oneself is not a normal state of mind for a person to be in. If somebody is willing to die for the cause now, in February of 2016, is it feasible to plan an operation that depends on that person still being willing to kill himself in August of 2017, say? This seems especially problematic if the person is dropped into a completely novel environment, which the U.S. would be for them. Could anybody really count on people going off to live in another country and then, a year and a half later, being in the exact same state of mind where they are willing to kill themselves? Is there any suicide operation in history that has ever worked like this? Moreover, why would you ever send the operatives to the target country over a year before the operation anyway? They were there in Venice, Florida to learn how to fly the plane, eh? You think the U.S. is the only country in the world where you can learn to fly an airplane? Wouldn’t the presence of your operatives in the target country for over a year prior to the operation drastically increase the chance of them being identified and having the plot foiled by organs of the State in that country? It’s a lesser issue, but getting a visa to live in a country for over a year is far more difficult than getting a short-term tourist visa. Of course, one could visit a country on the short-term tourist visa and overstay the time limit, but that also introduces an extra risk factor, getting detained or deported for violating the terms of the visa. ORDER IT NOWIf you think about these questions, it becomes obvious fairly quickly that no real operation would ever work the way the 9/11 operation was alleged to work. Any real terrorist organization would have its agents go to the target country at the last possible moment before the operation. They would fly in on a tourist visa, saying they were middle class Arabs there to see Niagara Falls or Disneyworld, and then carry out the operation shortly after arrival. Again, as in the previous example of the ISIS beheading videos, it seems like a person of average BDQ ought to realize that the whole hijacking story is preposterous. However, that is obviously not the case, not in western countries anyway. If the average BDQ in the West is assumed to be a baseline 100, then it seems just offhand that, to realize the above requires a BDQ of at least 130. Or possibly higher. It should be immediately obvious, yet I have to pinch myself to realize that it took me well over a decade to get there myself. Fool Me Once, Shame on You…. Fool me twice… While the BDQ of the general population in the western countries is horrendously low, I have little doubt that the worst of the lot is the United States. Perhaps the most important factor in this is the general ignorance of history. It is not for nothing that the late, great Gore Vidal referred to the U.S.A. as “the United States of Amnesia”. One aspect of Vidal’s insight is that the American people, as a group, have next to no real collective memory, so they can just keep falling for the same propaganda over and over again. Doubtless, low BDQ and ignorance of history tend to go hand in hand. After all, much of what we call “intelligence” amounts to pattern recognition and the form of intelligence that we call here BDQ, the ability to detect bullshit, is definitely no exception. This is because the bullshit is surprisingly repetitive in nature. For example, in early August of 1914, the German army invaded Belgium. The British government had already decided to get into the war but needed a pretisxt, so they were shocked, outraged, that the Germans had violated Belgian neutrality. They further claimed that the Germans were committing horrid atrocities in Belgium, “bayoneting Belgian babies” among other things. A full 76 years later, in 1990, to get the American public behind a war against Iraq, they invented the story of the Iraqis taking babies out of the incubators in Kuwait. Now, you would think that anybody who knew history, when they see basically the same war propaganda recycled, they might think, like Roger Daltrey: “won’t get fooled again”. So, let’s say that, tomorrow, it is claimed that ISIS (or whatever Bogeyman du jour) has massacred a bunch of babies, this is intolerable, and we must go off to war. It stands to reason that people who know the historical precedents are far less likely to buy the story. Once you know that they have used these stories about babies to sell more than one war, you will be very loath to accept any similar warmongering story without strong proof. You can also be sure that when you do ask for proof of the story, none will be provided; you will be denounced as a “conspiracy theorist”. Just as the warmongering propaganda gets recycled over and over, the modus operandi of Deep State operations does not change that much either. If you look at the Kennedy assassination of over fifty years ago, you have a patsy, a designated fall guy who is to be framed for the crime, Lee Harvey Oswald. In the assassination of the black civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, four and a half years later, the patsy was a man named James Earl Ray — like Oswald, another white American. Today, the same pattern is repeated over and over: specialists carry out the operation and one or more patsies are framed for it. Typically, the patsies are killed, giving the authorities quite a bit of liberty to say anything they want afterwards. Nowadays, the patsies are almost invariably Muslims, because that is the Roger Rabbit narrative being pushed. When a HIQI professes amazement that you could even consider the possibility that deep State agents would commit a crime and then attempt to frame somebody else for it, what he is doing of course, is exposing his own ignorance of history — in a rather cringeworthy fashion. High IQ Idiots and the Conspiracy Theory Shibboleth All of this brings us to one key thing about High IQ idiots. Granted, it is subjective in nature, I think it will ring true to most readers: A HIQI is far far more annoying and obnoxious than a garden variety low IQ idiot. You see, the conventional idiot, the low IQ idiot, does not typically use his own low IQ as proof of how clever he is. Okay, he may well say something like: “Sure, I was never very good at school but I’m nobody’s fool.” And, fair enough. In my view, that’s actually a reasonable thing to say. But he will just about never say something like: “I don’t understand calculus (or whatever) and that shows how clever I am.” The high IQ idiot will take his own idiocy, specifically his own inability to see through these Roger Rabbit narratives, as well as his own woeful ignorance of history, as proof that he is more clever than you are! I can only speak for myself, but I find that pretty damned annoying! In fact, it’s so annoying that one can lose one’s cool, when, really, what is needed is to think very coldly and analytically about how to approach this problem. One of the first issues to discuss in this regard is this whole “conspiracy theory” construct and the associated insult, where they call you a “conspiracy theorist”. Quite typically, this is the only rhetorical weapon they have, and as such, they always pull it out and keep trying to bang away at you with it. In fact, if you can wrest this single weapon from them, they are essentially disarmed. They don’t have anything else! The most important thing to understand about the CT concept is that it is utterly meaningless. This becomes quite obvious when you ask people for proof of whatever official, Roger Rabbit narrative they are espousing. For example, if you simply ask people to provide proof of the government story of 9/11, without suggesting any alternative theory yourself, you will pretty much invariably be called a “conspiracy theorist” even though you have yourself offered no theory! On reflection, the whole thing is really very odd, because the government story would seem to be a “conspiracy theory”, as it is a theory and it does involve conspirators conspiring. So they propose a conspiracy theory, you request proof of that theory, and they respond to your request by saying that you are a conspiracy theorist! It is as if, when you say that you don’t believe the stories in the Bible, people were to respond by accusing you of being a religious fanatic! Eventually, one comes to the understanding that a CT is just any avenue of investigation that the authorities want to discourage you from exploring! And this is the case even if no conspiracy was posited. Or even any theory at all! At various times, I have heard people refer to the proposal that the Federal Reserve should be independently audited as a “conspiracy theory”. I recall Donald Rumsfeld saying that the belief that the Iraq war had something to do with oil (as opposed to the U.S. government’s official explanation, the non-existent WMD’s) was a “conspiracy theory”! Calling something a CT is simply an illegitimate way of trying to shut down a conversation and it may well be that the most important cultural/intellectual divide in our current day world is between those who realize that and those who don’t. Finally, the only way to deal with this “you’re a conspiracy theorist nya nya” sort of thing must be something analogous to Godwin’s law. I guess I could immodestly propose that this be called “Revusky’s law”: Anybody who starts with this vacuous nonsense about “conspiracy theories” and/or calls you a “conspiracy theorist” has thereby conceded the debate. When the HIQI professes his belief in whatever Roger Rabbit narrative, it is up to him to tell you what the proof is for the story. Simply calling you a name, in particular a name that is meaningless anyway, does not cut it. Overall Tactics: Retaining the Initiative The above brings us to something that is, properly understood, a more general point that goes beyond the issue directly at hand here. This may seem like a tangent but bear with me. Across a wide variety of different competitive activities — sports, games and so forth — any proper analysis of strategy and tactics will refer to a very basic concept: the initiative. At any given moment, the person who holds the initiative is the one who is forcing his opponent to react to him, rather than the other way round. Consider, for example, two games that seem, on the face of it, to have absolutely nothing in common: chess and tennis. Nonetheless, there is actually a thread of commonality. In both games, holding the initiative is a huge advantage, at least at a professional level of play. In chess, the white pieces move first, and, in high level play between comparable players, the vast majority of games with a decisive result are won by the player playing white. For broadly similar reasons, in tennis, in a match between players of comparable level, the player who serves in a given game is vastly favored to win that game, because he begins each point holding the initiative. Looking at this in a very general way, we could say that it is somehow in the nature of things that passivity is rarely a winning strategy in this life. Thus, across a wide variety of games or competitive activities, the expert practitioner will not readily cede the initiative. No, it is the weak, inexperienced player who readily adopts a passive, reactive stance. This all has a direct application to the topic at hand, which is how to deal with the HIQI’s and their Roger Rabbit narratives. Much to my amazement and exasperation, what I continually observe in debates is that people who really ought to know better make the basic tactical mistake of ceding the initiative to their opponent. Time and again, they allow themselves to be maneuvered into a passive, reactive stance. This is really quite a striking phenomenon when you examine it. Earlier I introduced the concept of the WOP (Wings On Pigs) narrative. A WOP narrative is so many degrees away from being possible that a full refutation tends to be complete overkill. The flying pig story is impossible because the pig does not have wings and, moreover, even if the pig did have wings, it still would not fly. So, if you are facing a WOP narrative, how can you fail to win the debate? Well, the first thing to understand is that, if somebody has to use legitimate arguments, based on facts and logic, to defend an absurd story, his position is completely untenable. Or, to use the more lively vernacular, he is up (bull)shit creek without a paddle. And this has a simple logical implication. A position which is indefensible (by definition, really) will not be defended. Your opponent understands (consciously or not) that he cannot defend his stated belief. The only thing he can do is go on the attack. What they will typically do is demand that you tell some alternative story to their flying pigs narrative and then, if you are silly enough to do so, they try to pick holes in your story. So it becomes: “If it wasn’t the official story (flying pigs) then you tell me what happened!” ORDER IT NOWThe answer must be something like: “Sorry, dude, you have to defend the flying pigs story before I tell you any story myself, i.e. I’m not ceding the initiative. So, flying pigs you say… now, could you explain this aspect that I never had clear…. how do these flying pigs, given their body mass, ever get airborne? Have you ever personally seen a pig with wings?” And so on… A related tactic is when, in response to the most obvious common-sense observation, they will attack your qualifications to say whatever it is. You point out that pigs don’t have wings and they start asking you where you did your ph.D. in zoology. Or if you say that, even if a pig did have wings, it still couldn’t fly, they say: “Well, you obviously have never studied aerodynamics.” Essentially, the idea becomes that, in order to make the most obvious common sense observation about the world — pigs do not fly, bears do shit in the woods…. — you must possess multiple doctorates from M.I.T. or someplace. Regardless, the underlying point is that, by necessity, they will go on the attack and grasp for some way to make you respond to them. Once you understand the concept of the initiative and apply it to this case, it becomes obvious that you have to make them answer your questions. So, if they’re defending their WOP narrative, you keep the pressure on: “So, pigs may possess wings, you say…. can you point me to any evidence for this?” Or: “You say pigs can fly, eh? Well, that’s fascinating. I can’t find any evidence for this. Can you help me?” Obviously, the defender of a WOP narrative is in a completely untenable position when facing such straightforward questioning and must try to turn the tables and make you respond to him. So it is with a key event like 9/11. You ask them: “Can you point to any example of a steel-framed high-rise building collapsing in a perfectly symmetrical manner from randomly spreading office fires?” They’re obviously not going to give you the only straight, honest answer which is: “No, steel framed high rise buildings never integrally collapse from randomly spreading fires, and certainly not in a perfectly symmetrical manner.” They have to confuse the issue by trying to make you answer their questions or by attacking your qualifications or something like this. What tends to happen is that, once you understand the basic game theory here, that you cannot voluntarily cede the initiative, the debate is over very quickly. For example, if you ask any of the defenders of the official 9/11 story a simple question: “Could you please outline the best evidence available that the government story is true — specifically that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a man named Osama Bin Laden from faroff Afghanistan?” The question is obviously legitimate and a defender of the official story has no excuse for not answering you, yet you will never receive a straightforward answer. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try it. At the time of this writing, the recent (November 2015) events in Paris are still quite topical. The French authorities claim now that the terrorist mastermind was a young man, an ethnic Arab named Abdelhamid Abaaoud. Here are the photos of this “mastermind” that appear from a google image search. https://www.google.es/search?q=abdelhamid+abaaoud&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix89uJ34nKAhVFaxQKHaLLApkQ_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=602 We should strive not to speak ill of the dead, but look at the photos: does this fearsome terrorist mastermind look capable of masterminding the tying of his own shoelaces? I think not. Now, people can jump on me and say that one should not judge a book by its cover. After all these Ay-rabs are devious, and Abdelhamid, in all these photos, may have just been pretending to be a dork. Well, in all honesty, one must concede that this is possible. Still, my response to this is that if you say that the above pictured kid was the mastermind of these terrorist attacks, I’m going to demand the proof from you. And said “proof” really should not be one or more of: They told me on the TV that he was the mastermind, so he was. It’s true unless you can demonstrate that it’s false, i.e. you ask me to prove the negative. You’re a conspiracy theorist nya nya. The basic concept here is this: if somebody is peddling whatever Roger Rabbit narrative, that Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph are real individuals, this kid Abdelhamid Ibn Oswald was a great terrorist mastermind, or some other folks bayoneted some babies just for the pure fun of it — then they have to tell you what specifically the proof of this is. You cannot let them turn the tables on you and put you in a defensive position. Closing Comments This essay has been an attempt to address a very broad topic of discussion. To do so, I have introduced some novel terminology and concepts. One such is the RRN, which is the Roger Rabbit Narrative, in which cartoon elements are superimposed on reality. There is BDQ, the Bullshit Detection Quotient, the ability to see through the bullshit, which is a form of intelligence that does not seem very correlated with IQ. And then there is HIQI, the acronym for “High IQ Idiot”, which refers to people with a combination of high IQ and low BDQ. When I showed earlier drafts of this article to some people, one comment I got back was that I should think twice about some of this terminology — well, in particular, HIQI. You see, apparently, the conventional wisdom is that, if you want to win friends and influence people, you shouldn’t call them idiots. Yeah, that is probably a pretty well founded rule of thumb. So if I consciously break that rule and use the dreaded “I-word”, there ought to be a good reason. Or reasons. So let me explain. First of all, I have not wanted for this article to be a pure exercise in venting my own frustrations. Since all of this is so utterly exasperating, that is an easy trap to fall into. I wanted to avoid that and actually write something useful. So, no, the novel terminology and concepts I have introduced, such as HIQI or BDQ, are not meant as throwaway insults. No, I really am trying to provide some useful framework of analysis. Really. But one problem is that if you are going to inform people that, unfortunately, they believe that cartoons are real, it is actually rather hard to sugar-coat this. I could not think of a euphemism that avoided the I-word, at least without using another term that is at least as derogatory. In fact, nobody who objected to my HIQI terminology ever proposed an alternative term. But the thing is that I really am not trying to be derisive or scornful towards the people I refer to as HIQIs. No, because I make no bones about the fact that I myself was, by my own definition, a HIQI for most of my life. I believed all the bullshit too. So I understand. And I sympathize. At the beginning of this essay, I linked the outrageous fight scene in the movie “They Live” and I said that I understood the scene much better now than when I first saw the movie when it came out so many years ago. Of course I understand why the character does not want to put on those sunglasses and see the world as it really is! Of course I do! It’s really depressing to put on those sunglasses or take that red pill and see the world as it actually is! Now, the other side of this is that, when, for whatever reason, something snaps and you join the reality community, it is a real intellectual adventure. It’s exciting to learn, to start connecting the dots and understand things that you didn’t have the conceptual tools to understand before. But then the problem still is that what you do learn tends to be profoundly depressing. To realize what a rotten, corrupt society you live in is a real bummer. It’s not just realizing the truth about all the false flag terrorism. Sites like this one introduced me to economic analysis of people like Michael Hudson or Paul Craig Roberts and I started to understand how much of our economic order is utterly fraudulent. Sophisticated looting operations, Ponzi schemes basically, blowing bubbles and popping the bubbles and bailing out the fraudsters with public money. What are basically loan sharking schemes as you see there with Greece and other countries. Throughout it all there is a common theme, what Ron Unz calls “American Pravda”, the realization that the professional class that, in principle, is supposed to be informing you about the world, is devoted to lying and covering it all up. And heck, it’s not even normal lies in many cases. It’s the Roger Rabbit narratives, where people are pretending that cartoons are real! How utterly exasperating and infuriating is that? So, yes. Hell yes. I now understand why the character in “They Live” fights like a possessed maniac to avoid putting on those sunglasses! And I understand why the people I refer to as HIQI’s are so resistant to being told the truth about a host of matters. So, the point of this is not simply to heap scorn on the people I’m calling HIQI’s. I understand them. I was one myself. The other thing this essay is not meant to be is some sort of call to the barricades. I myself am getting a bit too old to man any barricade. But to tell the truth, even at a younger age, physical courage and martial prowess were never my calling card. Anyway, if I was going to call on people to man the barricades, I’d have to know where said barricades are and also be able to make the case that manning them would do some good. Still, I have used martial imagery right in the title, “battling” the Matrix — i.e. confronting the pervasive bullshit. So I am saying that this is a war. Of a sort. And a war has battles and skirmishes. Of a sort. To the extent that the analogy is valid, you do have to think about strategy and tactics. I’m certain that if you study the great military leaders of history, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte and the like, you see that they don’t engage in battle for its own sake. The goal is not to to engage in battle, or even to win battles per se. The goal is to win the war. In short, you only engage in battle when it makes sense to do so. In our personal lives, we will interact socially or professionally with people who believe in all the Roger Rabbit narratives, and when you say you don’t believe it, the people will disdainfully call you a “conspiracy theorist”. Uh-huh, yeah, been there, done that… Certainly, there are cases where the situation can get sufficiently nasty and the people are so obviously a lost cause anyway, that there is little to do but to let the matter slide. So, on the one hand, yes, I feel strongly that there is a real moral imperative in this life to stand up for the truth. That, after all, is why I wrote this essay. However, one cannot really advocate what amounts to pointless, self-destructive behavior. I guess what it finally comes down to is that, in this infowar, like in a conventional war, you don’t engage in battle for its own sake, if nothing can be achieved. But if you judge that this is the right spot and you do opt to go into battle, you need a good understanding of the nature of the enemy, the basic strategy and tactics, and also the overall lay of the land. So, in this essay, I’ve tried to present some ideas in this regard. It’s not the last word on the topic, really more like an attempt to start a conversation. Fan mail (as well as hate mail) can be directed to revusky at gmail. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Failure of Democracy
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    I am now convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential election. In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump. Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not report it. A person who speaks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYozWHBIf8g&app=desktop is not endeared to the oligarchs. Who are the oligarchs? —Wall Street and the mega-banks too big to fail and their agent the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down the toilet. In order to save the mega-banks’ balance sheets from their irresponsible behavior, the Fed has denied retirees any interest income on their savings for eight years, forcing the elderly to draw down their savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced from employment by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless. —The military/security complex which has spent trillions of our taxpayer dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order to enrich themselves and their power. —The neoconservartives whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony thrusts the American people into military conflict with Russia and China. —The US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India and elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from lower labor costs. —Agribusiness (Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the soil, the water, the oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops. —The extractive industries—energy, mining, fracking, and timber—that maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water supply. —The Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy and is committing genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign countries that stand in Israell’s way. What convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the vast difference between the presstitutes’ reporting and the facts on the ground. According to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before the vote. Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner. I am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere. Reports I receive are that Hillary’s public appearances are unattended but Trumps are so heavily attended that people have to be turned away. This is a report from a woman in Florida: “Trump has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this week. I only see Trump signs and sickers in my wide travels. I dined at a Mexican restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were talking about how they had tried to see Trump when he came to Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at the venue at 4:00 for a 6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were turned away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that the doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds present were a mix of races and ages.” I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its veracity. I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country. This is how the theft of the election is supposed to work: The media concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not only Americans but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an unacceptable candidate that he has lost the election before the vote. By controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who challenge the stolen election are without a foundartion in the media. All media reports will say that it was a run away victory for Hillary over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump. And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us into nuclear war. That the Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people is verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in early voting in Texas. The NPR presstitutes have declared that Hillary is such a favorite that even Repulbican Texas is up for grabs in the election. If this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes? Those voters who noted that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The election officials, claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed to paper ballots. But who will count them? No “glitches” caused Hillary votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to Hillary. The most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix. This movie captured the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real America there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly Donald Trump, to challenge the system. All of my life I have been trying to get Americans of all stripes—academics, scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, US Representatives, US Senators, Presidents, corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and foreigners—out of the false reality in which they exist. In the United States today a critical presidential election is in process in which not a single important issue is addressed by Hillary and the presstitutes. This is total failure. Democracy, once the hope of the world, has totally failed in the United States of America. Trump is correct. The American people must restore the accountability of government to the people. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Crosswalk2
Cross Walk



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Matrix
    Movies from Film Forum, 11/01/01Some messiahs have reached the mainstream. The Matrix's Neo (Keanu Reeves) is trained to enter a world of manufactured lies and deliver a persecuted people. He exhibits miraculous powers (even resurrection) and points the way to Zion's refuge. Neo means well, but some viewers question the saintliness of gunning down innocents in the name of the cause. Isn't this holy-war terrorism?from Film Forum, 04/22/04Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) presents a summation of the Matrix trilogy this week—just after the video release of the third film, Matrix Revolutions. Greydanus argues, "The Matrix isn't really a Christian allegory, any more than it is a gnostic fable. However interesting the film's Christian references may be from a critical perspective, The Matrix offers little in the way of genuinely edifying or uplifting moral or spiritual significance, at least as regards the Christian parallels." googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-1'); }); And he concludes, "Viewed as a trilogy, the Matrix story-arc ironically lacks something common to both gnosticism and Christianity: transcendence, connection to ultimate reality or absolute truth above and beyond the finitude of the created order." googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); if (gptClientWidth >= 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-3'); }); Related Elsewhere:A ready-to-download Movie Discussion Guide related to this movie is available at ChristianityTodayMoviesStore.com. Use this guide after the movie to help you and your small group better connect your faith to pop culture. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • How Christians Can Revolutionize Faith-Based Media
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Movies Not long ago, I wrote an article about how the fate of “Faith-Based” movies was largely secure, thanks in no small part to the patronage of Christian audiences. Whether you love them or loath them, faith-based films have managed to carve out a comfortable niche in today’s modern media. Christians make the movies, Christians watch the movies, and we repeat the process as needed. Still, in pop culture there’s a big difference between surviving and thriving. While Christian films may be here to stay, their quality and usefulness as evangelical tools have reached dangerous levels of stagnation. Like all forms of entertainment, Christian content must innovate and evolve if it hopes to remain relevant. Sometimes this means learning to tell new stories, while other times it’s making the jump into a different medium. Seth Tower Hurd, a podcast host and contributor to Relevant Magazine, believes Christians should stop investing in movies and instead look to the small screen for inspiration. Hurd correctly notes that Hollywood has been losing creativity for years, choosing to roll out sequels and superhero blockbusters instead of taking chances on original ideas. Combine that with a combative attitude towards Christianity, and it’s unlikely faith-based films will reach higher than they already have. The same can’t be said for companies like Netflix and Hulu. Hurd writes, “As much as I hate to say this as a film critic, theatrical releases just don’t wield as much cultural power as they used to. Since 2000, the top movie each year has been a sequel, or based on a book or comic book with one exception: Avatar in 2009. The days when an original story like The Matrix or Rain Mancould capture the imaginations and water-cooler talk of an entire nation seem to be waning, if not gone.” googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-1'); }); “Unlike movies, there’s still plenty of room at the table. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube and dozens of smaller companies are throwing buckets of cash at anyone with a half-baked idea. Movies essentially have one weekend to live or die. Good streaming TV can continue to find audiences for decades. A coworker recently shared with me that the big trend at her daughter’s high school was the 20-year-old cult hit The X-Files.” There’s really no arguing with Hurd’s observations. We currently live in a world where a three-minute YouTube video can get more views than a major motion picture. Podcasts have replaced daily talk shows as the guides to self-help and conventional knowledge. Even the blogosphere has exploded with a wealth of new spiritual and secular writers. For Christians, the opportunities for creative and cultural impact are virtually limitless. Yes, faith-based films are here to stay, but for Christian artists who dream of sharing the gospel through pop culture, it may be time to start thinking outside the box. Streaming services like Netflix have become champions for original content, and unlike some movie studios, they’re not as averse to faith-filled narratives. If video isn’t your specialty, there’s always blog writing, or digital galleries for photography. In order to see Jesus portrayed in our media, we must pursue Biblical craftsmanship in all creative areas with passion. The world is waiting to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ, we only need to find an audience that will listen. (Image Credit:©Thinkstock/disqis) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); if (gptClientWidth >= 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-3'); }); *Published 6/13/2017 ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff14
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Sort of X-Men Versus Whatever-It-Is
    Klavan On The Culture I have a review of Mark Bowden's new book Worm in the Wall Street Journal Today:Even before the Internet became a household word, let alone a household tool, there were those who conceived of it as an actual place—an alternative reality of mystery, possibility and danger. Science-fiction novelist William Gibson dubbed computer networks "cyberspace" in a story written as far back in the dark ages as 1982. By 1984 he had penned the novel "Neuromancer," in which characters used a brain-computer interface to travel through a virtual reality called "The Matrix." And of course by 1999 the film "The Matrix" built on that metaphor to explore the notion of a complete computer alternative to reality where good guys and bad guys nonetheless battle to save the world.The metaphor of "cyberspace" has a certain validity. There are ways in which the Internet, like the printing press before it, has expanded the bounds of our communal imagination, and there are ways in which the imagination can be usefully conceived of as a piece of mental real estate— a place of consequence, in fact, where adventures may occur that affect our actual lives. But in the end, the metaphor is only that—a metaphor. Dreams are only dreams, and the Internet is just a bunch of machines linked together.You can read the whole thing here. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/9/29/sort-of-x-men-versus-whatever-it-is/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • What Does Israel's Prime Minister Have to Do With the Horrific Dark Knight Shooting?
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle This morning I provided coverage of the breaking news and commentary for a shooting last night during a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rising that left a dozen people dead.This afternoon will feature further updates of the tragedy and the attempt by some to utilize it for political gain. One example so far -- from David Sirota at Mother Jones trying to label the act "terrorism" -- disturbed enough to warrant its own post here.So far in the progressive responses we've seen attempts to blame the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh for inspiring the shooter. We've also seen calls for gun control.Now MJ Rosenberg takes the discussion in a whole other direction:2:30 Update: Both atheists and Christians have responded to the shooting. Mediate quoted Tom Flynn, head of the Center for Secular Humanism criticizing President Barack Obama for invoking God in his speech today:“Even in a situation like this, [when] he leads a public prayer to a deity that it pretty recognizably the Christian God, much as you can understand the emotional context of it, he’s still sending to some degree a message of exclusion to other religions who don’t call their god “Lord” and to non-religious Americans.”“By the very act of praying, that’s a message of exclusion,” he continued. “If I’m a public official, I think I’m going to look around in the morning and conclude that, ‘hey, this religion thing is just too hot to handle, I should stay away from it in my official capacity.’”And the lead story at the progressive-feminist group blog Jezebel all morning:Here's the tone Erin Gloria Ryan chose for writing about Rep. Louis Gohmert's remarks:Hours after a horrifying armed assault that claimed the lives of 12 people and injured dozens more at a Colorado screening of The Dark Knight Rises, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert took to the radio airwaves to call the tragedy an "attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and surmise aloud what would have happened if only more people in the hazy, dark movie theater would have had guns. Yeah, if only that 3-month-old baby that got shot had a gun and just a liiiittle bit more Christ, none of this would have happened.The remarks came during a radio appearance on The Heritage Foundation's "Istook Live!" and included some other gems like a bizarre ramble about how the Founding Fathers would have been upset about the state of the world today because some Americans aren't all that into religion anymore, and how maybe if more people in the theater had guns, they could have shot blindly into the dark haze and ended the shooting spree, because everyone knows that when you carry a gun, you automatically get night vision. It's like how Peter Parker got bit by a spider and became Spider-Man. And, really, even though God could have prevented this tragedy, God opted not to because God listens to American law enforcement, and Americans were like "Ugh, GOD, just GO AWAY you're ALWAYS EMBARRASSING ME by SHOWING UP TO MOVIE THEATERS."And here's what Gohmert actually said:ISTOOK: We were going to talk about other things but since you are a former judge and you dealt with criminal cases on the bench…. I don’t know if you ever had something that was such a crime that is senseless as we seem to be seeing with this theatre shooting with at least a dozen people killed evidently in Aurora, Colorado.  What? What is your experience, with the way we have so many twisted people in our society?GOHMERT: Well it… some of us happen to believe that when our founders talked about guarding our virtue and freedoms that it was important … you know… whether it was John Adams saying  that our Constitution was only for people with ‘moral and religious people’ and ‘wholly inadequate to the governments of any others.’ Ben Franklin, ‘Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom, as nations become more corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters’. I mean it goes on and on… you know… George Washington, ‘of all the disposition and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.’ We have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this country… and when… you know… what really gets me as a Christian, is  to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo- Christian beliefs and then a senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place.ISTOOK: Now, in this case we don’t know much about the individual. Now, about the suspect all I’ve heard is  is he 24 years old, his name is James Holmes. Obviously, he had hom…GOHMERT: What I am saying…ISTOOK: We don’t know…GOHMERT: Don’t misunderstand my statement … don’t misunderstand. My statement - by saying that it is terror…ISTOOK: Oh, No, I didn’t take it that way.2:54 Update: At Film.Com Elisabeth Rappe worries about the effect of the shooting on "Fan Culture":After Columbine, focus turned on Marilyn Manson, “The Matrix,” video games, and trenchcoats. I lived in the same neighborhood as Columbine High School, and can attest to the paranoia and anger that swirled for months after the event. If you wore a long black coat (and you dared to pair that black coat with boots or sunglasses), you were looked at with fury, silently condemned as someone who celebrated murderers. One felt guilt at enjoying “The Matrix,” even though it was proved to have no inspiration or connection to the teenage gunmen. It didn’t matter. Everyone needed something visual to blame and rage at.The same is about to happen to movie enthusiasts and comic geeks. This is the price of going mainstream. Eventually, the world knocks on the door, and demands to see our “weirdos.” Rumors persist that the accused was in “costume,” which will undoubtedly put a focus on cosplayers. The worst of our culture will be emphasized and we’ll likely see costumes banned at midnight screenings from this point on, regardless of what evidence about the assailant is revealed. Perhaps midnight screenings will end as well. Geeks, their gatherings and their costumes are going to be seen as a powder keg.It may very well be that this man was obsessed with DC Comics, Christopher Nolan and Batman. He may be one of the very people who was sending death threats to critics. He may have been too into Nolan’s world, a sick mind who fancied himself a supervillain, and wanted to make his mark on a piece of pop culture in a louder way than in a comment field. We’ve seen the positive sides of fandom – fan-made posters, trailers, web comics, costumes, charity events – and it’s constantly thriving and shaped by people who want to be a part, on some level, of a property. Where there’s good and honest people who just want to join with others, celebrate and even leave the world better than they found it, there are people who want to hurt, maim, and ruin in the name of obsession.We have to recognize this. We have to be prepared, and we have to be ready to defend the integrity of fandom we’ve all seen and experienced. Again, there may be no direct correlation, but we have to brace ourselves that the claims – which are already being made – could turn out to be true.No, Ms. Rappe, I don't think you'll have to "defend the integrity of fandom" even though we now know he committed the act dressed as the Joker.4:00 Update: Bill Maher weighs in from his blackberry:4:11 Update: Like Rappe at Film.com, Alyssa Rosenberg at ThinkProgress also interprets this tragedy through the lens of "fandom":Mostly what I feel is this: Midnight screenings are big, hyped, advertiser-driven events that have become a source of new information to feed the Hollywood data beast, by indicating how motivated audiences are to see a movie. But they’re also a product of genuine enthusiasm and an expression of collective joy. Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy has meant a lot to an enormous number of filmgoers. And as someone who writes about movies, and who cares about the big, flawed thing we call fandom, I’m saddened by someone turning that shared enthusiasm into a weapon. And even if this tragedy hadn’t happened at the premiere of one of a dwindling number of genuinely mass cultural events, I hate the idea of using an audience’s suspension of disbelief, their openness to and absorption in the spectacle unfolding before them, as cover—the gunman reportedly started shooting during a sequence involving gunfire, meaning the audience was slower to react. We are vulnerable when we go to the movies, open to fear, and love, and disgust, and rapture, surrendering our brains and hearts to someone else’s vision of the world. We don’t expect to surrender our bodies, too.4:19 Update: Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood with Christopher Nolan's statement:Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises, I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to  know anything about the victims of the shooting but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families.4:32 Update: Nation contributor Max Blumenthal, who now describes himself as a "Desert bloom denier" in his Twitter bio:4:36 Update: Michael Moore:4:48 Update: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship declare at Salon that "The NRA has America living under the gun":Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and perhaps as many as 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. Firearm violence costs our country as much as $100 billion a year. Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns than guns.So why do we always act so surprised?  Violence is our alter ego, wired into our Stone Age brains, so intrinsic its toxic eruptions no longer shock, except momentarily when we hear of a mass shooting like this latest in Colorado. But this, too, will pass as the nation of the short attention span quickly finds the next thing to divert us from the hard realities of America in 2012.We are a country which began with the forced subjugation into slavery of millions of Africans and the reliance on arms against Native Americans for its westward expansion. In truth, more settlers traveling the Oregon Trail died from accidental, self-inflicted gunshots wounds than Indian attacks – we were not only bloodthirsty but also inept.Nonetheless, we have become so gun loving, so gun crazy, so blasé about home-grown violence that far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined. In Arizona last year, just days after the Gabby Giffords shooting, sales of the weapon used in the slaughter – a 9 millimeter Glock semi-automatic pistol – doubled.We are fooling ourselves. Fooling ourselves that the law could allow even an inflamed lunatic to easily acquire murderous weapons and not expect murderous consequences. Fooling ourselves that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a “well-regulated militia” be construed as a God-given right to purchase and own just about any weapon of destruction you like, a license for murder and mayhem. A great fraud has entered our history.5:12, Last Update of the Day: Chris Kelly, a writer on Real Time with Bill Maher, featured at the Huffington Post:Early this morning, 71 people were shot -- 12 died, one of them six-years-old -- in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises. They were killed, apparently, by a rifle and a handgun and the faulty wiring inside the head of an alleged gunman named James Holmes. And our response -- America's response -- is going to be nothing.No. They were not killed by guns and "the faulty wiring inside the head" of James Holmes. They were killed by James Holmes. He is the one who will bear responsibility for his evil acts. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/7/20/what-does-israels-prime-minister-have-to-do-with-the-horrific-dark-knight-shooting/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Red Placebo: Confessions of a Former Conspiracy Dabbler
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle The Matrix may have inspired an entire generation of conspiracists. We sometimes forget the impact of a particular moment in our popular culture. The success of The Matrix was that no one saw it coming. Though the concept of virtual reality and computer simulations had long been weaved throughout science fiction, the Wachowski brothers' uniquely plausible presentation captured the mainstream imagination.The allure of the red pill, of knowing a terrible truth and boasting an esoteric righteousness from the knowing, haunted many moviegoers long after the credits rolled. The film’s imagery and lexicon went on to permeate the various truther movements which gained popularity in the following decade.Often portrayed as heroic, innocent, kooky, or haphazardly correct, conspiracists are actually dangerous. After all, what we accept to be accurate knowledge informs both our actions and our emotional responses. By refusing to accept plain facts and insisting upon indulging unsubstantiated fantasy, conspiracists in effect become willful psychotics, consciously rejecting reality.Let us consider a few examples of how conspiracists stumble through our popular culture.In Roland Emmerich’s disaster porn 2012, Woody Harrelson’s pirate radio conpiracist Charlie Frost proves himself prophetic. Operating out of a cluttered trailer in Yellowstone National Park, Frost accurately predicts the end of the world better than the combined scientific-industrial complex of the G20 nations. Presented as unkempt, disorganized, and somewhat repulsive, Frost nonetheless enjoys validation as his wacky theory tying solar activity to the Mayan calendar manifests in global tectonic catastrophe.In John Carpenter’s 1988 cult classic They Live, professional wrestler turned actor “Rowdy” Roddy Piper plays a drifter who comes across a pair of sunglasses which enables him to discern subliminal messages on billboards, signs, television screens, and magazines. The spectacles even let him see the many hideous aliens in his midst who have disguised themselves as humans. The film shares the tone of the earlier television miniseries V, which portrayed a fascist invasion of reptilian aliens who at first appear to be friendly and human-like. In both stories, the notion of the rebellious few who see the truth while others comply like mindless sheep -- "sheeple" in truther lingo -- becomes well established.That notion plays out in real life through the proselytization of David Icke, who on the conspiracist spectrum serves as mainline heroin compared to Alex Jones’ gateway trutherism. Icke claims that world affairs proceed under the malevolent control of a race of hybrids created by combining humans with alien reptilian DNA. Icke and his followers offer “proof” in the form of video stills of high-profile politicians and media personalities whose eyes briefly appear to be reptilian slits when the interlacing of two frames creates video artifacts. It would be laughable if not for the fact that people actually believe it. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/6/6/the-red-placebo-confessions-of-a-former-conspiracy-dabbler/ previous Page 1 of 5 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The History of Green and Blue Screen in the Movies
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle While green screen has become ubiquitous for small (I have one in my garage for my videos), medium (PJTV has one in their L.A. studio) and gigantic productions (films like Sin City and 300), the basic effect that drives the concept dates back almost 80 years, to the early days of the talkies. A couple of years ago, the folks at Videomaker magazine produced a nice clip on the surprisingly long history of blue and green screen effects, going back to special effects wizard Linwood Dunn's pioneering efforts in the 1930s, all the way to the Matrix and other gigantic green and blue screen spectaculars. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/10/24/the-history-of-green-and-blue-screen-in-the-movies/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Top 10 Comic Book Movies Hollywood Still Needs to Make (#4): The Invisibles
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Click here for #10 -- Dr. Doom -- and the introduction to this project.Click here for Part #9 -- Justice League.Click here for Part #8 -- The Riddler.Click here for Part #7 -- TransmetropolitanClick here for Part #6 -- The Silver SurferClick here for Part #5 -- Rorschach4. The InvisiblesIn a sense The Invisibles was already made into the film. It's well-known that the series was a core influence on The Matrix and that the Wachowski brothers plagiarized a lot of the themes and ideas. But that doesn't matter. An adaptation of The Invisibles can and should still be made.The premise of The Invisibles is that a team of counterculture superheroes is at war defending freedom from a conspiracy of alien beings secretly enslaving the planet. Really the fun of the series, though, is in the strange plot twists, memorable characters, and alt-culture ideas the eccentric creator Grant Morrison infused into the story. The Invisibles is basically a Gen-X, comic book variant of Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea's The Illuminatus! Trilogy (another property worth talking about in cinematic terms at some point.) Here's a video of Wilson laying out the quantum perspective that informs Morrison's approach to the superhero story: var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': '', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/7/31/the-top-10-comic-book-movies-hollywood-still-needs-to-make-4-the-invisibles/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • CRUISE TO CRUISE AGAIN: The
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll CRUISE TO CRUISE AGAIN: The Internet Movie Database is reporting that Tom Cruise will be remaking that hoary old Roger Corman 1970s exploitation flick, Death Race 2000. In a way, this sounds like a smart move by Cruise, returning to a racing film after Vanilla Sky got pounded by both the critics, and has yet to crack the magic $100 million mark at the the US box office. (And cost $68 million to make, so probably needed two or three times that amount to turn a profit, once advertising, promotion, etc. is factored into the equation)Back when Vanilla Sky came out, I wrote, on Stuart Robinson's terrific home theater Web site: Vanilla Sky puts Tom Cruise firmly in Dark City, The Matrix, The Truman Show, etc., 'what is reality' land. And while I've enjoyed all of the above films, this film seemed like a mess, with awful dialog, a silly subplot involving plastic surgery, and pacing that makes Eyes Wide Shut (which I really liked incidentally, but then I've drunk gallons of Kubrick Kool-Aid in my college days) seem like Star Wars.One underlying theme of the film seems to be "choose your cultural references carefully"--Cruise's life seems to be endless cliches of pop culture icons. He owns a publishing company ala Jann Wenner, drives a boss Mustang ala Steve McQueen in Bullit, walks through scenes that look like Dylan-esque album covers, at one point, wears a mask that looks like the one he wore in Eyes Wide Shut, etc.Vanilla Sky is a remake of the Spanish/French film Abre los ojos ("Open Your Eyes"), which also starred Pen class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2002/3/13/cruise-to-cruise-again-the/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 10 Secret Reasons Why The Avengers Is the Best Superhero Film
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Soundgarden - Live to Rise (From Marvel's THE AVENGERS) - Official Video', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); According to Boxofficemojo.com, Marvel's The Avengers ranks as the third most successful film of all time with a global haul of $1.5 billion. Rotten Tomatoes notes the alignment of critics (92% approval) and audiences (96%.) Like other epic fantasy franchises at the top of the list -- from Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings to Harry Potter and The Matrix -- The Avengers resonates universally with audiences and critics across the globe because of its exciting reinventions of classical mythology, religious metaphor, and esoteric symbols.What follows is my attempt to unpack some of these references and describe what I believe to be their cumulative effect: The Avengers is the best superhero film yet made, both in its entertainment level and moral values. Over at the Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last and Travis D. Smith can have their debate of Batman vs Spider-Man. The Avengers rise over them both, providing a much richer fantasy for young people to embrace as they begin the journey toward adulthood.1. The Invigorating "Live to Rise" Theme Song Explicitly Reveals the Film's Hidden Hermetic Goal: Directing the Viewer to Understand Their Life as an Expression of the Rise, Fall, Death, and Resurrection of the Sun.The lyrics to the new Soundgarden song -- embedded above -- used prominently in the film's advertising and closing credits:What if all you understand,Could fit into the center of our hand,Then you found it wasn't you,Who held the sum of everything you knew,...Like the sun we will live to rise,Like the sun we will live and die,And then ignite again,Like the sun we will live to rise again,Dr. Israel Regardie's The One Year Manual: Twelve Steps to Spiritual Enlightenment offers a series of short chapters with practical exercises for improving one's life. The book distills a lifetime's worth of engagement with Hermeticism to transform a spiritual practice cloaked in mystery and confusion into an accessible tool for those of all faith traditions.The book's exercises involve instruction in prayer, relaxation, rhythmic breathing, meditative ritual, and the development of concentration. Throughout the text Regardie draws from ancient Egyptian, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and scientific traditions to show how one can plug in any deity and use the book's rituals to help grow closer to one's conception of the Higher Power.My friend Rob Taylor suggested The One Year Manual to me last December and I experimented with its techniques throughout 2012. I agree with the author that the book's first exercise -- the Four Adorations -- is the most essential and the only one to practice daily, which I do:In former great ages, man realized intuitively his relationship to nature and to the living universe in which he lived and was a part. He felt his unity with all the elements. In the fullness of his life he worshipped the Sun as a visible symbol of the unknown God in whom we live and move and have our being. It is axiomatic that light is life and both are dependent upon the Sun — which thus becomes a vital symbol of God.In our modern scientific age of gadgets and things, with our unnatural way of life divorced from contact with the dynamic root of things, we may once more progress towards the full awareness of the source of life and love and liberty, we make ritual gestures of affirming a link between the Sun and ourselves. Upon the basis of these gestures of adoration, every act in life may be dedicated in such a way that living itself becomes sanctified and transformed.Though God is a unity, the Sun, as a symbol of God, appears differently at each of its four daily stations — dawn, noon, sunset and midnight. Therefore an adoration is directed towards the Sun at each of these four stations.At dawn, or upon arising, he should perform whatever abulations are customary and then turning towards the East, say audibly:Hail unto Thee who art Ra in thy rising,Even unto Thee who art Ra in thy strength,Who travellest over the Heavens in Thy barkAt the Uprising of the Sun.Tahuti standeth in His splendour at the prowAnd Ra-Hoor abideth at the helm.Hail unto Thee from the Abodes of the Night!Much of the symbolism inherent in this simple adoration may be missed by the student for some considerable time. It does not matter just yet. But this should not be permitted to serve as an obstacle to daily practice, nor to deter him from adoring God in the form of the rising Sun every day of his life.Regardie then explains how the prayer changes at each time of day with different Egyptian gods representing the sun later at noon, sunrise, and night. Here's a hieroglyph depicting the image of the prayer and the deities referenced: Tahuti (Thoth, the ankh,) Ra-Hoor (Horus the Hawk-headed), and the sun deity Ra (the solar disk):And here's another depiction, reminiscent of Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark:The great value of the "Four Adorations" comes not in the words of the prayer or the Egyptian gods Regardie suggests. Evangelical Christians could just as easily substitute God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. What matters is how the prayer -- adapted from the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead -- breaks up the idea of God into multiple parts, asserting that individual deities can only express aspects of a Transcendent God existing beyond human comprehension. We can only hold pieces of God in our head at a time.What if all you understand,Could fit into the center of our hand,Then you found it wasn’t you,Who held the sum of everything you knew,Here we see the mechanism for the gradual transition from polytheism to monotheism. It's not just a matter of belief in one god versus the worship of many. The revolution came not in the idea of a single deity, but an abstract deity defined not in a single symbol -- like a Golden Calf -- but in the ongoing transformation of one symbol into another. In the Judeo-Christian monotheism that arose out of the polytheism of the Mediterranean world, God was not a Thing. God was the invisible process through which nothing transforms into something. God isn't a man sitting up in the clouds or an animal-headed supernatural being sailing across the sky in a boat. God is the four-fold process we see manifest in the rise of the sun and the turn of the seasons. And the more we worship this process -- Regardie recommends stopping at the same time every day for a moment of reflection and devotion -- the more we can apply it to transform ourselves and our world.Its with this Hermetic understanding -- God as a process of continual death and resurrection, "Like the sun we will live to rise again," -- that I approach the heroes and villains of The Avengers with the Tarot deck in hand. The cards each represent aspects of this process of transformation. They are not a fortune-telling or future-predicting device any more than the future changes when the individual seeing the cards chooses to respond to the reminder of the values they represent.The next 8 pages will each focus on the mythological significance of each hero and villain in The Avengers. The conclusion will explore what story pours out after all these elements liquify in the blender of cinema. My apologies for the length -- this is really more of a short ebook rather than a long article. Caveat emptor.We begin first with the film that carved a space for Marvel at the box office, 2008's Iron Man and its brilliant, capitalist-hero Tony Stark, an exciting reinvention of the suit of Swords (spades in the playing card deck) fueled by a $140 million budget. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/1/12/10-secret-reasons-why-the-avengers-is-the-best-superhero-film/ previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • No, That's Not Creepy At All
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll $(document).ready(function() { $('.audio-video-player').mediaelementplayer();});GE takes the notion of human capital seriously.Having bet the ranch on electing President Obama (twice) and supporting ObamaCare, not the least of which through its ownership until recently of NBC and MSNBC, General Electric is now running ads promoting its healthcare software starring Hugo Weaving as the sinister Agent Smith from The Matrix.I know Agent Smith is a beloved baddie, much like Darth Vader from the Star Wars movies; as James Lileks once quipped, Smith, as portrayed by Weaving, is akin to the characters portrayed by Tony Roberts in Woody Allen's earlier, funnier movies such as Annie Hall and Play it Again, Sam -- the only non-neurotic in the film; the only character having any fun. But given how deeply GE is plugged into the Obama Gleichschaltung, that's quite an...interesting choice for GE's healthcare spokesman.Beginning around 2007, strange messages started emerging from GE and the television networks it owned at the time. First GE, which makes it's money selling, among other things, light bulbs, told us that we all needed to turn ours off, for the good of the planet. The following year, the large conglomerate got deeply into bed with first candidate and then President Obama; NBC and (particularly) MSNBC are essentially a de facto propaganda wing of the administration, to the point where the White House has emailed in "corrections," which were read on the air by the latter network.At the beginning of the Obama administration, GE CEO Jeff Immelt was appointed to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, presumably helping to see the administration's now annual "Recovery Summer" debacle, leading near monthly "unexpected" bad economic news. Regarding Obama and Immelt, in January of 2011, Timothy P. Carney of the Washington Examiner wrote:Since his party’s November shellacking, President Obama has worked hard to show America that he is not anti-business, notably by picking General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and Chicago banker Bill Daley for prominent posts in his administration. But their selection does not mean Obama is “pro-business,” at least as the term is commonly understood. The president is no champion of open markets and free competition. His idea of being friendly to business means more government subsidies and corporate-government cooperation, both of which are mother’s milk to Immelt and Daley.Obama joined Immelt on Friday at a GE plant in Schenectady, N.Y., to announce his appointment as chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Like Obama’s pick of Daley as White House chief of staff, the selection of Immelt sparked applause from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, in the eyes of the media, defused the Republican charge that Obama is anti-business.But the anti-business charge against Obama was always off target. “Anti-free market” was — and is still — more accurate.Immelt and Daley don’t represent a new side of Barack Obama — they represent the unhealthy collusion of Big Business and Big Government that has always been the essence of Obamanomics.Around that time, the Clarion Advisory blog asked, "Remember the outrage over Haliburton & Cheney? So where’s the outrage over GE and the Obama Administration?”I remember for much of the Bush Administration, hearing how evil it was for all the ties that Cheney had with Haliburton and how it was wrong for a company to have so much access in the White House so where did that outrage go when it comes to how cozy GE is with Obama?  It’s the same thing, actually even worse.  GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt was just named to chair new White House Economic Group after already having had a position in the White House when he served on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  Funny it was evil for Cheney to have ties to Haliburton and not actually have a position at Haliburton but it’s O.K. to actually have a company chairman to chair a group in the White House and the MSM response is crickets chirping and a lot of nodding of heads?GE has gained much with this administration.  The banning of incandescent lightbulbs?  GE has got you covered with their CFLs.  Wind turbines?  GE has got you covered.  High speed rail?  GE wants that action too.  Electronic health records?  Oh yeah, GE’s Health Division is all over that.  Clean coal technology?  Check.  GE has got that too.  Smart grid?  Another check.  GE is ass deep into that!It also seems that now whenever Obama needs to highlight something economic, there’s GE always ready with some kind of news.  Just in time for China’s visit, GE announces a turbine deal, a Chinese railway deal, and a airplane deal with China.  That’s just this week.  Remember that trip to India in November?  Well looky here.  Another deal and guess who with?  GE of course!  India and GE sign power equipment deal.  The article even states that it was timed to coincide with Obama’s arrival.  How’s that for coordination?More recently, when the Obama administration decided to punish those who support the Second Amendment (concurrent with, as we're seeing now, the administration's deep antipathy towards the First Amendment), GE was happy to lend a hand. In April of this year, the Wall Street Journal is reporting, “GE Capital Cuts Off Lending to Gun Shops:”This month, Glenn Duncan, owner of Duncan’s Outdoor Store in Bay City, Mich., said he received a letter from GE Capital Retail Bank in which the lender said it had made “the difficult decision” to stop providing financing services to his store. Other gun dealers have received similar notices.GE is at least the second big financial firm to retreat from the gun business following the school shootings, which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six adults in December.Days after the killings, private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP said it would try to sell the gun company it owns—Freedom Group Inc.— which makes brands including Remington, Bushmaster, Marlin and H&R.The moves highlight how companies, closely attuned to the concerns of investors and employees, have reacted to public horror caused by the attacks, even as complicated political considerations doomed new gun-control legislation in the Congress.GE is based in Fairfield, Conn., and many of the GE’s employees live around Newtown, and several have children in the Sandy Hook elementary school, where the shootings took place. Peter Lanza, the father of Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza, is an executive at GE Capital. GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt held a town hall meeting with affected employees after the shooting, and the board has been updated on efforts to help staff, a person familiar with the matter said.“Industry changes, new legislation and tragic events” led GE Capital to reexamine its policies on financing firearms, spokesman Russell Wilkerson said.I think Agent Smith would approve of all of GE's actions during the past six years or so; no wonder he was chosen to be a spokesman for what is arguably America's most corporatist conglomerate. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/6/1/no-thats-not-creepy-at-all-2/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Two Views of Gun Control...
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Unexamined Premises ... or, do as I say, not as I do, Hollywood division: var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': '*GRAPHIC* Demand A Plan - Demand Celebrities Go F*CK Themselves!', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Okay, it's easy to say that they're just actors. Jamie Foxx is not really killing all those white people in Tarantino's Django Unchained -- via the magic of movie-making, he's just pretending to kill them. And Jennifer Garner isn't really shooting those Arabs in The Kingdom, she's just playing a role. And Jeremy Renner -- a splendid action hero, even if the last Bourne installment was a plotless dud -- would never in a million years think of gunning down Boston cops while robbing Fenway Park (as he did in The Town), unless his pal Ben Affleck (on his way to becoming a great director) asked him to for his art.And good for them for doing so.But with President Obama promising to put "gun control" in the legislative crosshairs in 2013, it's instructive to watch various actors both miming heroism and then denouncing the very tools with which they perform those heroic acts. For years, Hollywood has been forced to assert that films have no influence on the larger culture -- unless, of course, it's advancing various pet lefty causes under the "tolerance" rubric -- and that therefore they cannot "inspire" various psychotic punks to acts of horrific violence.And I agree. As John Milton writes in the Areopagitica:TO THE PURE, ALL THINGS ARE PURE; not only meats and drinks, but all kind of knowledge whether of good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled. For books are as meats and viands are; some of good, some of evil substance; and yet God, in that unapocryphal vision, said without exception, RISE, PETER, KILL AND EAT, leaving the choice to each man's discretion. Wholesome meats to a vitiated stomach differ little or nothing from unwholesome; and best books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to occasions of evil. Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate...Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that those confused seeds which were imposed upon Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort asunder, were not more intermixed. It was from out the rind of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil.In other words, to a soul predisposed to evil, everything can be an occasion of sin. To the feeble-minded losers who fancy themselves Keanu Reeves in The Matrix, everything looks like a black trench coat: You talkin' to me? class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/12/31/two-views-of-gun-control/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • How Western Civilization Lost It at the Movies
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll "Movies really have become awful, haven't they?" Ace writes. And who can argue with him?I don't mean politically; sure, there are a lot of liberal zingers put into movies for no very good reason, except to make the filmmakers think they've done something positive with the piece of shit project they're foisting on people.Hollywood has always made most movies for a juvenile crowd. A producer, I think his name was Zanuck, worked out the logic like this: Girls will see anything boys will see, but boys will not see most things girls will see. Younger kids will see anything that older kids will see, but older kids will not see things made for younger kids. Adults will see most things that older teenagers will see, but older teenagers will not necessarily see things that adults would see. Therefore, the correct money-making demographic to make a movie for is a 17 year old boy.Read the whole thing, and follow Ace's link to screenwriter Eric Heisserer, at the appropriately named industry blog The Bitter Script Reader.So is the real problem the declining intelligence and taste of the average 17-year-old male, or is it the declining intelligence and taste of Hollywood, or do the two -- along with the declining intelligence and taste of the American education system -- combine to form the complete Red Queen’s Race to the bottom? I'd blame the latter scenario, especially after contemplating what the average 17-year-old male likely dug when he went to the movies over the years:1950s: Alfred Hitchcock’s best decade, and loads of war movies, both pro and con (Strategic Air Command, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Paths of Glory, et al). 1960s: The birth of the James Bond movie franchise, plus big-budget middlebrow epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, and Dr. Zhivago, plus the rise of the counter-culture, with Dr. Strangelove, Blowup, Bonnie & Clyde, 2001, and the Beatles’ movies.1970s: More Bond, rock movies (Woodstock, Gimme Shelter), B-movies/exploitation/violence galore (Easy Rider, Clockwork Orange, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, Taxi Driver, Death Wish, Dirty Harry), the Godfather movies, and then the rise of Spielberg and Lucas, which led to…1980s: The Empire Strikes Back, ET, Jedi, Blade Runner, the Star Trek movies, Platoon, Wall Street, Full Metal Jacket, and the SNL movies (Stripes, Trading Places, Ghost Busters, et al). Plus plenty of horny teenager movies (Fast Times, Risky Business, etc.)1990s: T2, the Batman movies, and the omnipresent summer action movie with Arnold, Bruce, Tom, Harrison, et al. Plus the 1998 digital mind-f*** movies: The Matrix and Dark City. And Titanic,  which brilliantly combined the chick-flick with an ending filled with plenty of digital FX and carnage for the boys.2000s: Brit-lit such as the Lord of the Rings and Narnia, the horrible but exceedingly profitable Star Wars prequels, and wall-to-wall superheroes.2010s: Avatar and even more superheroes. Did I mention the superheroes?Sense a trend here? And don't forget -- a tiny percentage of the most aggressive of those moviegoers in the '70s and '80s are the ones who headed to Hollywood to write today's drek. Their idea of deep and complex middlebrow culture aren't the books that inspired Hollywood's golden age, but the actual movies themselves. Or as John Podhoretz wrote at NRO on the eve of 9/11, "A century dominated by movies has left the movies starved for inspiration."Even beyond that mammoth dumbing down of the average hit movie's writing when middlebrow culture was nuked and paved by the new left, after 9/11, the combination of PC and fear of failure completely numbed Hollywood, resulting in the Big Screen's current malaise. And oddly, television's renaissance, a topic that Mark Tapson discusses at Acculturated.com, in his review of television critic Alan Sepinwall's new book, The Revolution Was Televised: The Cops, Crooks, Slingers and Slayers Who Changed TV Drama Forever:In “an interesting role reversal” with the movie biz, the TV revolution gained momentum as “the 21st century slowly saw the extinction of the middle-class movie. If a film couldn’t either be made on the cheap or guarantee an opening weekend of $50 million or more, it was out.” That meant that studios began to depend heavily on big-spectacle blockbusters (something I touched on in the previous article in this series). “Movies went from something really interesting,” as The Sopranos creator David Chase put it, “to what we have now.”That left a growing void of more artistically and dramatically compelling fare–a void that television filled with Sepinwall’s list of the dozen American TV shows “that changed TV forever,” as his subtitle puts it: The Sopranos, Oz, The Wire, Deadwood, The Shield, Lost, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 24, Battlestar Galactica, Friday Night Lights, and, of course, Mad Men and Breaking Bad.As an example of this revolutionary fare, Sepinwall points to the balls-out opening of Breaking Bad, in which former sitcom father Bryan Cranston’s character–a middle-aged, cancer-ridden chemistry teacher wearing saggy tighty-whities and a gas mask–careens down a desert highway in a mobile meth lab, a dying pair of drug dealers on the vehicle floor behind him. At the end of that jaw-dropping sequence, your inevitable two responses are “What the hell was that?” followed by “More, please. Now.”The revolution didn’t materialize ex nihilo: “The millennial wave of revolutionary dramas,” Sepinwall writes, “was built on the work put in by a group of other series” that paved the way: cop dramas like Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue, the hospital dramas St. Elsewhere and ER, the sitcom Cheers, the “MTV cops” of Miami Vice, the hallucinatory Twin Peaks, The X-Files, and others.But hey, cheer up movie fans, because help is on the way. Who's up for Ridley Scott's production of Monopoly: The Motion Picture?!Or this: "What Hell Hath Disney-Lucasfilm Wrought? ‘Star Wars’ Meets ‘Extreme Makeover.'"Update: In addition to the dumbing down of American culture via PC, I should have mentioned how the need for a film to compete in a worldwide marketplace can also dumb down the writing. Tapson addressed this in his previous essay:As an example, [David Denby] notes that 2010’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which he calls “a thundering farrago of verbal and visual gibberish,” grossed $1 billion worldwide in a month: “Nothing is going to stop such success from laying waste to the movies as an art form.”It doesn’t help that international audiences now account for two-thirds of box office receipts. Denby feels that this makes studios gun-shy about making their movies about anything. “Aimed at Bangkok and Bangalore as much as at Bangor,” Denby writes, “our big movies have been defoliated of character, wit, psychology, local color.” He cites director Christopher Nolan’s Inception as an example of “a recent trend in which big movies have been progressively drained of meaning.”That essay/extended blog post by Tapson is also well worth your time. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/12/4/how-western-civilization-lost-it-at-the-movies/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff15
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • The Matrix Reloaded
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]1,996 words

    About twenty minutes into The Matrix Reloaded I was feeling sick to my stomach — literally. The scene was in “Zion,” the last bastion of the human [sic] race. Picture the ugliest industrial junkyard on the planet and then drop it down a hole to the ninth circle of hell.

    Morpheus, played by the ugly, fat, pock-marked, gap-toothed Negro Laurence Fishburne has just delivered a speech in that deep, resonant, over-modulated, phony-sounding stage voice that Negro actors are wont to use — an affectation that leads me to think that the speaker only half-understands what he is saying.

    Then the jungle drums start beating, and we are treated to an excruciatingly long dance/orgy intercut with the lovemaking of Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss, already looking like a crone with a facelift or two). More than 90% of the revelers are non-White: Negroes, Orientals, Mystery Meat. There were even Polynesians with face tattoos. (Or maybe they were just record store clerks from L.A.)

    I did not spot any sombreros or bandoliers.

    Then, in close succession, I was treated to a spider-strand of spit glistening between the mouths of Trinity and Neo and the slow-motion spectacle of a blue-black, dreadlocked African primitive shaking himself like a wet dog and showering his partners with droplets of sweat. I gagged. My lunch was halfway up my throat before I could control the reflex.

    My mind was racing. I was thinking: if this is what the human race is coming to, I would prefer it become extinct. Let the forests grow back. Let the beasts of land, sea, and air multiply. Let them tremble again before worthier kings than man: lions, eagles, great white sharks. (To borrow sentiments from Savitri Devi.)

    Then I realized: the human race has ALREADY come to this. The world is already close to 90% non-White, and since there are no real barriers to non-White immigration, the only thing that stands between us and Zion is . . . time. Zion is the end of our present road of migration and miscegenation. And it is singularly appropriate that this decadent and debased world is called “Zion,” because the Jews are primarily responsible for promoting it.

    But I would just call it “Hell,” and I hope that I was not the only White person in that theater who was nauseated by the spectacle. Honestly, I do not think that most Whites are brainwashed and deracinated enough yet to view that scene without some unease. This is the world that is being prepared for you, my brothers and sisters in race: your cultures, your genes, your lives and aspirations, submerged and obliterated in a tide of mud to the mindless, monotonous thumping of jungle drums.

    I really wanted to walk out, but I thought of my duty to my readers and resisted the impulse. My mind was swarming with clever titles for negative reviews, but then . . . somehow . . . I started liking this movie.

    Yes, the casting is ridiculous: a complete inversion of reality with an anti-White genocidal agenda. Virtually all the villains are White men: big, clean-cut, athletic White men; handsome, sophisticated, French-speaking White men; brilliant, professorial White men. The heroes, however, are a very different, very “diverse” bunch: dreadlocked bucks, high-yellahs with cool shades, patronizing old mammies oozing bullshit from every pore, gooks of the fleet-footed and pencil-necked varieties, all manner of career girls, lipless dykes with spiky hair, Cornell West, and other assorted freaks and misfits. (I am surprised that there were no openly Jewish or gay male heroes.) I suspect that the Learned Elders of Zion were actually played the Berkeley City Council.

    Of course the main hero is Keanu Reeves. Tall and handsome, with almond eyes, high cheekbones, flower petal sunglasses, and a black cassock, he looks like a Slavic priest and flies through the air like Superman. But he is half white, one quarter Chinese, and one quarter Hawaiian, so he doesn’t really count either.

    Looking at a movie like this, you would almost believe that White civilization could not have been created without the contributions of Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Jews, pathological misfits, stressed-out career twats, etc. In fact, just the opposite is true. Their contributions — if there really are any NET contributions at all, once you deduct all the destruction caused by such people — are WHOLLY DISPENSABLE. White civilization could exist without them. But they could not exist without White civilization. These people are parasites. (No, White civilization could not exist without women — wives and mothers — but it could get along very well without career girls. Women’s work is the same in every culture. What makes cultures distinct is primarily the work of men.)

    Yet Hollywood broadcasts the lie that the parasites are necessary while the hosts are not. This is deadly. It is deadly to everyone, for once the host perishes, so will the parasites. The Jews think that by pushing this poison, they are advancing their collective interests. But they are deluded. They too will be destroyed by the system they are creating. Thus it is tempting to say that the Jews themselves are ultimately just pawns of a larger cosmic force, a force of darkness and evil, death and decay, a force that seeks to arrest and reverse life’s upward striving and return the splendid diversity of natural forms that have evolved to the blind chaos of undifferentiated matter, the primordial mud. (Excuse me, I was momentarily possessed by the character of “the Architect.”)

    But I asked myself: Is there anything about this movie besides the casting that is anti-White? If the same script were shot with a different cast, would there be anything objectionable? The answer is no. The Matrix Reloaded is entertaining, thought-provoking, and beautifully crafted. And, aside from most of the cast, it is wonderful to look at. It has something for everyone: fantastic fights and car chases for the video game and NASCAR fans, philosophical conundrums and mythical and literary allusions for coffee house intellectuals. This is a movie that is going to be talked and analyzed and enjoyed to death.

    An amusing incident: While the screen was filled with brilliant and heroic Negroes, the audience was filled with Negroes of a very different caliber. They heartily enjoyed it when an obsequious White Step-‘n’-fetchit carried the bags of a dreadlocked Negro (Neo and Trinity carried their own bags). But when a character known as “the Merovingian” began to discourse on freedom and determinism, I looked around and saw only eyes like pop-up headlights When the Architect took half a reel to explain how the matrix allows and then co-opts rebellion, they started fidgeting and talking and tittering. Soon a good number of them decided this was a good time for a bafroom break. They must have felt like they were in school or something.

    Both Matrix movies are useful for White Nationalists. The casting is so blatantly anti-White that it provides an excellent elementary lesson in propaganda.

    The Matrix movies also offer a vivid and compelling image of a world precisely analogous to our own: The human race has become enslaved by a race of mechanical parasites (the Jews). The machines keep humanity docile by hiding their slavery from them (ideology). The machines accomplish this by using technology to link human minds together (the mass media) and create an illusory world in which the slaves think that they control their own destinies (consumerism, democracy). This is, of course, a modern version of the parable of the cave in Plato’s Republic, in which an enslaved humanity is bewitched by a shadow play cast on the cave wall by puppeteers.

    As in the parable of the cave, some people break free from this illusory world to live in the real world. They return, however, to the illusory world from time to time, to help free the minds of others who are trapped there. Most people resist them, however, because almost nobody wants to hear that his life — his friends, his family, the ideals he cherishes, the places and things that he loves — are all unreal.

    This presents some options that all would-be revolutionaries should contemplate. Do we unplug the matrix and liberate people by destroying their lives? This seems to be the preference of the crazed emancipators of The Matrix. Or do we simply leave humanity in chains and enjoy our freedom with a select group of friends in the real world? It might be a kindness to leave people their illusions, but it is not a kindness to leave them their chains. But there is a third, truly humane option: to eliminate the parasites and leave people’s cherished illusions intact. This would be accomplished not by unplugging the matrix, but by taking control of it, by placing power not in the hands of parasitic and exploitative foreigners, but in the hands of an elite drawn from the people, an elite with a sense of organic connection to it and responsibility for it.

    One thing that I did not like about the first movie is that it seemed metaphysically incoherent. On the one hand, the whole matrix system was perfectly consistent with a non-mystical, scientific naturalism: Plato’s cave created by modern science. On the other hand, there was a mystical element: “the Oracle” and the “prophecies” of a savior, “the One.” Furthermore, at the end, love conquers death when Trinity brings Neo back to life. Although this movie does not exactly explain how love conquered death in the first movie, Neo returns the favor in a way that follows the rules of the matrix.

    I was pleased, however, that Reloaded does explain the Oracle and the prophecies in terms of the rules of the matrix. As I understand it, in the world of these movies, freedom is a real and perpetually destabilizing force. Thus the machines needed a way to control it. When the first human rebellion rose against the machines, they crushed it, but appreciated that future rebellions were inevitable. Rebellion cannot be eliminated, but only contained. Therefore, the machines planted the seeds of the next rebellion by starting Zion over again, to serve as a haven for the people who would eventually awake from the matrix. But this time, they sought to control the rebellion by creating the Oracle and her prophecies. After all, what is prophecy? A prophecy is a prediction of the future, and if one believes that one’s future has been predicted, then one believes that one does not have any real freedom. Prophecy is, therefore, a way of controlling people’s freedom by convincing them that they are not free, but instead are merely realizing a predetermined destiny.

    Now, if I have understood this correctly, this seems to be a very good illustration of two important truths. First, the best way for a system to suppress rebellion is not to crush it, but to encourage phony forms of rebellion that safely channel discontent into dead-ends. Second, if the system cannot crush freedom, it will try to denature it by promoting religious superstitions about “destiny,” “providence,” “oracles,” “fate,” etc. Doesn’t this cast some light on our popular culture?

    If you are a White Nationalist and enjoy science fiction and action movies, then I recommend The Matrix Reloaded for two reasons. First, if you can manage to keep your lunch down for the first twenty minutes, there is much to enjoy. Second, millions of bright young White people are going to see this movie. They are going to like it, because there are many genuinely likeable things about it. It will make a very strong impression on them; its images and ideas will stick with them, including the image of the hellish mud pits of Zion. Movies like this are the myths and the literature of our post-literate culture. Yes, the movie is a piece of enemy propaganda, but it is clumsy propaganda for their cause and good propaganda for ours. It can easily be seized and turned against them. Just the sort of fancy fighting this movie is famous for.

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Matrix Revolutions
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]1,531 words

    Spoiler: Neo and Trinity die and the machines win. Bummer. Most of the rest makes no sense.

    I hated this movie.

    I didn’t hate it for its racial politics, which are the absolute worst I have ever seen. There are wise, powerful, competent, heroic Negroes everywhere. (The fact that they are all in Zion, a fictional city buried near the center of the Earth, explains why I never encounter them in real life.) There are also so many examples of South-East Asian and Polynesian mystery meat, complete with topknots and facial tattoos, that I scurried home to consult my copy of Carleton Coon’s Living Races of Mankind, which I like to call the Field Guide to Featherless Bipeds.

    But as I indicated in my review of The Matrix Reloaded, I was willing to overlook the racial politics of the first two Matrix films because of their very real virtues.

    No, what really offended me about Revolutions is the film’s sheer god-awful stupidity.

    First, there were the continuity problems. Although Revolutions is set only hours after Reloaded, there are references backward to events that did not happen in the second film. (Or, if they did happen they were so forgettable that, well, I forgot them.) A number of characters also appeared out of nowhere, but acted as if they had already been introduced. The Oracle was played by a different mammy, as the previous mammy had died (without issue, I pray). Allusions were made to the change, but no real explanation was offered. After a while, I began to wonder if this was actually the fourth Matrix film or if the projectionist had misplaced a reel or two.

    The plot of this movie is also terrible. There is simply no satisfying resolution of the story lines established in the first two films. The final act is no place to introduce new characters who play absolutely no essential role whatsoever (the Indian family in the train station). The final act is no place to bring back old characters for no particular reason (the Merovingian). The final act is no place to give center stage to forgettable non-characters who shouldn’t even have been introduced in the second movie (Link, Locke, Niobe, a Negress with the world’s biggest lips, the White Step-‘n’-Fetchit, Cornell West, etc.).

    Pretty much the whole first half of the movie consisted of pointless, wasted scenes with characters I did not care about. It was nothing but fights, chases, and big brown heads looming up to robotically deliver totally uninteresting lines.

    One whole sequence seemed to exist only to show the Negress Captain Niobe humiliating a White male captain by showing her superior piloting skills. The fact that on average women are inferior drivers to men because they have inferior visual-spatial skills, and the fact that the average Negro has about half a billion fewer brain cells than the average White and reacts at a much slower rate to stimuli, just go to show that this is science fiction.

    And when the Zionists fight off the sentinels, we see slow-reacting blacks and browns manning the guns, while White males see to the reloading.

    We are also treated to scenes of two women, one a dyke, attacking sentinel drilling machines with a bazooka. Another good use of superior female visual-spatial skills and upper-body strength.

    But one subplot particularly grated on me: The idealistic White Step-‘n’-Fetchit grovels before and is dressed down by some sort of Mongoloid-Australoid hybrid who is his fearless commander. Later, after taking courage from his commander’s dying words, he goes on to complete the mission at great risk of life and limb. He is a role model for Whites in the real world created by Zion: we must all get used to taking orders from, fighting for, and dying for our racial inferiors.

    Only in the second half of the movie, when the focus was mostly on Neo and Trinity trying to save the day, was my interest piqued. I wish the whole movie had been centered on the surviving core characters from the first film: Neo, Trinity, Morpheus, and Agent Smith. Competent writers could have created such a story. Incompetent writers felt the need to fill the story with new characters and pointless scenes hoping, somehow, to generate interest.

    I was appalled by the sheer senselessness of the movie’s climax. A central rule of good fiction, especially science fiction, is that the story need not be possible but only plausible. The first Matrix movie established a captivatingly plausible world and pretty much stayed within the rules of that world. Ditto for the second movie. But in Revolutions the rules established by the first movie are thrown to the wind and nothing is done to make the changes plausible.

    The machines have burrowed into Zion, and the Zionists are desperately fighting off great swarms of sentinels. The Zionists fight by strapping themselves into big robots, but for all their formidable technology, these robots provide absolutely no protection for their operators. They do not even have windshields, much less protection from shrapnel and Kamikaze sentinels. Stupid Zionists.

    The sentinel swarms are visually striking, but I wonder why the machines just didn’t pump Zion full of Zyklon B and be done with it? (They couldn’t flood it with mud and sewage because, genetically speaking at least, it is already chock full.)

    I guess the answer is provided by the Architect in Reloaded, who tells Neo that Zion is needed as a safety valve for the Matrix. Since human freedom cannot be destroyed, the Matrix needs a place to send rebellious types to keep them occupied plotting doomed revolutions.

    As Zion is about to fall, Neo pilots a hovercraft to the machine city. This is a visually striking sequence too. The machines try to destroy Neo, but fail. He crashes, and Trinity is killed. Then, once he is completely vulnerable, the machines do not finish him off, but instead decide to talk. Why? No reason is given for their change of policy. It simply makes no sense.

    Neo strikes a bargain with the machines. (How does he know they will keep their word? Do machines have a sense of honor?) They will call off their attack on Zion if Neo does them a favor. But doesn’t the Architect in Reloaded say that Zion will be started again by the machines no matter what, so apparently they were already going to stop the war at some point.

    Agent Smith, who began to replicate himself in Reloaded (How? Why?), is beginning to run amok, absorbing other programs and taking over the matrix (How? Why?). The machines can’t stop him (Why not?). But Neo can (How?). Agent Smith even manages to take over the minds of people in the real world (How?).

    The climactic battle between Neo and Smith is visually exciting, but since the rules of the matrix have been forgotten, the whole thing seems totally arbitrary.

    In the midst of the battle, Smith pauses for a moment for his midlife crisis. He asks what it’s all about. Why does life go on? Why does Neo continue to fight? It is quite a speech, quite a build-up. We are led to feel that Neo’s answer will be highly significant, perhaps the key to the meaning of the whole trilogy. His answer is: “Because I choose to.”

    It’s like watching the titanic labor pains of an elephant, but in the end out pops a mouse.

    But Neo still defeats Smith. But how? What really happens to Smith? What was Neo’s edge? Virtue? Strength? There is no answer, so Smith could just as well have defeated Neo. It makes no sense.

    After defeating Smith, Neo apparently dies and is carried off on a hovercraft like Arthur to Avalon. Freed of Smith and Neo, the machines are in the position to finish off Zion completely, but they call off the attack.

    The White Step-‘n’-Fetchit sees the machines leaving. There could be any number of reasons for this, but having seen the script, he immediately concludes that the war is over and proclaims the news. The mud people begin to gyrate with joy. Zion is saved. We are supposed to feel happy, but nobody in the audience seemed particularly jubilant because by that point the movie had become numbingly uninvolving.

    And what about liberating the human race from slavery? Has that been called off? Wouldn’t that be a satisfying end to the movie? Wasn’t that what the war was all about? Preserving Zion is not a victory over the machines, but part of their policy. So I guess the machines have won.

    Meanwhile, back in the Matrix, the Oracle meets the Architect in a park. The Architect promises that some humans will be freed. (Of course some of them will: that is why Zion is necessary.) Then the Oracle looks off into a rainbow tinted dawn and says that she didn’t know that any of it was going to happen, she just “believed.” I guess that was the mouse’s afterbirth. What a bunch of horseshit.

    Don’t waste your time with this movie. If you liked The Matrix and The Matrix ReloadedThe Matrix Revolutions can only diminish your enjoyment.

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • New Release! Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    LynchCover2

    [1]Trevor Lynch
    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
    Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
    Edited by Greg Johnson
    San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012
    200 pages

    Release Date: February 22, 2013

    Hardcover: $35 

    Quantity:  

    Paperback: $20 

    Quantity:  

    Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist interpretations of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist takes on The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix TrilogyThe Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino’s long decline.

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies establishes its author as a leading cultural theorist and critic of the North American New Right.

    “Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

     – Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique, from the Foreword

    “Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. Lynch offers profound and original insights into more than 30 films, including Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy, and Scorsese’s Gangs of New York. These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

    – Edmund Connelly

     “The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

    – F. Roger Devlin, author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or a Traditionalist take on The Dark Knight?”

    – Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

     “Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

    – James J. O’Meara, author of The Homo and the Negro

    CONTENTS

    Foreword by Kevin MacDonald • iii

    Editor’s Note by Greg Johnson • vii

    1. Introduction: Why I Write • 1

    The Lord of the Rings
    2. The Fellowship of the Ring • 7
    3. The Two Towers • 11
    4. The Return of the King • 18
    5. “The Scouring of the Shire” • 22

    Christopher Nolan
    6. Batman Begins • 27
    7. The Dark Knight • 31
    8. The Dark Knight Rises • 42
    9. Inception • 54

    Guillermo del Toro
    10. Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, & Pan’s Labyrinth • 57
    11. Hellboy • 63
    12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army • 68

    Quentin Tarantino
    13. Pulp Fiction • 73
    14. Kill Bill: Vol. I • 97
    15. Inglourious Basterds • 102
    16. Django Unchained • 109

    The Matrix Movies
    17. The Matrix Reloaded • 115
    18. The Matrix Revolutions • 121

    The Twilight Saga
    19. Twilight • 126
    20. New Moon • 131
    21. Eclipse • 134
    22. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 • 138
    23. Breaking Dawn, Part 2 • 143

    The Millennium Trilogy
    24. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo • 145
    25. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Remake • 149
    26. The Girl Who Played with Fire • 152
    27. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest • 156

    Violence & Redemption
    28. 300 • 159
    29. Gangs of New York • 163
    30. A History of Violence • 168
    31. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters • 173
    32. The Baader-Meinhof Complex • 185

    About the Author • 190

    Release Date: February 22, 2013

    Hardcover: $35 

    Quantity:  

    Paperback: $20 

    Quantity:  

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Now in Kindle! Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    LynchCover2

    [1]Trevor Lynch
    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
    Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
    Edited by Greg Johnson
    San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012
    200 pages

    We are pleased to announce that Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is now available as a Kindle and E-Book. It should be available as a Nook E-Book this weekend.

    Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

    The paperback and hardcover editions will be released  February 28, 2013 and are available for preorder:

    Hardcover: $35 

    Quantity:  

    Paperback: $20 

    Quantity:  

    Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist readings of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist readings of The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix Trilogy, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino’s long decline.

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies establishes its author as a leading cultural theorist and critic of the North American New Right.

    “Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

     – Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique, from the Foreword

    “Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. Lynch offers profound and original insights into more than 30 films, including Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy, and Scorsese’s Gangs of New York. These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

    – Edmund Connelly

     “The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

    – F. Roger Devlin, author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or a Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

    – Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

     “Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

    – James J. O’Meara, author of The Homo and the Negro

    CONTENTS

    Foreword by Kevin MacDonald • iii

    Editor’s Note by Greg Johnson • vii

    1. Introduction: Why I Write • 1

    The Lord of the Rings
    2. The Fellowship of the Ring • 7
    3. The Two Towers • 11
    4. The Return of the King • 18
    5. “The Scouring of the Shire” • 22

    Christopher Nolan
    6. Batman Begins • 27
    7. The Dark Knight • 31
    8. The Dark Knight Rises • 42
    9. Inception • 54

    Guillermo del Toro
    10. Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, & Pan’s Labyrinth • 57
    11. Hellboy • 63
    12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army • 68

    Quentin Tarantino
    13. Pulp Fiction • 73
    14. Kill Bill: Vol. I • 97
    15. Inglourious Basterds • 102
    16. Django Unchained • 109

    The Matrix Movies
    17. The Matrix Reloaded • 115
    18. The Matrix Revolutions • 121

    The Twilight Saga
    19. Twilight • 126
    20. New Moon • 131
    21. Eclipse • 134
    22. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 • 138
    23. Breaking Dawn, Part 2 • 143

    The Millennium Trilogy
    24. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo • 145
    25. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Remake • 149
    26. The Girl Who Played with Fire • 152
    27. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest • 156

    Violence & Redemption
    28. 300 • 159
    29. Gangs of New York • 163
    30. A History of Violence • 168
    31. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters • 173
    32. The Baader-Meinhof Complex • 185

    About the Author • 190

    Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

    Hardcover and Paperback Release Date: February 28, 2013

    Hardcover: $35 

    Quantity:  

    Paperback: $20 

    Quantity:  

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Now in Print! Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    LynchCover2

    [1]Trevor Lynch
    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
    Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
    Edited by Greg Johnson
    San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012
    200 pages

    We are pleased to announce that Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is now in print in Europe and Australia, where orders are now being filled. In the US, the books are being printed and will be shipped out to purchasers as soon as we receive them. 

    Hardcover: $35 

    Quantity:  

    Paperback: $20 

    Quantity:  

    Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

    Nook E-Book: $5.99 [3]

    Since 2001, Trevor Lynch’s witty, pugnacious, and profound film essays and reviews have developed a wide following among cinephiles and White Nationalists alike. Lynch deals frankly with the anti-white bias and Jewish agenda of many mainstream films, but he is even more interested in discerning positive racial messages and values, sometimes in the most unlikely places.

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies gathers together some of his best essays and reviews covering 32 movies, including his startling philosophical readings of Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Mishima; his racialist readings of The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York; his masculinist readings of The Twilight Saga and A History of Violence; his insights into the Jewish nature of the superhero genre occasioned by Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy movies; and his hilarious demolitions of The Matrix Trilogy, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, and the detritus of Quentin Tarantino’s long decline.

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies establishes its author as a leading cultural theorist and critic of the North American New Right.

    “Trevor Lynch provides us with a highly literate, insightful, and even philosophical perspective on film—one that will send you running to the video rental store for a look at some very worthwhile movies—although he is also quite willing to tell you what not to see. He sees movies without the usual blinders. He is quite aware that because Hollywood is controlled by Jews, one must typically analyze movies for their propaganda value in the project of white dispossession. Trevor Lynch’s collection is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the deep undercurrents of the contemporary culture of the West.”

     – Kevin MacDonald, author of The Culture of Critique, from the Foreword

    “Hollywood has been deconstructing the white race for nearly a century. Now Trevor Lynch is fighting back, deconstructing Hollywood from a White Nationalist point of view. But these essays are not just of interest to White Nationalists. Lynch offers profound and original insights into more than 30 films, including Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy, and Scorsese’s Gangs of New York. These essays combine a cultural and philosophical sophistication beyond anything in film studies today with a lucid, accessible, and entertaining prose style. Every serious cineaste needs to read this book.”

    – Edmund Connelly

     “The Hollywood movie may be the greatest vehicle of deception ever invented, and the passive white viewer is its primary target. Yet White Nationalist philosopher and film critic Trevor Lynch demonstrates that truth is to be found even in this unlikeliest of places. If American audiences could learn the kind of critical appreciation Mr. Lynch demonstrates for them, their seductive enemies in Tinseltown wouldn’t stand a chance.”

    – F. Roger Devlin, author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought

    Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies is not some collection of vein-popping rants about Hollywood’s political agendas. It’s a thoughtful and engaging examination of ideas in popular films from a perspective you won’t find in your local newspaper or in Entertainment Weekly. Lynch has chosen films that—in many cases—he actually enjoyed, and playfully teased out the New Right themes that mainstream reviewers can only afford to address with a careful measure of scorn. How many trees have been felled to print all of the Marxist, feminist, minority-pandering ‘critiques’ of contemporary celluloid over the past fifty years? Isn’t it about time we read an explicitly white review of The Fellowship of the Ring, or a Traditionalist take on take on The Dark Knight?”

    – Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

     “Hunter Thompson said that Las Vegas was ‘what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the War.’ Like liberalism, that’s clever but wrong. If the Good Guys had won, we ‘hepsters’ would be at the movies, experiencing the ultimate art form, but made by racially aware white artists, not today’s Hollywood culture-distorters. This book is the next best thing: Trevor Lynch reviews today’s films from an artistically sensitive, culturally informed, but most of all unfailingly pro-white perspective. He doesn’t just warn you away from the obviously bad, but explains how the poison works and where it comes from, and even finds racially uplifting stuff where you’d least expect it—Pulp Fiction? Read it, and you’ll never feel the need to pay good money to be seen weeping at another Holocaust movie again.”

    – James J. O’Meara, author of The Homo and the Negro

    CONTENTS

    Foreword by Kevin MacDonald • iii

    Editor’s Note by Greg Johnson • vii

    1. Introduction: Why I Write • 1

    The Lord of the Rings
    2. The Fellowship of the Ring • 7
    3. The Two Towers • 11
    4. The Return of the King • 18
    5. “The Scouring of the Shire” • 22

    Christopher Nolan
    6. Batman Begins • 27
    7. The Dark Knight • 31
    8. The Dark Knight Rises • 42
    9. Inception • 54

    Guillermo del Toro
    10. Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, & Pan’s Labyrinth • 57
    11. Hellboy • 63
    12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army • 68

    Quentin Tarantino
    13. Pulp Fiction • 73
    14. Kill Bill: Vol. I • 97
    15. Inglourious Basterds • 102
    16. Django Unchained • 109

    The Matrix Movies
    17. The Matrix Reloaded • 115
    18. The Matrix Revolutions • 121

    The Twilight Saga
    19. Twilight • 126
    20. New Moon • 131
    21. Eclipse • 134
    22. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 • 138
    23. Breaking Dawn, Part 2 • 143

    The Millennium Trilogy
    24. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo • 145
    25. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Remake • 149
    26. The Girl Who Played with Fire • 152
    27. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest • 156

    Violence & Redemption
    28. 300 • 159
    29. Gangs of New York • 163
    30. A History of Violence • 168
    31. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters • 173
    32. The Baader-Meinhof Complex • 185

    About the Author • 190

    Kindle E-Book: $5.99 [2]

    Nook E-Book: $5.99 [3]

    Hardcover: $35 

    Quantity:  

    Paperback: $20 

    Quantity:  

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Inception
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]832 words

    I finally went to see Inception. I wish I had gone on its opening night. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Inception is one of the most imaginative and brilliantly plotted movies ever, and it is also one of the most thrilling and emotionally powerful. Think Vertigo meets The Matrix—but that only just begins to describe it. You have to see Inception on the big screen. So stop reading now, and go see this movie before it leaves the theaters.

    Inception was directed by Christopher Nolan, who is also the director of a series of increasingly impressive movies: Following (1998), Memento (2000), Insomnia (2002), Batman Begins (2005), The Prestige (2006), and The Dark Knight (2008). The Dark Knight is a work of genius—surely the greatest supervillain movie ever. (I say “supervillain” rather than “superhero,” since Heath Ledger’s Joker completely upstages Batman.) But not even The Dark Knight prepared me for Inception. Indeed, one reason I hesitated to see Inception for so long was the conviction that Nolan could never top The Dark Knight. But he has.

    The premise of Inception is that a technology has been invented that allows people to share dreams. The active dreamer is called the “architect.” He is the one who constructs the dream space into which the other dreams knowingly or unknowingly enter. (Real architects seem most suited for the job, since their visual-spatial imaginations are so powerful, and dream spaces have to be constructed as labyrinths and Escher-like topological paradoxes.)

    This technology, of course, has great potential for abuse, and this is precisely what the protagonist, Dom Cobb (played by Leonardo Di Caprio), and his team are doing. By abducting people into shared dreams, Di Caprio and his team can effect the “extraction” of their most closely-guarded secrets.

    Di Caprio’s character is, however, no mere loathsome crook. He is a man haunted by the death of his wife, a former partner in crime, and the loss of his two children. Unable to return to the US because of a warrant for his arrest, he wanders the world extracting the secrets of the rich and powerful for their rich and powerful rivals, until he is offered a job that, if completed successfully, will allow him to return home to his family. He has to perform an “inception.”

    One step beyond the extraction of existing ideas is the “inception” of new ideas. How does one put an idea in another person’s mind so that he thinks it is his own? It has apparently never been done before, but Di Caprio promises to do it. He assembles a team and creates a three level dream: a dream within a dream within a dream. With every new level of dreaming, the experienced dream time becomes longer. In the third level, ten years can pass while one sleeps only ten hours in the real world. Below the third level is “limbo”: unstructured unconsciousness where a lifetime can pass in the blink of a terrestrial eye. If a dreamer is killed in his dream, he will fall into limbo.

    All this is more than mere science fiction, for Nolan uses it to generate a powerful dramatic conflict. To reclaim his life, Di Caprio must go deeper and deeper in the dream realm, yet with every level he enters, the figure of his dead wife, who is a projection of his own guilty conscience, becomes a stronger and stronger adversary.

    The conflict becomes even more exquisite when we learn that the inception that will bring him home is not the first one. He has done it before, and it was ultimately the cause of his downfall and exile.

    This storyline gives Inception a tragic dimension and an emotional power that superficially similar movies like The Matrix just cannot touch. Vertigo is the comparison that comes to mind first, and in my book, that is the highest possible praise. I will say no more about the plot, save that the ending is poetic and deeply satisfying.

    There is nothing racially, culturally, or politically offensive about Inception. The movie takes place all over the world, so it is natural that the cast contains an Asian and an Indian, but most of the cast is White, and Nordic at that. (The actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt looks Asian, but he is actually Jewish. Maybe the Khazar hypothesis is not dead.) There is no Hollywood monkey business of racial and ethnic casting against type.

    Inception is a movie for smart people. The plot is complex and imaginative, but unlike Memento, it is perfectly coherent and consistent. You have to be clever and focused to follow the story, but if your mind wanders a bit, there are plenty of thrills and stunning images to keep you entertained.

    Inception cements Christopher Nolan, at the age of 40, as one of the cinema’s great directors. I know for sure that I will not miss the opening night of his next movie. But why are you still here? See Inception. See it now.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Vanilla Sky
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    737 words

    [1]Author’s Note:

    Recently, while helping a sick friend, I had the opportunity to re-watch this movie after nearly ten years, which led me to re-read this review. I definitely think Vanilla Sky [2] is worth re-watching — and that this review is worth re-publishing.

    Cameron Crowe’s Vanilla Sky [2] should be called Vanilla Movie — and I LIKE vanilla. It achieves a near impossible feat. Although it is a product of Hollywood and is set in New York City, the only non-whites in the movie are extras! I think that one Negro utters a line. He is a doorman. In virtually every other film, the character of the psychologist would have been cast as a Negro. After all, the character is an educated, intelligent, sensitive man. These are all the qualities that we must be convinced are present in Negroes — because they are so rarely present in Negroes. Instead, Kurt Russell plays the part.

    What’s more, the film is utterly devoid of anti-White, anti-Western propaganda. Aside from one Jewish-looking character, there is nothing identifiably Jewish about this film, either, which is based upon a Spanish film, Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes) written by Alejandro Amenabar and Mateo Gil. Even the psychologist is not a Freudian, but a follower of the Aryan Jung, judging from one of the props, a copy of Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

    And to top it all off, it is a good movie — a serious, thoughtful movie — beautifully directed, well-written, well-cast, and well-acted.

    Plain Vanilla for me!

    Vanilla Sky is not without its flaws. The major flaw is a sudden change of genre in the last fifteen minutes, not unlike the psychological turn for the worse near the end of Fight Club. This change of course is combined with a deus ex machina almost as blatant as at the end of The Abyss.

    Vanilla Sky begins as a very suspenseful, very enjoyable psychological thriller. Tom Cruise starts out playing himself: rich, phony, vain, and self-absorbed. This Tom, however, is a magazine publisher and a casual seducer of women. He is named David Aames. Within five minutes, I found myself thinking: “I hope something very bad happens to this guy.”

    Something very bad does indeed happen. Something worse than I expected. Frankly, I was stunned. But it gets worse and worse. Treachery looms at every turn. Who has been murdered? Is David guilty or was he framed? Was it his company plotting against him? Was it his friend Brian Shelby, played by Jason Lee, a Jewish-looking writer who resents David’s wealth and the fact that he stole his girlfriend? Is it the ex-girlfriend, Julie Gianni, played by Cameron Diaz? Is he awake or dreaming? Is he sane or insane? The suspense became unbearable.

    Just when I found myself wondering, “How are they going to wrap this plot up in a satisfactory way?” they wrapped it up in a less-than-satisfactory way. The last few minutes of the movie are science fiction. There is way too much narration. Instead of showing the story, it tells the story. What story? The Matrix is the story: The hero is offered the choice of real life or fantasy. He is reminded that each passing moment is potentially a moment of decision, an opportunity to turn one’s life around. He chooses, and the movie ends. With a very good thriller well in hand, they reach for science fiction with a serious existential-moral theme — and drop the whole thing.

    Oddly enough, though, I was not terribly disappointed. Serious movies are so rare these days that a near-miss is still welcome. Futhermore, Vanilla Sky has so many other good elements that it is pleasurable trying to figure out how the ending could have been improved.

    The NC 17 rating is based on some dirty talk and the fact that Tom Cruise simulates intercourse with two exquisitely beautiful women, Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz.

    I usually find Tom Cruise very annoying, but I think this is his best movie. Cameron Diaz is spectacular. She deserves a Best Supporting Actress nomination. The rest of the cast is also quite good. Tom Cruise’s contract must specify that no men better looking than himself be cast, but there are some very beautiful women in minor roles and decorating the very beautiful sets. I love the whole “look” of this movie.

    The bottom line: After you see The Lord of the Rings three or four times, try Vanilla Sky.

    VNN, December 2001

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Mike Hammer, Occult Dick:Kiss Me Deadly as Lovecraftian Tale
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Film_568w_KissMeDeadly_original

    [1]Words: 5,528 text, 2,193 notes

    Kiss Me Deadly [2] (1955; 106 minutes; Black and White)
    Director: Robert Aldrich[1]
    Writers: Mickey Spillane (novel), A. I. Bezzerides (screenplay)
    Stars: Ralph Meeker, Albert Dekker, Paul Stewart, Gaby Rodgers, Jack Elam, Wesley Addy, Strother Martin, Percy Helton, and introducing Cloris Leachman.

    “A crack formed and enlarged, and the whole door gave way — but from the other side; whence poured a howling tumult of ice-cold wind with all the stenches of the bottomless pit, and whence reached a sucking force not of earth or heaven, which, coiling sentiently about the paralysed detective, dragged him through the aperture and down unmeasured spaces filled with whispers and wails, and gusts of mocking laughter.” — H. P. Lovecraft, “The Horror at Red Hook” (Weird Tales, 1927)

    “Soberin and Gabrielle are vying for the contents of the box. Gabrielle shoots Soberin, believing that she can keep the mysterious contents for herself. As she slyly opens the case, it is ultimately revealed to be stolen radionuclide material, which in the final scene apparently reaches explosive criticality when the box is fully opened. Horrifying sounds emit from the nuclear material as Gabrielle and the house burst into flames.” — Wikipedia, Kiss Me Deadly [3]

    “The key Mike found led him to something of which he had no comprehension and which will very possibly kill him, and maybe destroy the Earth. He and Gabrielle are caught in a world of meanings that preexist them — culture, science, religion and myth. They proceed as they do in pursuit of something they don’t understand — but think they understand the value others place on it. They are fatally wrong.”[2]

    While recently reading Barton St. Armond’s classic article “H. P. Lovecraft: New England Decadent,”[3] I came to the Lovecraft quote above and had an odd thought: I’ve seen this before![4] Then it hit me: the finest screen adaptation of H. P. Lovecraft occurred already in 1955, and quite unconsciously at that. I suppose that’s the best way, the way it had to be; no bothering with Lovecraft’s purple prose or mythos monsters; just the pure essence of Lovecraftian terror, mixed with a lot of sleaze to keep the marks happy and then sloshed up on the screen. It’s called Kiss Me Deadly.

    Here’s a synopsis courtesy of DVD Savant [4]:

    Sleazy, cynical detective Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker) makes his living with divorce cases, often unleashing his sexy secretary Velda (Maxine Cooper) as an agent provocatrix on straying adulterers. When he picks up naked-under-a-trench coat hitchhiker Christina Bailey (Cloris Leachman, in her first movie) and she’s later tortured to death, Hammer decides to ditch the bedroom work and pursue the secret behind the brutality, purely for profit. His government agent friend Pat Chambers (Wesley Addy) warns him off, but Mike slowly pulls the case apart by threatening witnesses and putting Velda and his best buddy Nick (Nick Dennis) in harm’s way. When the secret turns out to be a mysterious box stolen from a government science lab, Hammer finds out too late that he’s latched onto something far too big, and too hot, to handle.

    This is a Lovecraft tale? Sound absurd? Can you prove it isn’t?[5] Consider this from the screenwriter: “I wrote it fast because I had contempt for it. It was automatic writing. Things were in the air and I put them in it.”[6]

    Not your usual auteur’s claim of authorship. It’s the usual note of contempt of well-paid Hollywood commie hacks[7] for two-fisted American pulp writers, here Mickey Spillane rather than Lovecraft,[8] and with the interesting additional note of surrealist writing techniques. As happens in many a horror tale, you don’t have to believe in the Ouija board to conjure up something ugly “in the air” when you play with it.

    Although opening to indifferent business, the film has become a legendary noir, ultimately getting a Criterion Collection release a couple years back. Reading all the commentary and fanboy buzz on the net you can’t get far without hearing about how Aldrich and Bezzerides not only had contempt for the material, but wanted to take down the whole Mike Hammer phenomenon, which they seemed to think spelled either the coming of Fascism or the return of the Stone Age.[9] The message they seemed to want to deliver — best expressed by Fed pal Pat near the beginning — is surprisingly up-to-date: don’t take the law into your own hands, give up your guns, stop listening to conspiracy theories, and trust — but above all, don’t question — the Feds.

    But as I’ve said here on Counter-Currents before, the writer who lets his imagination free is not likely to produce something pleasing to the PC crowd.[10]

    In the case of this film, by portraying Hammer not as Spillane intended — a somewhat more violent, lower-class but still Marlowe-style knight errant — but rather as a psychopathically violent moron, they produced an astounding sleazy and ultra-violent film that barely escaped the box office poison of a “C for condemned” rating from the Catholic Legion of Decency and was cited as a threat to America at the very same Congressional hearings investigating those damned comic books![11]

    But Hammer is brutish and stubborn, keeping the cops and the feds in the dark even though they keep trying to impress upon him the importance of this case; he doesn’t seem to realize just how far in over his head he is. . . . Hammer’s no hero, and the film’s staggering climax represents his complete failure: his realization of the horrible forces he’s been toying with, followed by a nuclear meltdown from which he barely escapes. And then the film simply ends, with abrupt finality, leaving Hammer as a broken, irrelevant archetype, an out-of-date relic whose time has passed with the relative innocence of the pre-atomic age.[12]

    Once compared with what Aldrich & Co. produced, Spillane’s Hammer did indeed seem more like Marlowe or the Thin Man; the self-sabotage is rather like Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, where the Jewish and American sadism makes the audience sympathize with the Nazi “villains.”[13] It’s no surprise to recall how Tarantino already ripped off (or “paid homage to”) KMD’s “glowing what’s-it in the suitcase” McGuffin for Pulp Fiction.[14]

    Still, I need to answer a number of objections you undoubtedly have. First, you might point out that Lovecraft liked to make his protagonists scholars, however oddball, or professors, scientific explorers, or even just wealthy slackers (“The Hound,” “Pickman’s Model”), not thugs like Hammer. Even the “detective” in the quote above is, rather implausibly, a dandy from Trinity College, Dublin who returns to New York to join the police force and investigate occult matters.[15]

    Well, the film picks Hammer up “out of the gutter [he] came from” as the mob boss says (even the mob loathes him; the feds want someone “to open a window” after interrogating him) and tidies him up into “more of a Playboy-inspired dream guy, a proto-James Bond who has to fend off dishy dames with a club.”[16] Not that Mike himself is now an effete snob. As the New York Times says: “Mike himself is a sort of cultural caveman, whom Aldrich pointedly surrounds with high art: modern paintings, 19th-century poetry, radios that invariably pour forth classical music whenever Mike switches one on.”[17]

    Like a good post-war consumer, Mike has read all about the “Playboy Philosophy” and has bought all the right toys, from his mid-century modern bachelor pad — complete with wall-mounted, reel-to-reel answering machine[18] — to his brand-new Corvette; the rest of the surrounding, the “culchah” items, are provided by his clients and informants.[19]

    After meeting the Rossetti-spouting Christina, he searches her book-lined apartment — casually stealing the book he needs, of course — and finds out that she “always seemed have [the radio] tuned to that station” — the all-Schubert station, apparently — so the next time Mike’s at home needing to do some hard thinking, sure enough he turns on a radio set to the same station, as if Mike usually listens to string quartets rather than bachelor pad exotica (Brooklyn hipsters from the ‘90s would kill for that so-ironic pad, man). During another “think, damn it” session he asks Velda to read out the poem Christina has marked, presumably to allow him to concentrate on this difficult “thinking” business, but it sure seems as if he could be functionally illiterate.

    The final clue falls into his hands at a “modern art” gallery, where, archetypically, he gives away his entrance by walking, caveman that he is, right into and smashing a glass end-table. (I’d love to hear that was a goof Aldrich decided to keep in.)

    So while Mike isn’t himself an egghead, he is surrounded by cultural references, which actually is what gives the Lovecraft touch.

    Like one of Mad’s parodies, the movie unfolds in a deranged cubist space, amid the debris of Western civilization — shards of opera, deserted museums, molls who paraphrase Shakespeare, mad references to Greek mythology and the Old Testament. A nineteenth-century poem furnishes the movie’s major clue.[20]

    The movie is filled with cultural references, from Rossetti at the beginning[21] to the pompous, soon to be shut up with a bullet Dr. Soberin at the end.

    Dr. Soberin: As the world becomes more primitive, its treasures become more fabulous.

    The latter sequence is particularly choice, as Soberin rattles off his culture markers and Lilly, doubling Mike (a point we shall return to), childishly, or barbarically, stubbornly (another key point) ignores his insinuations and insists on knowing — not literary or mythical references, but what’s in the box.

    Dr. Soberin: Curiosity killed a cat and it certainly would have you if you’d followed your impulse to open it. You did very well to call me when you did.

    Lily: Yes, I know. But what’s in it?

    Dr. Soberin: You have been misnamed, Gabrielle [Lily’s real name, also the actress’s name, misnames her?]. You should have been called Pandora. She had a curiosity about a box and opened it and let loose all the evil in the world.

    Lily: Never mind about the evil. What’s in it?

    Dr. Soberin: Did you ever hear of Lot’s wife?

    Lily: No. [WTF never heard of Lot’s wife?]

    Dr. Soberin: No. Well, she was told not to look back. But she disobeyed and she was changed into a pillar of salt.

    Lily: Well, I just want to know what it is.

    Dr. Soberin: The head of Medusa. That’s what’s in the box, and who looks on her will be changed not into stone but into brimstone and ashes. But of course you wouldn’t believe me; you’d have to see for yourself, wouldn’t you?

    Perhaps it’s her Damian meets Lolita eroticism, but the filmmakers are again subverted, as the audience is definitely on Lily’s side as she shuts up Soberin — poimanently, ya see? — and opens the damned box.[22] Though not before Soberin delivers his peroration:

    Dr. Soberin: Listen to me, as if I were Cerberus barking with all his heads at the gates of hell. [What, she didn’t get Lot’s wife and she’ll get this?] I will tell you where to take it, but don’t . . . don’t open the box![23]

    Even the film’s Voice of Reason[24] is equally pompous and fragmented — decadent, if you will. When Pat finally tells Mike what’s up, he speaks slowly, as if talking to a dense child, but still can’t really put it together himself, and mumbling disconnected words he hopes will ring a bell with no further effort on his world-weary part:

    Lt. Pat Murphy: Now listen, Mike. Listen carefully. I’m going to pronounce a few words. They’re harmless words. Just a bunch of letters scrambled together.[25] But their meaning is very important. Try to understand what they mean. “Manhattan Project, Los Alamos, Trinity.”[26]

    But anyway, rather than a cultured protagonist, the Lovecraftian note here is carried by the presentation of a cultural wasteland, where culture exists only a scattering of dying embers, tossed around without much or any understanding by the Last Men (perhaps, given what happens when the box is opened, literally Last Men).[27] It’s the world Lovecraft believed himself to be condemned to live in, not his (imaginary) Regency past.

    That landscape, physically, in terms of shooting locations, is Los Angeles, today [as of 1955]. Surely that can’t be Lovecraftian? Just so, precisely its absence of human culture makes LA the perfect Lovecraftian location. The nighttime scenes are all polished chrome glaring like boiling acid under blinding neon and fluorescent lights (like the box’s contents) while the daytime scenes seem to be filled with grey dust under a pitiless sun that just went nova (foreshadowing the effects of the box’s light).[28]

    More importantly, perhaps, many of the exteriors were shot in the Bunker Hill section (an appropriately New English name, don’t you think?) and thus have a more typically Lovecraftian touch of old, ruined neighborhoods. Indeed, shortly after the film was made the whole area was flattened for an “urban renewal” project, making the film, ironically, something of an archaeological record of a now long-vanished, once “modern” area.[29]

    And even more importantly, Aldrich, perhaps to show that Mike is “crooked” or “screwed up,” decided to use a number of odd camera angles, not only, say, on the stairs of Lily’s flophouse but even the presumably modern and normal hospital Mike awakens in early in the film.

    [5]

    LA General or Arkham Asylum?

    As St. Armand notes,

    So many of these skewed structures which we find in Lovecraft . . . with their gambrel roofs and rotten timbers and rooms tilted at crazy or obtuse angles, are, of course, psychic allegories of decadent and tumbled-down minds, twisted to exquisite and picturesque degrees of insanity. . . . Here the dreamland which . . . populates modern Boston with ghouls and living gargoyles is no longer an antiquarian fancy but rather immediately beneath the cellar door or around the nearest corner.[30]

    [6]

    Bunker Hill or Innsmouth?

    Then, there’s the violence; sure that’s un-Lovecraft? No one in Lovecraft’s world goes about gathering information like Mike does. He has two methods: if he sees you as a member of the white collar class, a coroner or health club concierge, he’ll peel off some cash to offer what he considers a fair price; should you refuse, or hold out for more, that’s when the finger-breaking starts.

    [7]

    Otherwise, he just jumps right in like a skinhead at a mosh pit, and you’re lucky if he finds it more amusing to snap your rare Caruso 78 in half rather than your spine.[31]

    [8]

    If Batman and the Joker had a love child

    Admittedly, this thuggish kind of violence is quite out of Lovecraft’s line — breaking fingers in drawers, dropping a jacked-up car on a hapless sidekick and the like — although remember, he did like Robert Howard’s Conan. More to the point, however, is that the filmmakers have taken a page from the horror genre and realized that it’s often more effective — and less likely to get you into trouble with the censors — and even perhaps more cinematically fun to imply, not show.[32]

    Thus, when Christina is tortured to death with some kind of metal-crimping device, we only see her legs squirming as we hear her shrieks. Actually, the shrieks continue after they stop spasming, which is perhaps a mistake but certainly emphasizes the illusory, make-believe nature what we’re seeing;[33] it also suggests the kind of torturous results of the warping of the space/time continuum Lovecraft’s protagonists tend to fall into. Again, we don’t see Nick being crushed beneath the car, nor anything but his arm afterwards.

    And in a famous sequence, Mike dispatches a goon by some kind of movie-land “martial arts” trick; it’s shot from below, so we don’t see what he does (Vulcan deathgrip?) and the camera then lingers on Jack Elam’s wonderfully creepy face as he emotes sheer terror/confusion over what he’s seen. Later, his boss is compelled to wonderingly ask Mike “What’d you do to him, anyway? You scared Charlie half to death,” rather like any number of doomed Lovecraftian protagonists.

    As the movie nears the end, we see more and more — perhaps the need to keep the pace accelerating prevented Aldrich from using any tricky shots? — such as breaking the coroner’s fingers and bitch-slapping the health club concierge, and, of course, Lily’s iconic immolation, which we’ll devote some space to soon. This is consistent with the notion of the horror tale revealing more and more as the climax approaches. And of course, you can’t blame them for not showing the local, or possibly global, effects of the suitcase; ten years later even Dr. Strangelove only used stock footage of mushroom clouds.

    But — but — but– What about the sex? Surely that’s not in Lovecraft. Well, indeed, women are pretty hard to find in Lovecraft, and the only sexual congress seems to be with extra-dimensional monsters (e.g., “The Dunwich Horror”).[34] In the same way, the only sex we find in KMD is implied by the blackmail set-ups Mike sends Velda on. For a supposed swinging bachelor, Mike gets laid about as much as SNL’s Czechoslovakian Brothers. Like the violence, it’s all in the implications.

    The Feds tell us he’s a “bedroom dick” (he settles divorce cases through blackmail) and that while Velda handles the men, he handles the women, but we never see or hear of any, and that’s just business anyway. Christina starts off on his bad side by making him wreck his sports car, and she’s soon dead anyway; the mob boss’s sister, a drunk nympho, throws herself on him, but he only uses her to get into the house, then dumps her (“Here’s to friendship” is as far as she gets), while he recognizes Lily is a crazy nymphet not to be touched.

    Altogether, Mike, like Lovecraft, is a he-man woman-hater that probably agrees with one of the goons: “Women are worse than flies.”

    Speaking of Lily: played with Satanic, screen-melting intensity by Gaby Rogers,[35] she’s a sort of multi-doppelganger. The doomed Christina, nekkid and running barefoot, is the classic movie woman in distress, yet is nevertheless rather masculine, with her short hair and trench coat, the first of many sexually antipathetic roles that Cloris “Frau Blucher” Leachman would play. Lily easily takes over her role (Lily to Christina’s Rossetti obsession) — while pretending to be Christina’s roommate — as Mike’s guide to the underworld (in both senses); when they meet she’s also (presumably) nekkid, under a robe this time, and barefoot; when next they meet she’s be running and screaming like Christina as well. Eventually, Velda will supply her with the nifty black/white Chanel suit that neatly emphasizes her duplicitous nature.[36]

    Her trench coat makes her a double for the standard private dick.[37] Her fatal colloquy with Soberin shows her fully in the private dick mode, demanding to know and see.

    This girl/boy/woman is not an easy person to live with, as Dr. Soberin and Mike discover. She is, as played by ex-European Gaby Rogers, née Rosenberg (another atomic caper resulting in death by fire), the ultimate Jamesian American Girl:

    Daisy Miller’s freedom in the face of European social conventions is of a kind that would make her insufferable in any civilized society. . . . She is utterly uneducated, and no intelligent man could stand her for long since there could be no possible exchange of speech with her; she has nothing to recommend her but looks, money, confidence and clothes.[38]

    Gaby has looks and confidence, and clothes courtesy of Velda; when Soberin threatens to cut her out on the money, she responds by pulling out something Leavis and James — and Soberin — didn’t count on: the private dick’s best friend, a roscoe,[39] with predicable — and unpredictable — results.

    The mythical elements here are pretty deep or widespread. When, near the beginning of the film, the thug with the pliers asks the jerkass we will come to know near the end as Dr. Soberin whether the now-dead Christina should be tortured some more, Soberin makes some typically pompous and leadenly “amusing” remarks about “that would be resurrection from the dead.” When Mike, who should have died in the car with Christina, is somehow rescued and wakes up in the hospital, he is said to be “back from the dead.” Lily Carver comes back from the dead in the person of Gaby, Mike not knowing till the end that the Feds fished the real Lily out of the river days ago.

    Lily/Gaby, Christina’s roommate, thus resurrects both Lily by pretense and Christina by becoming Mike’s new naked in a trench coat partner. Confronting his double, Lily/Gaby at the end is like the confrontation of Lovecraft’s “Outsider”[40] with his mirror image in the eponymous story — Hoberman calls him “a walking corpse”[41]; while Pat the Fed already dismissed him in the third person with “Let him go to hell” — and Mike falls dead (with some help from Gaby’s roscoe, of course).

    This is Gaby’s final resurrection, the true resurrection — not the ridiculous reanimated corpse (as Alan Watts called it) of the exoteric Christian (Mike, the “walking corpse” brought “back from the dead”) but St. Paul’s Gnostic idea of the Body of Light, with all its parallels in every esoteric tradition.[42]

    The pedantic Soberin — too sober to grasp such super-subtle ideas, unlike the “feline” intuition of Gaby — has been doubly routed. Gaby has answered his question from the beginning of the film — “How do you bring back the dead?” — and proven that she is indeed not “misnamed,” for she has revealed herself not as subhuman — “feline”[43] — but superhuman, a being of light, an angel — Gabriel.[44]

    “Hip” film critics love to talk about how Gaby “subverts” the detective genre, and especially the Mike Hammer character—this time, girl shoots boy.[45] Despite the filmmakers, I think what’s actually happening here is that Gaby is redeeming the Mike character. While even the Feds grudgingly admit Mike “can sniff out information like nobody I ever saw” his search for what Velda mocks as “the Great Whatzit” is really motivated by greed, when he suspects the box must be valuable to someone. Gaby’s insistence on knowing what’s in the box, by contrast, is childish but sincere — she only kills Soberin when he reneges on sharing the proceeds, after the long back and forth about Medusa and Co.[46]

    But how can Mike be redeemed? The filmmakers, as I’ve noted, want to push the Good Liberal notion of “shut up and trust the government” and so portray Mike as “stubborn” and Gaby as subhuman (Soberin condescends with “You have the feline perceptions that all women have”) rather than inquisitive.

    [9]Wesley Addy as Pat the Fed delivers the filmmakers’ contemptuous epitaph – “You’re sooo smaaaart”—with his trademark WASP condescension. He’s kind of a wimpy Al Gore, dealing with a “climate denier” or Ross Perot or George W.; Hoberman say it’s “as though addressing a dumb animal” (as Soberin does Gaby).

    But is it fair? Noted Lovecraftian Darrell Schweitzer has come to the defense of the “imbecility of [the typical Lovecraft] protagonist”:

    The critic has probably read [“Dreams in the Witch House”] either in a fantasy magazine or a collection of Lovecraft stories. . . . Walter Gilman, on the other hand, is supposed to be living in the “real” world where things like [anthropomorphic rat familiars] are beyond the range of normal experience. Gilman knows that they are impossible. The human mind is a stubborn thing [like Mike!], and when it is convinced of something, it isn’t always dissuaded by mere proof. . . . He does what any normal, sane person would do. . . . Unless all heroes are occult detectives we cannot expect them to readily accept the fact that the laws of existence have been violated.[47]

    Mike isn’t “stupid” so much as he’s in over his head. As I’ve pointed out before, Lovecraft’s protagonists aren’t stupid or gullible, but almost always all-too educated, like Dr. Soberin, thus inclined to know, as Schweitzer says, what is and isn’t the case, which is exactly what leads them to their doom.[48]

    Thus Lovecraft’s protagonists are unlike the “occult detectives” once popular in the Victorian age — such as Algernon Blackwood’s John Silence or William Hope Hodgson’s Carnaki, or most famously, Stoker’s Van Helsing.[49] They are not calm, wise experts easily unmasking fake mediums or calling upon some handy bit of mystical folklore to save the day.[50]

    However learned conventionally or mystically, they quickly find themselves in too far, asking one question too many.[51] As Lovecraft famously said:

    The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. — “The Call of Cthulhu”

    Kiss Me Deadly has been described as the ultimate noir film, summarizing the conventions of the genre and then breaking new ground.[52] Hoberman sees this as happening all through the ’50s, as if some kind of atomic mutation had taken place:

    Genres collide in the great Hollywood movies of the mid­-fifties cold-war thaw. . . . The western goes south in The Searchers; the cartoon merges with the musical in The Girl Can’t Help It. Science fiction becomes pop sociology in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And noir veers into apocalyptic sci-fi in Robert Aldrich’s 1955 masterpiece Kiss Me Deadly, which, briefly described, tracks one of the sleaziest, stupidest, most bru­tal detectives in American movies through a nocturnal, inexplicably violent labyrinth to a white-hot vision of cosmic annihilation. — “The Thriller of Tomorrow”

    Note the Lovecraftian language uses. “Veering into apocalyptic sci-fi” would be a perfect description of Lovecraft’s own evolution in the thirties, from horror in the Weird Tales style to long, “scientifictional” novellas. Perhaps Lovecraft’s achievement could be described as taking the three original genres bequeathed to him by his master, Poe –- detective, science fiction, and post-Gothic horror — and creating a kind of mash-up more suitable for modern circumstances. To do so, he had to downplay the detective’s infallible and cool logic (as Poe’s Dupin or Conan Doyle’s Sherlock), so as to trigger the horrific end, while using science — or “science” — to provide a comforting illusion of normality, against which the horror stands our more “inexplicably.”

    Kiss Me Deadly strikes the Lovecraftian note because, inadvertently, it arises from the same post-war cultural chaos that would retrospectively root itself in Lovecraft’s Synthesis, producing such characteristically modern noir-horror-sci-fi works as Alien, Blade Runner, and The Matrix.

    It’s no surprise that the French loved it; as Hoberman notes:

    In France, Kiss Me Deadly was admired mainly by the young critics at Cahiers du cinéma, where it was considered “the thriller of tomorrow” and Aldrich, dubbed Le gros Bob, was hailed as “the first director of the atomic age.”

    Claude Chabrol praised the film in rather Poe-esque terms:

    [10]Kiss Me Deadly, Claude Chabrol wrote in his passionate review, “has chosen to create itself out of the worst material to be found, the most deplorable, the most nauseous product of a genre in a state of putrefaction: a Mickey Spillane story.” Aldrich and Bezzerides “have taken this threadbare and lackluster fabric and splendidly rewoven it into rich patterns of the most enigmatic arabesques.”[53]

    At last, let’s deal with the famous ending, or rather, the famous endings.[54] This will require a certain amount of exposition. First, the set-up:

    The movie ends at a stylish beach house in Malibu. Carver fells Mike with one shot from a .38, after [inviting him to] “Kiss me Mike. Kiss me. The liar’s kiss that says ‘I Love You,’ but means something else. You’re good at giving such kisses.” She then opens the box and turns into a pillar of fire . . .

    Now the mystery starts.

    In the version most often seen from roughly 1960 to 1997, Hammer regains consciousness while Carver burns. He rescues his secretary Velda (Maxine Cooper) from a locked room, and they limp arm-in-arm toward the exit. At that point we cut to a disconnected string of exterior shots. Light and smoke belch from the beach house. Several awkward jump cuts add superimposed explosions, as a miniature of the house breaks apart. A nondescript “The End” title appears, and the film fades abruptly — not to black, but to gray leader. The music score and roaring sound effects overlap the ragged cut and then end with a poorly-timed fade.

    But according to Francois Truffaut’s original 1955 review of Kiss Me Deadly in Cahiers du Cinema, “As the hero and his mistress [he means Velda] take refuge in the sea, THE END appears on the screen.” The original trailer shows similar shots.

    Someone, identity long since lost, thought this worked better, and cut the negative thusly soon after release. Unknown to MGM, Aldrich, or anyone else, a pristine original negative was sitting around in the Aldrich archives.

    At the point where standard prints cut to the ragged short ending, this copy continued into a completely new sequence. The couple descended some stairs and then took off across the beach. The shots of the burning house were now separated by four new angles with Velda and Mike throwing long shadows down the beach. Rear-projected views showed the pair in front of the exploding beach house. They watched from the surf until an authentic end title (“The End, A Parklane Picture”) appeared. The mystery box growled and howled throughout at full volume, like the monster of a 50s Science Fiction film. [Or the boxt in Raiders of the Lost Ark] The beautiful ending had more production value than anything else in the movie. Although it was disturbing, it was conventionally edited, and resembled nothing that would inspire the French New Wave.

    Quite unusually, it is the original ending that provides something of a “happy ending,” making it clear that Mike and Velda escape the house. The difference vanishes when you consider that Mike has been shot at close range, already burned by radiation before arriving, and is about 50 feet from a nuclear explosion.[55] For that matter, we don’t know if the Whatzit is some kind of Strangelovian doomsday device that will destroy the Earth or trigger WWIII, so “living happily ever after” seems unlike in any event.

    [11]Since we are aware of the doubling of Mike and Gaby, as well as the mythical themes running throughout, we can see something else going on in the original, long ending: paradoxically, it is Gaby whose fate is more secure.

    We’ve already called attention to Gaby’s checkerboard clothing, and her purer pursuit of knowledge. We can say that this Pure Fool has reached the end of the quest. As we’ve noted many times, hideous apocalyptic endings are merely a genre convention. What is important here is that Gaby has achieved a state of pure light, becoming a vertical pillar of fire, combining both the Hermetic symbol of light and verticality and the Judaic YHVH. Again, we recall the homage to the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, which presents the negative, inverted Judaic version, in which the search for knowledge and transcendence fails and is punished as sin.[56]

    We cut to Mike, who, having been shot by Gaby, has fallen, in an oddly stiff way, like a tree falling, and now lies sprawled at length on the floor. This is the fall into horizontality, the material world of space and time.[57] He and Velda then descend the stairs and flee horizontally across the beach.

    As Lovecraft suggested in the quote above, Mike and Velda are seen to flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. They return to the oceans, like the protagonist of “The Shadow over Innsmouth.”[58] These are, of course, the Waters of material existence that the Realized Man (or Woman) must cross or walk over.[59]

    [12]

    While behind them, the house, another symbol of the warp and woof of material manifestation, no longer needed, disintegrates, as Gaby’s soul, presumably, escapes vertically into the higher dimensions.[60] Of course, this also connects us back to Lovecraft, and most importantly, his master, Poe, and his iconic “Fall of the House of Usher.”

    [13]

    Clearly, anyone who wants to create a work of pure, PC agitprop needs to be a little more careful than to simply put yourself on autopilot while dealing with that infra dig pulp stuff; it may be smarter than you think—or than you are.[61]

    Kiss Me Deadly, original [restored] ending

    Notes

    1. “Eldritch”?

    2. Film Noir by William Luhr, (Wiley, 2012) p 141.

    3. Originally published in 1979, Waterfire Providence republished it in 2013 in a fine edition (paperback and kindle) including plates of the works discussed, from Goya to Clark Ashton Smith.

    4. “You’ve seen these films! Haven’t you, my man?” — Will Graham, Manhunter.

    5. “Can you prove you didn’t? You certainly can’t prove I did.” Ray Miland, Dial ‘M’ for Murder, 1954.

    6. Quoted in Luhr, p. 138.

    7. “Although a leftist at the time of the Hollywood blacklist, Bezzerides denied any conscious intention for this meaning in his script.” Wikipedia, op. cit [14].

    8. Although earlier pulp detective writers had been up-marketed and used to make some well-regarded films, the Hollywood Elite drew the line at Spillane, who was far too popular, too “fascist” (unlike a good party member like Dashiell Hammett) and had even started off in the lowest depth, comic books (Luhr, p. 129). Oddly enough, KMD itself was singled out by the Kefauver Commission as 1955’s number one menace to American Youth. Chandler and Hammett preceded Lovecraft in the canonical Library of America, followed by P. K. Dick; can you imagine Spillane there?

    9. Later, there would be a similar panic among the “respectable” culturati over James Bond; Kingsley Amis easily shows the absurdity of Bond as a Hammer-style “sadist” in his The James Bond Dossier (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965).

    10. See especially the conclusion of “A Light Unto the Nations: Reflections on Olaf Stapledon’s The Flameshere [15]. The problem is especially tricky with fascism; one doesn’t “know” anyone of such a type — Pauline Kael famously said she “didn’t know anyone who voted for [Nixon]” — so one all too easily draws on oneself and produces an accidental and revealing portrait of liberal totalitarianism; see my “The Fraud of Miss Jean Brodie” here [16]. For contrast, consider Henry James’ The Bostonians; as F. R. Leavis says, “James understands the finer civilization of New England, and is the more effective as an ironic critic of it because he is not merely an ironic critic; he understands it because he both knows it from inside and sees it from outside with the eye of a professional student of civilization who has had much experience of non-Puritan cultures.” The Great Tradition, (George Stuart, 1950), p. 134. He later refers to this as “insight . . . utterly unaccompanied by animus” (p. 135).

    11. J. Hoberman, The Magic Hour: Film at Fin de Siècle (Philadelphia: Temple University press, 2003) p. 23. Spillane was so infuriated by the portrayal that he made sure the next time Hammer was filmed to not only write and finance the movie but play Hammer his own damn self. The result, The Girl Hunters (filmed in England other than some shots of Spillane swanning around Midtown Manhattan in a white trench coat — “Just like a cop to wear a white trench coat” Burroughs had noted in the opening chapter of Naked Lunch — and featuring the pre-Bond Shirley Eaton) is . . . interesting.

    12. Only the Cinema: “Films I Love, #22: Kiss Me Deadly,” here [17].

    13. See Trevor Lynch’s review here [18].

    14. As did Steven Spielberg (“Marion, don’t look in the box!”) and Alex Cox (Repo Man); Brian Wall adds Bunuel (Belle du Jour) and David Lynch (Mulholland Drive); see Brial Wall, Theodor Adorno and Film Theory: The Fingerprint of Spirit (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), p. 67 (and here [19]). Hoberman (The Magic Hour) adds Truffaut’s Shoot the Piano Player.

    15. Hence St. Armand’s interest, as one of several stores where Lovecraft reveals and works out his Decadent and Symbolist influences.

    16. “Spillane also seems to have invented the sadistic quip during killings — but Bezzerides gives this role to the deadly female instead.” http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s286kiss.html [4]

    17. “But there’s also “a new kind of art in the world,” as one character explains to Mike, and its embodiment turns out to be the object of his search, a leather-bound steel box.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/movies/robert-aldrichs-vera-cruz-and-kiss-me-deadly-on-dvd.html?pagewanted=all [20]

    18. “KMD may have one of the best ’50s images of consumer iconography. On Hammer’s wall is a reel-to-reel answering machine. These devices actually existed in that era, and the make is Code-A-Phone.” — http://www.freepresshouston.com/film/thoughts-on-kiss-me-deadly/ [21]. Check it out here.

    19. “The detective, played by Ralph Meeker (the actor who replaced Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire), drives a Jaguar, has a futuristic telephone answering machine built into his bachelor pad’s wall, and, a bag of golf clubs in the corner, lives a version of what was not yet called the Playboy philosophy. The faux Calder mobile and checkerboard floor pattern add to the crazy, clashing expressionism.” “Kiss Me Deadly: The Thriller of Tomorrow” by J. Hoberman, here [22].

    20. Hoberman, op. cit.

    21. Luhr: “The use of the Rossetti sonnet to uncover a major clue underscores the film’s repeated references to past culture” (p. 140).

    22. Talk about subverting the filmmakers’ intent, some have even discovered a “liberal subtext” that makes Mike a sort of Alan Alda: “As much as anything else, it’s the positive images of women, immigrants, African-Americans, and poor people, along with Hammer’s getting on with them so well, especially the folks at the jazz club, boxing gym, and auto repair shop, that gives the film much of its leftist edge.” — Café Noir, here [23]. This “common touch” angle is especially worked in the aforementioned Girl Hunters, where a good third of the film is Hammer/Spillane collecting favors and plaudits from all the little people who are so grateful to owe him — even his landlord won’t take his back rent: “Take, take; remember when you gave?” That Hammer is played by Spillane himself and many of the little people are real friends of his gives it a rather odd tone. I leave it to the reader to reflect on what the praise of “getting on with” the poor tells us about the liberal’s rather feudal idea of his role in society.

    23. “The force of Soberin’s mythical invocations is the reverse of what he desires; the free-floating prestige of his examples only seems to add to the glamour of the box” (Forgetting Lot’s Wife, p. 74).

    24. The film can’t strictly have a “hero” since the message is “obey the (Liberal) government.” Heroism and individualism are only good when bad fascists are in charge; then it’s “question (non-Liberal) authority.”

    25. Like Lovecraft’s occult gobble-de-gook.

    26. Of course, we also recall Lovecraft’s incantations and cosmic mumbo-jumbo; even, perhaps, the Trinity that Red Hook’s detective hales from?

    27. This, of course, is the note that interests St. Armond, Lovecraft’s self-image as a Decadent, an 18th-century gentleman exiled in a philistine future.

    28. The first look like the digitally over-restored print of Ed Wood’s Night of the Ghouls, the second like a lost work of Coleman Francis. Actually, the later kinds of scenes are perhaps more Clark Ashton Smith than Lovecraft, but just go with me on this.

    29. “The Bunker Hill area underwent a controversial total redevelopment which destroyed and displaced a community of almost 22,000 working-class families renting rooms in architecturally significant but run-down buildings, to a modern mixed-use district of high-rise commercial buildings and modern apartment and condominium complexes” (Wikipedia, Angel’s Flight [24]). “In 1955, Los Angeles city planners decided that Bunker Hill required a massive slum-clearance project. The top of Bunker Hill was cleared of its houses and then flattened as the first stage of the Bunker Hill Redevelopment Project to populate Bunker Hill with modern plazas and buildings. When the height limit of buildings for Los Angeles was finally raised (previously buildings were limited to 150 feet), developers built some of the tallest skyscrapers in the region to take advantage of the area’s existing dense zoning. In approving such projects, the city sought to project a modern, sophisticated image (Wikipedia, Bunker Hill Redevelopment Project [25]).

    30. Op. cit., loc. 732.

    31. Even before Miranda, movie audiences preferred not to see such methods used by “good guys.” Mike treats every suspect and informant the way Batman does the Joker in The Dark Knight, rendering the Joker’s attempt to taunt him acting like the Joker himself nugatory. Mike is already a combination of Batman and Joker, giving his big, smarmy smile a psychotic resonance. Hoberman: “The movie stops in its tracks to focus on his excited grin as he snaps a collector’s priceless 78 record.” Presumably this is how the filmmakers — and good liberals today — think vigilantes are or would be, rather than concerned citizens performing a distasteful but needful duty. Interestingly, Mike does all his violence after Pat the Fed takes his gun away; so much for “guns cause violence.” He pries a key, not a gun, from the coroner’s “cold dead fingers” after smashing them in a desk drawer.

    32. I’m reminded of The Black Cat, where the vengeful Lugosi flays Karloff alive . . . off screen.

    33. Luhr, p. 129. Similar claims, of course, are made by the advocates of the Ed Wood or Coleman Francis oeuvres. It’s been claimed online that Christina’s dubbed screams are the same ones used for Gaby at the end (or vice versa) which also nicely bookends the film and emphasizes the make-believe, but also amps up the Gaby/Lily/Christina doubling we’ll explore later.

    34. For a complete accounting, see “Lovecraft’s Ladies” by Ben P. Indick in Discovering H. P. Lovecraft, ed. Darrell Schweitzer, 2nd ed. (Wildside Press, 1995).

    35. “Rodgers, born Gabrielle Rosenberg in Germany in 1928, was the niece of the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, and grew up in Amsterdam, where she remembered playing with Anne Frank as a child; she appeared on the cover of Cosmopolitan in 1957, representing “The New Face of Broadway,” and married songwriter Jerry Leiber, author of “Jailhouse Rock,” “Hound Dog,” “Love Potion No. 9,” and numerous others.” Criterion Collection website, here [26].

    36. Many critics have discussed the checkerboard and “x” symbols found throughout the film; I of course would liken them to the Traditional symbolism of Universal Manifestation as a weaving pattern of warp and woof. See “The Corner at the Center of the World: Traditional Metaphysics in a Late Tale of Henry James” here [27], reprinted in Aristokatia I and forthcoming in The Eldritch Evola . . . & Others (Counter-Currents, 2014).

    37. “So plainspoken as to be a parody of the hardboiled detective she imitates in her inexorable and inexpressive search for knowledge” — Martin Harries Forgetting Lot’s Wife: On Destructive Spectatorship, p. 74.

    38.Leavis, op. cit., p. 143.

    39. “Old (’30s–’40s) term for a handgun: same vintage as gat, heater, cannon, etc. ‘He pulled a roscoe and ventilated the gorilla.’” Urban Dictionary, here [28].

    40. Darren McGavin, who would star in “Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer” (1957–’59) later starred in a short-lived 1968 series, The Outsider.

    41. “The Thriller of Tomorrow”; a similar confrontation occurs in “The Jolly Corner,” the James ghost story I analyze in the work cited in Note 35 above.

    42. See Evola’s Hermetic Tradition, Part Two, where he discusses how the Realized Man creates for himself a new, indestructible body — the Tantric Diamond Body — by reconstructing himself from the atomic level on up — the film’s atomic chain reaction is an inverted symbol of this.

    43. Ironically, after being shot by Gaby, Soberin transforms himself into the dog, Cerberus.

    44. Prominently featured in the Bunker Hill locations is the “Angel’s Flight [29],” a rather Lovecraftian funicular railway, featuring two cars, Sinai — pillar of fire? — and Olivet.

    45. It’s as if Brigid O’Shaughnessy shot Sam Spade and took off with the Maltese Falcon. Usually, it’s Mike who does the gut-shooting. In Spillane’s own film, The Girl Hunters, he tricks Shirley Eaton into blowing her own head off with a shotgun.

    46. Soberin’s enigmatic remark that the Whatzit “can’t be divided” suggests the extra-dimensionality of one of Lovecraft’s Elder Gods.

    47. “Character Gullibility in Weird Fiction; or, isn’t Yuggoth Somewhere in Upstate New York?” in Discovering Lovecraft, loc. 1003.

    48. See my review of Graham Harmon’s Weird Realism, “‘A General Outline of the Whole’: Lovecraft as Heideggerian Event” here [30]and in forthcoming The Eldritch Evola … & Others.

    49. Blackwood was an initiate of the Golden Dawn; Evola even deigns to quote John Silence on some occult self-defense techniques in his Introduction to Magic.

    50. Anomalously, the folklorists from Arkham know just the right formula to dispatch the Dunwich horror and dismiss the revenant Charles Dexter Ward.

    51. “. . . he gradually discovers layers of power and danger that surround him of which he knows nothing and with which he is unprepared to cope” (Luhr, p. 134).

    52. “Kiss Me Deadly looks back both to canonical film noir, whose era was winding down, and ahead to neo-noir, or resurrected noir, which would not emerge for more than a decade. Death and resurrection are central themes [as we saw with Gaby] . . . embodying the baroque endpoint of an exhausted genre, pushing that genre’s tropes to and beyond their limits” (Luhr, p. 144).

    53. Hoberman, “Thriller of Tomorrow.”

    54. Conveniently summarized in “The Restoration of Kiss Me Deadly” by Glenn Erickson, here [31], from which I take the following summary of the endings

    55. It’s a bit like the end of Bride of the Monster, and any number of other ’50s movies where atomic blasts happen right and left, with only a small danger of mutating into a 50 giant or something, as long as you wear your “protective goggles.”

    56. See, as always, Baron Evola’s The Hermetic Tradition, especially Chapter One on the symbolism of the Tree.

    57. In the James tale we analyze in “The Corner,” this is how the protagonist ends up, sprawled out on a checkerboard patterned floor; while there’s none here, there is one in Mike’s apartment.

    58. Remember those “long shadows” they “throw down the beach”?

    59. See René Guénon, The Multiples States of the Being, Chapter 12, “The two chaoses.”

    60. See Guénon, op. cit., but especially Coomaraswamy, The Door in the Sky (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997) that exhaustively documents the symbolism of, for example, the hole in the roof of, for example, a teepee or another traditional structure, which smoke outlet serves as a symbol of the path of the soul.

    61. “This opus has become a cult film . . . I cannot say why — I never completely understood our screenplay, and my confusion was still there when we ran the completed film” — producer Victor Saville; quoted in Mickey Spillane on Screen: A Complete Study of the Television and Film Adaptations by Collins and Traylor (McFarland, 2012), p. 61.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Manos Redivivus: “The Master is Gone, But He is With Us Always”
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]6,627 words

    Manos: The Hands of Fate – Restored Edition [2]
    Written and Directed by Harold P. Warren
    Restoration Producer: Ben Solovey
    Synapse Studios, 2015

    “Why is he sleeping on a pile of dirt?”
    “This movie has deep philosophical significance.”
    “What about the beer bottles?”
    “Oh . . .”[1] 

    Well, here it is: the bottom of the bottomless barrel,[2] the worst of the worst — the loathed[3] and legendary Worst Movie of All Time: Manos, the Hands of Fate.[4] Comes now this two-disc version, on DVD and Blu-Ray, that surely must be considered definitive.[5] And there’s nothing in all this restoration and commentary that comes close to in any way challenging the film’s reputation.[6]

    But why? Why this film of all films?[7] Other films certainly have their own urgent, unique claims.

    It’s not like there are no other candidates, even within the somewhat arbitrary universe of “movies I saw on Mystery Science Theater 3000.” For example,[8] The Crawling Terror shares Manos’ origins in a bet (that the director could make a scary movie just like those guys in Hollywood), casting of the director in a starring role (though under the pseudonym, “Vic Savage,”), entirely overdubbed soundtrack (the original having been lost, supposedly, in Lake Mead), and above all, arguably the worst cinematography in history — some shots are so over-exposed that the screen is almost entirely white, making Manos, even in its unrestored state, seem like a Technicolor blockbuster.

    Other films share the incompetent filmmaking but go one better in post-production. Monster A Go-Go and The Dead Talk Back also dispense, for whatever reason, with sound sync, in favor of narrators; but the first was never even finished (Bill Rebane sold the remains to schlockmeister Herschel Gordon Lewis, who patched in new scenes, using some but not all of the original actors[9]), while Dead, finished, sat on a film lab shelve from 1957 to 1997 when it was discovered and shipped directly to Mystery Science Theater. Both movies also share the supremely irritating trait of cheating the ending: “There was no monster,” the narrator sternly informs us, and, as Tom Servo exclaims, “Hey, the dead never talked back!”

    The attentive reader will have noted that so far all these movies (one hesitates to call them “films”) are of the sci-fi/horror genres. It’s true that these genres, much to the chagrin of their fans, do tend to produce a lot of junk.[10] Or it may be, that their fans are seriously devoted enough[11] to demand a high level of performance to match the seriousness of the theme, making the gap between aim and achievement more visible, and risible, than in, say, a failed Hollywood rom-com like Gigli.[12]

    But it can happen elsewhere: take The Wild World of Batwoman, where the sci-fi elements (a superheroine with no particular abilities or fashion sense, a mad scientist whose role is realized mainly through splicing in scenes form The Mole People and a Mexican wrestling movie) are combined with an apparently[13] deliberate attempt at “comedy” or satire of some kind; the gap here produces 80 minutes of continuous douche chills.[14]

    Douche chills, however, will keep you awake. Just as its craggy non-actors have “broken the face barrier,” The Starfighters is easily the most boring, sleep-inducing movie ever made.[15] Designed, apparently (more research is needed on this), to convince NATO that the F-104 Starfighter was worthy of purchase, despite a comically deadly accident record,[16] its combination of stock footage and non-actors [17] creates a cinematic black hole.

    “It’s like they forgot to have things happen.”

    “I really think there’s more nothing in this movie than any we’ve ever seen.”[18]

    “Nothing,” however, can only remind us of the final challenger to Manos, the first entry in the Coleman Francis Trilogy (the Godfather Saga of bad films), The Beast of Yucca Flats.

    “About the most nothing film I’ve seen . . . little more than a home movie someone might make.” (Bob Burns, “film historian and erstwhile movie gorilla”).

    “An incredibly deadening experience” (Larry Blamire, B-movie director)

    “Before this movie, there was no such thing as clinical depression.” (Tom Servo, robot)[19]

    And yet . . .

    Bad as it is, Beast does edge out Manos, if only on points.

    Beast’s narration has its own Dadaist charms.[20] The cinematography is really rather good; although this was cameraman Lee Strosnider’s first chance to film 16mm, he had just come form several years making industrial films, while Hal Warren came straight from industry — fertilizer, in fact — and was actually using little more than a home movie camera.[21] Larry Blamire comments on the “heartbreaking” quality of the shots of the Flannery O’Connor-esque mother wandering around looking for her lost boys, and Frank Conniff (“TV’s Frank”) refers to the “dark kind of lyricism” seen in the next film, The Skydivers (although, as he admits, no one else agrees).

    And that’s the main reason: Beast is part of a trilogy, and needs to be judged as such.[22] Above all, it’s only in the context of the three films together that the elements of repetition and futility emerge which make Francis’s work the mythological masterpiece that it is.[23]

    Repetition and masterpiece: that brings us to Manos. If you’ve read this far, you likely know the “plot,” which has been summarized as [3]:

    The peculiarly-paced story of a deeply uncharismatic man (director Warren) taking his wife Margaret (Diane Mahree) and daughter Debbie (Jackey Neyman) on a vacation that runs afoul of a cult led by the plurally-married Master (Tom Neyman) and his jittery, big-kneed manservant Torgo (John Reynolds).[24]

    So why does anyone care about this cinematic turd, and why care about polishing it? Why any “bad” movie? Consider this:

    In attempting to explain the film’s appeal, the Los Angeles Times hypothesized, “After screening Manos for probably the 10th time, I’ve concluded it has to do with intimacy. Because it is such a pure slice of Warren’s brain — he wrote, directed, produced and starred, and brooked no collaboration — Manos amounts to the man’s cinematically transfigured subconscious.”[25]

    But I, at least, am not interested in some Judaic pseudo-science like “psychoanalysis,” but rather in the super-science of Traditional metaphysics.[26] As Luis Varady has recently pointed out, the ancient wise men may have lack our physics and astronomy, but since they had the ancient teaching that “As above, so below,” the Microcosm is the Macrocosm . . .

    All things mirror all things and to fully understand even a small fragment of reality gives an insight into reality as a whole — this is a common teaching in the mystical traditions of the world.[27

    . . . they could learn the deeper truths about reality by studying their own consciousness, the results of which study they encoded in stories we call “myths.”

    Cosmological myths were used as a means to convey spiritual truths, and these spiritual truths pointed directly at the true nature of our psychology.

    And so:

    It is not the reasonableness or likelihood of a myth that attracts human beings to it. Rather, a myth’s attraction is its potential ability to convey spiritual or moral truths to every member of society, from the most intellectual to the illiterate.[28]

    In the same way, it is not the “reasonableness or likelihood” of a movie — the myths of the 20th century — that explains their appeal, but their “potential ability to convey spiritual or moral truths to every member of society.” Antd this potential is stronger in bad movies, which lack the pseudo-intellectual “sophistication” of the “quality production,” which is usually just a big budget rehash of Judaic PC-ideology, instead, most often accidentally, flying under the radar of both the director’s consciousness and industry censorship.[29]

    Furthermore, that “bad” movies should be the focus of attention makes sense, since humans have an odd relationship with truth, especially metaphysical truths about themselves and their situation: they crave it, yet fear and loathe it at the same time.

    And this, I think, is the key to the “bad film”: it sounds themes we suspect are true and important, but which we don’t want to admit; hence, we mock it, as the Roman soldiers and crucified thief mocked Christ. “It’s only a movie, and a bad one at that.”

    Writing about the Gnostics, and why they lost out to the “orthodox” Christians, Michael Hoffman writes:

    Why did people embrace childish lower-level Christianity (i.e., literal interpretation of the myths)?

    People were starting to shy away from some of the painful truths revealed in the mysteries. They had mixed feelings about being mere puppets of gods/fates.[30]

    The scriptures offered a choice between supernaturalist Literalism that takes pseudo-history as reality, and allegorical myth that reveals determinism — most people chose to stay in the supernaturalist reading.

    If some Michael,[31] Captain of the Deterministic Angels were to actually do as the New Testament prophecies and reveal the Christian mystery of God’s kingdom, and this kingdom turns out to be entheogenic Christ-myth determinism, and “eternal” life is experienced only during this life, most people would plug their ears.

    What use is a mere revelation of the metaphysical truth about moral agency, especially when such a revelation robs us of infinitely open possibilities and puts strict limitations on the types of freedom we can have? This is the already famous red pill versus blue pill choice from the movie The Matrix: would you rather slumber in often-comfortable fantasy or awaken to often-uncomfortable truth? Do you want the bliss of fantastic, uncritical, wishful thinking, or the sober intellectual satisfaction of high rational integrity?

    If you could resolve your metaphysical intellectual discomfort by waking up to deterministic consistency, would you want to?

    If God’s kingdom is deterministic, we don’t want it. It is no wonder the quantum physicists rejected (by fiat) finite, hidden-variables determinism and insisted on the endless magic of Copenhagenism instead. It is no wonder people chose the psychologically open-ended Literalist reading of Christianity rather than moving on to let the mystery of the deterministic kingdom of God be revealed.

    And, on a not-unimportant related point, boredom induction conduces to transmission of spiritual truth and ultimately to enlightenment, or at least, cultic membership.

    What is this mythological or metaphysical element that is feared by the masses? As already hinted, and as you might suspect from what you’ve heard about the movie, or seen yourself, it’s repetition. Obviously, the movie is about Fate, but specifically, in the words of the title of one of the soundtrack cues, “The Futility of Fate.”[32] Life here in the material world, on the samsaric plane, is an endless, horizontal round, a Circle, of the same, karma-induced events over and over; liberation/salvation/enlightenment is a matter of tossing aside karma (what I’ve called “passing the buck” and ascending vertically, via a Spiral (a Turn of the Screw), to a new level.[33]

    The cyclical nature of Manos’s plot is actually fairly common, even as a screenwriting technique. What raises Manos to its unique status are the ways in which Manos, deliberately or not, takes it up to eleven [4].

    The most notable, and perhaps the one “feature” that most everyone focuses on to explain the Manos Experience, is the extreme level of repetition in the dialogue, thus making it of a piece with the cyclical nature of the plot.

    Torgo: There is no way out of here. It will be dark soon. There is no way out of here.

    Torgo: He has left this world. But he is with us always. No matter where he goes, he is with us.

    Torgo: There is nothing to fear, Madam. The Master likes you. Nothing will happen to you. He likes you.

    Maggie: Likes me? I thought you said he was dead!

    Torgo: Dead? No, Madam, not dead the way you know it. He is with us always. Not dead the way you know it. He is with us always.

    And my personal favorite, Michael and Maggie’s rather philosophical — or fatalistic — duet in response to his daughter’s dog’s disappearance:

    Maggie: Pepe’s gone. I just hope Debbie will understand.

    Mike: She’ll understand. She’s my baby, she’ll understand.

    Maggie: I hope so, darling. I sure hope so.

    Mike: She’s my baby, she’ll understand.

    It’s like listening to Charlie Parker jam with Lester Young!

    Further increasing the echo-effect is the soundtrack, which, as mentioned before, is entirely post-production. For various reasons, only two men and one woman were available, so the characters’ voices quickly become indistinguishable,[34] and the child’s voice, clearly a woman’s falsetto, achieves a Brechtian level of alienation.[35] This kind of “dubbing” leads to the “doubling” I’ve frequently pointed out in films with mythological subtexts.[36]

    Most of the repetitive dialogue belongs to audience favorite Torgo, who also acquires the equally beloved and repetitive Torgo’s theme [5], which sums up the movie rather like some big Hollywood themes like those of Gone with the Wind or A Summer Place.

    And mentioning Torgo leads us to the second theme: who passes the buck? Certainly not Michael, who we see at the very end, has replaced Torgo, even (of course) repeating his lines:

    Michael: “I am Michael. I take care[37] of the place[38] while the Master is away.”

    No, surprisingly enough, it is Torgo who passes the buck to Michael. Yet, how can this be?[39] Torgo, when last seen, was running away, his coat sleeve aflame, while The Master held his burning, amputated hand aloft, laughing like a Bond villain.

    But that’s just the point: Torgo gets away. The obvious fakery of the burning hand suggests that there has been some kind of magic trick, on one or both their parts.

    First Wife: You are losing your control. Even Torgo defies you.

    This also makes sense of the odd moment right before, where the Master commands his wives to kill Torgo (or rather, in the Manos idiom, “Kill! . . . Kill!) and they proceed to enact a kind of “liturgical dance” (MST3k) that culminates in what looks like an attempt to kill through . . . massage. It’s all fake, a set-up.

    And finally, one can see, as Torgo is rolfed to death, that his hat has a large hole in the crown, alluding to the Traditional symbol of the vertical path of escape, like smoke through a the top of a teepee.[40]

    Or perhaps the hand, the symbolism of which is surely a displacement for the phallus, is sacrificed to the god Manos? Or is it the equivalent of the eye, which Wotan sacrifices for wisdom?[41]

    No one knows, or more significantly, no one seems to be curious about, what seems to me to be the most curious aspect of the whole production, the bizarre and unique hand symbolism[42] that permeates the film, from the title onward.[43]

    Presumably, our Freudian friends will suggest this is a phallic symbol. Actually, the “hands” in question, starting with Torgo’s staff, are usually upright, at the ends of arm-like structures, suggesting not so much hands as fists.[44] In any event, the symbolism seems muddled here; the vertical staff should symbolize escape or “upright” in the sense of virile and “upstanding,” as Evola says in The Hermetic Tradition;[45] yet both Michael and the First Wife are tied to upright poles or trees, and subsequently are vanquished, while Torgo is forced to lie on a horizontal slab during his tickle-torture, and triumphs.

    The symbolism is much clearer with a related theme: As Jackey Neyman (“Debbie”) points out with remarkable insight, her character is always falling asleep on the couch, and the family members are always falling down — i.e., falling horizontally into samsara. But, she adds, Torgo never falls down, despite his unforgettable stumbling walk.[46]

    Even the MST3k crew intuits this, observing that “Torgo wobbles but he won’t fall down.” The wobble/hand symbolisms come together when the Master once more spreads his arms to disclose the giant hands embroidered on the inside of his robe,[47] and the crew suggests “Push him over!” Ultimately, this is what happens; the “Master” returns to his suspended, samsaric state, while Torgo makes a break for it. Michael and his family, attempting to escape, ultimately decide to return to the house (I guess on the principle of “they’d never think to look for us there!”), a horizontal trek that leads us back to the beginning, again.[48]

    The idea that Torgo is the hero, or at least the protagonist, is not that forced. The featurette notes that the original (and only) review of the film, in the El Paso Daily Post, already referred to Torgo as “the hero.” The character of Torgo, along with his “haunting theme music” immediately piqued the imagination of the MST3k crew, who incorporated Torgo into their cast of recurring characters (played by head writer Mike Nelson, who would eventually replace Joel Hodgson as the human host). The 2008 making-of documentary is entitled Hotel Torgo. And as recently as March of this year,

    The murderers on the Elementary [6] episode “T-Bone And The Iceman [7]” used the physical features of Torgo (portrayed by John Reynolds) to compose a fake facial composite to get the NYPD off their trail. It worked for a while before they were caught, due to the character of Dr. Joan Watson having recognized Torgo’s features from the film.[49]

    What, then, of this restored edition? What was the condition of the earliest cut of the film, the so-called “workprint”; was the film always this hard to watch? Apparently not.

    The trick about the cost-efficient on 16mm Ektachrome reversal film on which Manos was shot is that there was never a negative: when the film from the camera was developed, what resulted was the actual picture, not a negative thereof. That developed film was then duplicated for editing, eventually being assembled into the workprint that Solovey now possessed. It’s a minor miracle that the workprint survived not only standard disposal, but also the 1994 Northridge Earthquake which (according to Emersons) destroyed all the other extant Manos materials. And it’s pretty, too, thanks to the inherent hardiness of Ektachrome material.

    The few audiences that saw Manos at the time certainly didn’t get to see anything as spiffy as the workprint. Once editing was complete, a 35mm blowup was made — making the picture twice as grainy — and prints for theaters were copied from that blowup. Not a single fuck was given about framing or color by the people who made those prints, resulting in a badly cropped picture with much of the color drained out. When the film hit VHS decades later, it was based on the horrible theatrical prints, and of course VHS is not exactly an archival format, so it made the picture look that much worse.

    Although the result is better than anything seen by audiences in 1966, Solovey, in the restoration featurette, is adamant that the idea was not to “upgrade” the film into contemporary quality, in sound or vision, but to strip away accumulated dust, fingerprints, splices, etc., and return it to what was originally on the editing bench.

    What we have here, then, is rather like the “historically informed performance practice” movement (misleadingly mislabeled “authentic practice”) that aims not at a metaphysically impossible and aesthetically irrelevant attempt to “hear what the music sounded like back then” but rather to strip away centuries of acquired interpretations so that we can form our own interpretation of the work itself.[50]

    So, how does the “restored” version differ from the theatrical version (included, dubbed the “Grindhouse” cut, on the Blu-ray two-disc set only) which was used on MST3k, and is available on numerous cheap DVDs (it’s in the public domain[51]) other than in presentation?

    Most notably, the infamous opening, a long, infinitely boring sequence of the family just driving along the highway (“The slowest car chase ever”—MST3k). The story is that this was supposed to have the opening credits superimposed, but for whatever reason — money, competence, or patience — it was never done. The non-MST DVD’s I’ve seen just lop it off, and start with a simple title shot.[52] The restoration keeps all this footage, but starts with some establishing shots (including an appropriate “Waste” container) of the Mordor-like surroundings of the director’s native El Paso (“Welcome to lovely Ground Zero” Joel says of a later “scenic” background, eerily foreshadowing 9/11).[53]

    There’s also the aforementioned sequence in which the Master taunts, slaps, and smears blood on his tied-up first wife. Otherwise, individual shots seem to sometime be slightly longer. Some sequences, like the family’s escape attempt, have more shots included, the voices better synced; I suppose over time the theatrical release was subject innumerable cuts and splices, either to speed it up [!] for TV viewing or due to accidental damage.

    There’s nothing in all this that comes close to in any way challenging the film’s reputation, for good or bad.[54]

    In the featurette “Restoring the Hands of Fate,” although he likes to use the word “schmutz” a lot, restorationist Solovey presents as an almost aggressively Aryan type in appearance, modest and plain spoken. He is a very trustworthy and pleasant person to listen to, considering the types one runs across in the film world.[55] He takes obvious pride in in speaking of the fine German scanner he managed to obtain for the task, and the amateur viewer tends to believe what he says about the difficulties and decisions involved in the restoration process.

    Solovey ultimately makes a very important point: movies, a 20th-century invention, must be preserved, since so much of our history is now in them.[56]

    Speaking of history: one tends to think of productions like Manos as being in some sense auteur productions, for better or worse,[57] and so most attention has been focused on writer/producer/director/star Hal Warren. One thing that emerges from the “Hands: The Fate of Manos” featurette is that Tom Nyman, who played The Master, may have had far more influence on the film, providing, as he says with ironic modesty, “everything”: he contributed his own daughter as the daughter, his dog is the dog, his car as one of the two cars (he’s not sure which at this point), and as “production designer” he designed all the costumes (which were sewn by his wife, except for Torgo’s overalls, coat, and hat, which were Tom’s own) and above all, the set decorations: all those hands. Turns out, he had already sculpted dozens of such things (“His art was going through a period of fascination with hands” says Solovey, deadpan). Indeed, “One day I suggested we just call it Manos: The Hands of Fate.”

    Graciously, Tom adds that Warren “was involved in everything on the film,” And on that note, the featurette ends with Neyman, still photographer Anslem Spring (a German soldier who was hiding out — I mean, living in — El Paso), and Solovey paying homage to Warren as the kind of DIY culture-creator I’ve lauded before; Neyman emphasizes that Warren knew he was making a B-picture (if only!) with local community theater talent, but thought it would serve as “the start of something big.” Solovey even attributes to Warren the start of “the kind of independent, self-financed” filmmaking we’ve become familiar with since, say, Easy Rider (made around the time and place of Manos).

    Funded by a Kickstarter campaign, the restoration process itself is an instance of the same kind of “hey, let’s make a movie” American can-do-ism as the movie itself — although, one must add immediately, on a far more successful level.

    Finally, the audio commentary track brings us the Neymans reminiscing about the production; rather than a couple of film nerds one-upping each other with trivia, it’s more like eavesdropping on a father and daughter still closely knit after all these years. Who knew Manos could be heartwarming?[58] [8]

    So, buy or not buy? Neophytes[59] should start with the MST3k’d version; it was available as a single disc from Rhino back in the day, now out of print, and currently Shout! Factory has a two-disc release, with the theatrical release and MST3k-centric special features.

    Once — if — you decide to experience it firsthand, this set is the way to go. It makes for a far more “pleasant” viewing experience, if that word can ever be used in the context of Manos, and, to paraphrase Tolkien, those who approve of courtesy (at least) to long dead Texas fertilizer salesman will purchase it, and no other.

    Notes

    [1] Jackey and Tom Neyman, commentary track.

    [2] “Coleman Francis is at the bottom of the barrel that’s beneath the one Ed Wood is in.” — Larry Blamire, interviewed in “No Dialogue Necessary: The Making of an Off-Camera Masterpiece,” a featurette on the DVD version of the MST3k episode Beast of Yucca Flats.

    [3] “Oh Joel, there’s a plethora of loathsomeness,” says Crow T. Robot as the end credits begin to roll.

    [4] According to Wikipedia: “Manos holds a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 11 reviews. The book Hollywood’s Most Wanted lists Manos as the #2 in the list of “The Worst Movies Ever Made,” following Plan 9 from Outer Space [9]. Entertainment Weekly proclaimed Manos “The Worst Movie Ever Made.” The scene in which the seven-year-old Debbie is dressed as one of the Master’s wives was included in a list of “The Most Disgusting Things We’ve Ever Seen” by the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew.”

    [5] New 2K restoration; audio commentary; Hands: The Fate of MANOS Featurette; Restoring the Hands of Fate Featurette; FELT: The Puppet Hands of Fate Featurette; Manos: The Hands of Fate: Grindhouse Edition (Blu-ray only).

    [6] “Will I have a bad rep?” is a line suggested by Tom Servo as the teenage girl in Manos confronts the highway cops.

    [7] “But why? What’s the difference between 17 and 20?” demands the teenage boy in the educational short “Are You Ready for Marriage?”

    [8] I discuss these films, briefly, at the end of my “Essential Films . . . & Others,” here [10].

    [9] “This is like an entirely different movie” Joel says in stunned amazement during Episode 421; unfortunately, the new movie is just as bad.

    [10] Lovecraft, of course, was a frequent and rigorous critic of this fellow “authors,” while for sci-fi, the legendary Theodore Sturgeon defensively formulated his well-known Law, or Revelation [11], “90% of everything is crap.”

    [11] The stereotypical “nerd,” demanding to know why dome detail was changed, and proclaiming, like the Simpsons’ Comic Book Guy, “worst [blank] ever.”

    [12] Patton Oswald, apparently an MST3k fan (he moderates a couple of Comic Con MST3k panels that appear on the DVDs) has a bit where he fills in the blanks on the typical movie preview “From the director of BLANK and the star of BLANK, comes BLANK” with various flatulent noises. See Gregory Hood’s Counter-Currents review of Oswald’s implicitly White “black comedy” Big Fan here [12].

    [13] Directors frequently insist, like Martin Short’s Nathan Thurm [13] character, that of course, they were actually trying to be funny, why would you think otherwise? For example, Lewis insisted that whatever Rebane thought he was doing, he, Lewis, at least knew it was crap and tried to turn it into a Twilight Zone parody. As Mad magazine told us long ago (to the tune of “The Rain in Spain”), “An ad that’s bad will wind up spoofed in Mad.” As a further turn of the screw, directors began sending their own recent but unknown films to MST3k in hopes of generating enough “so bad it’s good” buzz to pump up home video sales or even, as with Hobgoblins, finance a sequel.

    [14] Angels’ Revenge, a Charlie’s Angels rip-off, has the same effect, not only humiliating TV sitcom legends like Alan Hale, Jr,. Jim Backus and Pat Buttram, but also dragging in the declining Peter Lawford and even Jack Palance, pre-Batman and pre-Oscar™ .

    [15] In color, at least. Radar Secret Service (1950), with its washed out, grey print, grey men and grey clothing and vehicles, takes the black and white title, employing what MST3k calls “sleep-induction through hypno-helio-static-stasis” (Episode 620).

    [16] The movie’s base commander proudly says “it’s even been called a rocket with a man in it,” but in the real world it was known as “The Brick with Wings” and “The Widowmaker.” Ten years later, Robert Calvert of Hawkwind would record a “satirical concept album” based on the Luftwaffe’s experience with the plane: Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters (UA, 1974) Musicians who appeared on the album include members of Hawkwind [14], The Pink Fairies [15], Brian Eno [16], Arthur Brown [17], Jim Capaldi [18], and Adrian Wagner. See the Wikipedia entry here. [19]

    [17] As the gang says about The Skydivers, Episode 609, rather than have the actors do their own flying, they had the flyers do their own acting.

    [18] MST3k, Episode 620.

    [19] All from the DVD extra “No Dialogue Necessary: The Making of an Off-Camera Masterpiece.”

    [20] “I thought I was listening to Spoon River Anthology performed by atomic mutants.” — Larry Blamire.

    [21] The MST DVD includes not only extensive contributions from Strosnider in the “making of” featurette — “No Dialogue Necessary: The Making of an Off-Camera Masterpiece” — he also gets his own interview segment, “Coleman Francis: The Cinematic Poet of Parking.”

    [ [20]22] Of a gunfight from ten feet away, after a careful, lovingly drawn out parking sequence, Crow remarks that “He’s trying things here he’ll perfect in Red Zone Cuba.”

    [23] As will be shown in my forthcoming essay, “Footprints on the Wasteland: The White Apocalypse of Coleman Francis.” Starfighters goes perhaps too far in the direction of entropy; the absence of “things happening” entails, of course, an inability to suggest the endless repetition of things. There is, however, the endless, repeated “refueling” stock footage, a lame practical joke that occurs twice (and actors so generic as to prompt the comment “Is that that one guy?”) as well stock footage of take-offs/landings; the latter perhaps suggest the puppet theme as well, although, since the emphasis is on how gosh darn safe the F-104 is, there’s only one bailout, and it’s off camera. Francis’s Skydivers (note the linguistic similarity) will by contrast be entire constructed of planes taking off and landing, and the eponymous skydivers diving, with the later a combination of stock footage and close-up shots of the actors hanging from harnesses in a warehouse.

    [24] “Manos: The Hands of Fate Restored — The So-Called “Worst Movie” Has Never Looked Better,” by Sherilyn Connelly on The Robot’s Voice, March 14, 2014, here [3].

    [25] Wikipedia, quoting Dan Neil, “Why We Love Bad Movies,” Los Angeles Times, August 7, 2005.

    [26] Let’s get the “psychology” out of the way. Judging from the recollections of the actresses in the “making of” featurette, Hal Warren seems to have been the usual horndog/control freak typical of the males of the Mad Man era: suggesting an actress take off her blouse, then quickly retreating to “just joking” when she refuses; entering the same actress in the Miss Texas contest without her knowledge, a publicity stunt that backfires when tells the judges that she’s an atheist, etc. This is clearly manifested in the film in three sequences: the infamous nightgown wrestling of the Master’s wives (the MST crew suggest “this is why the film was made”); the scene where one of the wives sees the husband/director unconscious and tied to a tree, whereupon she begins to kiss him, lick his face, and then slap him (as Tom Neyman says on the commentary track, “Sure, it’s what every woman wants); and a scene cut from the MST version, in which the Master slaps his own tied up wife. Misogynistic, yes, but too amateurishly made to be either erotic or disturbing. Hal Warren though had nothing on the director of the above-mentioned The Creeping Terror, the Bob Crane-like Vic Savage, who “makes Ed Wood look like Ward Cleaver” according to the recent bioflick, The Creep Behind the Camera [21] (Peter Scheurman, 2014).

    [27] “To know and love one other human being is the root of all wisdom.” — Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited.

    [28] Luis Varady: The Wisdom of the Serpent: The Gnostic Trinity of the Peratae (Amazon Kindle, 2015). For more on Varady, see “Lords of the Visible World: A Modern Reconstruction of an Ancient Heresy,” my review of his earlier essay A Life Beyond Change: The Gnostic System of Carpocrates (Amazon Kindle, 2015).

    [29] See my discussion of Robert Aldrich’s Kiss Me Deadly, whose PC-anti-anti-communism intentions were subverted precisely because the screenwriter “had contempt for the material” and “wrote it fast, on autopilot,” thus allowing Traditional themes to emerge. “Mike Hammer, Occult Dick: Kiss Me Deadly as a Lovecraftian Tale,” reprinted in The Eldritch Evola . . . & Others (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2014).

    [30] How appropriate, then, that included with the Restored Edition as a special feature is FELT: The Puppet Hands of Fate, a retelling of the Manos story — one is tempted to say, the Manos myth — with puppets.

    [31] Michael, of course, is our “protagonist,” but apart from the aforementioned lack of charisma, I will soon suggest our “hero” is someone else.

    [32] Oh, and the soundtrack, the kind of laid-back jazz noodling that older guys like Warren still thought was “cool” back in the early sixties, and which I, growing increasingly fogey-ish, have lately grown fond of, calling to mind as it does long summer afternoons, light rain, and the soothing tones of Jessica Walter asking Clint Eastwood to play “Misty” for her. Although Coleman Francis mainly used free “library” music, The Skydivers has two interesting exceptions: a brief excerpt from Lionel Hampton’s “Going Home” (prompting Tom Servo to whine “Dad, change the station!”) and, by contrast, an appearance by then-famous surf guitarist Jimmy Bryant playing his then-hit, “Stratosphere Boogie.” “The jazz-centric score for Hal Warren’s horror “Master”-piece is forthcoming from Brooklyn’s own Ship to Shore Phono Co. The company sourced its audio from the 35mm soundtrack negative that was created for making theatrical release prints. The master tapes have never surfaced, thus leaving this 35mm neg as the closest one can get to the original recorded material. The company is offering three vinyl variants that will total a press run of 2000 LPs. Expected release date is the end of this month. More info about MANOS and how to buy the different vinyl color editions is here [22].” — Manos: The Hands of Fate screening & soundtrack premiere in Brooklyn on Oct. 7th!” here [23]. Check out the soundtrack LP here [24]: “Utilizing sparse, jazzy arrangements, Robert Smith, Jr. [25] and Russ Huddleston [26]’s score evokes the same bizarre, yet oddly compelling, feelings that fans of the film know and love.”

    [33] See the essays reprinted in The Eldritch Evola, as well as my forthcoming collection, Passing the Buck: a Traditionalist Goes to the Movies, which will include “Thanks for Watching: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 1 [27]“ and “Phil & Will: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 2 [28].”

    [34] “Hey, that’s just one guy!” mutters Joel in muted wonder.

    [35] The poor child burst out in tears on hearing her “voice” during the premiere showing.

    [36] For example, in Brian De Palma’s The Untouchables; see my review reprinted in The Homo and the Negro (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012).

    [37] In the first act, Michael, typically, shouted “Where the hell is that caretaker?” This is the only time Torgo is referenced as “The Caretaker.” Michael’s transformation at the end recalls — or rather, predates — Jack Torrance’s in The Shining. “You have always been the caretaker.”

    [38] “In dwelling upon the nature of God and the universe, the mystics of the Talmudic period asserted, in contrast to the transcendentalism evident in some parts of the Bible, that “God is the dwelling-place of the universe; but the universe is not the dwelling-place of God”. Possibly the designation (“place”) for God, so frequently found in Talmudic-Midrashic literature, is due to this conception, just as Philo, in commenting on Genesis 28:11 says, “God is called ha makom (המקום “the place”) because God encloses the universe, but is Himself not enclosed by anything” (De Somniis, i. 11).” — Wikipedia, here [29].

    [39] “How can this be? For he is the Kwisatz Haderach!” — Dune. If this were MST3k, I’d shout out here “Give a dog a bone!”

    [40] See the essays collected in The Door in the Sky: Coomaraswamy on Myth and Meaning by Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy, ed. by Rama P Coomaraswamy (Princeton, 1999).

    [41] See my comments on the Wotan theme embodied in the suicide of Lane Pryce in my latest collection, End of An Era: Mad Men and the Ordeal of Civility (San Francisco: Counter-Currents,2015).

    [42] “Manos” as the vibrant and diversity conscious modern viewer must know, is simply the Spanish word meaning “hands,” so the title is essentially Hands: The Hands of Fate, which already begins to enunciate the repetition theme we will begin exploring.

    [43] Apparently, quite arbitrarily. The “making of” featurette reveals that Tom Neyman (The Master) was also the production designer; he just happened to have a whole load of hand sculptures, since, as restorer Solovey says, dead pan, he had entered an artistic phase in which he was exploring the essence of hands. It was he (Neyman says) who suggested one day “Why don’t we just call this “Manos: The Hands of Fate.” But is not the theme of Manos that there are no “accidents”?

    [44] Did Warren anticipate the practice of “fisting,” which Edmund White called “the only new sexual act invented in recorded history”?

    [45] At least one hand is imbedded in a block of stone, thus literally “ithyphallic.”

    [46] “It’s like having Joe Cocker as your bellhop” (MST3k). Apart from being constantly high, John Reynolds was literally saddled with some kind of wire contraptions on his lower legs; people have speculated that he’s a satyr, or goat-man, but Tom Neyman, the production designer, again reveals that they, like the hands, were just some stuff he had lying around.

    [47] Neyman designed this himself, and his (real) wife sewed it, but he say that it was director Warren who insisted on his doing this over and over.

    [48] Torgo presumably heads for “the crossroads” where it was previously said the nearest phone is; this explains Michael’s curious initial idea of “hid[ing] out in the desert until someone comes to help.” The crossroad symbolism is obvious (the warp and woof of material elements) and it is from here that Torgo, like the initiate who has become the Realized Man, will ascend. See “The Corner at the Center of the World” in The Eldritch Evola, op. cit.

    [49] Wikipedia, here [30].

    [50] See Nicholas Harnoncourt’s remarks quoted in the liner notes to Telefunken’s Bach 2000 anniversary sampler disc (Teldec, 1999).

    [51] Or not: “Manos: The Hands of Fate is generally believed to be in the public domain because director Hal Warren failed to include a copyright symbol in the film (in the US in the 1960s this was enough to disqualify a film for copyright). When news broke of Solovey’s restoration, the son of Hal Warren, Joe Warren, started exploring the possibility that the film was in fact not in the public domain. Joe Warren discovered in 2013 that the script had been copyrighted, and he believes this means that the film is also copyrighted. However, no precedent exists for this case so the legal status of the film is uncertain. The release of the restored film is going ahead in spite of this.” — Wikipedia, here [31].

    [52] What with “manos” = hands, the title sequence subtly recalls the equally accidental doubling of the Larry Buchanan opus Attack of the Eye Creatures; as the MST crew says, “They just . . . didn’t . . . care.”

    [53] According to the commentary track, the road is, in fact, called Scenic Drive.

    [54] “Will I have a bad rep?” is a line suggested by Tom Servo as the teenage girl confronts the highway cops.

    [55] “Investigator Graham interests me. Very purposeful looking.” — Manhunter. “I like you, Tony, there is no lying in you.” — Scarface.

    [56] A sentiment echoed by Bob Burns in his Beast interview: “All films are interesting . . . It was a film, it did get made. . . . I think there’s a place for every movie that’s been made . . . It has a place. I’m not sure what that place is, but it has a place. I don’t think it should be forgotten.” And Larry Blamire concurs “Every movie is important to see, even the miserably bad ones.”

    [57] “Our auteur, ladies and gentlemen!” exclaims Crow as Coleman Francis sits down on the floor of a “Cuban”jail and spreads his legs wide in Red Zone Cuba (Episode 621).

    [58] “Say, I knew sex was corny, but who knew corn could be so sexy?” Another painful bit of “humor” from The Starfighters, delivered by the future Congressman Bob “B-1”Dornan.

    [59] “What’s a neophyte?” (MST3k, The Starfighters).

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Why I Write
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]1,537 words

    Why do I write movie and television reviews from a White Nationalist perspective? It’s complicated.

    First and foremost, I write because I love film. I think that film is the realization of Richard Wagner’s idea of the “complete work of art” (Gesamtkunstwerk), a form of art that incorporates all other art forms: music, dance, acting, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. Film better realizes Wagner’s ambitions than opera, since film can show things that opera merely tells.

    By integrating so many art forms, film can communicate more, and more deeply, to more people, than any single art form. (The same is true of television. The screen is just smaller.) I loved film long before I became a White Nationalist, and I had been intending to write a book on David Lynch before I had my political awakening.

    Second, I write because movies are a force. They are the greatest tool ever invented for shaping people’s ideas and imaginations. In the right hands, they can be a force for good. In the wrong hands, they are a force for evil. Unfortunately, the film industry in the United States and Europe is overwhelmingly controlled by an alien and hostile people, the Jews.

    Jews use movies as a tool to promote ideas and values that are destructive of my race and civilization: race-mixing and multiculturalism, white guilt and self-hatred, feminism and emasculation, the valorization of Jews and non-whites, etc. Film reviews are one way that I can fight back.

    But I am often asked, “If the movies are full of anti-white propaganda, why not just boycott them altogether—and encourage others to do so as well? If you believe that Jews are using movies and television as tools of genocide against our race, then it is wrong to watch them, encourage others to watch them, or give the people behind them a single dime.” I reject this argument for three reasons.

    (A) A complete boycott of movies and TV would be a quixotic and futile gesture. Boycotts only work if there are numerous participants who can monitor each other to enforce compliance. If I boycotted movies and TV, I would be the only one. Nobody would join me, and if anyone did join, they would cheat. They would enjoy warm feelings of righteousness for a few minutes, then reach for the remote.

    (B) Moreover, movies and television are so much a part of people’s lives that any White Nationalist who seriously attempted to boycott them would end up even more socially isolated and alienated than is normal for our people. Socializing with friends and family often involves watching TV and movies, or at least discussing them.

    There’s also a larger point here: We cannot change the world by disengaging from it. We need to engage it and turn it in our direction. If we want to make a difference, we cannot retreat from the world to preserve our purity. We need to find a way of being in the world, but not of it.

    (C) Boycotting TV and movies is throwing away a golden opportunity to reach our people. The film, television, and advertising industries comprise a vast number of highly intelligent, creative individuals with many billions of dollars of capital at their disposal, with which they create a 24/7 matrix of genocidal anti-white propaganda. White Nationalists cannot compete with that. Sure, we can dream of having our own mass media someday. But that will be after the revolution, not before. So what do we do in the meantime?

    We can’t get our people to turn off the propaganda. We can’t create anywhere enough of our own television and movie propaganda to counter the establishment’s. But we can teach our people to see through the propaganda. And all it takes is a few perceptive and talented writers, the cost of Netflix and a few movie tickets, and a few dollars a month to host a website. Yet for that small investment, we can negate the propaganda churned out by legions of enemies with billions in capital. This is asymmetrical cultural warfare at its best. Our power is limited only by our readership. But on the web, that can grow very quickly.

    Furthermore, I don’t just talk about specific movies and TV shows. I also illustrate the general principles of anti-white propaganda, teaching my readers how to decode propaganda in general. This has two profound effects.

    (1) Whenever a brainwashed person is exposed to propaganda, it reinforces the establishment message. However, when we teach people to see through propaganda, then each new exposure reinforces our message instead. Imagine a young man who stumbles across one of my reviews because he is reading up on a movie he wants to see. He might like my interpretation or hate it. He might even reject my claims about the propaganda content of the film. But if he is bright, he will carry away a template for viewing other films, and he will begin to see the same patterns again and again. Gradually, the establishment’s power over his mind will fade, and the nagging little voice of Trevor Lynch will get louder and louder.

    (2) When people learn to see through anti-white propaganda, they are often shocked by its omnipresence. It is one thing to see propaganda here and there. It is another thing to see it everywhere. Even I am still shocked when I visit friends who have cable. The anti-white message is everywhere: in every cooking program, every cute animal show, every house makeover program. You can’t escape it, and that’s no accident. When you see the omnipresence of the lie, you have a concrete experience of the system’s totalitarian nature and genocidal intent.

    There is, however, a sense in which I boycott television, and I recommend others do so as well. I don’t watch broadcast television, and I refuse to pay for cable. So I don’t watch commercials, and the only TV series I see are downloaded or on DVD. I don’t like being “programmed.” My slogan is “Program yourself.” And I just don’t want to spend the money.

    It astonishes me how much money White Nationalists pay to people who hate them in order to have toxic propaganda piped into their homes. It is even more shocking when you compare your monthly cable bill to your monthly donations to Counter-Currents or other pro-white websites, where people are actually fighting against the lies. So if you feel the need to boycott someone, cancel your cable and subscribe to a monthly donation [2] to Counter-Currents instead. Don’t be the sort of person who pays to be poisoned but counts on the antidote to be free.

    I don’t write reviews just because I want to pan bad movies. I also want to praise good ones. And from a White Nationalist point of view, there are a lot of good movies out there.

    The best movies are what I call the Goebbels Awards laureates. These are movies made by mainstream modern directors that Joseph Goebbels would not change a frame of. These include The Lord of the Rings [3] trilogy, Gangs of New York [4], A History of Violence [5], Miller’s Crossing, Cabaret, and Quiz Show.

    Of course, most good movies that are useful from a White Nationalist perspective are also flawed, some of them slightly (like Fight Club or The Dark Knight [6]), some of them deeply (like Pulp Fiction [7] and The Matrix [8]). It often takes some adroit thinking to separate the good elements from the bad.

    But the potential rewards are immense. Many White Nationalists justifiably lament the decline of education and rampant cultural illiteracy. People used to learn Latin, but now they devote their brain power to memorizing sports statistics. People used to read Plato and Shakespeare, but now they stare at shining screens. Kids today know more about Batman than George Washington, more about the Battle of Helm’s Deep than the Battle of Lepanto, more about Middle Earth than the Middle Ages. How can reactionary old cranks live in the past if nobody knows anything about it?

    Now, I would like nothing better than to write essays about Plato, Nietzsche, and Evola for the rest of my life. And I would be doing just that, if my race were not being marched into oblivion. I want to fight, and that means I need to communicate. So I stopped lamenting other people’s cultural illiteracy and started correcting my own: my pop-cultural illiteracy. Because there is no more powerful medium than film at implanting images in people’s minds, and if we know those images, we can use them to communicate our ideas. And as I have shown, one can use Pulp Fiction [7]to teach Plato, Batman Begins [9] and The Dark Knight [6] to teach Nietzsche and Evola, etc.

    As a writer, editor, businessman, and community organizer, I have to divide my time finely and spread myself pretty thin. But if I could delegate some of my jobs to others so I could focus full time on just one thing, I would write movie reviews. Not because it would be the most personally fulfilling, but because there is nothing I can do for our cause that is more effective at unplugging our people from the Matrix [8] and showing them the path toward the White Republic.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • American Renaissance Conference 2015: Seeking the Spirit of Our People
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    2,409 words

    [1]

    John William Waterhouse, Destiny, 1900

    Last Friday my colleague and I flew down to Nashville, rented a car, and drove out to Montgomery Bell State Park to attend the 2015 American Renaissance (AmRen) conference. My colleague, who went to the conference all four times it was held at this scenic venue, commented that making this journey is starting to feel like a ritual for him. Although, I only attended the last three conferences, I tend to agree, and perhaps having steadfast and reliable rituals is a good thing, but a conference concerning our movement should never become too familiar or repetitious. We need growth and development to show that we are alive and thriving. 

    There were, in fact, a number of indications of growth and development at this year’s conference. In terms of demographics I noticed several differences. For one thing, I heard a rumor that the venue was sold out, which I don’t recall happening previously. Second, while I saw many familiar faces, there were also many new faces, including quite a few young people in their early 20s. Third, compared to past years there seemed to be more women in attendance, which perhaps portends a change in cultural consciousness. Lastly there seemed to be fewer Jews at the conference than in past years as well as a greater openness to discussing the Jewish Question (not necessarily from the podium, mind you). Granted, I am not a seasoned AmRen conference attendee, so my sample size for comparison is relatively small.

    The content of the speaker presentations demonstrated a newly emerging consensus regarding the strategies necessary to secure the survival of the white race in America, namely that there will not be a renaissance of America as it once existed. The American system is like a sinking ship. Some might argue it would be the honorable thing to go down with the ship, but white people have not been the captain for some time. We are the victims of a mutiny. So perhaps it is best to salvage what we can and start building a life raft. This was the attitude that I sensed, and of course there was some push back from more conservative types. However, my purpose in going to the conference was not to argue over possible future scenarios, but rather to realign my compass so as to better search for dry land. In this regard, much of what I heard from both the speakers and the conferees has been educational to say the least.

    In terms of oratorical skill, including both thematic organization and clear delivery, I rate the speeches given by Richard Spencer and Sam Dickson as the best. Both were conceptual in nature and dealt with the psychology of our enemy but examined it from different angles. Mr. Spencer was the second speaker on Saturday morning. His talk was entitled “Why Do They Hate Us?” and focused on the guilt complex of our own kindred. “Before we have a leftist problem, a black problem, or a Jewish problem,” he said, “we have a white problem.” Our greatest enemies are those who should be our allies but have a pathological aversion to any declaration of positive white identity.

    Mr. Spencer traced this pathology back to the emergence of Christian morality, which subverted the Nietzschean “Master morality” of our ancestors. When pressed on this point by some defenders of Christianity during the question and answer session, he conceded that the current problem we face is a post-Christian one. This post-speech addendum perhaps muddled his point which is that our people cannot overcome this guilt complex without addressing the flaws of Christian morality. Spencer was not arguing for abandonment of Christian morality and a return to Master morality, but rather a reconciliation of the best aspects of the two so that we can “rise and greet the dawn with a clear conscience.”

    As always, Sam Dickson was the final speaker at the conference. I heard several people comment that his speech, entitled “A Benediction for Heretics” was the best they had ever heard from him, and I must to concur. Sometimes, Mr. Dickson seems to ramble a bit, but this year he was on point. He demonstrated how our enemies claim to be free from ideology yet filter all information they encounter through an ideology of freedom. While freedom is not necessarily bad, once it becomes tied to an ideology that views it as an unquestionably good thing, other goods things, like truth, tend to diminish. Our movement is considered heretical because we question the notion that freedom is the highest good.

    I should note that Jared Taylor’s speech, entitled “What Is Wrong With Our Country?” was also superbly delivered. Yet I felt I had heard this same speech from Mr. Taylor before. It included many of the key points he has made in the past. Essentially this: the correlation between race and IQ explains so much about the racial tensions in our society, and those who disagree with us on this point have such irreconcilable differences in their perception of reality that separation is the only logical solution. While I have heard these points before, I never tire of hearing Mr. Taylor speak, and his ideas are worth repeating, especially considering the number of new people in attendance at the conference.

    Without question, video blogger RamZPaul delivered the most entertaining speech of the conference on Saturday night after the banquet. It was entitled “The Red Pill,” a reference to the film The Matrix, but was mainly about rat experiments conducted by John B. Calhoun in the 1950s and 1960s. Calhoun observed erratic behavior among rats given the provisions necessary to survive in overpopulated situations. The rats ceased to behave like rats and eventually lost the will to live. RamZPaul discussed how humans have a greater capacity to adapt to such situations, yet we react similarly to rats when our “conceptual space” becomes overpopulated, which is what happens when diverse groups of people with contradictory life ways are forced to associate with one another. Despite the seriousness of the subject matter, his talk was filled with jokes and was incredibly hilarious. He’s like Bill Nye the Science Guy, except he is a Nationalist Guy. Be sure to watch this talk when it is posted on YouTube.

    The centerpiece of the conference was a debate on whether white survival can be secured using the system already in place. John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow argued that it can be, while Richard Spencer and Sam Dickson argued against this possibility. The two sides seemed to be coming from places that did not really touch upon each other’s arguments. I found myself agreeing with Derbyshire and Brimelow that using the system to preserve white survival is certainly possible in theory, but also agreeing with Spencer and Dickson that it is very unlikely. The flaw in the affirmative argument is not just that it relies upon unforeseen alterations in the current trajectory of the system, but also that if such an unforeseen circumstance were to occur, then it would only provide a brief reprieve while leaving the inherently degrading democratic system intact, which would eventually result in a resurgence of the same problems we are facing today.

    Mr. Derbyshire made what seemed to be a false choice argument that the only two options are to reform the system by working within it, or to engage in a revolution, which he characterized as necessarily atrocious, likening it to the bloodiest Communist cultural revolutions of the past. Is there really no middle way, a path that, while not entirely bloodless, would also not be remembered as an atrocity by our descendants? There very well could be. It is fruitless to dwell upon the unforeseen possibilities of the future and instead set goals for the present based upon our understanding of how the American democratic system can never lead to a lasting favorable result.

    One useful thing Mr. Derbyshire stated to this end is that politics follows culture and not the other way around. So we must focus our efforts on transforming culture. This is the metapolitical strategy. On Sunday morning, before Sam Dickson gave his talk there was a time of remembrance for the late Sam Francis, who passed away ten years ago. A montage of video clips from his AmRen conference speeches was screened. What stuck out to me from these video clips was a single sentence, Sam Francis’ response to a question on how we proceed: “The first thing we need to do is build white racial consciousness.”

    No strategy, be it implemented within the system or outside of it will be successful without the building of white racial consciousness. Thus, in terms of usefulness, the two most important presentations at the conference were given by the speakers from Europe, Konstantins Pupurs of the “All For Latvia” party, and Matthew Tait, a former member of the British National Party. Both of these speakers offered practical advice for advancing the idea of positive ethnic identity.

    Mr. Pupurs discussed his personal history as a dissident in the Soviet Union, an interesting story, but what was more important was his description of the activities of the All For Latvia party. The party has taken on the task of creating new traditions for the Latvian people. Most notably, they hold a flag rally on Latvian Legion Day, March 16th, when the Soviet assault began against Latvia in 1944. Pupurs stated that this day represents the day when Latvians stood up against their would-be oppressors but is also thought of as the day they lost their independence.

    In addition to holidays, All For Latvia educates young people in folkways, specifically song and dance, which have been passed down since before the introduction of Christianity to Latvian culture. These activities are designed to arm young Latvians with a sense of identity to protect them from the introduction of destructive and corrupting globalist influences. As a result, the average age range of the All For Latvia party is between 20 to 40 years old.

    Similarly, Mr. Tait, the first speaker of the conference on Saturday morning, described his personal involvement in British politics and the current political scene in the United Kingdom. The story of the BNP’s rise in popularity and steady decline provides important lessons, perhaps the most important of which is that a movement cannot solely be defined by its leader. In this case, Nick Griffin was an irreplaceable figure in the BNP, and because others were kept from flourishing, the party could not sustain itself. At the same time, Tait asserted that “our message is our messenger.” We must have excellent leaders whose skills in conveying the message are appropriately refined.

    Mr. Tait has an almost spiritual view of politics. In the beginning of his talk he spoke of how he had seen people inspired by the truth of the nationalist movement become transformed, overcoming obstacles in their personal lives at the behest of a higher sense of purpose. He stated that people are hungry for a national identity and when they feel that it can be rekindled they are willing to give much more than they have. Toward the end of his talk he advised that we reject the complacency of a liberal way of life and think of our movement like we might think of church, meeting at least once a week, twice a week if possible. He advised creating small groups of people who live within an hour from one another to best accomplish this. He likened the spirit of our people to the Holy Spirit that Christians offer themselves to be filled with.

    One tradition that has been consistent at all of the AmRen conferences I’ve attended is the Saturday night party held at one of the park villas after the events of the day are over. This is the best time to meet people and gather in a festive kind of fellowship. I went hoping to find out how to make the small localized community groups described by Matthew Tait into a reality. It occurred to me that there were representatives from many well-known nationalist web sites—the primary media outlets of our movement—including American Renaissance, VDare.com, Radix Journal, the Traditionalist Youth Network, The Right Stuff, and I believe there was someone from The Political Cesspool present, although I didn’t speak with him. These media outlets have far larger audiences than those who can make it to an annual conference. Can this larger audience be connected together and formed into groups at the local level?

    The answer to this question is still not clear to me. It seems that certain people must act as ambassadors of white identity for their local community. These ambassadors must prove themselves as trustworthy. They must develop systems by which the larger audience of our media outlets can connect to them safely, and as their local community grows they must also find ways to protect the individuals who have joined the cause.

    What happens when these local groups meet together? They should explore strategies to expand white racial consciousness, both overtly and covertly. They should create new traditions and bring a sacred seriousness to old traditions. They should support and encourage individuals to surpass their personal flaws. New problems will always arise, but they should find ways to plan for these obstacles and ensure that the group is capable of sustaining itself. They should act according the virtues that we understand as vital in creating a better society, which is to say that they should reject equality and democracy as a part of their procedure and advance aristocratic values to groom their members for leadership.

    These are the kinds of ideas that I went to the AmRen conference eager to discuss. For the most part, I do not think my efforts were successful. While I did learn something from the talks and made a number of contacts with people who will be helpful, many other people I spoke with seemed content with their internet-based activism. I spoke to several people involved with web sites who did not seem to understand what I was proposing. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this since I am an unseasoned conferee among those who have been involved in the movement for many more years than me. Still, I sense a yearning to go beyond web sites and conferences. It is only a matter of time before this movement actually does.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • La psychologie de l’apostasie
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    [1]

    Il Sodoma, « Le martyre de Saint Sébastien », v. 1525

    3,077 words

    English original here [2]

    La renonciation [3] de Derek Black au Nationalisme Blanc soulève des questions de plus grande importance concernant la manière dont les gens forment et rejettent des croyances. Il y a fondamentalement deux sortes de croyances : celles dont vous pensez qu’elles sont vraies en vous basant sur la réalité et la raison, et celles dont vous pensez qu’elles sont vraies en vous basant sur les opinions des autres gens.

    Si vous basez vos croyances sur la réalité et la raison, alors vous en changerez quand de nouveaux faits seront mis en lumière ou quand de meilleurs arguments seront présentés. Par exemple, j’étais un libéral classique, mais le libéralisme classique n’accorde aucune importance aux différences raciales et culturelles, et quand je compris que celles-ci étaient plus importantes que la liberté individuelle et l’économie capitaliste, je rejetai le libéralisme classique comme étant une subversion des valeurs supérieures.

    Pourquoi je suis un Nationaliste Blanc

    Je suis un Nationaliste Blanc parce que je crois que la survie de ma race est menacée par l’actuel système politique et économique, qui apprécie les valeurs individualistes, capitalistes, libérales, multiculturelles et multiraciales. Je vois que ces valeurs « aveugles à la race » et « neutres envers la race » sont incompatibles avec la préservation et l’épanouissement de ma race. La race est réelle. Le conflit racial est réel. Les autres races ne renonceront pas à la compétition raciale en faveur de l’universalisme aveugle à la race. Et toute race qui ne prendra pas parti pour son propre camp dans un conflit racial n’a pas d’avenir.

    Je me préoccupe de préserver ma race simplement parce que c’est la mienne, parce que c’est ma famille élargie. Je souhaite aussi préserver ma race parce que je crois que c’est elle qui  approche de plus près les idéaux esthétiques et moraux qui me sont chers, des idéaux qui peuvent être spécifiques à une race mais qui semblent être universels parce qu’ils sont chéris par d’autres races aussi, dans la mesure où elles le peuvent. Finalement, je veux préserver ma race parce que je crois que la biologie a un énorme impact sur la culture, donc beaucoup de mes valeurs culturelles, politiques et scientifiques les plus chères n’auraient pas pu apparaître sans les Blancs et ne seront pas appréciées ou préservées sans les Blancs.

    Parce que la survie de ma race est menacée par l’actuel système politique et économique, je crois que nous avons besoin d’un nouveau système qui place la race au centre des priorités politiques – pas la liberté individuelle, le capitalisme, ou la tolérance et le pluralisme, qui sont des valeurs authentiques, mais des valeurs inférieures à la préservation de la race qui les crée et qui les soutient. Je crois que chaque race et chaque peuple distinct devrait avoir une nation ou des nations à elle/lui, dans laquelle elle/il pourra vivre en accord avec son identité et ses valeurs propres et rechercher son propre destin, sans interférence de la part d’autres races et peuples. Finalement, je crois que le principal ennemi de l’idée du nationalisme pour chaque nation est la communauté juive organisée, qui promeut des valeurs destructrices de la race pour les autres sociétés, comme instrument de guerre ethnique.

    Le cas Derek Black

    Je pense que Derek Black croyait plus ou moins aux mêmes choses que moi. Parce que je tente de baser mes vues sur la réalité et la raison, j’étais naturellement curieux d’entendre pourquoi Derek Black avait rejeté le Nationalisme Blanc. Avait-il de nouveaux arguments auxquels je ne pouvais pas répondre ? Avait-il découvert des faits jusqu’ici inconnus sur la race, la question juive, et le système politique actuel ? Avec ces questions à l’esprit, je fis avidement le tour des rapports d’information, mais je fus déçu.

    Derek Black a apparemment rejeté le Nationalisme Blanc non à cause de nouvelles vérités mais à cause d’anciens mensonges : de la pure langue de bois gauchiste qui rejette la biologie et l’inégalité biologique et explique l’inégalité des performances de groupe en terme d’injustice sociale, ce qui en Amérique signifie injustice blanche, que les Blancs peuvent expier par la discrimination positive, l’immigration non-blanche, et toutes les autres formes de dépossession blanche et d’auto-abaissement.

    Beaucoup de gens se sont interrogés sur les motifs de Derek Black pour abandonner le Nationalisme Blanc en faveur de ce genre de bouillie. Est-ce la pression de ses camarades ? Une rébellion contre ses parents ? L’amour ? La perversion ? Le chantage ? La folie ? Etait-il fatigué de l’aliénation et voulait-il être réintégré dans la Matrice [1] ?

    Je suis moins intéressé par les motifs particuliers de Derek Black, ou par le cas Derek Black en général, que par ce qui rendrait possible pour quiconque d’abandonner la vérité pour n’importe quelle raison. Deux facteurs me frappent par leur pertinence, le premier ayant à voir avec la base de la croyance, le second avec la force de caractère.

    Vérité objective contre opinion commune

    Les gens qui basent leurs croyances sur la raison et la réalité n’en changeront généralement que si on leur donne des faits meilleurs et des arguments meilleurs. Les gens qui basent leurs croyances sur les opinions des autres s’en tiennent généralement aux croyances des gens autour d’eux, particulièrement des gens les plus importants autour d’eux. Quand on grandit, les croyances sont formées principalement par les parents et d’autres figures d’autorité. Quand on prend de l’âge, les croyances sont formées principalement par ses camarades. Derek Black peut avoir adopté le Nationalisme Blanc simplement parce que c’était la vision du monde de son père, à qui il voulait plaire. Lorsqu’il alla à l’école, il trouva un nouveau groupe politiquement correct de camarades et de figures d’autorité, et il a pu changer d’opinions pour s’adapter à eux.

    Si c’est le cas, alors nous pouvons dire qu’il est possible de rejeter le Nationalisme Blanc en faveur du Politiquement Correct – la vérité en faveur du mensonge – si l’on n’a jamais vraiment pensé que le Nationalisme Blanc était vrai avant tout – si l’on n’a jamais vraiment compris que vérité signifie correspondance avec la réalité, pas un simple accord avec les autres gens. Je ne crois pas qu’il soit possible de rejeter la vérité en faveur de mensonges si l’on croit vraiment que les vérités sont basées sur la réalité objective et que les mensonges ne le sont pas. Mais si on adopte simplement des croyances pour plaire aux autres gens, alors la vérité et le mensonge n’ont aucun sens objectif. Ce sont seulement des manières différentes dont les gens expriment l’approbation et la désapprobation. Alors il devient possible d’adopter et de rejeter des croyances radicalement différentes à tout moment, en se basant sur l’audience et les buts du moment.

    Bien sûr, il y a deux genres d’apostasie : l’un dans lequel on change réellement ses croyances, l’autre dans lequel on y renonce seulement verbalement sous la contrainte sans changer ses convictions intérieures. Le premier genre peut être entièrement expliqué par un conformisme invétéré, mais pas le second. Des facteurs moraux entrent en jeu.

    De plus, personne n’est entièrement indifférent à la vérité objective. Elle compte quand vous vérifiez votre livre de comptes, ou si vous êtes faussement accusé d’un crime. Mais quand on en vient aux opinions morales et politiques que l’on doit professer pour être considéré comme sympa ou éclairé ou simplement centriste, leur lien avec le monde réel est surtout nébuleux. D’une part, les pires conséquences du multiculturalisme se trouvent loin dans le futur. Et puisqu’à présent la plupart des libéraux occupent des bulles de prospérité et de sécurité coupées de la réalité – campus et villes universitaires, lieux communautaires, riches enclaves urbaines et de banlieue – ils sont coupés des aspects négatifs de la diversité et sont même en position d’en profiter, financièrement et en terme de statut, en s’humiliant devant les idoles noires de la culpabilité blanche. Ainsi, pour la plupart des gens, les opinions politiquement correctes sont entièrement séparées de la réalité objective concernant leurs motifs et leurs conséquences. Elles servent plutôt de signes bon marché de statut, de manières faciles de rechercher l’approbation sociale.

    Plus vous êtes proche de la réalité, et plus vous devez rendre compte des conséquences objectives de vos actions, plus l’importance de la vérité objective est grande pour déterminer votre système de croyance. Plus vous êtes éloigné de la réalité et moins vous devez rendre compte des conséquences objectives de vos actions et croyances, plus l’importance de l’approbation sociale est grande pour sélectionner vos opinions.

    La question du caractère

    La force de caractère se présente comme suit. Tous les êtres humains valorisent la vérité et les bonnes opinions de leurs compagnons dans une certaine mesure. Mais ces valeurs sont souvent en conflit. La force de caractère est requise pour rester attaché au plus grand bien. La vérité du Nationalisme Blanc, bien sûr, est plus importante que l’approbation d’une société décadente basée sur des mensonges et tournée vers la destruction. Cela ne signifie pas que vous êtes un lâche si vous choisissez de ne pas discuter du Nationalisme Blanc là où ce n’est pas socialement approprié (au repas de Thanksgiving) ou là où cela a peu de chances de produire un effet positif (avec votre patron, ou votre député, ou votre dentiste juif). Mais s’il est obligé de choisir publiquement entre le Nationalisme Blanc et le Politiquement Correct, l’homme de caractère choisira la vérité de préférence aux mensonges.

    Bien sûr, beaucoup de gens ont de bonnes raisons de vouloir éviter d’avoir à faire ce choix. Ils ont besoin de l’approbation de leur famille, amis, collègues, employeur et clients pour mener une bonne vie. Certains d’entre eux souhaitent creuser dans le système, gagner autant de richesse et d’influence que possible, et utiliser cela pour faire avancer notre cause. Ce sont des agents secret [4]. Donc ils gardent leurs idées secrètes. Et le reste d’entre nous doit respecter cela. Si le système était capable de détruire socialement et économiquement chaque Nationaliste Blanc, il serait plus fort et notre mouvement plus faible.

    J’ai dit que si le Nationalisme Blanc veut devenir une force, nous devons suivre deux règles de base [5] :

    1. Chacun doit choisir son propre degré d’implication dans le Nationalisme Blanc et d’expression publique pour le défendre.
    2. Tous les autres doivent respecter ces décisions, tout en maintenant, bien sûr, que la position la plus admirable est celle du Nationaliste Blanc pleinement explicite et fier.

    En particulier, chacun doit respecter l’anonymat des autres Nationalistes Blancs. Quiconque « donne » des camarades Nationalistes Blancs pour les exposer à des harcèlements du système devrait subir la mort sociale de la mise à l’écart. De même, tout Nationaliste Blanc qui par manque de mesures de sécurité permet que des informations personnelles sur les Nationalistes Blancs tombent entre les mains des hackers « antifa » ou de cinglés du mouvement ayant un passé bien établi de « donneur », devrait également subir la mort sociale.

    En échange de ces bons procédés de la part des Nationalistes Blancs explicites, j’ai demandé aux Nationalistes Blancs implicites de renvoyer l’ascenseur comme suit :

    1. Cessez de vous plaindre des gens excentriques et marginaux qui sont prêts à être des Nationalistes Blancs explicites. Il est plus facile d’être courageux quand vous avez moins à perdre. Le courage et les principes sont souvent associés aux personnalités irritables et excentriques.
    2. Cessez de répéter des histoires horribles et des scénarios de catastrophe qui rendent plus difficile pour les Nationalistes Blancs de devenir ou de rester explicites.

    Que faire si vous être « donné » ?

    Un autre petit conseil pour les Nationalistes Blancs qui souhaitent demeurer anonymes ou silencieux : si vous êtes « donné » – que ce soit par vous-même, par un groupe comme le Southern Poverty Law Center, ou par un renégat dans nos propres rangs – ne vous excusez pas, ne capitulez pas et n’allez pas ramper pour obtenir l’absolution de nos ennemis. Cela ne vous aidera pas et n’aidera pas la cause.

    Ne vous focalisez pas sur la manière dont le fait d’être exposé comme un Nationaliste Blanc va ruiner votre crédibilité. Essayez plutôt de contrôler les dégâts. Tentez de maintenir votre crédibilité et votre stature morale en ne vous excusant pas et en ne vous dégonflant pas. Ensuite, pensez à la manière dont vous pouvez prêter un peu de votre dignité et de votre crédibilité à nos idées.

    Ne comptez pas les « amis » que vous perdez. Ils sont partis de toute façon. Capituler et ramper ne les ramènera pas. Cela ne fera que dégoûter et démoraliser les gens du mouvement qui auraient autrement de la sympathie pour vos épreuves. Donc comptez plutôt les amis que vous gagnerez en ne capitulant pas.

    Ne vous laissez pas intoxiquer par les cinglés du web. La communauté nationaliste blanche est remplie de gens hautement intelligents, accomplis, moralement honnêtes, et neurologiquement normaux. Beaucoup des gens les plus remarquables que j’ai rencontrés sont des Nationalistes Blancs. Vous devriez être fier de les compter parmi vos amis et vous devriez avoir honte de les déshonorer par votre apostasie. De plus, en-dehors du mouvement, il y a encore des gens qui admirent le caractère moral, même chez des gens avec qui ils sont en désaccord.

    Il est facile de comprendre et même de pardonner un Galilée, qui rendit un hommage de pure forme aux dogmes de l’Eglise lorsqu’il fut menacé de torture et de mort. Mais les Nationalistes Blancs aujourd’hui ne sont menacés de rien de pire que la désapprobation sociale et la discrimination à l’emploi. De plus, l’Eglise avait le pouvoir de forcer Galilée à l’apostasie en partie à cause d’une longue litanie de martyrs chrétiens qui avaient fait un choix différent : ils préférèrent la mort à l’apostasie, ou même à un simple hommage de pure forme à des idées qu’ils considéraient comme fausses. Toutes choses étant égales, le camp qui est prêt à combattre le plus durement et sacrifier le plus – même la vie elle-même – gagnera.

    En fin de compte, le Nationalisme Blanc ne gagnera pas tant que nous ne pourrons pas inspirer les gens à préférer la mort au déshonneur – tant que nous ne pourrons pas inspirer les gens à se sacrifier pour notre survie raciale. Les gens qui préfèrent subir le déshonneur pour préserver leur statut économique et la bonne opinion de complets étrangers sont des esclaves naturels. Le système peut facilement les contrôler. Mais il ne peut pas contrôler les gens qui préféreraient mourir plutôt que se soumettre. Il les craint, parce qu’un homme qui a vaincu la peur de la mort a vaincu toutes les autres peurs, et il peut inspirer d’autres gens à faire la même chose.

    Les Nationalistes Blancs doivent donc rendre les plus grands honneurs aux Nationalistes Blancs explicites qui démontrent qu’ils sont prêts à tout donner à la cause en vivant une vie de guerrier et en mourant d’une mort de martyr.

    Les plus grands honneurs sont aussi dus aux Nationalistes Blancs explicites qui combattent pour notre cause mais qui n’ont jamais l’occasion d’affronter le choix définissant absolu du martyre.

    Les Nationalistes Blancs comme Charles Krafft [6], qui tiennent bon quand le système les dénonce et les cible pour la destruction économique et sociale, méritent aussi de grands honneurs.

    Les Nationalistes Blancs explicites, en retour, doivent respecter ceux qui choisissent de demeurer des agents secrets à l’intérieur du système, particulièrement ceux qui donnent un appui actif aux Nationalistes Blancs explicites.

    Donnez le bon enseignement à vos enfants

    Avec l’apostasie de Derek Black – et le cas assez similaire de Lynx et Lamb Gaede du groupe  Prussian Blue – il y a un facteur atténuant significatif. Ils furent mis dans des rôles publics dans le Nationalisme Blanc alors qu’ils étaient enfants. Ils n’ont pas pu déterminer eux-mêmes leur propre niveau d’expression publique et d’implication. Leurs parents jouèrent aussi un grand rôle. Il était donc parfaitement naturel, lorsqu’ils grandirent, de décider eux-mêmes de l’implication qu’ils désiraient, et de revoir toutes ces questions. On pourrait se quereller sur la manière dont ils en arrivèrent là, particulièrement dans le cas de Derek Black. Mais en principe, je pense qu’ils ont le droit de décider de quitter le mouvement et de mener des vies privées, autant que cela est possible.

    Je pense qu’il est immoral pour des parents d’impliquer leurs enfants publiquement dans le Nationalisme Blanc, de même qu’il est immoral de les impliquer dans des spectacles d’enfants, de présentation de mode d’enfants, et de concours de beauté d’enfants. Ces scènes sont psychologiquement stressantes, même pour les adultes les plus forts. Pour les enfants, dont le caractère et les goûts sont encore en cours de développement, ils peuvent être psychologiquement écrasants. Tout cela rappelle une autre décision épouvantable imposée aux enfants par les parents : la circoncision infantile [7]. Dans les deux cas, une partie de l’enfant – ne serait-ce que son innocence, son intimité, son enfance – est coupée et rejetée par ses parents pour le consacrer à leurs idoles.

    Je ne souscris cependant pas à l’idée commune que ce serait une perte de temps de tenter de transmettre ses valeurs à ses enfants, parce qu’ils ne feront que se « révolter ». Des études empiriques confirment que l’influence la plus puissante sur les valeurs et la vision-du-monde d’un enfant est celle de ses parents. Mais alors pourquoi le mensonge selon lequel il serait futile d’enseigner des valeurs à un enfant est-il si largement diffusé ? Pour que les enfants soient livrés aux écoles et à la culture populaire comme des ardoises vierges prêts pour le lavage de cerveau politiquement correct, qui n’a jamais été dissuadé par l’argument que cela est futile et ne conduira qu’à la révolte.

    * * *

    Le Nationaliste Blanc modèle est une personne dont les convictions sont fondées sur la raison et la réalité et qui a la force de caractère de se lever pour la vérité et de travailler pour le salut de notre race en dépit des pressions sociales et économiques, des menaces de torture et d’emprisonnement, et même d’une mort de martyr ou de guerrier. C’est un idéal héroïque, par lequel nous pouvons nous mesurer et que nous pouvons tenter d’émuler. Le grand problème de notre mouvement est de trouver ou de former des hommes qui font passer la vérité avant l’opinion et la mort avant le déshonneur – des hommes qui soient suffisamment durs pour détruire ce système, pas des faiblards qui ramperont dans la boue devant ses idoles pour protéger leurs cartes de crédit.

    1. Allusion au film The Matrix. (NDT)

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • To Cut Up a Mockingbird: Harper Lee’s Go Set a Watchman
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]6,095 words

    Harper Lee
    Go Set a Watchman: A Novel [2]
    Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2015

    “I almost don’t care what the critics say as long as I can write another one.”[1]

    Mockingbird is a classic, but you’ve probably read it before, and it’s no more relevant to your future legal career than 12 Angry Men is to picking a jury. They’re both realist presentations written through idealist, dramatic glasses.”[2]

    On Friday night, a comedian died in New York. Somebody knows why. Down there, somebody knows . . .

    No, wait, sorry — wrong Watchman, wrong pop culture meme.[3]

    Constant Readers who recall my inability to join the teenage cult of Tolkien will not be surprised to hear that I have never read (Nelle) Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, nor seen the film. It seems to be the sort of pious claptrap that “everyone” reads, and I just can’t stomach.[4]

    In any event, I never read “the original.” For all I know, it may have been “assigned,” but in that case I didn’t read it either — a not infrequent occurrence in my slapdash schooldays.[5]

    Nor can I be bothered to figure out the conflicting, Rashomon-like accounts of just what relation this book bears to the sainted classic.[6]

    Relying on the redoubtable Margot Metroland’s account here of the hidden genesis of Mockingbird,[7] I think we can say that what we have here is close to the original MS Lee submitted, before the editors told her to junk the narrative of present-day, 26-year old Jean Louise, write more about the recollections of 6-year-old Jean (“Scout”) into the main narrative,[8] expand the rape trial into the moral and narrative centerpiece, and for God’s sake cut all the talk about racism, pro and con.

    And I don’t propose to read it now, so here’s your special treat: a review by someone with no preconceived ideas about the story, or vested interest in preserving blessed childhood illusions. And the death of childhood illusions is what the book is about.

    Well, it’s an enjoyable if forgettable read, written with an intelligent though not flashy style. The editors who read this and ordered a complete re-write were, I think, wrong, although with two years on the best seller list, a Pulitzer Prize, and a hit movie, it’s hard to argue with them; perhaps they “sensed” they could make something more out of it. The experience, however, did seem to sour Ms. Lee on the whole writing thing.

    Oh, but then there’s also the horrible “racism” of the first draft. That issue is perhaps best handled while looking at the style itself, the unity of style and message being itself a sign of the talent behind the writing.

    On her first Sunday back in her childhood home, Jean Louise of course attends church with her family. The church organist essays the doxology at a faster, High Church tempo, and the congregation sticks to their lugubrious Southern Baptist rendition. This leads to a stern rebuke from Uncle Jack after services, where we learn that the music director has just got back from choir camp, where the leader — from New Jersey, no less — has given him a whole list of supposed “improvements” for the church’s music.[9] He’s dubious, and the stubborn resistance of even worldly, bachelor aesthete Jack — who drops the Catholic phrase “D. V.” which he glosses for Jean as “God willin’” and seems tailor-made for this kind of “smells and bells” — convinces him he’s right to drop the whole matter.

    It may seem like a delaying tactic — come on, make with the inbred racism already! — but it neatly encapsulates the whole position the South finds itself in — stubbornly resisting “improvement” suggested — or demanded — by the North, in the name of preserving local traditions.[10]

    As we move on, apart from a few flashback sequences that are apparently the origin of the more assertively 1930s content of Mockingbird, we meet various characters in what is to today’s readers now their twenty years later form,[11] and Jean Louise, fresh from another year’s stay in New York,[12] is horrified each time by some new — to her, at least — manifestation of “racism.”

    Aunt Alexandra is a splendid creation, all corsets and scented face powder, the very embodiment of the Southern Way of Life (“They endured” as Faulkner would say).[13] Appropriately, then, she gets to delivery some of Lee’s toughest “racist” lines, as do Scout’s former gal pals.

    “Keeping a nigger happy these days is like catering to a king . . .”

    The men are a different story, weak and temporizing. Uncle Dr. Jack is a bachelor eccentric, living in a literary 19th century of the mind, and delivers a rambling, evasive, analogy-ridden defense that Steve Sailer could put in one sentence: a race is a large extended family that occasionally practices incest. He evidences the “we acknowledge some problems but we’re still proud of our land and its traditions” attitude currently under attack by those banning the Confederate battle flag and digging up the bones of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

    Hank, Jean Louis’ intended, is revealed a monster of social conformity that compares well with Lane, Franny’s obtuse boyfriend in Franny and Zooey. He sullies Jack’s views by adding a strong dollop of Babbitty “get along to go along” but then, like Clarice Starling, he’s only a generation away from trash.[14]

    Finally, she confronts the Big Guy himself, Atticus, her father and, as a result of the subsequent book and film, apparently most of (White) America’s father. And now the book’s big shock: Atticus is a racist!

    At first they reach common ground on rejecting the Court’s judicial overreaching, effectively repealing the 10th Amendment. This, of course, is already enough to sicken today’s Liberal. But what follows will scare the pants off them.

    “Jean Louise,” he said. “Have you ever considered that you can’t have a set of backward people living among people advanced in one kind of civilization and have a social Arcadia?”

    “Let’s look at it this way . . . You realize that our Negro population is backward, don’t you? You will concede that? You realize the full implications of the word ‘backward,’ don’t you? . . . You realize that the vast majority of them here in the South are unable to share fully in the responsibilities of citizenship, and why?”

    “Now think about this. What would happen if all the Negroes in the South were suddenly given full civil rights? I’ll tell you. There’d be another Reconstruction. Would you want your state governments run by people who won’t know how to run ‘em? Do you want this town run by — now wait a minute — Willoughby’s a crook, we know that, but do you know of any Negro who knows as much as Willoughby? Zeebo’d probably be Mayor of Maycomb. Would you want someone of Zeebo’s capability to handle the town’s money? We’re outnumbered, you know . . . They vote in blocs.

    “[T]he Negroes down here are still in their childhood as a people . . . The NAACP doesn’t care whether a Negro . . . tries to learn a trade and stand on his own two feet — oh no, all the NAACP cares about is that man’s vote.”

    And so on. The Guardian, bringing the frisson of distaste one might bring to, say, scraping a squashed raccoon off the driveway, finds the offense of Lee in her recourse to “biological determinism,” not just to account for racism but even for her own superiority, explaining that she was just “born color blind.”[15]

    Readers of Counter-Currents, however, may find all this rather tepid. Atticus is simply what we would today call a “race realist,”[16] with a dash of paternalism thrown in. But as The Guardian sternly advises us, both paternalism and “color-blindness” are badthinking today. To the modern Liberal, the more or less fierce confrontations between the Northernized Scout and her Southern role models are like arguments between the inmates of some racial insane asylum — a rather Southern Gothic notion at that.

    Neither Atticus nor Scout convinces the other, of course, and Uncle Jack is brought back to cobble together a kind of “higher” moral position: take no man as your infallible moral guide, and recognize and honor the human fallibility in all of us.

    The moral, if you will, is not one that will sit well with the Liberal either. Smash your idols? Kill the Buddha on the road? Sounds good, since the Liberal, like the proverbial college sophomore, only imagines smashing his own parents at the Thanksgiving table, not himself; that is, smashing idols by attacking and silencing them, not questioning his own views.

    What does a bigot do when he meets someone who challenges his opinions? He doesn’t give. He stays rigid. Doesn’t even try to listen, just lashes out.

    In short, the Liberal is as bigoted as any Klansman. What Uncle Jack means by tolerance is something rather different:

    “Good grief, baby, people don’t agree with the Klan, but they certainly don’t try to prevent them from puttin’ on sheets and making fools of themselves in public.”

    Well, these days “they” certainly do, most certainly, and that applies to a lot of things Uncle Jack couldn’t imagine anyone being crazy enough to believe could happen, such as flying the state flag, too. After all, some things are Just Wrong and someone — preferably the Government — should Do Something About It; otherwise, you’re As Bad as They Are.

    You could call what Jack and Atticus espouse, and bring Scout back to a grudging acceptance of, Olde Tyme Liberalism, I suppose, just as Atticus calls himself a “Jeffersonian Democrat” although, as Jean Louise points out, he voted for Eisenhower.[17]

    You could also call his views on race “olde tyme Liberalism,” too. Atticus believes that the negro is a childlike race, but he also believes in Progress: the negro can grow into his role in a modern society; the NAACP and the other Liberal busybodies are trying to force not only Southern society but the negro himself into too fast a rate of change. The stir-up negroes are more dissatisfied with their lot than ever, sullen and by turns demanding and ungrateful; a condition easily observed today. The ancient family retainer, Calpurnia, Scout’s surrogate mother, now barely recognizes her, seeing only just another White oppressor.

    If this is indeed what Lee wrote some 50 or 60 years ago, or close to it, and looking at today’s Birmingham, a disaster,[18] or Selma, where a movie celebrating the “victory” of MLK there fifty years ago can’t be shown, since all the movie theaters, along with most every other business, are closed, one can only applaud her prescience.[19]

    But let’s stick with this theme, as the intertwining of theme and style illustrates the perhaps unconsciously subtle style that Lee brings to the novel.

    Those who have made the transition away from the modern dogmas of Liberal goodthinking often use the metaphor, derived from They Live!, of being able to see.[20] And so during their final confrontation, Atticus frequently asks Scout to see, to look around, and to open her eyes. “Let’s look at it this way . . .”

    Scout, as we’ve seen, diagnoses herself as “born color-blind,” which she of course thinks is a good thing, while Atticus tries to convince her that it its, in fact, a handicap.[21]

    “You must see things as they are, as well as they should be.”[22]

    “See” occurs, with varying tenses, dozens of times in the course of the novel,[23] along with synonyms like “look” or “watch.”[24] Indeed, the latter is the chief symbol of the book, occurring in the title and inserted way back at that early chapter at church, where in the sermon text JHVH “sets a watchman” and Scout later muses

    Mr. Stone set a watchman in church yesterday. He should have provided me with one. I need a watchman to lead me around and declare what he seeth every hour on the hour.[25]

    As Uncle Jack says, in his convoluted “literary” way, and in what would appear to be the book’s moral:

    “Every man’s island, Jean Louise, every man’s watchman, is his conscience. There is no such thing as a collective conscious.”[26]

    This, of course, is why the modern Liberal has abandoned the “Watchman” metaphor, with its “biological determinism,” for one which emphasizes the passive, docile role of the masses: The Guardian. You must not see, you must be taught.[27]

    Speaking of conscience, that reminiscence about Scout’s falsies flap that Ms. Metroland singled out for enjoyment also contains an interesting lead related to sight: the insight that Atticus “wouldn’t be above throwing a little dust in a juryman’s eyes.” As she noted in her discussion of Mockingbird, in the famous rape trial

    [W]ise paterfamilias Atticus Finch emerges as one very sleazy lawyer. He does not merely provide competent defense for Tom Robinson, he gratuitously defames the poor girl Mayella Ewell. With no real evidence at hand, he weaves a tale in which she lusted after a crippled black man, and seduced him into fornication. It’s a hair-raising, lurid tale, but it is completely unnecessary.  . . . Atticus knows they’re not going to acquit his client, so he makes up an unpleasant tale about Mayella, all the while feigning pity for the pathetic lass. But it’s all invention and false sentiment, just like the fantasies that the Daily Worker conjured up about Willette Hawkins and Willie McGee.

    Of course, sacrificing the White trash so that one can preen over one’s moral righteousness is a trait Scout has, unknowingly, inherited from her father — childhood pal and sometime suitor Hank can be dismissed as White trash as soon as he starts with the racism, even though he’s working alongside her father.[28] But then that’s White privilege for ya.

    This is the kind of moralistic shystering that modern lawyering has become: drunk on Mockingbird and other pop legal memes, today’s law schools are full of so-called “idealists” who don’t intend to practice law so much as “overturn the system, man,” using any kind of legal trickery — theories far more sophisticated that Atticus’ courtroom shenanigans — to establish Liberal dogma as the law of the land, whatever the masses may think about it.[29]

    It amuses me that two generations of lawyers apparently claim to have been “inspired” by Atticus Finch. Two generations of sanctimonious scumbags, who, from “freedom rides” to “marriage equality” to “sanctuary cities” have, as Jack and Atticus would predict, ripped the legal system, and the country, apart, all in the name of some unseeable — because always receeding into the perfect, abstract future — notion of “fairness.” And now they, along with their hero, stand revealed as the shysters they are; at least, the handful who get jobs “a-tall.”[30]

    It’s hard to tell what upsets the Lib-elite more: having the truth about race exposed, or having Atticus Finch show up with his pants down.

    I suspect they fall back on the Mark Twain strategy and ban it from the schools for use of the N word.

    Let’s return now to the issue of style, and look at some touches that seem purely aesthetic, rather than carrying any message.

    In a nod to Modernism, or the avant-garde, Lee renders several passages which Scout can’t bear to listen to — a “racist” rant, the inane chatter of grown and married childhood friends — as a sequence of broken sentence fragments. It’s an interesting effect, which, if it represented the narrator’s own exasperated consciousness, would suggest Céline. It also suggests William Burroughs at his most refractory, the period of the so-called “cut-ups.”[31]

    Moreover, at least one passage of ordinary prose suggests a parallel to no less than Naked Lunch itself:

    At the end of the table, sitting like a great dropsical gray slug, was William Willougby. . . . William Willoughby was indeed the last of his kind. . . . There were mutations, like Willoughby [who] chose to run the county not in its most comfortable office, but in what was best described as a hutch—a small, dark, evil-smelling room with his name on the door, containing nothing more than a telephone, a kitchen table, and unpainted captain’s chairs of rich patina.

    It seems, to me at least, very reminiscent of the “County Clerk” section, although I can’t really find any verbal parallels, just a kind of tone:

    Lee listened in horror. The county clerk often spent weeks in the privy living on scorpions and Montgomery Ward catalogues. On several occasions his assistants had forced the door and carried him out in a state of advanced malnutrition.

    Could Burroughs have had an influence on this beloved middle-school classic? I’m sure it would delight him.[32] Alas, further research shows that Mockingbird was in the stores before the County Clerk sections were generally available.[33]

    Ironically, some have speculated that Capote wrote some part of Mockingbird.[34] If Lee — which was also Burroughs pen name, e.g., for the pseudonymous Junky, as well as the characters “Lee” in Naked Lunch and “Inspector Lee” of the Nova Trilogy — was influenced, at least unconsciously, by Burroughs,[35] it’s clear not only why her publishers would have deleted such “far-out” writing, but also why Lee never mentioned it: Burroughs and Capote hated each other. Burroughs, in fact, put a curse on Capote — in a letter of 1970, after the success of In Cold Blood — which reads like it could just as well suit Harper Lee:

    The early work was in some respects promising — I refer particularly to the short stories. You were granted an area for psychic development. It seemed for a while as if you would make good use of this grant. You choose instead to sell out a talent that is not yours to sell. You have written a dull unreadable book which could have been written by any staff writer on the New Yorker — (an undercover reactionary periodical dedicated to the interests of vested American wealth).

    You have placed your services at the disposal of interests who are turning America into a police state by the simple device of deliberately fostering the conditions that give rise to criminality and then demanding increased police powers and the retention of capital punishment to deal with the situation they have created. You have betrayed and sold out the talent that was granted you by this department. That talent is now officially withdrawn.

    Enjoy your dirty money. You will never have anything else. You will never write another sentence above the level of In Cold Blood. As a writer you are finished. Over and out. Are you tracking me? Know who I am? You know me, Truman. You have known me for a long time. This is my last visit.[36]

    Indeed, Capote never regained the level of talent or success shown by In Cold Blood, and Lee never wrote another book at all.[37] And the line about

    You have placed your services at the disposal of interests who are turning America into a police state by the simple device of deliberately fostering the conditions that give rise to criminality and then demanding increased police powers . . . to deal with the situation they have created.

    Sound today like exactly the strategy one might attribute to the Civil Righters and disciples of Saul Alinsky — force desegregation and then expand the Police State to deal with the inevitable chaos resultant — although that would have been not at all Burroughs’ meaning. But then, that’s the thing about curses and magick: it works, but often not the way you intended.[38]

    Is this a “rejected first draft”? Whatever the answer, Go Set a Watchman is an interestingly written first novel that addresses race in a realistic manner. The “classic” Mockingbird is New York’s response: dumbed down for kids and retconned into a “saintly blacks” narrative as part of Operation Destroy the South.

    Forget about setting a watchman. Atticus Finch was a freakin’ prophet.

    Notes

    1. Nelle Harper Lee (Sandra Bulloch) interviewed in Infamous (2006),

    2. Outside the Law School Scam, “Alternative Summer Reading for Pre-Law Students,” here [3].

    3. “Which century?” replies John Caradine’s engineer to a reporter’s question about “the desperadoes who came through here back in ’62,” the year of the Mockingbird film, in the MST3k version of Night Train to Mundo Fine (Coleman Francis, 1965). The film was originally titled Night Train to Mundo Fine, and the novel opens with Jean Louise taking the night train to the end of the world, rural Alabama.

    4. Gregory Peck is not enough. It took the prospect of seeing an unbeatable array of now-classic character actors in their youth (Jack Klugman as an angry ex-juvie!) to get me to watch Twelve Angry Men. Speaking of “young adult books,” I did read Catcher on my own, and came away with a loathing not for the hapless residents of Pency Prep but for the real “phonies,” Upper West Side Jews like the pretentious author and his protagonist.

    5. I’m pretty sure I was assigned Lord of the Flies, and I know I didn’t read that, as the cover of the Capricorn paperback I found repulsive. Mockingbird has a nice cover, at least in hardcover, and the new book shares the same look; is the illustrator still alive, toiling away for Harpers?

    6. “Harper Lee’s ‘Go Set a Watchman’ May Have Been Found Earlier Than Thought [4]
    By Serge F. Kovalesti and Alexandra Alter, New York Times, July 2, 2015.

    7. Margot Metroland, “Y’all Can Kill That Mockingbird Now,” here [5]. See also “Atticus in Bizarro World: Harper Lee’s Go Set a Watchman,” here [6].

    8. Perhaps this increase in the role of her playmate Dill, based on Truman Capote, is the origin, and perhaps the truth, behind the rumors of Capote getting involved in the writing or at least the recollections.

    9. Bad people, like this New Jersey mook, or later the school principal from up in the Hill Country of Alabama, always like things written down: the latter “doesn’t believe anything unless it’s written down” and then “when it’s written down he believes every word of it.” Tradition, by contrast, is non-literate. This goes back to the curious Genesis 9:22, where Ham (father of the negro race) is cursed for “seeing the nakedness” of his drunken father, Noah. Alexander Jacob suggests may refer to “the public dissemination of the ancestral wisdom among the highly literate Hamitic civilizations of Sumer and Egypt, whereas the other Indo-Europeans preserved it in purely oral form.” “The Indo-European Origins of the Grail” in Leopold von Schrodeder and Alexander Jacob, The Grail: Two Studies (Numen Books, 2015), p. 169, n402.

    10. The New Jersey snob, we hear, is not a family man. Catholicism, or High Church tendencies within Anglicanism, has long been a comfy place for curmudgeons, bachelors, homosexuals and other oddballs to hide in plain sight. In Brideshead Revisited, Charles’ cousin sternly remonstrates him when going up to Oxford to “Avoid Anglo Catholics; they are all sodomites with atrocious accents.” On the fin de siècle in general, see Ellis Hanson, Decadence and Catholicism (Harvard, 1997), which discusses Oscar Wilde, Charles Baudelaire, J.-K. Huysmans, Walter Pater, Paul Verlaine, and even Frederick Rolfe (who went so far as to style himself “Fr. Rolfe” when he wasn’t playing as the Sicilian Baron Corvo). For the American, or at least Northern, angle, see Douglass Shand-Tucci’s Ralph Adams Cram: Boston Bohemia, 1881–1900 (University of Massachusetts Press, 1995). On the Catholic side, there’s always one in every parish that want more incense, High Masses and sermons on Meister Eckhart; see J. F. Powers’ Morte d’Urban (itself winner of the 1963 National Book Award for Fiction). To understand Powers, you must understand that he was that rare bird, a sort of proto-Leftist, pre-Vatican II Irish Catholic who thought America was a nation of knuckle-dragging, war-mongering, racist Protestants, to whom his kind were superior in politics and culture, as well as ethics and religion. He fights both incense and homos, which he associates with the Right: McCarthy and Cohen, Whittaker Chambers, Cardinal Spellman. Also in the early ’60s, even J. D. Salinger gets in the act; his narrator in the New Yorker story Zooey disparaging a boy his mother, Irish Catholic Bessie, recommends to sister Franny as being a weepy mother’s boy “who probably sleeps with a rosary under his pillow.”

    Alan Watts describes his own struggle as a “spike” during his brief Episcopal priesthood in his autobiography, In My Own Way; later, in Beyond Theology, he will try to appreciate the other side: “The insides of most Protestant churches resemble courthouses or town halls, and the focal point of their services is a serious exhortation from a man in a black gown. No golden light, no bells, incense, and candles. No mystery upon an altar or behind an iconostasis. But people brought up in this atmosphere seem to love it. It feels warm and folksy, and leads, on the one hand, to hospitals, prison reform, and votes for all, and, on the other, to sheer genius for drabness, plain cooking ungraced with wine, and constipation of the bright emotions—all of which are considered virtues.

    “If I try to set aside the innate prejudices which I feel against this religion, I begin to marvel at the depth of its commitment to earnestness and ugliness. For there is a point at which certain types of ugliness become fascinating, where one feels drawn to going over them again and again, much as the tongue keeps fondling a hole in a tooth. I begin to realize that those incredibly plain people, with their almost unique lack of color, may after all be one of the most astonishing reaches of the divine Maya-the-Dancer of the world as far out from himself as he can get, dancing not-dancing.” Beyond Theology, Chapter Two.

    11. I thank Ms. Metroland, op. cit., for identifying the speaker from the North as perhaps Robert Welch of the John Birch Society himself. When we first meet Atticus, he’s reading with disapproval a book titled The Strange Case of Alger Hiss. Thanks to Google, we can instantly date this to 1953, when this book (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1953. $3.95.), by one Earl Jowitt, that is, “The” Earl Jowitt, a parlor pinko no doubt, appeared. This “Earl” business explains why Atticus thinks he “shows a childlike faith in the integrity of civil servants,” imagines the Congress to “correspond to their aristocracy,” and in general has “no understanding of American politics a-tall.” The Earl’s book is anti-Chambers and apparently one of the first exercises in what the Clintons have dubbed “the politics of personal destruction.” It has always puzzled me as to why the Hissites claim that Chambers was in love with Hiss, since it is clearly they themselves who have a big ol’ crush on dashing young diplomats improving the world from their positions in the One World Government.

    Later, Louise will find a pamphlet back at the house entitled “The Black Plague,” essaying forth a eugenic perspective about “brain pans, whatever they are.” It’s an obvious enough title to be her own creation, but I do find there is a pamphlet by that title by that old conspiracy-monger, Eustace Mullins. The version I can find online is obviously from the late ’60s (there’s a Black Panther on the cover and Malcolm X is referenced on the first page; there’s even talk of the Zebra killer) and the emphasis is culture, not physiology.

    12. New York newspapers are a note that ties the book together. “You’ve been reading those New York papers,” Atticus points out during their final confrontation. When she first arrives, he asks her “how much of what’s going on down here gets into the newspapers” and she responds “Well, to hear the Post tell it, we lynch ’em for breakfast down here.” Later, when she bristles as a former schoolmate makes a crude negro joke, she says “I’m getting like the New York Post.” Younger readers need to know that at the time, the New York Post was a Liberal newspaper.

    13. Like most such, it “escaped her notice” that “he son had developed all the latent characteristics of a three-dollar bill.”

    14. “You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition’s given you some length of bone, but you’re not more than one generation from poor white trash, are you, Agent Starling?” Dr. Hannibal Lecter, The Silence of the Lambs (Demme, 1991). Jean Louise may not know what a brain pan is, and be horrified by those who do, but she’s eager to join with the rest of the town to denigrate the poorer members of her own race.

    15. Reviewing the book, here [7]. As always, it’s impossible to fathom the Liberal mind, or to follow its never-ending, shall we say, revolutions. Wasn’t it just last year that Liberals were pumping their fists — or other body parts — to Lady Gaga’s insistence that she and her Little Monsters were “born this way”? (Vigilant Citizen)

    16. “Race realism is one of the intellectual foundations of White Nationalism. Race realism is the thesis that racial differences are objective facts of nature, which pre-exist human consciousness, human society, and even the human race itself.” Greg Johnson: “Why Race is Not a ‘Social Construct,’” here [8].

    17. The foolishness of electoral politics: Eisenhower was the one sending troops in to enforce desegregation, out of Cold War necessity. And right on time for the book’s appearance, calls to remove Jefferson and Jackson from the Democrat pantheon (and the currency); racists, don’t you know?

    18. As chronicled by Paul Kersey on his invaluable blog, Stuff Black People Don’t Like, and compiled in his collection The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963–2013.

    19. All this has been chronicles, not, of course, in those “New York newspapers,” but on Paul Kersey’s invaluable blog, Stuff Black People Don’t Like.

    20. Such as, obviously, the blog Those Who Can See. For my own discuss of Carpenter’s film — a prior, and implicitly White, version of The Matrix, see my “He Writes! You Read! They Live!” here [9] and reprinted in The Homo and the Negro (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012).

    21. It would appear that in the occluded world of They Live!, the color-blind would indeed be immune to the alien’s brainwashing.

    22. Is that English? He means “as well as what they should be” I guess. From a man arguing the inferiority of the negro? This is the only place where the book feels like a first draft.

    23. Graham: “Because everything with you is seeing, isn’t it? Your primary sensory intake that makes your dream live is seeing. Reflections. Mirrors. Images. . . .” See my “Phil & Will: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 2,” here [10]. “I asked my mother what I had seen, and she told me that he was not just a white man turned brown, but a different kind of man called a ‘Negro.’ But I already saw the differences before I was told the name and explanation. Indeed, I asked for an explanation because I saw the differences. My mother and I certainly did not construct the differences that were apparent to all.” Greg Johnson, op. cit., emphases his.

    24. Scout sneaks into the courthouse and sees Atticus and Hank at the Citizens’ Council meeting, and wonders if anyone sees her there (they do). Calpurnia, the old family retainer who’s been radicalized by the civil rights interlopers, can no longer see Scout. Even the long reminiscence about Scout and Dill — the character based on Truman Capote and a favorite of readers, involved Dill and a supposed machine to see through walls.

    25. Scout goes on to she needs the watchman to “proclaim to them all that twenty-six years is too long to play a joke on anybody,” which could indeed be said of those Whites who have bought into the whole “color-blind” idea. Negroes, as Atticus points out, “vote in blocs.”

    26. Again, the text seems wrong here; surely this should be “conscience,” or is Jack meant to be confused, misled by Jung’s “collective consciousness,” or is there some other symbolism here I’m missing?

    27. “The foundation of race realism is sense experience, not scientific theorizing.” — Greg Johnson, op. cit.

    28. And speaking of the Finch family, we also wonder about how Uncle Jack made so much money off his poor Alabama patients during the Depression so as to retire wealthy in his forties.

    29. Ironically, the uber-shysters running the “schools” are fleecing the little lambs blind, pocketing their federally guaranteed loans and sending them out as debt slaves, most of whom will either have no jobs, or find themselves forced into lucrative corporate slavery rather than indulging in “pro bono defense.” In a further irony, only the rich can afford such society-wrecking concern for “the poor,” while the poor themselves are sucker into . . . law school (“diversity”) and debt slavery.

    30. Similarly, TKAM has bred two generations of lambs that, faced with the overwhelming fact that law school is a disastrously bad bet (unless your parents foot the bill, or it’s a “tier 1” school) respond as Special Snowflakes: “When I got into law school a few months ago a law school professor (who is also a family friend) sent me a glut of articles like this [11] and said to read them, then read To Kill a Mockingbird again. Realize that you are not part of that statistic if you remember why you really want to practice law. So, dear Gawker, I am going to just say that I am rubber and you are glue and all the law school bashing rolls of me and sticks to you.” Really, if I were a liberal constituency, I’d be very afraid of being represented by delusional idiots like this. Generally, see “Do Not Go to a Second-Tier Law School Under Any Circumstances” by Hamilton Nolan, Gawker, 3/05/12, here [12]: “In case you’ve forgotten, let us take this opportunity to remind you: do not go to law school. [11] Law school is worthless. [13] Even more worthless than you think [14]. Law school will not make you happy [15]. The smart kids are not going to law school. [16] You should not go to law school.” Although himself a law professor, Paul Campos has been at the forefront of exposing the “law school scam”: “The odds of a graduate getting a job that justifies incurring the schools’ typical debt are essentially 100 to 1. . . . The result is a system that has produced an entire generation of over-credentialed, underemployed, and deeply indebted young people.” (The Atlantic, September, 2014, here [17]). Ironically, or appropriately, the worst hit have been the “solo practitioners” who wanted to be just like Atticus: “Solo practitioners, the largest single group of American lawyers and the heart and soul of the profession, have struggled for a quarter of a century. . . . In 1988, solo practitioners earned an inflation-adjusted $70,747. By 2012, earnings had fallen to $49,130, a 30% decrease in real income. And note, $49,130 is not the starting salary for these lawyers. It is the average earnings of all 354,000 lawyers who filed as solo practitioners that year.” Benjamin Barton, “The fall and rise of lawyers,” CNN, May 22, 2015.

    31. See my review of The Magical Universe of William Burroughs, “Curses, Cut-Ups, & Contraptions: The ‘Disastrous Success’ of William Burroughs’ Magick,” here [18].

    32. Burroughs, perhaps hopefully, described Nova Express as “an action novel that can be read by any twelve year old.” See Oliver Harris’ “Introduction” to Nova Express: The Restored Text (New York: Penguin, 2013), p. xliv.

    33. “In 1962, Grove Press issued a promotional booklet to accompany the November 20, 1962 American publication of Naked Lunch. . . . The promotional pamphlet includes an eight page selection of Naked Lunch. Not surprisingly, Rosset chose sections that support the critical readings of the novel. The “Meeting of International Conference of Technological Society” and “The County Clerk” section highlight the satirical nature of Naked Lunch to the fullest. Rosset also featured these pieces (along with a section entitled “Interzone”) in Evergreen Review No. 16 of January / February 1961. They present Burroughs’ humor, language and voice at their most obvious.” “Burroughs Ephemera 2: Naked Lunch Prospectus,” here [19]. Note that “The County Clerk” is preceded by “Meeting of International Conference of Technological Society” which involves horrifying insect/human mutations, like the slug-like Willoughby and “his kind.”

    34. “Harper Lee: the ‘great lie’ she didn’t write Mockingbird rears its head again,” Glynnis MacCool, The Guardian, July 15, 2015, here [20].

    35. And perhaps we should note the similarity of William Willoughby to William Burroughs?

    36. “William S. Burroughs Trashes Truman Capote In Open Letter” by Jen Carlson, Gothamist, Aug 2, 2012, here [21]. The “stunning opening” to Nova Express was originally titled “Open Letter” and is signed by “J. Lee”; see Harris, op. cit., pp. 193, 199.

    37. “Of course, much like Lee was never able to publish anything after To Kill a Mockingbird, Capote’s writing fizzled after In Cold Blood, so perhaps their literary relationship was more symbiotic than one-sided.” Steve Sailer, “Harper Lee’s ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ Pre-sequel,” Unz Review, July 2, 2015, here [22].

    38. See my review of The Magical World of William Burroughs, op. cit.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Token President: Obama’s Hollow Legacy
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]4,403 words

    President Barack Hussein Obama II, as he likes to emphasize, is the first Black(/White) President of the United States of America, with “a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya.” He is both a multiracial individual and a “third culture kid” (TCK) raised outside the U.S. mainland. This means, as I have recently written [2], that he has constantly suffered a certain amount of racial and cultural alienation, no matter who he is with or where he is. 

    Obama has thought enormously about these problems and how to solve them. As he is clearly an intelligent and driven man, this makes his mediocre politics and bland rhetoric rather disappointing. Obama could be a thoughtful leader in working out America’s racial crisis, but he is not. 

    For instance, Obama has thought about the merits of racial nationalism in solving the inevitable alienation and conflict of multiracial societies. In his lengthy memoir, Dreams from my Father, Obama explicitly affirms that achieving the well-being of the community through racial nationalism is more important than his well-being as a half-caste: 

    Ever since the first time I’d picked up Malcolm X’s autobiography, I had tried to untangle the twin strands of black nationalism, arguing that nationalism’s affirm message – of solidarity and self-reliance, discipline and communal responsibility – need not depend on hatred of whites any more than it depended on white munificence. [. . .] 

    If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.[1] 

    This is what I would call a mature métis position, one which understands that the ego of aliens and half-castes is of infinitely less importance than the well-being of the community.[2] 

    Obama, then, knows better. But he has chosen to be an American so-called “democratic politician” and, as Tocqueville eloquently wrote long ago, in American democracy the politicians, that is to say the government, are slaves of “public opinion.” In Tocqueville’s day, perhaps the People’s opinions were informed primarily by their life experience, their hard work and suffering, their churches, friends, and community, giving us a grand, pragmatic, and effective, if not very thoughtful, middlebrow bourgeois regime. 

    Since at least the 1920s however, public opinion has been increasingly shaped by whichever ethnic and plutocratic elites control the mass media of news and entertainment. In America, the people do not rule. Rather, there is a slave-king, the president, and the kingmakers are those who control the media and finance political campaigns. 

    Obama is in way out of his depth. He was a bright “international” kid who moved to America upon adulthood and was predictably alienated as a kind of foreigner and Black man who had never lived among Blacks (thanks notably to his deadbeat, alcoholic, polygamist, and Marxist absentee father, who died in his third drunk-driving accident). He claims to have consumed alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine to “push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.”[3] 

    Obama then moved to a somewhat (only somewhat) more constructive reaction to his racial alienation: The rejection of White America/Europe and the embrace of Black America. Obama writes on touring Europe: “And by the end of the first week or so, I realized that I’d made a mistake. It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine.”[4] He admits to dumping a White girlfriend on racial grounds. Instead, he chose to meld into Black America, marry into a middle class Black family, move to Chicago, join a radical Black church, and spend a life agitating for the Black American race through “community organizing” and ethnic litigation. 

    Obama in a sense chose Africa over Europe. He notes in Dreams the similarities between fatherless matriarchal Black households in Kenya and those on the South Side of Chicago . . . very mysterious. Personally, I don’t know how one could choose Europe over Africa (indeed, Obama’s also half-White half-brother in Kenya perhaps unsurprisingly identifies more with Whites). But to each his own. 

    Obama’s Left-wing White mother apparently indoctrinated him while growing up with a romanticized image of Black America as synonymous with television’s presentation of the apparently orderly, thoughtful, and very pious suited-up Blacks of the ’60s civil rights movement. (Martin Luther King, Jr., that philandering socialist preacher – whom young Americans now rank higher in greatness than George Washington or Abraham Lincoln – surely is one of the greatest marketing coups of all time.) Obama curiously persevered in embracing Black America even when he learned it had nothing to do with the glamorous image of the civil rights movement. (Personally, I had a pang that something was amiss when seeing Martin Luther King’s descendants, who are not remotely as “presentable” for television.) If you want to know what the Black American id really is about, browse some World Star Hip Hop videos.[5] 

    Obama learned that being a Black “community organizer” however is a tough hustle. You’re not working with very promising human capital, as they say. Instead, as a bright young man in the meritocratic American system, he naturally drifted to that which worked: Being a nice presentable “articulate” Black man for White liberals. And, by golly, do the liberals need more bright, “articulate” Blacks! 

    So Obama was the first Black president of Harvard Law Review and received ample coverage for this little accomplishment. Oh sure, he’s only half-Black, and he’s a fresh-off-the-boat African and not an African-American descendant of slaves, and he was exclusively raised by his White family. But he’s technically Black![6] 

    Thus the Democratic Party and the media masters promoted the young Obama to be President of the United States of America. He had two assets: He had no accomplishments or power base whatsoever, and he was Black. Perfect. The inexperienced Illinois state senator (that does not mean much) was abruptly put in the spotlight at the 2004 Democratic National Convention to downplay his previous Black identity and project a glorious image of “post-racial America.” 

    Oh yes, that was brilliant. Finally White liberals would be absolved of the guilt of Black America’s failure. Only the incredibly stubborn persistence of White racism, after all, could explain Blacks’ continued inability to do well in schools since the ’60s integration program or Blacks’ committing of half of murders in America. And, as even the CIA noted,[7] having a First Black President would allow the United States acquire a moralistic veneer to its continued imperialistic wars in the Middle East, its torture of Muslims and mass surveillance on American citizens,[8] and its destruction of Arab nations in support of Israel. The antiwar movement is dead, the wars continue, the fallout from the “financial crisis” is contained. Oh yes, the “First Black President,” it was brilliant! Brilliant! 

    This is why superficial liberals – so hysterically opposed to George W. Bush, so happy to tolerate Obama’s imperial crimes and impotence in the face of plutocracy, and again frothing at the mouth at Donald Trump – are contemptible. 

    Before you knew it, Obama was elected to office. Sure, he had to publicly tar-and-feather his poor dying White grandmother as a “racist” in order to redeem himself from association with his radical Black pastor Jeremiah Wright.[9] The White House is worth a grandma, n’est-ce-pas? 

    Of course, Obama was dependent on the kingmakers in the mass media, Big Business, and the DC political class who had manufactured him. Well, you know who controls our mass media of news and entertainment. 

    Here are Obama’s top 10 donors of 2008:[10]

    1. University of California: $1,799,460
    2. Goldman Sachs: $1,034,615
    3. Harvard University: $900,909
    4. Microsoft Corp: $854,717
    5. JPMorgan Chase & Co: $847,895
    6. Google Inc: $817,855
    7. Citigroup Inc: $755,057
    8. US Government [sic]: $638,335
    9. Time Warner: $617,844
    10. Sidney Austin LLP: $606,260 

    To summarize: Obama is the creature of the metastasized academic-industrial complex of liberal indoctrination and day-care of twentysomething man-children, Wall Street (organized financial speculation and skimming of the American economy), tech (a new power factor), the media, etc., a representative slice of the American oligarchy. 

    Really buying off a politician is quite cheap and, relative to the plutocrats’ growing concentration of wealth, is getting cheaper. 

    Academia, news media, print media, and tech companies overwhelmingly donate to the political Left and according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency “Jewish donors provide between one-third and two-thirds of the [Democratic] party’s money.”[11] 

    Without belaboring the point, Obama’s numerous handlers include David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Jack Lew, and a bunch of minorities and White liberals who don’t matter. He appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and Janet Yellen as Chairman of the Federal Reserve (third in a row!). He even sent Stanley Fischer – after having rationalized the plunder of the Russian economy by his kinsmen in the 1990s and fresh from being president of the Central Bank of Israel [sic] – to help Yellen out as vice-chair.

    Oh yes, tell us how Obama was going to shut down Wall Street, end the wars in the Middle East, and undo racism in America. The clever Levantines around Obama know all about racism: It’s good bidness, very good bidness. It’s amazing that the Paul Krugmans, the Jon Stewart Liebowitzes,[12] and all the other Social Democratic hucksters[13] of this world can still get the ever-smug, ever-fashionable, ever-ignorant White college students and the nice liberal cat ladies (who inevitably get ever-more bigoted with age) excited about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders – even as the same ethno-plutocratic elites command backstage through media control and campaign donations.

    As Dieudonné once joked: “Talk to me about Obama! Make me dream!” 

    Obama’s assuming office was definitely anti-climactic. I distinctly remember, during his inaugural speech, him having a look of “mission accomplished.” As though mere election of a Black man was the point, which was indeed the case. 

    One of the biggest harms Obama has done to the Black American community, and indeed all Americanized Blacks everywhere, is to have eliminated the possibility of First-Black-President jokes. Blacks used to be able to lick their inevitably wounded racial egos with the idea that their failings were purely due to exclusion due to White racism. The more racism is shown not be the problem through achievements like Obama’s, the more Black pride is hurt. 

    Before Obama, Blacks could fantasize about the days when there would be the First Black President and how, by this magical event, they would finally be free to act upon their whims and particularities. Richard Prior for instance performed an amusing skit as the First Black President in 1977[14] in which featured:

    • Solemnly declaring MLK-style: “I think it’s time that Black people went to space.”[15]
    • Beethoven would be replaced with Miles Davis.
    • Huey Newton was appointed head of the FBI.
    • Blacks would start becoming football quarterbacks, coaches, and owners, as opposed to just players (of course, four decades later, there has been no progress in this area).
    • The First Black President slowly turns into a Black preacher.
    • Public humiliation of an aroused White woman and a White Southern journalist.
    • The First Black President philanders with White women, prompting “ooohs” of disapproval from Black women for his racial disloyalty. 

    Good stuff. Black humor is good humor insofar as Blacks only find it funny if their lived truth is included (White liberals in contrast laugh at racial stereotypes on the assumption the unfashionable prejudice of the stereotypes is what is being mocked . . .).[16] 

    Obama, in contrast, is pretty damn boring for a First Black President. Obama’s first public appearances as President were unbelievably stilted. He cannot fake interest and is easily bored. Only race and himself interest him. On every other topic, his every sentence is punctuated with copious “uhms,” “uhs,” and so on, visibly trying to remember the banal talking points he doesn’t care or even care to pretend to care about. In 2010, Big Business rallied and White America panicked at electing an agnostic post-Muslim/pseudo-Christian/post-Marxoid/post-Black Nationalist whozawutsit to the White House, hence putting the Republicans back in charge of Congress. 

    It’s a tough grind. 

    We are almost at the end of Obama’s second term in office. What has he accomplished? 

    Firstly, Obama, as a Black man, had the courage (stop sniggering!) to present himself for election and win in the dark Bush years, thus proving the American people are not wholly racist. This is why the Norwegians gave him a Nobel Prize even before he had done anything, making for the first Affirmative Action Nobel as well as the first Affirmative Action President. 

    Secondly, Obama passed the middle class tax shift and Obamacare, which are not without their merits. The tax shift undermined (gentile?) Big Business. Obamacare (the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) enormously empowered the Federal Government, being effectively granted authority over the bloated regulatory chaos of state healthcare legislation and the Big Pharma/Big Insurance cartels, one sixth of the U.S. economy. There are few things as complex than a modern state-economy nexus and actually it is quite hard to gauge these sorts of things which, in a Weberian way, are much bigger than any individual like Obama (even Adolf Hitler was rather overwhelmed by the superstate and associated bureaucracies he created). The aim was clear however: A medical security net for the 47 million (or whatever) uninsured, among other things a transfer of resources from White America to Black America. Obamacare was also another milestone in the long march towards Social Democracy and the globalists’ dream of destroying the particularistic work of the Founding Fathers (other major milestones will include the de facto abolition of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, abolition of the First Amendment’s right to free speech, and the introduction of the metric system; America is to be “Europeanized,” which is fine if the government is indeed a solidary European one, as opposed to one whose “progressivism” is motivated by alien hostility). Obama’s supposed regulation of Wall Street and action on “climate change” also fall under the same category, of the inexhorable “statification” of the American economy. 

    Thirdly, Obama was reelected as the First Black President, redeeming his tribe’s wounded pride forever. Don’t believe me? Look at him bawling in front of his campaign staff in 2012.[17] There again, “mission accomplished.” 

    Perhaps I am being too harsh. Obama is no different from Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. They all answer to the same masters, though their emphasis may differ. There hasn’t been a U.S. president with any real character since probably Richard Nixon, hence his comments on Jews. 

    President Clinton, an enthusiastic post-’60s nihilist, celebrated and prophesied the end of White America for the first time from the Executive bully-pulpit, rejoicing in European-Americans reduction to a vulnerable physical minority in the land founded by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. 

    President Bush, a very good goy, thought himself mandated by God after 9/11 to wage a Crusade against radical Islam and “the Axis of Evil” [sic] (David Frum’s expression . . .), thus massively expanding the military-industrial complex and Surveillance State, and destroying Iraq, the then-leading enemy of Israel. The New York Times and rest of the controlled media were happy to egg Bush on initially and, as soon as the “mission accomplished” banner was up and things turned sour, was unceremoniously dumped by them. This was symbolized his humiliation at the 2006 White House correspondents’ dinner by Stephen Colbert, another very good goy.[18] Of course, the real architects of America’s pro-Israel foreign policy and military-plutocratic empire, the oligarchic masters of the politicians and the controlled media, were safely backstage . . . 

    Bush too advocated White minorityhood and suicide in America. Immigration is good for bidness (in the short run, anyway), as he had learned as Governor of Texas. Besides, aren’t his nephews beautiful Mestizos? He advocated loans to make minorities homeowners regardless of their actual income or creditworthiness, paving the way for the financial crisis. “Conservative values are anti-racist!” Bush the “conservative” even approved of chaotic semi-centralization and bureaucratization of American education with “No Child Left Behind.” 

    Yes, the Bushes are members of that often beautiful WASP patrician class, the closest thing America has had to an aristocracy since the Civil War, often worldly and multilingual, but which ultimately has always bent with the wind (hence grand-pappy Bush’s flirting with Hitler . . .) and has since completely degenerated. 

    Then we come to Obama. Clinton and Bush have never claimed to stand up for the interests of White people. Obama too has never claimed to defend Whites, but he has claimed to defend Blacks and indeed has entertained outright Black Nationalism. 

    But many Blacks have been asking Obama: “What have you done for me lately?”[19] That is a good question. 

    Obama is actually far more than the First Black President. He is the first Cosmic President, the first truly post-American and global president, a, in his own words, half-caste “mutt” with no upbringing in the mainland United States.[20] That is his empty glory, his gloriole. His actions in office as an empty suit – an amiable figurehead for far, far greater ethnic, plutocratic, bureaucratic, and imperial forces – are irrelevant. He has already been given his supreme reward: Lifetime membership in that most select global club, which even Clinton does not have access to, let alone Bush. 

    Yes, Obama is but one of the leading members of the Cosmic Aristocracy[21] manufactured by the media masters to condition the public for the emerging ethnic chaos and plutocratic domination of post-nationhood. That they associate raceless chaos with feel-good nonsense and a big deceptive smile, rather than the Balkanization, ethnic tensions, inequality, and destruction of everything we hold dear which is the reality of our ever-more “multicultural” societies. That the masses believe their television sets and radio stations and films – with which our people have spent many hours every single day since the 1960s – rather than own lying eyes. Not to mention the Marxist professors. 

    Obama has much more to do with Beyoncé and Jay Z, Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian, or Nicki Minaj and Lady Gaga, than with Abraham Lincoln or Malcolm X. “Lady Di” and the Kennedys are in the same genre. 

    The point is, if Bush was a “cuckservative” (no surprise that he idolized Churchill above all), then Obama is an Uncle Tom. 

    Hence, finally, his fourth set of accomplishments:

    • The unconstitutional (even the courts are upset), indeed treasonous post facto legalization through Executive amnesty of the Mexican invasion.
    • The egging on of so-called “Black Lives Matter” rioters in burning down their own neighborhoods in defense of Black criminals, and of shrill activists in wrecking their own universities.
    • The softening of sentences against Black criminals and their release en masse from prison onto the streets.
    • Forced racial integration of American suburbs (i.e. moving inner city Blacks away from gentrifying areas to powerless, innocent suburban White areas).

    All of this is obviously deadly to White Americans, but does it help Black people either? Obviously not.

    I would guess Obama, who is conscious of being a sell-out, is using what Executive power he has to do a little symbolic coddling of the Black community. This is unpardonable, because Obama – knowing the Black community inside and out, so to speak – is more than smart enough to know that that is not what it needs to reach its highest potential. Presumably he is doing it out of the self-destructive, instinctive kind of racial feeling which has made Black Nationalism an absolute disaster in Haiti, Liberia, and Zimbabwe. Or perhaps out of a more feminine instinct.

    (Hysterical racial nationalism, a natural reaction of “purging” and refounding of the national body in times of crisis, does lead to chaos in the short-term. Mao’s China was a pretty horrible place. But notice that the Chinese, being a talented people, have since been lifting themselves up with astonishing speed. In contrast, Sub-Saharan African and African diaspora countries seem to at best maintain, precariously, the limited civilization they receive from the West, but that this can easily fall back into tribal chaos and a vicious cycle of permanent barbarism, which they have very, very great difficulty in overcoming.)

    Already, Obama’s softening of disciplines on the Black community and the cultivation of their illusions has led to sharp increase in the murder rate in many cities, mostly of Blacks killing other Blacks.[22] How is that good for Blacks?

    The young Obama wrote eloquently on the power of nationalism. He is intelligent and experienced enough his policies are destructive even of his own community. Every people reaches its highest potential only through solidarity: The solidarity of an elite willingly refraining from abusing their power with regard to the people, the solidarity of a people in respecting the elite’s disciplines in service of the public good, the solidarity of people with each other in promoting social justice, welfare, education, and so on, the solidarity of a loyal political minority in bowing before government policy, the solidarity of lessers respecting their betters, of betters acknowledging their responsibility to their lessers, etc.

    That is the road to salvation, the source of the historic power and well-being of the great nation-states: a France, an America, a Germany, or even a Sweden (the Nordic country which Sanders, Krugman, and the other Social Democrats claim to love so much . . . I can think of least one prominent Austrian politician who had a far more credible plan to make the world more like Sweden[23]).

    That is, the solidarity and selflessness of love of family, not the faux-solidarity of grievance-mongering and narcissism promoted by the Marxists (including the Social Democrats).

    Every people, whatever their political system or condition, needs a certain enlightened, benevolent paternalism.

    Obama’s collaboration in the steady destruction of the historic American nation is no different than that of Clinton or Bush’s. His destructive coddling of Black America and, indeed, legitimizing of a Hispanic invasion which also undermines Blacks is not fundamentally different in significance. Obama is perhaps, as a “mutt,” even more temperamentally suited to the idea of America Cósmico than his predecessors. As he told the self-styled explainer Jews at Vox: “[O]ver the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks.”[24]

    What a bunch of hogwash. Obama knows that’s BS and the liberal Zionists (paging Paul Krugman) know that’s BS. If universal miscegenation were a solution, Mexico and Brazil would be well-adjusted métis nations, not violent, unequal, semi-Balkanized mongrel hells. If Krugman were not a disingenuous fraud in his advocacy of “equality,” his kin would not so unbelievably “privileged” in the United States and elsewhere, that is to say, so superior in economic, cultural, and political power. If miscegenation were the solution, liberals Jews would not be so strangely tolerant of their Hassidic brethren or of the Zionist project’s excesses. (If Binyamin Netayahu’s Israel is their “insurance policy,” what’s ours?)

    The point is, Obama is a non-thing. He’s just gone along with and put a little ribbon on the long-term project of destroying the œuvre of the Founding Fathers with the full statification of the American socio-economy, a permanent military-industrial, surveillance, and imperial state to destroy independent European nations and the enemies of Israel, and ultimately the final liquidation of the historic American nation through mass immigration.

    Americans are to be turned into raceless, soulless, docile, frightened, effeminate hamsters, shuffling back and forth from the office (or simply passively receiving welfare), and consuming garbage (both at fast-food outlets and on television), ad infinitum. Only then will the state and the “international community” be safe. Rather like the Wachowsky brothers’ inspired vision, or logical deduction, of humans-as-battery-pods in The Matrix.

    President Barack Hussein Obama II: the Cosmic Puppet who knew better, loyal neither to his Bantu nor Aryan forefathers.

    He’s no Dieudonné [3], that’s for sure.

    Notes

    1. Barack Obama, Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (New York City: Three Rivers Press, 2004, first published 1995), 198-200. On reading Obama’s memoir in plain English, see Steve Sailer, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance” (VDARE, 2008).

    2. Obama rejected Black Nationalism only insofar as he considered, basically correctly, that it was economically unworkable, at least without foreign assistance.

    3. “Obama gets blunt with N.H. Students,” Boston Globe, November 21, 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/ [4]

    4. Obama, Dreams, 301-302.

    5. http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/ [5]

    6. See: One-drop-rule.

    7. Glenn Greenwald, “The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters,” Salon, March 27, 2010. http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/ [6]

    8. Curiously, Edward Snowden has in some circles acquired a saint-like status today not unlike that enjoyed by Obama in 2008.

    9. Ben Shapiro, “Barack Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus,” Town Hall, March 26, 2008. http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2008/03/26/barack_obama_throws_grandma_under_the_bus/page/full [7]

    10. Top Contributors to Barack Obama, 2008 cycle, Open Secrets. http://www.opensecrets.org/PRES08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 [8]

    11. Guillaume Durocher, “White Nationalism Explained in Charts, Part III: Jewish Privilege,” North American New Right, December 3, 2015. https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/12/white-nationalism-explained-with-charts-part-iii-jewish-privilege/ [9]

    12. Liebowitz himself has been replaced by a South African Cosmic Mixling at The Daily Show, but ratings have suffered, presumably the former viewers were racists.

    13. The liberal Jews (Krugman) argue that if people like Bill de Blasio and Bernie Sanders are elected, then racial inequality and tensions in America will disappear. De Blasio, however, will obviously not significantly reduce New York City’s residential and school segregation, which is the worst in the country. Chairman Sanders’ Marxian socialism will obviously not increase Black school performance, reduce that of Asians, or even mention his own people’s role in the plutocratic/Wall Street elites he loves to condemn.

    14. Richard Pryor, “The First Black President,” 1977. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaXxl5Pc6As [10]

    15. Mohammed Ali was very, very proud of riding in an African airplane in Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaïre. The Zaïrois nuclear program, not to speak of the space program, has run into some kinks however.

    16. Black comedians often provide the most staggeringly politically-incorrect material, such as Richard Pryor on Black criminals [11], Dave Chapelle on welfare and reparations for Blacks [12], Chris Rock on instinctive Black racial pride [13], or Aaron McGruder’s entire œuvre, from commentary on Black violence [14] (“nigga moments”) and the paradoxes of combined-and-uneven development between high technology and dysgenics [14] (“nigga tech”)

    17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pB6vqb2fnY [15] Of course, the First Black President’s reelection campaign staff were “almost uniformly White.” Mytheos Holt, “‘Almost Uniformly White’: How Diverse Is Obama’s Campaign Staff, Really?,” The Blaze, April 9, 2012. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/09/almost-uniformly-white-how-diverse-is-obamas-campaign-staff-really/ [16]

    18. John Oliver, another Liebowitz spawnling, is another nauseatingly disgusting good goy.

    19. For example this Jamaican newspaper columnist: George Garwood, “What has Barack Obama done for black people?,” Jamaica Observer, December 16, 2014.

    20. Matt Parrot, “Cosmic America,” North American New Right, December 13, 2010. https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/12/cosmic-america/ [17]

    21. Supposing I have not desecrated the word by using it in this manner.

    22. Monica Davey and Mitch Smith, “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities,” New York Times, August 31, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html [18]

    23. Not to mention quite a few 1920s American immigration restrictionists.

    24. Ezra Klein, “Obama: The Vox Conversation,” Vox, February 9, 2015. http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-domestic-policy-transcript [19]

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Minority Report
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]1,711 words

    June 25, 2002

    Definition: A minority report is a statement of a dissenting viewpoint defeated by majority vote.

    I saw Minority Report this weekend. Since I liked the last Tom Cruise movie Vanilla Sky [2], I thought I might like Minority Report too, even though the quality of a movie has far more to do with the director than the lead actor.

    But alas, Minority Report is a mediocre, derivative, sometimes incoherent film, straining after metaphysical significance but falling into banality and queasy humor — straining after a brilliant vision of the future but falling into just another D.C. political-intrigue thriller.

    The premise of the film raises serious metaphysical and moral questions: If the future can be seen, then are all of our actions determined in advance? If we are determined, then how can we be held responsible and punished for our actions? How can a person be guilty of a crime he has not yet committed? By what right do they keep three clairvoyants hooked up to machines and prevented from leading a normal life?

    A film that dealt squarely and plausibly with these issues would have been really significant. But they just hover in the background and are never taken seriously and addressed in a coherent way. All we get is some pretentious patter, which may impress morons but convicts Spielberg as a phony in the eyes of the intelligent.

    Does the movie ever really prove that we have free choice? Or is the clairvoyant Agatha’s insistence on freedom proved wrong, since things do end up happening exactly as she saw them? How does knowing the future allow us to change it? If it can be changed, then it cannot be known. If it can be known, it cannot be changed.

    By not addressing these questions, the film does not establish a coherent, believable world. It lacks moral and metaphysical focus. This lack of focus is especially clear when one asks oneself if this is supposed to be a dystopia or a utopia?

    The police search of the public housing building, with its little Matrix-derivative spiders, is pretty horrific. The eye-scanner technology is shockingly invasive. The police act like jack-booted thugs. The form of imprisonment is also shocking, especially for the claustrophobic.

    But in the end it all falls flat. Spielberg never really takes a stand. Because of the void at the center of this movie, it slowly implodes under the weight of all its meaningless sci-fi trappings.

    Instead of making a coherent, serious film, Spielberg tries to keep us amused with an old sub-B movie technique: the running gag. This running gag is designed to wring nervous laughter from us. It involves eyeballs. Tom Cruise has to get a new set to evade security. So he visits a sleazy doctor with snot running out of his nose, and his sleazy assistant, who just comes out of the toilet. We cringe that these people are about to perform surgery.

    The doctor turns out to be a man imprisoned by Tom Cruise’s character for setting people on fire. “Will he seek revenge?” we wonder nervously. He does perform the operation, but tricks a blinded Tom into eating a rotten sandwich and drinking some green slime. We worry that Tom will go blind when the spiders peer into his new eyes, because he has not kept the bandages on long enough. We see Tom drop his old eyeballs and chase them down a hallway. They fall into the grate. Fortunately, one hangs on by some slime. He and his wife use the eyeball to open the door to his former workplace. (What, they didn’t change the locks when one of their agents became a wanted criminal?)

    Spielberg adds a lot more touches of the weird and the grotesque: the old woman in a greenhouse full of carnivorous plants who plants a kiss on Tom Cruise for no apparent reason, the old woman smoking a pipe in the hotel lobby (pure Lynch), the hollow eye-sockets of the drug dealer, the creepy caretaker of the clairvoyants, the crippled custodian of the prisoners, the mole on the face of the nurse, etc.

    All of it falls flat, though, because the grotesque too presupposes a particular metaphysics to make sense. As Flannery O’Connor tells so brilliantly and David Lynch shows so brilliantly, the grotesque has no metaphysical weight in the modern world-picture, where all evils can be explained and ameliorated.

    The grotesque is precisely that which cannot be explained by science and ameliorated by technology and liberal politics. The grotesque shows that there is moral dimension that lies beyond science’s and technology’s capacity to predict and control. But Spielberg never takes a coherent stand on precisely this question, so his grotesque gestures fall as flat as his science fiction futurist ones.

    The character of John Anderton played by Tom Cruise is also problematic. I hate the vulgar psychoanalytic understanding of motives that is such a staple in Hollywood. Why does John Anderton join the department of pre-crime? What’s his motive? Well, he was traumatized by the disappearance and presumed murder of his son six years before. He’s in pain. So he tries to prevent future crimes. (The disappearance also destroyed his marriage, but for some reason he did not go into marriage counseling.) Then he goes home at the end of a long day and relives his past with his son and kills the additional pain with illegal drugs.

    I frankly do not understand how rapidly he rejects the whole pre-crime concept when he finds that he is going to commit a murder. Was he not convinced of its infallibility before? If so, then why does he not even consider turning himself in? His conversion is too radical and is unsupported by anything established about his character. It certainly proves his commitment to pre-crime to be unserious, which does not make him a hero in my book. And why the hell does he shave his head at the end of the film and show off his ugly brachycephalic skull?

    I just don’t care about this guy. I just don’t care about Tom Cruise. I have seen better-looking men walking down the street every day of my life. And he’s not such a great actor. Am I missing something?

    The racial politics of this movie are absurd. The very idea that all the would-be killers arrested in a six-year period in Washington, D.C., would be white is so preposterous that when the prisoners were displayed — and I saw no non-whites among them — I actually heard a couple of nervous, stifled sniggers in the sold-out showing I attended in Berkeley, P.C. capital of the universe.

    And of course when you want to buy drugs in D.C., you just find a blind white man in a dark alley. In the real world, such a dealer would be killed and eaten by Negroes. And then there was the scene showing that the majority of residents of a D.C. public housing building were white. I kept thinking, “This really is science fiction.”

    Those problems aside, however, there was something unusual about the racial politics of this film. First of all, one of the laws of casting against type is to find attractive (i.e., white-looking) Negroes for positive roles. But the most prominent blacks in the film are really hideous and primitive-looking.

    Another law of casting against type is to put really Jewish-looking Jews in positive, Mensch roles. But in Minority Report, there are a number of obvious Semites cast as sleazy characters. The would-be killer Mr. Marks is played by the obviously Semitic Arye Gross: an ugly, nasal, whiny, flabby, waddling, myopic, unmasculine nebbish. Who could blame his wife Sara Marks for having an affair with a tall, slender, handsome, blonde Aryan? This, of course, makes her husband jealous, which is the motive for his would-be double murder. Are we, perhaps, catching a glimpse of the anxieties of Spielberg, Cohen, Franks, and the other nebbishes who brought us this film? (Note to Cate Capshaw: “Don’t go home. He knows.”)

    Then there is the Semitic-looking sicko who cares for the three clairvoyants in their isolation tank. Then there is Tim Blake Nelson as the creepy crippled custodian of the futuristic prison who plays Bach on a cheesy-sounding organ to soothe his prisoners, who are kept in some sort of suspended animation in glass pods. (How did Spielberg know my idea of hell?) Then there is the truly hideous Jason Antoon (picture Gene Simmons without the makeup), who is portrayed as sleazy even though he helps our hero Tom Cruise. Antoon’s character is named Riley, while the very handsome Irishman Colin Farrell plays a character named Danny Witzer. No comment necessary there. And finally, the man who pretends to have kidnapped and killed Tom Cruise’s son is played by another Jew, Mike Binder.

    There are three Swedes cast as villains: Max von Sydow as Lamar Burgess, as well as the eye surgeon and his nurse. But the lead positive roles were played by whites or by people who look white: Tom Cruise’s character, his wife, the clairvoyant Agatha (played by Samantha Morton), the old woman in the greenhouse, and Colin Farrell’s character Danny Witzer. The other two clairvoyants also seemed like Nordic types. One of the cops also looked like a product of the Lebensborn program.

    If I haven’t convinced you to skip this movie yet, then consider this: The ending makes no sense. The pre-crime program is shut down when it is on the verge of going national. But how did anything in the film justify shutting it down? A better question would be how they justified setting it up in the first place. And how did they manage to confine the clairvoyants’ powers to the Washington DC area for six years? Isn’t six years a bit long for a pilot project? How did they propose to broaden the clairvoyants’ powers to the entire nation? Are the clairvoyants free at the end, or just prisoners of a different sort, with lots of nice books to read?

    With crap like this to work with, it is no surprise that John Williams’s score is pretty undistinguished as well. And it is the best part of the film!

    Don’t waste your time and money on Minority Report.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Brett Stevens4
Amerika.org



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Tron (1982)
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Before William Gibson and the eventual cinematization of his ideas, The Matrix, but after Shockwave Rider and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Tron captured the imagination of the public with a movie that adapted the Star Wars series to take place inside a computer. More of a culmination of ideas and a reduction of them to a tangible form than an entirely new idea on its own, Tron defined the cyberpunk wave of science fiction by laying out the basic ingredients of all of its future drama. The result is a visually compelling movie that compares to Metropolis and Blade Runner for its graceful but imposing artistic representation of its topic.

    Set in approximately the same time in which it was filmed, this movie follows the path of a hacker trying to find proof that he wrote a massively successful video game which has been stolen by a 1980s style evil large corporate entity. The only glitch is that the secret exists only within the massive mainframe computer that, like the AIs in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Neuromancer, assists that corporate entity… and may partially control it. The mainframe is controlled by a program that resembles the early worms that conquered much of the internet in that it absorbs smaller programs and uses them, zombie-like, as its agents, slowly gaining power as it absorbs more code. In the process of trying to gain entry to the machine, the hacker is captured and digitized by it. Now he must break through its security to escape.

    At this point, it becomes necessary to point out that there are two movies in Tron. One is a science fiction story that summarizes much of the thinking about virtual reality from the previous decade, and another is a movie that — look at the logo on the cover — applies the Disney-style Hollywood treatment to make a story dramatic and yet accessible. The two do not completely integrate and the science fiction dominates most of the first two-thirds of the movie, at which point its storyline becomes obvious and Hollywood takes over for the touchdown. The great strength of this movie is that it made visualizations of computer concepts in the way that has always distinguished Disney productions; its most poignant image, perhaps borrowed a little bit from Thomas Pynchon, is of the neon-light modern city and how it resembles a visual representation of computer programs.

    Where Pynchon compared the lighted city skyline to circuit boards, Tron makes programs into lighted cityscapes that resemble circuit boards, but represent the interaction of programs, users and data. Gibson took this image further and removed the city from it, making it merely a cool-looking abstract space that overlapped with the city but did not directly represent it. Much as both Pynchon and Gibson were influenced by W.S. Burroughs, in this story the computer realm resembles Interzone, or a place where the symbolic becomes real and yet the real can be manipulated by symbols. If you need that dumbed down to a stupefactive level, go see The Matrix, which is 5,000 times more Hollywood-Disney than Tron and is designed to neutralize the power of these concepts.

    In Burroughs, Nietzsche comes to life (from On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense): words manipulate like program code written right into our brains, and the only solution is to decode the message and compare it to reality, at which point one can escape. The Matrix is like the French Revolution writ large onto the screen, in that some simplistic evil corporation keeps everyone in a state of illusion — much like movies and TV including The Matrix do — by creating a false reality. When they wake up, recognizing that the reality is false is enough, and suddenly everyone comes together and sings kumbaya and celebrates the fact that they are all free now. Sound familiar? Yes, it is the standard movie plot of everything from Revenge of the Nerds to Three Days of the Condor. It also compares somewhat to other movies from the same genre of mood as this one and the same time period, such as Blade Runner and Wargames, each of which involves a man fighting technology for liberation theme.

    The interesting science fiction movie within Tron starts at the moment that man is digitized into the machine. Most cyberspace dramas focus on the virtual becoming real, but in this case the real becomes virtual and must find a way to escape from the machine. The movie misses out on what may be the real story, which is how changing data in a machine can change real life, by putting the protagonist Flynn (Jeff Bridges, a spiral cut ham) into the machine. If one bit in your record at the DMV or credit bureau becomes changed, your life will take a radically different turn. By focusing on the escape itself instead, Tron manages to spin itself into an interesting tale where a man must play several video games and win before he can break out into the machine itself, circumvent its security measures and then disable the rogue program that controls it.

    This “escape” theme works well but disconnects real from virtual worlds, which makes it difficult to have any central narrative except the liberation of the machine itself, which conveniently also liberates the information Flynn needs. For the first two-thirds of the movie, Tron plays with its ability to visualize video games as if the participant were inside of them, and works out a few basic computer concepts in visual form as well, which was necessary to prepare the mainstream audience to understand the weird gadgets that were only just beginning to penetrate homes. When the Hollywoodization takes over, the final third of the movie becomes more like Star Wars and your typical 1980s adventure movie, which causes a somewhat incoherent sequence to segue into a happy ending.

    As a movie from its time period, Tron holds up brilliantly over thirty years later. The graphics still look believable and the basic metaphor of man in machine as a program fighting for survival against assimilation strikes a chord with our own struggle to avoid having our brains taken over by the endless memes, advertising, political promises, slogans and trends that keep our modern world under control. While the ending is both slightly confused, fairly derivative and moronically basic in the way only Hollywood can do, it does not detract from an otherwise intriguing and imaginative film that may be one of the more impressive works of quasi-apocalyptic cinema from that era.

    Tags: , , , ,

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Periscope (November 30, 2018)
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Periscope (November 30, 2018)

    by Brett Stevens on November 30, 2018

    • Google Employees Debated Burying Conservative Media In Search

      Conservatives have no idea how the Left works. Leftism is an ideology, or theory about how the world should be that also explains everything that strikes its victims as wrong, which is messianic and pathological. It makes people feel good because it explains their failures and gives them a way to succeed that is not related to reality at all, but feels good because it is simple and easy and therefore anyone can do it. Like evil, Leftism is not a sense of purpose, but what happens when purpose and order are removed and all that remains are the ravening human emotions that desire power as a means of filling in the void left behind by a lack of purpose and order. As a result, these people are all fanatics, even if they claim to be normal or act normal most of the time. To them, life is binary: any object or act either increases equality — egalitarianism is the ideology of the Left — or does not, and if it does the former it is good and if it is of the latter, it must be destroyed. Never underestimate the simplicity and obsessiveness of their thinking.

    • Pulling back the curtain: Wizard of Oz named most influential film

      The Wizard of Oz was The Matrix of its day: a revelation that what we assumed was normal reality was in fact fully controlled. Such plots became popular after the first world war, namely because with Leftism triumphant it was getting harder to argue that we were in revolt against the kings, but everything still felt as if it were guided by a crazy hand. Next level: seeing that this crazy hand is us and our individualistic desires, sort of like the Pontius Pilate scenes from the Bible or even the obsessive nature of Captain Ahab in Moby-Dick. In the meantime, who is behind that curtain? Hint: the mob engaged in human herd behavior, and the ideas that justify them, such as egalitarianism, individualism, narcissism, pluralism, utilitarianism, pacifism, collectivism, and democracy. If you are raging on about the Rich,™ the Negro,™ the Jew,™ or even the White,™ you have been trolled, because those are symptoms and implements of the herd and not causes in themselves.

    • Illegal immigrant pulls gun on Border Patrol agent

      Look, we should be blunt about this: good people do not mass emigrate. They leave bad situations to find better ones where they can contribute, but they have some sense about what will work, meaning that they try to go to places similar to the ones that they have left. They go there planning to become part of whatever is happening there, which is why they choose similar places. They go in response to specific conditions, namely any situation where it has become clear that no matter what they do, nothing will work. They do not leave tropical paradises where one can survive simply by growing food in a minimally competent way. Central America suffers from dictators, low IQ populations, corruption, and violence mainly because it has never had any form of eugenic breeding. It wants to throw its extra population into North America so that the people back home are comfortable, so they send their worst on to us, and stupid useful idiot luvvies demand that we let them in because they are innocent cuddly children, when the reality is that most of them are criminals or opportunists, not pioneers like the people who built this nation. Send ’em all back, no matter how legal they are or how long they have been here. Diversity does not work. That means we either end diversity, or end ourselves.

    • Facebook admits that COO Sheryl Sandberg asked staff to dig up intel on billionaire George Soros after he called the site a ‘menace to society’

      Facebook takes out Soros, and the downside is what, exactly? Soros strikes me as a figurehead being used to funnel money from other sources into Left-wing organizations.

    • Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes denied visa to tour Australia with ‘The Deplorables’

      They were “concerned about his extreme views and promotion of violence.” This is where bourgeois middle class cowardice and Leftism meet: now that the Leftists are in control, they want to criminalize any opposition to them, mainly by blaming dissidents for defending themselves when attacked by Leftists. This shows us exactly why they want gun control and public shaming of “white nationalists” as well.

    • Samsung’s folding screen tech has been stolen and sold to China

      Expecting the modern Chinese to act any differently than the Mongols would be a very foolish path. They intend to conquer by the Japanese method from the 1980s (economy) as well as by any military or political methods they can employ. They want to rule the world. We currently rule the world, but we do so Western style, which is a light touch. They want to rule the world so that no other force can challenge them, and they will use it for their own ends and treat it badly like their polluted cities and concrete wastelands in the countryside.

    • Louisiana School That Made Headlines Sending Poor Kids to Elite Colleges Falsified Records

      Everyone loves these success stories, but then they always get debunked. The media runs on hype and ideology, so they parrot anything that fits what their audience wants to read, and white suburban women who are no longer sexually attracted to their overworked husbands discover a little thrill when they hear about how reality is not as mean and literal as it seems, but in fact wishes come true, because look at all these hopeful minority kids who made it just by trying. That means that diversity can work, the future is bright, and we will all live in peace and harmony, other than the obvious truth that our civilization has collapsed, the future is doom, everyone is dishonest and stupid, and minorities are waiting for the right time to kill us, rape the women, and then set up another failing third world mixed-race kleptocracy so that no one feels challenged by anyone who rose above the human minimum.

    • ‘I’m scared for the future of my baby here’

      Nationalists: diversity will kill everyone and destroy everything. Leftists: no, don’t be so negative; it will all be just fine! Also Leftists, a century later: I’m scared for the future of my baby here. Nationalists: go to Israel, be safe; stay here, and die by someone’s hand, although who it is will vary through the centuries. Diversity just never works.

    • US groundwater in peril: Potable supply less than thought

      Humanity loves its blank slates and blank checks because they make it seem like the individual can do anything at any time and any place that it wants. We thought that air was a blank check, so we expanded recklessly, and now we see how air pollution is the source of our cancers (admittedly, some of us recognized this at a young age, like six, because it is that mind-blindingly obvious). We thought of the oceans as a blank check, but now we are running out of seafood and the remaining amount seems to be full of mercury and plastic. We thought of the American people as a blank check that would always deliver prosperity and strength in war, but it turns out that white ethnic diversity and later racial diversity just kills them off and leaves behind the dross. We thought of Western Civilization as a blank check that would just keep being great even if we instituted class warfare and wealth transfer, but it turns out that we killed the goose that laid the golden eggs there, too. Now we see that groundwater is also not a blank check, and so the cities and countryside will compete, and the countryside will win because that is where the food is made. Where were you when the water wars started, grandad?

    • Mental health clinic opens inside a Walmart in Texas

      Modern society exists as a series of cash-ins. The old cash-in was medical care, but now that Obamacare has run the country into bankruptcy, the pushback is beginning. Before that it was Big Tech, of course, but now people expect it to work like their phone lines and are not interested in spending thousands of dollars on it. We need a new cash-in to hire all the not-very-bright people out there, so it will be mental health. Receptionists, nurses, case workers, paralegals, bureaucrats, and psychologists are all going to cash in on the fact that our last few dozen cash-ins have left the population utterly ruined. Soon there will be sob stories in the media about all the poor people who also just happen to be insane who cannot afford care, then the sap voters will go to the polls with their tongues hanging out and vote for more free stuff to take care of those poor people, and then everyone will get hired for a decade or so before it becomes commonly known that this is yet another unnecessary scam and the trend self-erases.

    • Venezuela’s president boosts wages, compares Trump to Hitler

      He sounds just like our Leftists. I think we should send all of the Leftists in the West to Venezuela and burn their passports so that they can never come back. If all of their theories are correct, these Leftists will create a new paradise that will be more prosperous than any other place, helped by Venezuela’s massive amount of natural resources and fertile climate. If not, we will at least not be dragged down with them while they obsessive-compulsively chase illusions and popular but unrealistic “solutions.” Let us be free of them as they are freed from us.

    • Female genital mutilation cases more than double in a year in UK

      Conservatives are what is left of the Old Right which decided that it could work at all with the Left (egalitarians) instead of noticing that people who believe in a big lie like equality are insane or have made themselves insane, and thus the only thing to do is to overthrow them and exile them. Conservatives love to talk about “assimilation,” or how you bring in people from other places, then run them through a factory where we imprint upon them our flags, laws, values, and “culture” which really means our favorite products and media. At the end of that, conservatives reason, we have created a meritocracy (instead of a subsidized collective, so a lesser degree of Leftism than the socialists want) which is based on patriotism, or worship of the nation-state which in theory is supporting our culture. As it turns out, assimilation is just as impossible as the vision of diversity itself because behaviors are — as we recognize they are in animals and plants — genetic. You can use propaganda, education, and threat of punishment to force people to behave a certain way in public, but they revert to what fits them based on who they are and what they are. At this point, the Left finds itself excusing female genital mutilation as “just their culture,” the Right finds itself red-faced and spluttering about “muh similation,” and people like me could care less if our imported third world underclass mutilates itself.

    • Afghanistan war: US strike in Helmand killed 23 civilians, UN says

      It’s Viet Nam all over again! The bad guys, who are truly brutal and primitive people, use civilians as shields. The domesticated useful idiots of democracy go in and try to make right, but we play according to nice people rules, so we always end up looking bad while those poor underdog rebels look good. Institutions like the UN and the media, both comprised of bureaucrats who get to look important if they come out with data that makes the middle class white female vote swoon, goes looking for incidents to report. In the end, the enemy still holds the countryside, mainly because they are all disguised as civilians so it is nearly impossible to route them out. No one in democracy will undertake the Roman solution, which is collective punishment: kick the Taliban out of your village or all of you get rounded up and relocated to Africa. Trump is doing good work, but under democracy, no war of this sort can truly be won, which is what the Taliban are counting on. For them, loss of a few million people is no big deal, mainly because in the third world, people mostly are actually equal, meaning having identical low levels of intellectual, moral, and physical function.

    • Canada hate crimes up 47% as Muslims, Jews and black people targeted

      Mirrors figures from the US from 2017. “Diversity does not work,” say the conservatives, and the Leftists are determined to prove them wrong, even if it means living in a totalitarian third world ruin.

    • Brussels police battle ‘yellow vest’ protesters

      The yellow vest protests consist of European voters, who are just as stupid as any other group of voters, finally realizing that all the “free stuff” means they get taxed to death and paid less because companies are also taxed to death, and perhaps even figuring out that all this immigration was designed to pay off the existing obligations to pay for all that free stuff, but that it has failed, so even higher taxes are coming in the future. Yep, you blew it, voters. Now what? crickets

    • Grindr app’s president says marriage is ‘between man and woman’

      What was gay marriage, really? It was a media event, spurred on by a round of Leftist talking points, and then it was used civil rights style to batter down conservatives. With that being done, the Leftist herd moved on to its next chance to be relevant and important, installing transgenderism in their grandchildren. Even that is winding down, so it is OK to admit that gay marriage is as useful to gay people as a bicycle is to a fish, and that this whole thing was hype, like everything else in the dying modern West.

    • Measuring the Long-Term Effects of Early, Extensive Day Care

      It turns out that unless your home life was so bad that being left alone in a big room is a plus, daycare creates worse outcomes for children including “social competence, externalizing problems, and adult-child conflict, generally at a rate three times higher than other children.” In addition, these kids are more likely to end up in prison. In other words, daycare does to kids what diversity does to nations. Conventional wisdom told us that this was likely, but we ignored it because since we are taxed to death to pay for our social benefits state, both parents need to work, and so if daycare is bad, everyone will be impoverished on only one income. Maybe at some point even the brain-dead voters will wake up to the fact that having a natural environment where a few are losers and everyone else gets reward proportional to the degree of their effective contribution is better than an unnatural environment where we are all forced to be equal through the dumbing down everything, and we all benefit from conformist participation but no one really wins, and no one is really happy even if we have lots of gadgets and entertainment to keep us busy as we wait for the sweet release of death.

    • Columbia Teachers College professor’s office vandalized with swastikas, anti-Semitic slurs

      Vandals carefully removed paintings from her wall and set them up against the door before spray-painting very neat swastikas in the office. As anti-Semitism rises, some on the Jewish Left are attempting to bring public focus on the problem with victimhood incidents like this, which was almost certainly done by a Leftist and not a Nazi, who has zero advantage in doing so. Like other recent incidents in which Jews, Negroes, and Pakistanis have committed hatred-motivated acts, this one will only serve to encourage those who already hate Jews and further unite those who oppose anti-Semitism, but the latter group is diminishing since the Left has accepted anti-Semitism as a means of furthering its diversity agenda which includes many groups that historically have hated Jews such as Muslims, blacks, and certain Asian ethnicities.

    • Why The Middle Ages Wasn’t More Violent Than The Modern World

      When you take out the statistical anomalies, it turns out that the modern world is worse in every way except that we have more gadgets, entertainment, comfort, and medical care. Since the latter two are entirely dependent on technology, which arose through our innovation in the middle ages, it makes sense to simply live like the middle ages in terms of social order while benefiting from the technology we have developed since that time.

    • In academia, censorship and conformity have become the norm

      The Left is turning on itself since it has run out of external targets. Those who are confirmed on the Right no longer care what the Left says, those in the middle are trying to waffle their way through as “libertarians,” and those on the Left are increasingly fighting over the zero-sum game of attention from the herd. This means that they are trying to destroy each other so that the destroyers can get more of that sweet media attention and the bucks from all those single woman and soyboy people living in dingy city apartments who are willing to spend fifty bucks on gear or donations for whoever wins the attention whore crown this month.

    • Panama the new flashpoint in China’s growing presence in Latin America

      Enemies do not go away; they simply recharge. China knows that it is inherently unstable because it has been this way for thousands of years, and it believes that by suppressing its competition, its instability can be rectified. The West knows better, and so we are its prime target, and as part of its Asiatic obsession with strategy, China has begun attacking on multiple peripheral fronts in order to destabilize us so that it can swoop in and dominate, shortly before collapsing yet again from internal instability. These people are dangerous morons.

    • New York’s Wealthiest Cut Losses as Manhattan Real Estate Falters

      Under a Leftist regime, housing becomes the only thing of value since everything else is taxed to death multiple times at every level. That regimen concentrates wealth in the cities and makes the property there valuable. By spreading prosperity through decentralization, Trump has made other areas valuable too, and so now the ill-gotten gains of New York from 1865 and 2008 are dissipating. Cry us a river, then drown in it, you parasites.

    • CNN fires commentator Marc Lamont Hill, who called for a ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’

      Diversity, like its parent egalitarianism, awards pity points to all groups based on how much victimhood and underdog status they can claim. Thus, while a heterosexual Jewish man has some Holocaust points and general minority status, he cannot compete with those who have Slavery points as well as poverty points and general minority status. He is positively doomed — absolutely blown away, in the Leftist view — if he comes up against a black homosexual transgender amputee from Haiti (an honest-to-goodness third world nation!) who has been raped and lives in a trailer. The richer, whiter, smarter, and less completely failed you are, the lower the importance you are. In nature, the strong eat the weak; in human society, the weak eat the strong. As a result, Jews-versus-Negroes is not going well for Jews. In the meantime, all sane people recognize that the only future for Jewish people is to end the diaspora and relocate them all to Israel, and to recognize that Palestinians as middle eastern Mexicans and to repatriate them among their genetic brethren in Jordan and Egypt. Diversity does not work, either in Israel or in the West, and as Jews and goyim alike realize that, we are seeing the Holocaust less as some horrible unique event and more as another Dreyfuss affair, or diversity failing as usual. We can join hands to send the Palestinians home, relocate Marc Lamont Hill to Africa, and restore all Jews to their rightful home in Israel. That’s probably too sane for humanity, especially under democracy, however.

    • CNN Finds a Quarter of Europeans Are Anti-Semitic. But the Reality for Europe’s Jews Is Even Worse.

      Europe has rediscovered nationalism, like most white people across the globe. We now see that as the five percent of humanity society which decided to try something other than subsistence farming, warlord rule, theocracy, superstition, individualism, and matriarchy, our results have been much better and that everyone else wants to come be with us. We could handle Jews for awhile, but it turns out that any diversity destabilizes us, so everyone else has to go back. Sorry. If diversity destroys societies, we owe zero duty to anyone to commit suicide, so none of them can stay here, whether they have been here legally for 2,000 years or not. Everyone else must go back home. In the meantime, our newly imported Muslim and African diversity is busy murdering our Jewish diversity, and we will be blamed, and we are expected to fix it, even though there is no fix under heaven or Earth that can make diversity work, except suicide of course. Do we wanna die? I would prefer to live and enjoy all that life offers than to commit suicide in a misguided and misinterpreted emulation of Christ, because for us to refuse this gift and thus to ensure its destruction is the greatest sin that I can imagine. Diversity delenda est.

    • Young Americans Believe U.S. Is Most Racist Nation

      Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Aldous Huxley, Plato, and Homer Simpson all warned us: the individualistic lifestyle of democracy and consumerism will produce a bumper crop of stupid. What we did not recognize was that this extends to politics. To be the kind of useful idiot who endorses perpetual failure ideas like socialism, feminism, diversity, and equality in 2018 is to be willfully ignorant of the past and its wisdom, yet this is the norm. It is time to end public education, dispossess the parasites who taught these kids, and then to send these children off to war zones across the world so that they can see that the US benefits from its own choices, and that we are rich because we did not do what others did, which means that we are not “racist” but in fact the lone group which is refusing to follow everyone else into mediocrity.

    • Defense May Claim Antifa Professor Scared James Fields Into Crashing Car

      Antifa attacked James Fields with rocks, sticks, and fists, and it turns out that at least some of them brought assault rifles. His defense is going to point out that he loved his car and did not want to damage it, but fled in panic after an angry mob attacked him. If America refuses to exonerate him, we will see riots in the streets, because this was not murder in any meaningful sense of the word, nor should a driver be responsible when the mob that is attacking him blocks his path of escape. If anything, we should be trying antifa for assault, and blaming Heather Heyer’s death on them (felony murder).

    • Fishermen ‘have been forced to thrown £120k of dead fish back in the sea in a week’

      Why Brexit? EU rules are so moronic that fishermen are required by law to throw much of their catch, dead, back into the sea. This is not just idiotic from a financial perspective but ecocidal, but in order to “fair” to everyone, the EU bureaucrats mandate that centralized rules apply where only local rule can. Just like the federal government of the USA after the Civil War and the Cold War, the EU is trying to produce one equal standard for everyone, and that never works. Too many fingers in the pot and too many hands on the wheel makes for mental chaos followed by policy chaos, and this is why the UK is only the first to exit the EUSSR.

    • Austria’s Young Chancellor Sebastian Kurz Is Bringing the Far-Right Into the Mainstream

      A century ago, normal people held opinions that would be considered “far-Right” today, but then the world verged Leftward in order to compete with the Soviets, who promptly self-destructed just as predictably as the French did after their great democratic people’s revolution. We are not seeing a pendulum, but a flight from a discredited ideology; over two centuries after the French Revolution, people are finally seeing that everything that Leftists do is suicidal because Leftism itself is based upon a lie, namely the idea that people should be equal and that the great quest to make them equal will somehow fix all of our problems. The far-Right, having overcome its own flirtation with French Revolution style tactics of murder and repression, finds itself rising not through the failed white nationalists, but through mainstream populism which states previously radical ideas as common sense truths, and is gaining converts as people flee the failing Leftist Regime.

    • Federal Employees Are Warned Not to Discuss Trump ‘Resistance’ at Work

      If you work for the federal government, you cannot discuss your plans to overthrow Trump. As it turns out, taking that government paycheck actually limits your freedom, as you were told when you signed on. It is only fair that you cannot be paid to work against your employer, which will limit the deep state that thrives because government employees — who have little to do, and few consequences for not doing it — serve as a type of union that always advocates Leftist beliefs because those result in more work for government bureaucrats. Trust people to be greedy, and you are never wrong. This also tells us that it is time to trim down the government, which has become an industry unto itself which employees 15% of the workforce, since these people have started acting against the interests of all of us in preference for their own careerism, opportunism, and greed.

    • Each irregular migrant costs the Canadian government between $10K and $34K

      Immigration has high costs and low benefits. Since most of these people have low IQs, they can only work in manual labor jobs without costing us more when we promote them to jobs they cannot competently do. This means that it will take them decades to begin repaying this tax burden. That spells doom for the immigration programs of the West, which are predicated on the idea that immigrants will work, pay taxes, and then we can afford the massive amounts of pensions and other benefits already promised to the dying Baby Boomer generation. It won’t work. Diversity won’t work. Has democracy done anything but fail since the end of the Cold War?

    • Duterte plans anti-communist ‘death squad’ in Philippines

      If you have been wondering where you can volunteer to join an RWDS, I have good news for you…

    • Texas woman with four children gets eight years in jail for voter fraud

      Third world immigrant does what they all do, which is vote for her interests, which means more free stuff for her people that you and your people pay for.

    • Mississippi newspaper: Hyde-Smith attended segregation academy

      This article is a week old, but the time to post it is now, so that people can see that despite the Left screaming “scandal! scandal! racism! elitism!” in reality absolutely no one cared except the Left about this drama. The rest of us have figured out that the Left are parasites who want to bleed us dry and leave a ruined third-world society in our place, and so we no longer twitch and comply whenever some neurotic Leftist screams about racism. The word is dead and the concept is dead. Intelligent people have moved on to fashy realizations like that diversity will never work, that democracy always becomes mob rule, that equality is anti-Darwinism, and that utilitarianism makes horrible decisions. We are the future; the rest of you are artifacts of the past, remnants of failure, and entirely obsolete.

    Erik Lindmark 1972-2018

    Tags: ,

    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Manowar to release “The Lord of Steel” on June 16
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    MANOWAR’s new studio album, The Lord Of Steel, will first be released worldwide on June 16, 2012 exclusively on iTunes and on the band’s own online store, The Kingdom Of Steel.

    On the same date, Metal Hammer UK will release a special ‘Steel Edition’ of Metal Hammer #233, including the CD and a digital copy of the album.

    The Lord Of Steel is blazing with pure power, untamed energy, and a sound as raw and wild as a force of nature. Track titles like Annihilation and Hail, Kill And Die! set the tone for a record that is packed with surprises.

    In contrast to the 2007 release Gods Of War, this new album is not a concept album, yet each song tells a different story, retaining the MANOWAR vision of righteousness, honor and everything MANOWAR fans have come to know and love.

    MANOWAR fans should expect to have “their heads completely blown off” said MANOWAR bassist Joey DeMaio in a recent interview, and explained that “…this album is all about brutality and raw power!”

    Known for their adventurous spirit and for never releasing the same style of album twice in a row, MANOWAR have this time tapped into the world of action heroes and their stories, writing their first song specifically for a Hollywood movie, EL GRINGO and another one, Expendable, inspired by Sylvester Stallone’s action movie franchise ‘The Expendables’.

    The band recently announced that El Gringo will be the theme song of the action western EL GRINGO, featuring Scott Adkins (‘Expendables 2’, ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’) and Christian Slater and produced by After Dark Films (‘An American Haunting’) and Joel Silver’s (‘Matrix’, ‘Lethal Weapon’) Dark Castle Home Entertainment.

    “We were talking about a concept album but then got inspired to go in a different direction. This is where we are right now,” explained Joey DeMaio. “I’ve been doing research on getting the best microphones and pre-amps for the guitars. The bass sound is death defying. We’ve done a lot of work on drums too, giving Donnie room to stretch out. And Eric will simply sound bigger than life as always.”

    The album will be mixed and mastered at the legendary Wisseloord Studios by long-time collaborators mixing engineer Ronald Prent and two-time Grammy award-winning mastering engineer Darcy Proper.

    Upcoming MANOWAR headlining tour dates:

    Sat, June 16, 2012 – Ost Fest – Bucharest, Romania
    Thu, June 21, 2012 – Gods Of Metal – Milan, Italy
    Fri, July 6, 2012 – Getaway Rock Festival – Gävle, Sweden
    Mon, July 9, 2012 – Dortmunder Music Week Festival – Dortmund, Germany

    More info:
    www.manowar.com
    www.facebook.com/manowar
    www.magiccirclemusic.com

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Some time during the Obama administration, movies went “atmospheric.” This means lots of long emotional (“emo”) shots, interrupted by dense dialogue in which you are told what to think, and that movies never reach an ending. Those who are familiar with postmodern literature may recognize this problem. The more stuff you cram in on the […]
    ...
    (Review Source)

Society Reviews3
Society Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • John Wick: Chapter 2 Review
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    John Wick: Chapter 2 is the first certified smash hit of the year and Keanu Reeves almost 15 years after the Matrix has another and much-deserved franchise on his hands.

    Read more →

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • King Arthur: Legend of the Sword Review
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    When it comes to King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, the weakest part of the film is the writing. It feels like if they had spent more time polishing the writing and making the flow of the film work better this would be a much better movie. With that said, the movie is enjoyable its many problems makes it more worthy of a rental than a must see in the theaters. Legend of the Sword is a typical Hollywood blockbuster, high on special effects and low on quality.

    Read more →

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Ghost In The Shell (Guest Review Ft. JasonsMovieBlog)
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Ghost in the Shell is a step in the right direction for Hollywood in adapting anime movies into live-action features films, opening up the possibilities for better translations and erasing bad memories of some past endeavors (see Dragonball: Evolution). So, I just have this left to say…. I am Jason and I give me consent for you to like and comment on my review of Ghost in the Shell.

    Read more →

    ...
    (Review Source)

Ica Reviews3
Aryan Skynet



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ 𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐘 🔥 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓 🔥 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 🔥 (𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Doctor Strange ***1/2
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    doctor-strange

    Benedict Cumberbatch (BBC’s Sherlock) stars as Marvel’s Sorcerer Supreme in this decent supernatural action-adventure adaptation. A brilliant but arrogant surgeon whose hands are ruined after a car accident, Strange treks to Nepal in the hope of finding a means of recovering his manual dexterity, only to find instead that a world of occult knowledge and power awaits him. Tilda Swinton appears as “The Ancient One” who mentors him. She, along with Strange’s big brother adept Chiwetel Ejiofor and antagonist Mads Mikkelson, does a good job of keeping a straight face while delivering gobs of earnest mystical gobbledygook; but the team of screenwriters has also wisely peppered the script with irreverent observations from Doctor Strange, who, like the viewer, experiences the occult side of reality as a newcomer and serves as his own comic relief. With action choreography and a concept similar to The Matrix, fans of CGI-heavy special effects extravaganzas ought to be satisfied. One does, however, wish that sexy Rachel McAdams (True Detective season 2) had received more screen time as Strange’s love interest.

    3.5 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Doctor Strange is:

    4. Anti-gun, with a physician mentioning “a drunk idiot with a gun” as a recipe for bodily injury.

    3. Pro-drug. Stan Lee, in a cameo, is seen reading Aldous Huxley’s Doors of Perception and exclaiming, “That is hilarious!” There is, too, a psychedelic sensibility to Doctor Strange’s visuals – Strange, on first experiencing the otherworldly, even wonders aloud if he has been dosed with psilocybin – and sitar flavors the music that plays during the end credits.

    2. Multiculturalist. Only after sitting at the feet of black masters and enlightened bald women are white men permitted to save the universe.

    1. New Age. As in The Matrix and any number of other martial arts movies, eastern wisdom is sold to impressionable western youths as a means of attaining preternatural fighting prowess and impressive occult powers. Strange is instructed that he must forget everything he thinks he knows – abandon the European achievements of reason and scientific knowledge, in other words – in order to find that which he seeks.

    Rainer Chlodwig von K.

    Advertisements

    Share this:

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    Related

    Deadpool ****1/2In "absurd"

    A Walk Among the Tombstones ***1/2In "A Walk Among the Tombstones"

    The Purge: Anarchy ****1/2In "action"

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • I, Frankenstein *1/2
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    I Frankenstein

    The Ideological Content Analysis 30 Days Putsch:

    30 Reviews in 30 Days

    DAY ONE

    Never mind the quaintly underachieving likes of Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster (1965) or Jesse James Meets Frankenstein’s Daughter (1966). These movies are masterpieces compared to I, Frankenstein, positively the worst appropriation of Mary Shelley’s story this writer has ever seen. It wants desperately to be The Matrix, but this humorless CGI phantasmagoria bears more resemblance to the hallucinations of a subnormal and unimaginative ten-year-old boy given a tab of LSD. The comic book plot has Frankenstein’s monster (dubbed “Adam” here, because calling anybody a “monster” in this day and age would be insensitively judgmental), played by Aaron Eckhart, teaming up with an army of gargoyles committed to protecting humanity from “dark prince” Naberius (Bill Nighy).

    In terms of screen presence, the question of the relative power of demons, corpses, and gargoyles to inspire audience sympathy would seem to be academic, so that I, Frankenstein’s tableaux of legions of devils being blasted into fiery smithereens carries no more human interest than a war of several strains of bacteria viewed through a microscope. Beyond “look at all the surging colors”, there is really very little to say. Unless the reader finds himself enthralled at the prospect of ninety minutes of actors saying things like, “The gargoyle order must survive, and mankind with it”, or has always dreamed of seeing Aaron Eckhart writhing and screaming to sell the effect of computer-generated flame-tentacles burrowing into his eye sockets, there is nothing to recommend this film, which is possibly even more appalling than Dracula Untold.

    A star and a half. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that I, Frankenstein is:

    4. Pro-torture. “Descend in pain, demon,” Adam tells an enemy after shoving his face in holy water for enhanced interrogation.

    3. Ostensibly Christian, but misleadingly so. “Any objects can be made sacramental by marking them with the blessed symbol of the gargoyle order,” the viewer learns.

    2. Anti-capitalistic. Naberius takes the earthly form of a corporate executive, with his demon minions all wearing suits and ties like the agents from the Matrix franchise.

    1. Multiculturalist, anti-white, and pro-miscegenation. An army of multicultural gargoyles battles white guy demons in suits (plus one token Uncle Tom demon). A white warrior woman prefers to join her brown boyfriend in death rather than live without him. One might pity an actor as classy as Bill Nighy for being criminally miscast in such a retarded dud if not for the certainty that he was paid handsomely for his part in representing refined European m...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Doctor Strange YouTube Review
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Transcript here.

    Advertisements

    Share this:

    Like this:

    Like Loading...
    ...
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton2
Right Wing Film Geek



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Fearless prognostication, part 2
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Fearless prognostication, part 2


    The Golden Globes were handed out last night (a complete list of the winners is here), and the two films that won Best Picture (unlike the Oscars, the Globes divide some of the movie categories into comedy and drama) were THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (drama) and LOST IN TRANSLATION (comedy).

    Other key winners were Sean Penn (MYSTIC RIVER) and Charlize Theron (MONSTER) for best drama lead performances, and Bill Murray (LOST IN TRANSLATION) and Diane Keaton (SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE) for best comic lead performances. Peter Jackson won best director for the third part of the Tolkien trilogy, and Sofia Coppola won best script for TRANSLATION. These are all pretty much locks for at least a nomination.

    I do hope, though, the supporting actor award given to Tim Robbins for MYSTIC RIVER was the result of the ballots being sent by mistake to The Deaf and Blind Academy giving out their Braille novel awards and that “Tim Robbins” in Braille forms the shape of a Playboy centerfold. That’s the only acceptable excuse I can imagine.

    The Oscars have a tradition of ignoring or downplaying comedies (and rewarding the tic-ridden handicapped role — have I mentioned that I HATE Tim Robbins in MYSTIC RIVER?). One fact suffices to prove this: Cary Grant was nominated just twice — for PENNY SERENADE and NONE BUT THE LONELY HEART. Yes, the greatest film comedian ever got nominated for an orphanage tear-jerker and a Clifford Odets bit of cockney social consciousness. So most of the time, the Golden Globe drama winner has the advantage over the Golden Globe comedy winner. So, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that LORD OF THE RINGS 3.0 will win the Best Picture. Unless there’s pictures of Peter Jackson with a dead girl or a live boy — only in Hollywood, that might even improve its chances.

    More seriously, all the extracinematic reasons that films win Oscars are pointing LORD’s way — it was the capper to one of the most commercially successful series of all time, and, unlike say THE MATRIX movies, it was a succes d’estime as well. Neither of the first two films got much love from Oscar (the first got 13 nominations, but only four victories in minor categories; the second got just six nods and two minor victories) — so voting for it becomes a way both to salute the whole trilogy and to make up for past snubs. There’s also not a clear alternative front-runner right up Oscar-bait Alley, like there was with CHICAGO last year. So my Magic 8-ball sez the man who made HEAVENLY CREATURES takes home the gold in a month.

    Now, I have to *see* the damn thing.

    October 2007 update: Never did see LOTR3. Don’t feel the slightest bit unfulfilled.

    Advertisement
    Advertisements
    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    January 26, 2004 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , ,

    1 Comment »

    1. […] nomination for Bill Murray, and he might even win, though my money would be on Sean Penn (insert this rant from yesterday about the Academy giving short shrift to comedy and comic […]

      Pingback by Love and hate about the Oscar nominations « Rightwing Film Geek | January 11, 2008 | 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)

Amerika.org Staff1
Amerika.org



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Can the Internet Challenge Today’s Informational and Cultural Monopoly? (Mark Wegierski)
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Can the Internet Challenge Today’s Informational and Cultural Monopoly? (Mark Wegierski)

    by Dave Anderson on August 8, 1970

    The Internet arose as a truly mass phenomenon in the mid-1990s. It arrived, however, after three to four decades of some of the most intense, unidirectional mass media and mass educational conditioning in human history.

    It is a vitally important question whether the Internet will offer the possibilities of enhancing serious social, political, cultural, and truly philosophical debate, or if the various “news” and entertainment imageries so widely and readily transmissible through it, will simply intensify American consumerism, political-correctness, and mindless, ersatz patriotism.

    It may be noted that a situation now exists, where it appears that little more than one percent of the population — termed variously “the knowledge elite,” the “symbolic analysts”, or “the New Class” — endeavors to thoroughly condition the rest of the population — through the mass media and mass education system — in what to think, feel, and believe, and in how to act. This system has been described as the managerial-therapeutic regime, the melding of big business and big government, a social environment of total administration and near-total media immersion.

    It may be noted than any more honest challenges to the system, whether from the anti-consumerist, ecological Left or from antiwar, localist, paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives, are simply being edited out of “approved”, media- and administratively-constructed social reality.

    It is an open question whether simply making some good ideas available on the Internet, can have a major social, cultural, and political impact. Although some may not wish to admit it, there is a clear hierarchy of information on the Internet. It ranges — roughly — from the mostly unmoderated, self-posting forum, or purely personal website or blog (unless the person running it has already achieved major success outside the Web); to the widely-read, conscientiously-edited, but not income-generating e-zine; to major web-magazines like Salon and Slate; to the websites of major media entities such as CNN and The New York Times — who are simply reinforcing their massive presence in the world outside the Web. It seems that there can be, in the media world, only a comparative handful of “exceptions that prove the rule” — such as the vast success of The Drudge Report, and the unexpected success of The Blair Witch Project — and, now, of course, Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ — funded almost entirely from his personal funds, obtained over more than two decades of blockbuster Hollywood movie roles. Gibson should receive respect for his many long years of self-renunciation and perseverance in the Hollywood environment which sometimes seems about as friendly to sincere Christians as Lenin’s and Stalin’s Soviet Union.

    Also, while there now exists the possibility of easy book-printing – along with a greater hope than previously that the book can reach a wider audience (for example, through placement on Amazon.com) – the obvious “authority” and “imprimatur” of a book appearing with a major commercial, literary, or academic publisher – constitutes a very tight barrier indeed to the intellectual transmission of “unapproved” ideas. And among many so-called “alternative” or small publishers – or such putatively non-commercial forums like public television and National Public Radio — the taboos and dogmas of “political correctness” are indeed often held with even greater fervor.

    As for the subgenre of talk-radio (typified by Rush Limbaugh) there is arguably little there apart from a jingoistic, meaningless, ersatz patriotism — whose main purpose appears to be to drive the United States into endless foreign wars — as well as stupid levels of vitriol against environmentalists (typically derided as “tree-huggers”), and against serious critics of consumerism and capitalism. It also does not appear to have occurred to many people that allowing members of the public to rant freely on the radio (or, more accurately, being given the illusion that anyone can rant freely on the radio) tends to simply work as a safety-valve that might actually diminish initiatives of constructive political engagement. The modus operandi of virtually all talk-radio hosts (of whatever persuasion) has also been well-described by critics — deride and cut off the air anyone you disagree with, and then spend the next fifteen minutes or so laughing at him or her as your fans call in “to offer their support.”

    It could also be argued that the Internet tends to accentuate a “hyper-fragmentation” of social, cultural, and political interests, which means that broadly-based public and political debate becomes ever more difficult.

    Also, in the case of a very large number of people, the Internet is used simply for access to various entertainment and pop-culture imageries and “news,” existing in various subgenres like “porn”, celebrity-cults, rock- and rap-music, and sports, movie, and television show fandom.

    Today, there are also many “displacement syndromes” in a public discourse where consideration of many serious matters is mostly proscribed. These displacement syndromes include, for example, the viewing of tobacco products, guns in private hands, fast food, and soft drinks as inherently and unquestionably evil — and as targets for massive government intervention and class-action lawsuits.

    The displacement syndrome is at its most acute when people express such overbearing concern about the purely physical health of individuals (especially children), while paying virtually no attention to the cultural and spiritual aspects of what might constitute a “healthier” social setting and society.

    Ironically, physical health itself has been undermined (especially in the United States), by the increasing division between an overweight, spectator public, and a handful of “beautiful people” and sport-stars.

    Another obvious point is that overeating often arises from deep personal and social frustrations — and many persons’ sense of inadequacy is reinforced by media advertising, programs, and films that push the most excessive consumerism and celebrity-worship. It could also be argued that, in most cases, the more men imbibe readily-available erotic imagery, the less they have of real sex, and still less of prospects of actually getting married and real intimacy.

    It makes more sense to examine the deeper social and cultural reasons why people are, for example, over-eating or looking at “porn”, rather than blaming the fast food companies or Internet sites for catering to those needs.

    Other vehicles for the diminution of serious criticism of the current-day regime are those “escapisms” that are offered to the more manifestly bright, inquisitive, and comparatively decent among the youth and children today (some of which were indeed offered to young people growing up in two or three previous decades). These include things like “properly-steered” volunteer work — and such deeply engrossing endeavors as role-playing games (such as Dungeons & Dragons); various video, computer, and electronic games (including the so-called “massively multi-player online role-playing games” such as Everquest); the popular study of dinosaurs or astronomy; science fiction, fantasy, and “serious comic-book” fandom (such as, most prominently, Star Trek); and so forth.

    Most of these could be (to a large extent) characterized as “geek subgenres” — and what “geek” does not desire to somehow “transcend” his or (in deference to this possible new type) her “geekhood.” Instead of awaiting the next “dark future” electronic game (however intelligently designed) — such as Deus Ex: Invisible War — or arguing about the philosophies of The Matrix movies — young people might seek to inquire about the lineaments of the world they actually inhabit, and how it might be changed for the better.

    It is an open question whether the provision of good ideas through the Internet will be sufficient to challenge today’s informational and cultural monopoly. It is possible that the Internet simply does not (and perhaps cannot, for the foreseeable future) provide enough “authority” and financial, administrative, and infrastructural weight to dissenting ideas.

    One may indeed note in today’s society the virtual disappearance of “middle-level” commentators. There appears to have emerged a situation with a division between a tiny handful of very comfortably-funded, mostly “court” academics, intellectuals, media-people, and commentators — and a broad mass of powerless wannabe pundits, usually with little financial resources, who appear mostly in various eclectic small publications and comparatively little-known websites. They can all too often be simply written off by the establishment media as “extremists” or “whackos” — regardless of the possible perceptiveness and clarity of their views.

    Indeed, it is entirely in the interests of the media and academic elite to permit the promulgation of the wildest conspiracy-theories and vitriol on the Web — since it tends to discredit those who try to make their way as serious critics and commentators there.

    Those among the masses with little intellectual curiosity and engagement (whom the media-elite probably privately consider little better than “cattle” or “sheeple”) are given what George Orwell characterized as “prole-feed” in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Today, this consists mostly of endless, stupefying, consumption-driving advertising, “reality-shows”, and celebrity-gossip “news” — combined with rock- and rap-music, the fashion-industry, the massive excitement of sports, the titillation of various kinds of “porn”, the sneering cynicism of today’s comedy (especially stand-up comedy), and the extra jolt of horror and violence.

    Most of these kinds of emotional engagements are also delivered frequently enough through the regular evening newscasts. Most of the 24-7 “news-junkies” and financial/business news followers probably operate at only a slightly higher level of political awareness.

    Freedom of speech appears to exist today only for those who are massively independently wealthy, or manifestly willing to accept a rather immiserated existence as the price for writing or saying what they honestly feel. Nearly all government agencies and institutions, universities and colleges, and private corporations, including media enterprises, are very likely to fire their “offending” employees upon the slightest infractions of “political correctness.” An acerbic opinion columnist can often be fired after one, especially pointed column. An independent businessperson may be ruined by a variety of tactics, whereas there may be continual pressure on major newspapers to withdraw the columns of controversial syndicated columnists. Only a professor with tenure is (more-or-less) safe from most of these pressures.

    In today’s society, there are still admittedly some professors and political columnists of dissenting views with some putative “authority” in the media — but how long can this be expected to persist, in the face of a full-spectrum, media- and educational-system “shutdown” of many important ideas and discussions? What is occurring might be called “ideocide.”

    It could be argued that challenging the managerial-therapeutic regime requires the persistence or creation of major social, cultural, and political infrastructures (such as, for example, various publishing enterprises, institutes, think-tanks, and foundations) that can, to a large extent, be free of the current-day system’s informational, cultural — and indeed — financial chokehold on free thinking.

    Whether the Internet can indeed become significantly enabling toward the creation of such infrastructures, remains to be seen.

    Mark Wegierski is a Canadian writer and historical researcher.

    Tags:

    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff8
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • This 'King Arthur' Film Is So Bad, It's Kind Of Great
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    I’ve been a fan of the King Arthur legend almost as long as I’ve been alive, but I was underwhelmed by the frenetic trailers for Guy Ritchie’s big-budget reboot. Nevertheless, fully aware that Sir Thomas Malory might be rolling over in his grave, I turned out on opening night for this new interpretation. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is a very… unique take on the character. That’s not just a euphemism: on net, I’m pleasantly surprised at how entertained I was. By any objective metric, it’s pretty terrible. But it scores points for crossing over into the rarified realm of films “so bad they’re also kind of great.” It’s hard to do justice to the sheer insanity of this experience, so just take my word for it: everything I’m about to describe actually happens in this movie. ‘Legend’ Is Full Of Berserk Dynamism The film opens as King Uther Pendragon’s castle of Camelot is being attacked by the evil Mage King Mordred and his legion of supernaturally summoned, hundred-foot-tall war elephants. After repelling the attackers, Uther and his wife are murdered by Lord Vortigern (Jude Law), who’s been taking counsel from a trio of amphibious conjoined witches living in the Camelot dungeons. Uther’s son Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) is spirited away to London, where he’s raised on the mean streets by a group of hookers with hearts of gold. Twenty-odd years later, a mysterious “sword in the stone” turns up, and everyone in the kingdom is required by law to try their hand at the task. Once he draws forth the blade, Arthur is almost killed by Vortigern’s men, until a gang of friendly outlaws and an animal-controlling mage girl intervene. Shortly thereafter, Arthur and his crew decide to lead an uprising against Vortigern to retake Camelot. Suffice it to say that this is not another “gritty reboot”: instead, “Legend of the Sword” is ludicrously over-the-top, embracing its own berserk dynamism. There’s not much exposition or laborious world-building here, and that’s a good thing. Somehow, this film is at its best when it abandons any attempt at explanation or straight-up narrative. If you took some of the wildest visuals—collapsing towers! giant snakes! giant bats with leech-like mouths! fiery explosions! the Lady of the Lake carrying a flaming sword underwater!—and switched out the sound effects for a synth-pop score, “Legend of the Sword” would actually be a pretty decent art film. None of it makes any sort of sense, but you really have to admire the sheer brio of the whole thing. A Film That’s Stupid, But Enjoyable Obviously, there are a lot of moviemaking hiccups here. Director Ritchie borrows heavily—and largely unsuccessfully—from his “Snatch” and “Sherlock Holmes” bag of cinematic tricks. The distinctive “Guy Ritchie gimmick”—an explanatory voiceover layered onto a rapidly-edited visual sequence, as past events are recounted or a plan is described—is deployed four separate times, to stultifying effect. Ritchie also displays an obnoxious fixation on the “gritty street brawling” aspect of this story (which, in any story involving “King Arthur,” should be incidental to a larger plot), and the second act sags because of it. There are a lot of directors who could’ve effectively executed a King Arthur adaptation. Ritchie is not one of them. And as stupidly enjoyable as “Legend of the Sword” can be, a lot of the Arthurian myth really was lost in translation. The best King Arthur stories are situated in a world that intersects with two distinct supernatural realities: paganism and Christianity. Within this space, Merlin’s Druidic wizardry and the sacred power of the Holy Grail can coexist—a nexus that reflects an essential tension between earthy, prehistoric magic and the holy light of the transcendent. Against that backdrop of otherworldly “kingdoms in conflict,” deeply human stories of love, loss, and war unfold. For All Its Faults, ‘Legend’ Is Never Dull “Legend of the Sword” is a serious dumbing-down—shall we say a “millennialization?”—of this ancient metaphysical order. Magic doesn’t “work” in any ordered sense here. Sorcerers wave their hands, and shiny stuff happens. The eponymous sword Arthur wields is a magical talisman that allows him to attack his enemies in slo-mo (imagine the “bullet time” sequences from “The Matrix,” but with blades). But it’s the sword, not Arthur, that’s really in control—a storytelling contrivance that deprives Arthur of any moral responsibility or need for kingly introspection. The thematic desaturation doesn’t stop there. (Mild spoiler.) As Arthur prepares to confront Vortigern in a final battle, Vortigern suddenly transforms into a huge, flaming, armored demon and teleports them both into a mystical “battle arena.” It’s the single most “video gamey” moment I’ve ever seen in a Hollywood blockbuster—and while I must admit it’s an exciting sequence, it completely lacks internal logic. Is Vortigern channeling the evil spirits of Christian lore—Asmodeus, Belial, and so forth—the Celtic King of the Wild Hunt, the Viking demon Surtr, or something else altogether? But maybe in the end, it doesn’t really matter. “Legend of the Sword” is quite comfortable embracing its own sheer wackiness. Ritchie commits to his crazy premise with lots of vim and vigor, and ends up producing something that’s quite watchable, if never really “good.” This is the sort of movie that will surely become a punchline in years to come—something endlessly mockable, but in an affectionate sort of way. As far as I’m concerned, it’s better to aim high and go out with a bang than make something bland and pedestrian. And “Legend of the Sword,” for all its faults, is never dull. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • What 'The Seventh Seal' Tells Us About Life And Death
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman produced “The Seventh Seal” in 1957. As with all great works of art, it still speaks as clearly to us today as it ever did to folk in its own time and place. The movie is a profound meditation on man, God, and the relationship between them. Looking at the film through existential philosophy can help draw out its main implications about the meaning of being human. First, a short synopsis of the plot. The main character of the film is a Knight who is returning home, disillusioned and exhausted, from the Crusades. While he is resting on a beach, he runs into the figure of Death—a man dressed in a black, monkish cowl. When Death asks the Knight if he’s afraid, the Knight responds: “My body is afraid, but I am not.” Then he challenges Death to a game of chess. The rest of the film is just about the Knight encountering different people and trying to find some meaning with what time he has left as he continues to play for his life (with the rule that he can keep living as long the game is in progress). The first scene itself is enough for you to see that there’s something strange about this guy. When the average person runs into Death, he would probably lose his mind with fear. But this Knight stays perfectly calm, and greets Death as an old friend. So, what’s going on? There Are Two Kinds of People The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who’s often thought of as the father of existentialism, can help bring some insight to this situation. Kierkegaard’s main motto is that “subjectivity is truth.” He’s not looking for objective, scientific knowledge, but starts with the individual human soul, and that soul’s first-person experience of the world. This point becomes clear in Kierkegaard’s view on the question of immortality. In his major work, “Concluding Unscientific Postscript,” he says: The very moment I am conscious of my immortality, I am completely subjective, and I cannot become immortal in partnership in rotation with two other single gentlemen. Subscription collectors who produce long subscription lists of men and women who feel a need in general to become immortal receive no benefit for their trouble, because immortality is a good that cannot be obtained by bullying one’s way with a long list of   signatures. As it is with immortality, so it is with God. In a way, there’s no question of whether you “believe” in him or not. You either know that God is real or you don’t, in the same way that you sense your own immortality or you don’t. It’s kind of like being in love, as well: if you need to ask ten of your friends if you’re “really” in love, then the odds are, you’re not. Scientific confirmation from a multitude of other gentlemen (as Kierkegaard might put it) isn’t going to help. Either your soul knows or it doesn’t, and that’s all there is to it. Kierkegaard would call the first kind of person the aesthetic type, and the second the ethical-religious type. The aesthetic type thinks any talk of immortality is just silly, since that kind of person can’t see anything other than the surface of the world as it appears to his senses. The ethical-religious type, though, has deeper intuitions in his soul. Maybe the Knight can look Death square in the eyes because he is this type of man. A Brawl at the Tavern The Knight starts off in despair. He confesses: “I live now in a world of phantoms, a prisoner of my own dreams.” He also yells at God for making himself so difficult to understand and be sure of. According to Kierkegaard, though, most people are in a state of despair—in fact, they’re so far in that they don’t even realize they’re in despair. The Knight’s self-awareness of despair thus becomes a key step toward his redemption. The Knight spends the rest of the film overcoming this curse, trying to do a good deed and treating others with unpretentious kindness. If you want to see why this makes the Knight special, consider a scene in the film of a brawl at some tavern. It reveals the way the average, aesthetic (as opposed to ethical-religious) person tends to conduct himself. As Death himself says: “Most people give no thought to death and nothingness.” At the tavern, the whole crowd picks on a Jester—a socially awkward dreamer with a kind heart. They act with collective, wanton cruelty and self-abandon (led by a morally bankrupt theologian, no less). Of course, they think nothing of this: they neither know nor care about whether they even have souls, let alone what their actions will do to their souls. The Knight, on the other hand, befriends the Jester. By the end of the film, the Knight is able to say the following words to the Jester’s wife, after her family treats him to a picnic: “I will remember this moment: the stillness, the dusk, these wild strawberries, this bowl of milk. Your faces in the evening light. I’ll hold this memory between my hands like a bowl of fresh milk full to the brim. Mikael asleep, Jof with his lyre. I’ll try to remember what we spoke of. And it will be a sign, for me—a source of great satisfaction.” Afterwards, he laughs in the face of Death. That’s his redemption, his reward, for being an ethical-religious man. Time to Forget Descartes Ever since the Enlightenment, the meaning of the word “God” has become fuzzy. René Descartes is a key culprit. He developed a philosophy of reason in which God turned into nothing more than some vague and abstract idea—a premise that was needed to fix the argument, but without having any inherent value; a figure for purely logical thought. Descartes did try to anchor his argument on the idea that this world must be real and meaningful, as opposed to some monstrous deception, because God is good. But this is weak, weak stuff. (In his defense, at least he lived long before movies such as “The Matrix” or “The Truman Show.”) In Descartes’ philosophy, God is just a placeholder; he might as well not exist. It makes sense, then, that many later rationalists just dropped God altogether. This is very different from the proclamation of the Gospel, which insists the Lord is a specific, actual person: not some pie-in-the-sky abstraction, but a truly living presence. Not a figure for logical thought, but a relationship for the passionate heart. This can be called the existential, as opposed to rationalistic, conception of God. It can also be called the idea of the true God, if you believe in the Gospel; and this idea underlies the worldview of “The Seventh Seal.” The Problem with This Generation Kierkegaard’s motto that subjectivity is truth has been all but lost. A lot of people, especially millennials, have an actual belief system where they refuse to trust anything but their physical senses, or what can be verified with the scientific method. But God and immortality and love have nothing to do with the scientific method; you can’t ask ten gentlemen to verify them for you. That’s because these are not “objective” things. These are things you can only see for yourself, on the basis of individual, subjective courage. If we start with the premise that our souls’ intuitions are nothing but delusions, there’s no hope of getting anywhere. When you face Death, a vague idea isn’t going to save you. Nor is the agnostic weakness of saying you just don’t know. What’s really needed is a living presence within the heart—something that your soul knows to be at least as real as anything else in this world. The Knight had that, and it’s why he could carry himself the way he did. It’s like the presence of Death outside of him was outweighed by the presence of Life within him. It’s Kierkegaard’s existentialism, and not Descartes’s rationalism, that we’ll all need in the end, if we want any real answers to the mortal problem of meaning. That’s at least one thing to learn from Bergman’s film. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • How A Movie About The Men's Rights Movement Became A Feminist's Journey
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Dissent from politically correct conventions is not allowed, and the politics will get personal. Such are the lessons award-winning documentary film maker Cassie Jaye learned while making her third film, “The Red Pill.” The documentary filmmaker who gave us short films like “Making Mothers Visible” and two full documentaries—“The Right to Love” about LGBT relationships (before the drop the T petition, obviously) and “Daddy I Do,” about abstinence education culture—Jaye had feminist and progressive credibility, plus the media connections that come with it. Not only did the films win an assortment of awards and accolades, but also the likes of Slate’s Amanda Marcotte starred in the latter. Jaye could investigate any topic she wished. Or so it seemed. Bicurious, Femcurious, and Now Mancurious As her portfolio displays, Jaye was curious about gender topics. Until 2013, she had focused on women’s and LBGT stories. But she wondered about the opposition. How could men’s rights advocates oppose the gender truths she and her friends knew? She began to explore men’s rights sites to understand. What she saw infuriated her. Some arguments seemed too obnoxious to be true. Others struck her as doubtful because if they were true, then surely she would have come across the argument previously. Others still made her angry to think that they might be true. Some arguments seemed too obnoxious to be true. So she embarked on her current project, “The Red Pill,” a documentary on the men’s rights movement. She assumed the feminist movement was open-minded enough, as she was, that she could do an honest film. Initially, that assumption held. She had the support of her networks, who were frankly excited about the prospect of a men’s rights movement exposé. But Jaye did her homework. She researched. She conducted personal interviews. And she realized that the men’s movement made some valid arguments. When her backers realized that Jaye would not be doing a hit piece on the men’s movement, she lost their support, both technical and financial. Some simply did not believe what she had found. Others told her that her findings may be true, that men might face an assortment of crises as claimed, but that it was unacceptable to address those concerns while women were still oppressed. Many might sing a song of equality for all, but in practice, women were their priority. Opening the Lace Curtain What started as a film about the men’s rights movement became a parallel documentary about the men’s movement and Jaye’s journey as a modern feminist. In a recent conversation, she would not tell me the details of her moment of realization. It is a pivotal event in her film, and it informs the title, “The Red Pill.” A ‘clack’ moment was when a woman realized that she only garnered praise for actions taken at the expense of men. Her moment of realization about the truth of balance between feminism and men—that is, there is no balance, only the feminist perspective, purpose, or preference—has many names. Danielle Crittenden called it a “clack” moment in her 1999 book, “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us.” The opposite of Betty Friedan’s “click” moment, when the suburban housewife of the ’60s realized that men took advantage of her domestic service, a “clack” moment was when a woman realized that she only garnered praise for actions taken at the expense of men. Warren Farrell, a long-time men’s rights activist who long ago sat on the board of NOW, referred to domination of the feminist perspective as a “lace curtain” in his 1999 book, “Women Can’t Hear What Men Do Not Say.” To help men, one has to get though the lace curtain. It was a play on the Iron Curtain of the Cold War. (That chapter is excerpted here.) So in 1999—apparently a banner year for scales falling from eyes metaphors—“The Matrix” was released. In the movie about virtual and actual reality, Morpheus, the wise teacher, presents Neo, the newly found hero, with a choice of two pills, red and blue. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Soon “taking the red pill” became the preferred metaphor for the moment when a man realized that feminism wasn’t just about women’s equality and that it had no concern for men. Women realized this, too. Camille Paglia is the most infamous of the dissenters. Christina Hoff Sommers is the most well-known on the Right. I wonder how many have even heard of Karen DeCrow? Jaye, with her new knowledge, has plenty of company, and plenty of heartache. Cassie Jaye’s Breitbart Interview Her network’s abandonment almost scuttled Jaye’s film. She had to resort to a Kickstarter campaign, which onetime-friends even refused to share in email because they did not trust her to present the men’s rights movement as they saw it. As soon as they released their collective breath in relief, the project almost died. Men’s rights activists had known about the project. Many had been interviewed and were wary. A feminist looking into the movement? Well, many of them had not had good experience with feminists, especially the old guard, the men who had been feminists in the ’70s before Gloria Steinem ousted Betty Friedan from leadership at now. (By the late ’70s Friedan had realized the movement had overstepped in trashing housewifery and men. “Some of the rhetoric got off,” she said later, when she published an all-but-forgotten book that tried to restore balance. But Steinem, Helen Gurley Brown, and their ilk had already taken over. Men and home were out. Sex and career were in.) The original feminist men had lost friends and networks. In some cases, they were all but destroyed. Yet some had spoken with Jaye on the hope that someone from the outside was willing to listen without assuming they were patriarchal oppressors or sewers of toxic masculinity. As soon as they released their collective breath in relief, the project almost died. Then, Milo Yiannopolous published “‘The Red Pill’ filmmaker started to doubt her feminist beliefs…now her movie is at risk” in Breitbart. Those who were sympathetic to the empathy gap for men—the lack of concern that many from professional social workers to everyday people have about any problems men face—found out about the film. Along with a few anonymous feminists, these sympathetic people funded the project. In about two weeks, Jaye made her main goal and her two stretch goals, which will allow her to improve the production quality and submit the film for Oscar contention. From Ice to Fire This success did not sit well with her erstwhile supporters. When they thought the project would starve, they were content to simply ignore her. But when she got funding, the personal attacks started. Dissent is not tolerated. Ever. Their preference is to ignore it, to freeze it out. But if it still surfaces, then they go for the credibility of the messenger. It seems like a habit. They’ve done it for decades. When she got funding, the personal attacks started. Dissent is not tolerated. I’m on the steering committee for the commission to create a White House Council for Boys & Men. A couple of old-guard men’s rights activists started the initiative in 2013. During one of our recent weekly conference calls, Jaye’s documentary came up. By this point, the men knew it wouldn’t be a slanderous exposé. They knew that she had lost support because she was going to present the movement as she found it. And they knew she had lost friends for her integrity. Warren Farrell, one of the authors linked above, was on that call, as he often is. He had spoken to Jaye just a few days before about what she was going though. He started crying. Just the way a smell sends you back to a time and a feeling, talking with Jaye had brought back memories of the days when people he thought would always be his friends had shut him out of their lives because he did not agree that feminism had to proceed at men’s expense. He was for actual equality, not gender karma and revenge. But he learned, as all feminist dissenters learn, dissent is not allowed. And the attacks will be very personal. Cassie Jaye’s film, “The Red Pill,” will be out in fall 2016. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Caitlyn Jenner Can't Be Woman Of The Year
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    To prove either that they have reached the pinnacle of patriarchal leftism, or that they are making the biggest joke in the history of mankind (on us), Glamour magazine has named Caitlin nee Bruce Jenner “Woman of the Year.” To celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of this award, Reese Witherspoon will accompany him on the December cover. This is not only absurd, but patriarchal posturing at its finest; not to mention an insult to real women everywhere. Guys? We’re in Crazy Territory It was all fun and games—except when it wasn’t—when Jenner announced he was going to begin playacting a woman for the foreseeable future. As if that wasn’t enough, the transgender lobby prodded their ideal posterboy further Left. Next, ESPN awarded him with its Arthur Ashe Courage Award, and he secured his own reality show, “I Am Cait.” Enough is enough. Glamour goes too far. Jenner cannot be woman of the year because—kids, close your eyes—he has a penis. Jenner might feel like he is a woman, he might want to be a woman, he might be living as a woman, but thoughts do not generate biology or reality. (I’d like to think I’m a millionaire and living in Turks and Caicos year-round, but that doesn’t make it so.) The fact that Glamour is even passing this off as some kind of convoluted, uber-progressive fact is absolutely mind-bending. It’s as if we’ve taken the blue pill a long time ago and Neo is actually Trinity. When “The Matrix” is the only working analogy, we have a problem. This Is a Cultural Ploy The progressive left is to culture what Hollywood is to “House of Cards:” Sure, there’s some real elements incorporated, but some things get exaggerated—or altogether lost—in the shuffle. Grant it, this is Glamour. It’s not like we expected them to pick Laura Bush as woman of the year. So one could consider the source and just as easily shrug it off. But as a college professor once said, “A movie is never just a movie,” and likewise a magazine cover is never just a magazine cover. By choosing Jenner as woman of the year, Glamour endorses the idea that men are better at being women than we are. By choosing Jenner as woman of the year, Glamour endorses the idea that men are better at being women than we are. Glamour is sending a clear message about a new kind of feminist-driven patriarch, who pushes women out of our spaces and expects submissiveness of their feminist enablers. Transgender women tend to be hyper-aggressive. Remember when Zoey Tur told Ben Shapiro he’s going out in an ambulance? Martine Rothblatt, a transgender woman, graced the cover of New York Magazine as highest-paid female CEO in the nation. Apparently real women can’t cut it, so we’ve got to import men into our ranks to win awards. Perhaps this just shows a split among liberal feminist types, but doesn’t it seem odd after hearing them rail for years about men setting standards (even for things like heart attack symptoms) that we’re now supposed to be hailing someone who’s lived all his life as a man as an exemplar of all that is good among women? Now women don’t even get to decide for ourselves what marks the best and most impressive qualities of our own sex? That feels ideologically oppressive. If anything, Jenner should win man of the year for winning woman of the year. Usurping a women’s award is pretty much the most male thing ever, is it not? This Is Insulting to All Women As a bona fide woman with real ovaries and breasts and who’s experienced countless menstrual cycles and given birth to four babies—all uniquely female issues—I’m slightly offended a man was named woman of the year. Men boast their own unique strengths, but so do women. To laud a man for living as a woman is to insult and patronize women who have borne and overcome incredible odds and achieved great successes because of their uniquely womanly traits. If we’re going with a man for woman of the year, why not consider Vladimir Putin’s suggestion: Barack Obama. If we’re going with a man for woman of the year, why not consider Vladimir Putin’s suggestion: Barack Obama. More sincerely, why not the three American men who subdued the gunman on the train in France? Surely acts of sacrifice and heroism warrant more praise than dressup. As for women, what about Dafne Almazan? Just barely a woman, at 13, she has become the world’s youngest psychologist and according to Forbes is one of Mexico’s 50 most powerful women. This year on her birthday, Malala Yousafzai, winner of last year’s Nobel Peace Prize (the youngest winner ever), opened a school for Syrian refugees in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon, near the Syrian border. Yousafzai was targeted and nearly killed by the Taliban for advocating for women’s education. She, too, is a worthy role model. If Glamour’s staying stateside, why not consider Elizabeth Holmes, the college dropout who developed technology that can retrieve blood samples easier, cheaper, and with only a few pricks to the finger. Her partnership with Walgreens pharmacies is growing. Heck, even Taylor Swift would have made a better woman of the year, if only because of her philanthropy. Kayla Mueller was an American relief worker whom ISIS members captured, held hostage, and repeatedly raped. Before she was killed, she reportedly tried to protect other women who were forced to be sex slaves, too. What about the quieter resolve of the mother who, diagnosed with cancer a second time, refused treatment that would harm her baby in utero and succumbed to the disease when her newborn was six weeks old? I’ve undoubtedly left out dozens of other women who have embraced their unique qualities and left their mark on 2015. It’s time to stop the patriarchy-reinforcing posturing about Jenner’s transition. He may have his own show, but it need not go on in real life the way it does on reality TV. It’s patronizing to women because it overlooks their very makeup. It’s demoralizing to women who have used their gifts, led by example, and made the world a better place. Correction: The author suggests Glamour consider Elizabeth Holmes to receive its award. In fact, she has already received it. View the complete list here. We regret the oversight. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • ‘Ready Player One’ Is A Kitchen Sink Throwback Failure
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The film is essentially a bizarre 'things were better back then' attempt to ignore not only the future but also the present by clinging to the past.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Vox Day2
Castalia House



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ 𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐘 🔥 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓 🔥 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 🔥 (𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Why the Wachowskis suck
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    There is a simple explanation for why the second and third Matrix movies were so bad, and why the Wachowskis haven't been able to produce a movie that is one-tenth as intriguing as the original The Matrix. They aren't genuine storytellers and The Matrix wasn't their story, they were ripping off a comic book that served as the graphic storyboard for the first movie.
    In 1999, The Matrix came out and blew everyone away with its insane action sequences, revolutionary cinematic techniques and, most of all, a mind-fucking plot that left the head of every viewer filled with intense philosophical questions.

    What It's Suspiciously Like:

    The Invisibles, a cult comic book series created by Grant Morrison, is basically about a group of individuals who fight the establishment because the establishment is secretly keeping people dumb and hiding the fact that reality is an illusion. Turns out that the "real world" is ruled by horrifying insect-like demons. One more thing: The Invisibles debuted in 1994....

    The Wachowskis have never acknowledged The Invisibles as an influence, even though they had invited the comic's creator Grant Morrison to contribute a story for their website. Morrison -- who actually liked The Matrix -- says he "was told by people on the set that Invisibles books were passed around for visual reference." His reaction to the second and third movies? "They should have kept on stealing from me."
    The real problem with Hollywood isn't the lack of creativity among those responsible for making movies. The real problem is the ridiculous pretensions of those who are technically skilled movie makers to be something that they are not, which is storytellers. At its root, the inability of the Wachowskis to give proper credit and continue to utilize Grant Morrison's storytelling abilities is no different than James Cameron stealing from Harlan Ellison or Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens crapping all over Tolkien with their idiotic dialogue additions and "feminine energy". Their pride, narcissism, and incapacity for understanding their limits causes them to produce movies that are much worse than they would be if they would simply focus on their cinematic craft and leave the story construction to the storytellers.

    The issue here isn't IP legalities, but the intrinsic stupidity of trying to claim an idea that wasn't yours as your own. It's foolish, because everyone is going to realize that the first idea wasn't yours just as soon as you're forced to come up with a second idea and it becomes obvious that you're completely incapable of doing so.

    Labels: ,

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The desolation of The Hobbit
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    In which John C. Wright explains how Peter Jackson rapes the corpse of JRR Tolkien's beloved book in the first unnecessary cinematic sequel:
    Where is the Hobbit in this film, allegedly called THE HOBBIT, again?

    Ah, but then we see Bilbo. After his friends are captured by wood elves, using his ring of invisibility, he sneaks into the buried palace of the elf lord. Unseen, his wily eyes spy out that the elves drink wine imported from Laketown, and float the empty barrels downstream as part of their trade and traffic with the human settlment.

    He waits until the jailor is drunk, steals the keys, frees the dwarves, and, instead of attempting to sneak them past the heavily guarded upper gates, takes them to the loading dock beneath the wine cellar, seals them in the barrels, and clings, still unseen, to a barrel himself as the unsuspecting elf prentices pole the empty barrels downstream to the Laketown. It is simple and brilliant. Unfortunately, he gets a wetting, and takes a headcold: little bit of realism, if not comedy relief.

    Oh, no, wait. That is not what happens.

    Just then, just when I thought I would be free from the repeated blows to my tender head of the Stupidity Hammer, the Stupidity Hammer rose up from the shining screen, drew back, whirled hugely and with great force and might and main slammed me right between the eyes so my brain squirted out my ears a yard past my shoulders in both directions.

    Bilbo does not seal the barrels.

    I will wait for you to recover in case you just got the sensation of a Stupidity Hammer clonking you from the computer screen. They I will repeat myself, because it is so dumb you might not believe me:

    Bilbo does not seal the barrels. He leaves the tops open.

    So the dwarves are perfectly visible, by which I mean visible to the eye, by which I mean not hidden. By which I mean people with eyeballs can see them, such as the elf-people from whom they are allegedly trying to escape.

    Bilbo leaves the barrel tops open when he is dumping the barrels into the water, which is a substance, so I am given to believe, that enters openings and makes things wet inside, and sometimes even sinks things....

    Just when I picked myself again off the sticky floor of the theater, blearily wondering where the Hobbit character was after whom this movie was apparently named might be, BAM! The familiar Hammer came down again. This time, it was a scene where Orlando Bloom is standing a zillion feet away from the evil orc bounty hunter Slopgog the Unmentionable or whatever his name is, and he does not shoot him with an elf arrow.

    I sat there, rocking back and forth with my eyes crossed, and through the stream of drool and vitreous humor leaking down my chin I muttered again and again, “Shoot him with an elf arrow. Shoot. Him. With. An. Elf. Arrow. SHOOT HIM WITH AN ELF ARROW!”

    But no. No elf arrow was forthcoming.

    Blogsnog the Debunker or whatever his name is strolled in a leisurely fashion down the narrow walkway of Laketown, not ducking for cover, and meanwhile no one was calling for the town guard, and the elf guy continued not to shoot him with an elf arrow.

    You see, the film slimer, er, maker, wanted this scene to be like a gunfight in an iconic Western, with Clint Eastwood and John Wayne staring at each other with narrowed eyes as each strides menacingly ever closer, spurs jangling with each step. Of course, in a Western, both are armed with revolvers, and both are wary of making the first move lest the other man prove fast enough to draw and shoot first, but then both shooters want to close the distance to improve their aim. That is what makes such scenes tense.

    Here was what makes a sense spectacularly NOT tense. One guy has a gun and the other had a knife, or a club, or maybe strangling wire or even a stick of butter, because no one gives a rat’s fart for what the other guy has because you can shoot him first.

    If you have the weapon that, you know, shoots, you can shoot the guy who has no weapon that shoots, and so there is no downside to letting him see you go for your gun, or, for that matter, use a winch to load your crossbow in a leisurely manner, because you can raise it and turn him into a pincushion before he can attack you with his club or strangling wire. Or stick of butter.

    In such a case, he will be running toward you at full speed, because if he walks a menacing walk, well, that give you time to roll a cigarette, light it, put your foot in the stirrup thingie on the crossbow, clamp it to your belt winch, and crank the string back, yawn, read a magazine, drop a bolt in the slot, check the grease on the bolt, aim, make vacation plans, check the wind speed, and fire a bolt through this heart and left lung and out his back in a three-dee spray of unnamed orcish life fluids.

    Unless you are superspeed acrobat the wonder elf, in which case you can shoot him nine times a second and spell out your monogram in his vital organs.

    Well, who cares? Neither character was in the book anyway. I think I lost consciousness overcome by the fumes of the butter-substitute substance coating the theater floor between the seats. I woke a little later, and elfboy still had not shot Urgslug the Irkisonic, or whatever his name is. My wife had to stuff a wide handful of popcorn flavored food substitute into my face, in order to smother the broken, wretched burbling — shoot him … with …  an elf arrow.
    I didn't bother seeing the second and third movies in the Matrix trilogy. I didn't bother seeing the second and third movies in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. And I don't think I'll bother seeing the second and third movies in The Hobbit, ah, trilogy either.

    You know it is bad when even hardcore Tolkien fans not only can't be bothered to see it, but devoutly wish to avoid ever being forced to lay eyes upon it. A commenter named Rainforest Giant summarizes the problem, not only with Peter Jackson ruining The Hobbit, but with the entire edifice of Pink and Postmodern SF/F:

    "Jackson... ruins heroics because he cannot understand heroism. He ruins a fairy tale because his world lacks the deep magic. His villains are straight out of Scooby Doo. His special effects mere lights smoke and mirrors. His understanding of war and conflict as meaningless as Xena or Buffy. Tolkien understood war, sacrifice, magic (as a storyteller and father), heroes and villains, hope and despair. Jackson lacks a deeper soul thats why he writes bad fan fiction and cartoon action."

    It could have been even worse. At least the dwarves weren't offering each other blow jobs because ground forces. Imagine if McRapey had chosen to rip off Tolkien instead of Heinlein, Dick, and Star Trek. "Famine for the spirit" and "a hog trough for the mind" is an exact description of the state of SF/F today.

    Labels:

    ...
    (Review Source)

Return of Kings Staff5
Return of Kings



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • 16 Important Lessons From The Opening Scene Of Idiocracy
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    I'm Ted, I read old books, and my interest in Stanley Kubrick has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with my interest in conspiracy theories, not at all, no way. And I like my privacy.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The John Wick Film Series Is A Modern Magnum Opus Of Red Pill Cinema
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Gur is a disillusioned descendant of Genghis Khan with too much testosterone for society's good. Women hate him. Women love him. Men admire him. The establishment wants him dead. However, he is not dead, for his telomeres do not shorten upon each successive cell division, rendering his acquisition of slippery vaginal abysses ad infinitum.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 7 Mainstream Movies With Subversive Themes That Slipped Under The Radar
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    My father was a high-ranking student radical poobah and still thinks Castro was the bees' knees. Although I'm technically a red diaper baby, I've rejected all that baloney. I write off-the-wall fiction, and Righteous Seduction concerns next-generation game. My blog concerns "deplorable" politics, game, and my writing projects.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • You’ve Already Seen One Of The Greatest Red Pill Movies Ever Made
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Daryush "Roosh" Valizadeh created ROK in October 2012. You can visit his blog at RooshV.com or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 6 Reasons To Boycott Hollywood Forever
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Corey is an iconoclast and the author of 'Man's Fight for Existence'. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature. Visit his new website at primalexistence.com
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Nolte3
Daily Wire / Breitbart



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ Review: Feminism and Metal Mangling Done Right
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Mad Max (Tom Hardy) has truly gone mad. Groomed like a caveman, and seemingly able to communicate only in grunts; figuratively, our Road Warrior has become the Feral Kid. He eats two-headed desert lizards alive and drives through an endless wasteland without purpose. The world that was is now so far gone, nothing left is recognizable — except the vehicles, including Max’s now iconic Pursuit Special. What really drives Max, though, are regrets come to life as demons, not a machine. Without giving away too many plot points, the first act of “Fury Road” is spent in a fascinating dystopian society of physically deformed and mentally warped haves, and desperate have-nots. The mad asylum (a wonder of imagination, detail and production design) is run by the tyrannical warlord Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Burn) and his cult of deadly War Boys. For her unique resourcefulness and scavenging skills, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) is revered in this warped society. Like a celebrated Roman general, Immortan Joe sends Furiosa off into the desert on a mission. Furiosa has her own agenda, though, and a nearly non-stop two-hour chase begins. You would think that after nearly 50 years and thousands of centerpiece automobile chases (starting
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 'Mad Max: Fury Road' Review: Feminism and Metal Mangling Done Right
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Mad Max (Tom Hardy) has truly gone mad. Groomed like a caveman, and seemingly able to communicate only in grunts; figuratively, our Road Warrior has become the Feral Kid. He eats two-headed desert lizards alive and drives through an endless wasteland without purpose. The world that was is now so far gone, nothing left is recognizable — except the vehicles, including Max’s now iconic Pursuit Special. What really drives Max, though, are regrets come to life as demons, not a machine. Without giving away too many plot points, the first act of “Fury Road” is spent in a fascinating dystopian society of physically deformed and mentally warped haves, and desperate have-nots. The mad asylum (a wonder of imagination, detail and production design) is run by the tyrannical warlord Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Burn) and his cult of deadly War Boys. For her unique resourcefulness and scavenging skills, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) is revered in this warped society. Like a celebrated Roman general, Immortan Joe sends Furiosa off into the desert on a mission. Furiosa has her own agenda, though, and a nearly non-stop two-hour chase begins. You would think that after nearly 50 years and thousands of centerpiece automobile chases (starting
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 'Fury Road': A Look Back at 36 Years of 'Mad Max'
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    With 37 reviews in, director George Miller’s “Mad Max: Fury Road” sits at an impressive 97% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Many of the reviews are outright raves and make clear that after four decades as a filmmaker, Miller went old school to make the action genre once again feel fresh and vital. “Fury Road’s”  action sequences go back to the future by actually respecting the idea of spatial logic. Better still, there is almost no CGI. Gee, what a concept. The fourquel, which hits theatres Friday, is supposed to launch a brand new franchise. Star Tom Hardy, who steps in for Mel Gibson as Max Rockatansky (aka Mad Max aka The Man with No Name aka The Road Warrior), is attached to three more films. This is remarkable for a number of reasons. To begin with, it has been a full 30 years since the last “Mad Max” (1985’s “Thunderdome”). On top of that, Miller is 70 years of age. Most directors are past their prime at that age, especially when it comes to action films. And then there’s the not-small detail that not a single one of the previous “Mad Max” films were huge hits here in America. “Mad
    ...
    (Review Source)

Hugh Hewitt1
Salem Radio Network



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • "Debate #1: Wow!" by Clark Judge
    (”The Matrix” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    A special column from Clark Judge, who actually knows what it means to advise presidents on messaging: Debate #1: Wow!By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute Remember that line at the end of The Sting? Triumphant over the success of their project, Robert Redford turns to Paul Newman, recalling Newman’s warning when they first hatched their plan, says, “You were right, it’s not enough.” Then he breaks into a big smile and adds, “But it’s close.” That was last night’s debate. No, it was not the end of the campaign. But it was huge. Maybe more than the all-but-unanimous view of the commentariate has it that Romney won and won big. For the critical demographic number in this race is not the 2% or the 47% but the 14% — the 14% of voters who tell Rasmussen pollsters that they are not certain voters for either the president or Governor Romney (by polling standards those who are certain are evenly split between the two candidates). [# More #] How transformative was last night’s confrontation for the 14%? Frank Luntz ran one of his focus groups on the Fox News Channel. When Luntz asked who had voted for Mr. Obama in 2008, a large portion of his thirty to forty member group raised their hands. With only a few exceptions, all had flipped to Romney by evening’s end. There will be lots of talk in the days ahead about Romney’s clear and devastating (to Obama) explanation of his tax position, Medicare, the price of Solyndra and other boondoggles in other lost opportunities… his apt phrase “trickle-down government”… his noting that most of the oil-industry tax breaks the president routinely denounces go to small drillers and will be candidates for elimination if he (Romney) can bring the corporate tax rate down enough… his calling out of Obama’s fantasy charge about businesses getting tax breaks for moving jobs overseas (“I’ve been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you’re talking about”). The list goes on and on. For the first time someone effectively challenged the president’s parallel universe version of both Mr. Romney’s positions and the way our economy operates – and all the world could see that, confronted with reality, Mr. Obama had no real response. I don’t want to get lost in movie analogies, but at times it was like the moment Keanu Reeves wakes up in The Matrix with Lawrence Fishburne looking down on him and Fishburne intones, “Welcome to the real world.” All that was great. But listening to Luntz’s group, something else stood out as the ultimately transformative moment of the night: Governor Romney’s discussion of reaching across the aisle in Massachusetts, including his entirely adult noting that, while a leader lays down broad principles, there will be many approaches for getting to those principle and a leader can’t take a “my way or the highway” approach. As I say, Romney’s was an adult account of political leadership and went directly to the signal shortcomings of the president’s tenure, announced in the early days of his presidency. No statement showed Mr. Obama’s lack of preparation for the White House more completely than three words he spoke to the Republican House caucus when he met with first them: “Remember, I won.” That is not how a mature political executive (mayor, governor or president) talks to legislators. Romney’s account of how he met his Massachusetts challenge (a legislature that was 87 percent Democrat) showed how big time political leaders work. From their discussion, it sounded to me as though that moment sealed the deal for the switchers in the Luntz focus group. Ahead of us lie three debates, four and a half weeks of campaigning, hundreds of rallies, a hundred thousand or more 30-second ads, untold Internet ads, probably more Chicago-style graveyard voting than we have ever seen in a presidential contest, some kind of October surprise from Team Obama (perhaps a bogus charge against Mr. Romney coming too late for correction before Election Day) – in other words, get ready for the eternity in an hour character of the final weeks of a presidential contest. But still… still… last night was transformative. An adult candidate spoke to the voters as adults. If he keeps it up through Election Day, America just might elect a new president. Wow! Previous: The Left In Shock: President Obama Was As Unprepared For The Debate As He Was For The Presidency Next: "He Lied! He Lied! He Lied!": The Left Responds To Obama's Debate Disaster ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

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
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

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:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail