The Product
Pleasantville is a 1998 film directed by Gary Ross (Big, The Hunger Games) and produced by him, Steven Soderbergh (Sex, Lies and Videotapes, Contagion), Jon Kilik, and Bob Degus.
High school siblings David (Tobey Maguire) and Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) have diametrically opposite social lives. Jennifer is superficial and extroverted; David is shy and retreats into television. One evening, while their mother is out, David and Jennifer each decide to watch a television programme: Jennifer a concert on MTV, David a marathon of Pleasantville, a feel-good black and white 1958 sitcom about the Parker family. Unfortunately, the programmes overlap and there is only one TV set. Worse still, the remote is smashed to pieces as they battle for possession, putting the TV, which has no manual controls, beyond use.
At that moment, a TV repairman conveniently shows up. He quizzes David about Pleasantville and, impressed by David’s exhaustive knowledge, gives him a new, space-age remote control. The repairman leaves, and David and Jennifer promptly resume combat. One of them accidentally presses on a button, however, which suddenly transports them into the Parkers’ living room in the black and white world of Pleasantville. Through the television set in the Parker’s living room, David argues with the repairman, but the latter is angered and walks away. From then on David and Jennifer must pretend they are the Parkers’ offspring, Bud and Mary Sue.
David and Jennifer are confronted with the show’s quaintly wholesome environment. In order to keep the plotline, David instructs Jennifer to remain in character, so as not to disrupt the lives of the townsfolk, who do not detect the substitution. Yet this soon proves impossible: when Jennifer is asked out by a boy from the high school, she has sex with him on the first date, an entirely unknown concept to him and everyone else in the town. In Pleasantville, you see, young couples dare not even hold hands until they have been going steady for a while.
This triggers a process of transformation, whereby slowly black and white starts giving way to colour. The colouration manifests suddenly in individual objects, flowers, or faces, coinciding with bursts of emotion.
Almost immediately, David becomes friends with Mr. Johnson, owner of the local soda fountain. Necessity causes David, who works there part time, to present Mr. Johnson with ideas and procedures that progressively disrupt the establishment owner’s hitherto unfailing routines. Mr. Johnson begins displaying initiative, previously unknown. In time, David brings Mr. Johnson a book of modern art from the library, sparking in him an interest in painting.
Deviations have also crept into the Parker’s home. While discussing her date with her Pleasantville mother, Betty Parker, Jennifer tells her about the ways a woman can pleasure herself—solo. Betty swiftly puts this into practice in the bath while her husband goes to bed. We see from the layout of the master bedroom that the Parkers sleep in two single beds, chastely separated by a wide bedside table.
We later infer that the act has caused Betty to become coloured, about which she is mortified and ashamed. David helps her cover the colouration with her own black and white make-up. But soon after Betty takes a stroll along the main street and a colour painting in the window of Mr. Johnson’s soda fountain attracts her attention. She goes in and finds him painting. While conversing, she bursts into tears, causing Mr. Johnson to discover her secret. He is pleased and decides to paint her—in the nude (but for now, from above the breasts). They fall in love and this eventually causes her to leave home. For George Parker, Bud and Mary Sue’s father, this leads to a perplexing and unheard of situation: he arrives home from work only to find the house dark, his wife absent, and no dinner—hot or cold—waiting for him.
This is a sign of women’s growing independence in Pleasantville. By this time, many of them are borrowing books from the library, and a great many of the children are coloured and routinely engaging in sexual activity. Unchanged are only the town fathers, led by the Mayor, Big Bob, who is angered and alarmed by the progressive erosion Pleasantville’s traditional values. They resolve to take action.
As the townsfolk slowly become more colourful, a ban on coloured people is initiated in some public venues. Suddenly, the painting of Betty—this time a full nude—on the window of Mr. Johnson’s soda fountain triggers a riot. The soda fountain is ransacked, books are burnt, and coloured folk are harassed in the street. In response, the town fathers impose a series of draconian resolutions, prohibiting people from visiting the library, playing loud music, or using colour paint. David and Mr. Johnson protest by painting a colourful mural on a brick wall, depicting their recent Pleasantville life. The infraction leads to their arrest.
Brought to trial in front of the assembled town, David and Mr. Johnson defend their actions, with David arguing that colour is a manifestation of emotions that exist inside each and every one of them, and that it is pointless to suppress them. This turns into a wider argument in favour of embracing the good and the bad in life—an epiphany David has had during his experiences in Pleasantville. As Big Bob stands firm, David realises the Mayor is driven by fear and successfully provokes his anger, and thereby colouration, thus proving his point.
With Pleasantville irrevocably changed, Jennifer chooses to stay for a while to finish her education (until then, she had never even read a whole book in her life), but David, now wiser, returns to the real world via his remote.
The Insult
With an intriguing fantasy scenario, the quaint setting adds to the film significant visual appeal. Yet, there is, more to the story than the challenges encountered by modern teenagers navigating the circumscribed universe of a forty-year-old television show. The latter merely serves as a troyan for a snide critique of conservatism, which, in a not entirely hyperbolic form, is here represented by Pleasantville—the idealisation of an America many of the most reactionary conservatives mourn and would like to bring back.
Much of the humour derives from two sources: firstly, the naïve, prudish, repressed, unimaginative conservatism of 1950s America (as conceived by Left liberals); and, secondly, and because of the former, its heavily censored, exaggeratedly wholesome representation in a contemporaneous television show. Everything and everyone is pleasant, temperate, safe, suburban, and middle class. They all have modern houses, with pristine lawns and picket fences; drive enormous beautiful American cars; and live stable, secure, predictable lives, in strict adherence to traditional gender roles. All the adult women are housewives, and all the adult males are sole providers for their families working nine-to-five jobs. It is all made to look implausibly beautiful and pleasantly nostalgic, but also a little dumb.
There are three aspects of Gary Ross’ critique that interest me: his attack on traditional gender roles, his attack on marriage, and his attack on conservatism as an attitude driven by fear.
The film’s critique of gender roles comes straight out of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. Betty Parker is initially depicted as a happy mother and wife, but, once encouraged by Jennifer to explore masturbation, the emotional release and subsequent chance events makes her realise she is unhappy with her life and wants more. Other women in the film are seen borrowing books from the library and reading for the first time, a matter that concerns their husbands, who think women becoming overly educated is a bad idea.
The film’s critique of the traditional marriage is more subtle, but follows from the above, with the implication that it is okay, indeed a positive act of self-affirmation, for a wife seeking to expand her horizons to cheat on her husband and abandon the family home. Betty’s tryst with Mr. Johnson is depicted sympathetically and it is her jilted husband, George, who is portrayed as an idiot. Moreover, George’s attempt to reassert his authority after his wife rebels underlines his impotence, making him look ridiculous and silly, particularly since Betty stands firm in a very calm, gentle, and rather affectionate manner.
The film’s critique of conservatism is the main overarching message, taking also the most complex form. Big Bob’s appeal to the town’s fathers, made while they are all at the local bowling alley, originates from a place of fear—simple irrational fear in the face of the unknown, of loss of control, of where recent deviations may lead. The list of rules produced by them in the effort to restore order are utterly risible—their uptight, draconian, overly detailed prescriptions, as well as their preoccupation with symptoms rather than root causes, betraying the panicked weakness of the town’s conservative faction. One cannot ignore the fact that liberation—the experiencing of new experiences—in Pleasantville manifests in vibrant Technicolor, while conservatism is in boring black and white. Neither can one ignore the rather neat allusion to race relations in 1950s America: the racial angle is abundantly clear when signs begin appearing in Pleasantville’s public spaces banning ‘coloreds’, suggesting that Whites’ preferring their own company and their desire to live separate from Blacks was based purely on irrational fear of the unknown.
In the final scenes of the film, once David has returned to the real world in 1998, he finds his mothers crying at the kitchen table. She is frustrated because she is forty years of age and is unhappy because despite her material comforts life was not what it was supposed to be. David wisely counsels her that life is not supposed to be anything.
Ultimately, the film celebrates broken marriages, cuckoldry, and White displacement, all of which are conceived as liberation.
Critique of the Insult
It would be a mistake to conflate traditional with conservative and think of Pleasantville as a dialectic between liberal versus traditional. There is scarcely anything traditional in the film’s 1950s America; though doubly exaggerated in its conservatism, it still follows what Alexander Dugin calls liberal conservatism—a liberalism that, purely out of fear, wants to keep the status quo, go a little slower, or take a few steps back. Thus, I am in accord with Gary Ross’ view on the etiology and nature of conservatism, as well as with his wider commentary on the futility of escaping into an idealised past, only I would stress that this, as can only be the case in a context of triumphant thee-hundred-year-old liberalism, is one type of liberal insulting another for his timidity.
During the course of the insult, the viewer is presented with a number of false associations. One false association made in the film is a liberal trope: the opposition of conservatism to education, and the idea that education leads to liberalism—or if already liberal, to greater liberalism. Ross’ view is that the conservatives’ fear originates from ignorance, and that this ignorance perpetuates the fear. Certainly, none of the fathers in Pleasantville show any interest in reading, except the morning newspaper. (One wonders how it is that a ‘serious man’ reads the newspaper, and how newspaper-reading is linked to seriousness and hard-boiled masculinity, given what we know about the corporate media and the nature of their output.) The idea that education leads to liberalism is pure Enlightenment propaganda—even the term ‘Enlightenment’ is propagandistic, as it knowingly implies that those who do not agree with ‘Enlightenment’ ideas are benighted. Firstly, it does not follow that a conservative will be cured of his fear or of his ignorance through education; on the contrary, fear can motivate a conservative to seek in his newly acquired knowledge proof of his own correctness, further entrenching his ignorance. Secondly, it does not follow that education leads to liberalism or greater liberalism; this is perfectly possible, but wider reading can just as well enable someone to venture outside of the liberal episteme (Foucault), facilitating a critical examination of liberalism and thereby its rejection.
A related false association is that of liberalism with progress, or improvement, and forward movement in time. The infusion of modern ideas into Pleasantville triggers a linear process of transformation from conservatism to liberalism, from less to more, from boring to exiting, that increases inexorably over time and is portrayed as inevitable. The ‘goodness’ of the process is underlined by the fact that it affects David and Jennifer in positive ways. David, the obsessive fan of the show, was initially stuck in this nostalgic 1950s fiction and is then enlightened by the process of transformation triggered by his intervention. He eventually leaves because he realises that he no longer needs the show. Jennifer, the high school airhead, is also improved, swept by the revolution in feminine learning triggered by her actions, which awakens in her a taste for reading and learning. She eventually stays to complete her education. Obviously, it does not follow that forward movement in time must necessarily lead to universal liberalism: ahead of us lies a time when the opposite will be true. Change may be inevitable, but change does not have to mean, nor does it inevitably have to result in, liberalism.
A final false association is that between coloured folk and excitement, vibrancy, or enrichment. The film presents the displacement of (black and) white folk by coloureds as a disruptive process that may be initially frightening for the conservative black and whites, but that is ultimately a necessary, positive, exciting, enriching, and inevitable development beneficial for the entire community. Reading between the lines, and bearing in mind that events in Pleasantville unfold in a setting that is forty years in the past, we can take this to mean that White folk are to be seen as boring anachronisms who should allow themselves to be colourised, for their own betterment and the betterment of society. Resistance, it seems, is futile. This message is probably the least apparent, since the entire cast is White, but can it be denied? A very shrewd advertisement for the multiracial society this is, as it delivers its payload in a manner that for Whites—the intended audience—makes it easy on the eye, with no need for such crass methods as a multiracial cast.
Not content with the attack on Whiteness, there is also an attack on masculinity. The ‘colour revolution’ is initiated by a teenage girl (Jennifer) and the process involves largely the wives and the young, while the last to be colourised are the town fathers, who eventually lose the battle for control. In the case of George Parker, any authority he may have had as his family’s sole provider proves to be flimsy in the extreme: though his wife is dependent on him economically, once she becomes self-aware she quickly proves that he has no hold on her. And once she leaves the family home it becomes evident that it was he who was dependent on her, for he is completely lost, going hungry because he is unable even to feed himself. This presents viewers with an adversarial conception of gender relations, which is also false. While we can accept that the role of mother and wife is insufficient for many women, that some women may just not be cut out for that role, and that many felt suffocated by it in modern times, feminine self-affirmation does not have necessarily to involve a derogation of masculinity. Quite the contrary, I would argue that, at least in certain but not unimportant contexts, self-affirming femininity requires exalting the opposing polarity of masculinity, the same way that self-affirming masculinity requires exalting the opposing polarity of femininity, and that the complete actualisation of one is not possible without the other. Chivalry, for example, an expression of high masculinity, cannot actualise itself without a woman. It also exalts both the man and the woman, and where there is an oath of fealty, it empowers both, rather than subject one to the other. Hollywood’s mean-spirited conception of gender relations, developed by resentful second-wave feminists who were influenced by Marx and partly funded by finance oligarchs seeking greater social control, merely reflects the nature of Hollywood relationships and the feedback effect the screen treatment of these matters has created between itself and modern audiences.
Conclusion
Pleasantville is an amusing, ingenious, and easy film, intended at a mainly young, White, female audience. One can ignore the politics and enjoy the film for what it is. On the other hand, the politics are very clearly present and heavily slanted in a very particular direction. This extreme bias—or shall we say, extreme prejudice?—will, however, not likely be identified by the audience, save for members already attuned to it; the humorous and light-hearted nature of the story, together with the quaint 1950s aesthetic, feel-good psychology, and clever cinematography, deflects attention from the underlying massage, so for the most part the latter will be absorbed in an unquestioning, quasi-subliminal, general way. Even if not consciously intended as such, as a piece of Left-liberal propaganda this is, therefore, as insidious as the film is fun. It also seems singularly malicious when we remember the contempt felt in Hollywood for those ‘awful’ 1950s and the cynical way the film exploits 1950s nostalgia yet again to fleece the WASPs and poison them too.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
When Heidi went to Heaven 
People still PAy to go watch this crap?
pass the kool aid.
off topic, sick and funny:
Law Bans Use of ‘Oriental’ in State Documents – NYTimes.com
cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/…/law-bans-use-of-oriental-in-…
Sep 9, 2009 – Gov. David A. Paterson on Wednesday signed legislation that will eliminate … In 2002, Washington State banned the word “Oriental” in state documents. …
French lawmakers may ban the words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from …
http://www.nydailynews.com/…/french-lawmakers-ban-words-mother-fath...
2 hours ago – In France, a proposed new law would remove the words for “mother” and father
off topic 2….I went to yahoo to look at news.
sure enough, a picture of 2 dykes and a baby. And headline ‘Sacre Blue, French will ban 2 words.’
Off-topic 3
The Race war continues.
St. Cloud Man Dies After Injuries From Punch
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/22/st-cloud-man-dies-after-random-punch/
This film is the Culture of Critique in the form of entertainment.
The destruction of White America and its values is depicted as “liberation”.
It is all too obvious to be irritating anymore, but it could be used as instruction material to show how the Jewish strategy works ( always by first undermining sexual morals, then the rest follows).
Life WAS better then than it is now. All of the 60s movements have been scams. Ironically, Jewish families are more traditonal and very patriarchal. So why are they pushing this on us? I guess I know why. I would gladly live in those earlier times. Life was definitely better.
P.S. People had sex in those days, too, even outside of marriage. It just wasn’t in everybodies face all of the time. Gays didn’t dare publickly practice their preference. Gays didn’t demand public support (ex. marriage) for their pracitces. Give ‘em an inch and they take a mile. That goes for all of the “special” “aggrieved” groups.
P.P.S. spelling errors due to poor eyesight.
@Mark
Thanks for that info. I am not sure if it is a race war if one side isn’t fighting. Whites should be defending themeselves but aren’t. I still call it the pavement ape jihad, though.
The director was either a tribe member pursuing his normal nation-wrecking instincts in art form or just a deluded White liberal who didn’t know any better.
As for the film itself, I seem to remember seeing it on video in the late 90s, and I barely remember anything from it. Just more frivolous junk from Hollywood.
I saw this movie perhaps 11-12 years ago in a slightly edited for TV version. Even for a typically liberal post high school kid I was at the time, I found its propaganda to be very heavy handed and as a result quite memorable. I remember thinking they way they portrayed the mother abandoning her family was disgusting – she was the enlightened one and her husband was the caveman.
The saddest change we have undergone is the narrowing of women’s lives. In the fifties, most white families had attained a standard of living which permitted them to allow their daughters to experience the full range of pleasure associated with each phase of life. Girls could have their innocence protected in childhood, loveliness was celebrated in youth followed by sexual awakening under civilized conditions followed by children in the full flush of fertility, supported by a husband and society. One still had many years to pursue all other interests in maturity. Now we impose sexuality from girlhood through old age – an impossible task – and we call it liberation. It is long past time to call the left on all of the misery following their lead has cost from the impoverishment of women and children to the infertility crisis to the shocking rates of abortion and STDs. We abandoned rich, full, productive lives of security and prosperity for a sterile life of wage-slavery, the hook-up culture and loneliness. So sad…..
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Indeed:http://www.vivamalta.org/index.php?topic=4617.0;wap2
Ross himself is a Jewish “Red Diaper Baby” like Horowitz, Hoffman, Ginsberg, et al.
How does one educate fellow family members about the insidious subversion of White European culture? I am considered to be slightly unbalanced for not embracing the Zionist party line as espoused in media like Pleasantville in my family (I’m the father of adult children and a wife). To question the veracity of the Holocaust Industry is verboten and subversive. How do you combat decades of TV, print media, and movie propaganda? Is such a thing possible?
As society is coming to know the results of the so called “liberation” that this movie portrays, this movie will serve as evidence of who it was that promoted the f’up liberation itself.
When I first saw the movie,a long time ago, I thought “you have got to be kidding, are you saying that it is a good thing that this woman screwed around on her husband? that she’s now fulfilled and liberated? huh?”
And I was less aware of the tribe’s agenda back then.
@90404: “Oriental”, was once used by college students in Europe at the turn of the 19th century to mean, quaint, weird, strange,etc.
@Connor McNessa: @90404: “Oriental”, was once used by college students in Europe at the turn of the 19th century to mean, quaint, weird, strange,etc.
@dubyasee:
I have found it useful to ask questions. Take one element of modernity and ask how it can be justified. Here is one interesting conversation about the new victims that no one is noticing. Young women as egg donors. It can spark a conversation when you ask others to think and defend their unexamined positions.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6168
@Connor McNessa: They sure did have sex outside of marriage, even the youth did. But the preverted left imagines what it wants, in order to justify their various agendas. Just think of it, these are the people that have shaped attitudes in the U.S. and most Western Nations through Hollywood for the last sixty or so years. The fifties movie, A Summer Place, starring Troy Donahue, Sandra Dee, etc. had as one of its main themes, two young people that had premarital sex with the girl becoming pregnant. It happened then to, just not as frequently as today, but that’s not giving today any real credit for anything, but some weird sense of “freedom”. Funny how a lot of couples don’t feel the joy in that “freedom” once the girl is pregnant and no plans were made.
I am sick and tired of hollywood and the filth and destruction it shoves down our throats, so in order to counteract it, I have decided to become a muslim; tomorrow I will meet with the local imam, and I will be bringing my wife and kids too…we are all sick and tired of hollywood, and we have concluded that the easiest way for us to counter the bastards, is by becoming muslims.
I had a completely different take on this movie. In fact, I quite liked it because I saw it as displaying the very real struggle going on in white society. We can think of the 1950′s era in romanticized terms looking back in hindsight, but there was very real stuff going on right under the surface in white America.
The absence of any non whites in the movie strengthens the feeling that this was a movie dedicated to exploring and peeling back the layers of what is really going on in white America behind closed doors. This movie showed the tug of war that white society has always fought in terms of allowing a certain amount of deviance to exist in order to foster creativity, and knowing when to stop before society breaks down from too much deviance.
One need not insert a jew everywhere. There are very real rifts within white society. White people, both male and female, are always trying to find themselves, to reinvent themselves, to find where they fit in, or the courage to proudly stand out. Pleasantville does a very good job of highlighting these debates within our race without bringing in the maudlin element of non white complaining.
Everything the movie covers is or was a real concern to whites, from the pent up frustration of women searching to become relevant, to youth experimenting with love, sex, and independence. We can’t pretend that these issues don’t affect us or are not present in white society. Pleasantville brings these issues to the forefront in a gentle, humorous way, which is much more than I can say for most Hollywood dross.
I didn’t get the feeling at all from this movie that it was heavy handedly trying to scold whites. I saw it as a discussion about white society wanting to modernize, but also wanting to keep the treasured cultural mores of the past, and trying to strike a balance between the two.
@freebolius: LOL, Or, you could just stop watching Hollywood movies……..
@Fenria:
Do you really think that’s what the writer-director intended? And do you really think that’s how the targeted audience will interpret it? Come on now. It may be entertaining, it may even be a decent film, but let’s not have any illusions about what the intended message is.
@Fenria:
You seem to be the ideal naive goy for whom this kind of insidious propaganda is intended. I wonder how anybody who has visited this website for some time can still be that naive. Don’t you know what the term Jew-wise means? If not try to figure that out!
Go to the link at the comment of Marcus at Sept. 25, 2012 – 10:58 pm. for a thorough analysis of this film that leaves no doubt about its true meaning.
And please leave your naivete about Jews for good!
This type of movies etc., really does shows the evil of the victorious. Yes, the 1950′s was defeated and so was conservatism — but the powers that be cannot stop hating, gloating and torturing the corpse, year after year after year.
Same thing with Christianity, a force that is defeated and will probably never recover.
Is that not pure evil?
@fender:
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Gents: I very largely agree with your comments’ substance, but their tone seems malapropos. Fenria’s a friend, not a foe, and so supportive, insightful fraternal correction and guidance will surely reap a bigger harvest than a smack in the mouth. The ideas and goals we are selling should be at least as tasty as those of our Hollywood enemies.
Honey or vinegar—which is easier to swallow?
Great article Mr. Kurtagic, but I take exception to your view that opponents of PCMC are rightly considered patholotically fearful. I utterly reject the “fear” canard. There is no merit to it whatsoever. It is a shameless tactic to shut down debate about the prudence of a particular policy or course of action by pathologizing anyone who disagrees with this or that social engineering project. It is just the usual Jew tactic of taking advantage of us gullible Goyim who think we are seeking truth while the Jew is only seeking power.
@JustaWhiteMom:
What is PCMC?
@Alice Teller: Political Correctness and Multiculturalism.
@JustaWhiteMom:
Thanks and I certainly second your opinion. It is absurd to imagine that white women were locked into a ghetto of ignorance. All had access and time to take advantage of public libraries. The notion that only paid employment has value and dignity is a Jewish feminist canard. Betty Friedan compared the enviable life of the suburban housewife to a comfortable concentration camp. Utter nonsense.
@JustaWhiteMom:
Can you point out the sentence where I say “opponents of [political correctness and multiculturalism] are rightly considered pathologically fearful”?
An example of our sorry state, sexy six year old girls. Is this progress and liberation? Are they really doing it to themselves?
http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html
Its just more Zionist jew bs..The 1950′s somehow has a mistique of a time of purity & innocense..A quiet conservative
time “hi Bob hello Bill your lawnlooks alittle brown ho ho ho..”.
Oh how the jews love to make fun of us stupid goy.
Under it all is the hatred….
There’s the Holocaust you see…And the jews know we always hate them.
A time when the
@Alex Kurtagic:
I cannot speak for JustaWhiteMom, but my agreement with her lies in the sentence “Ross’ view is that the conservatives’ fear originates from ignorance, and that this ignorance perpetuates the fear.” which follows the paragraph in which you say ” I am in accord with Gary Ross’ view on the etiology and nature of conservatism, as well as with his wider commentary on the futility of escaping into an idealised past.”
Conservatives rightly based their position on tried and true inherited wisdom not ignorance. If there was fear events suggest that is was well founded.
@Alex Kurtagic:
I think the lady, reading in haste, mistakenly attributed Fenria’s views to you!
It seems to me that all you are guilty of is calling a transparently slanderous, unfunny, and unsubtle film (one I saw, presumably with cuts, only on a basic cable channel) “amusing” and “ingenious.” Yet even here, if your implication is that, irrespective of what you yourself think, many white viewers reacted thus, I wouldn’t even consider arguing with you.
Sorry for the word dangle my cat just jumped on me.
@Alex Kurtagic: I’m sorry I misspoke. You didn’t say that exactly. Here is the passage I was referring to:
“There is scarcely anything traditional in the film’s 1950s America; though doubly exaggerated in its conservatism, it still follows what Alexander Dugin calls liberal conservatism—a liberalism that, purely out of fear, wants to keep the status quo, go a little slower, or take a few steps back. Thus, I am in accord with Gary Ross’ view on the etiology and nature of conservatism, as well as with his wider commentary on the futility of escaping into an idealised past, only I would stress that this, as can only be the case in a context of triumphant thee-hundred-year-old liberalism, is one type of liberal insulting another for his timidity.”
I have read your Racial Preservationism is Dead and other articles criticizing conservatism, and I largely agree with you that there is no going back. However, unless I misunderstand you seem to proceed from the assumption that 1950s America was unsustainable because it was already decadent, liberal, and on its way to celebration of sexual deviance and multiracial egalitarianism and therefore not traditional.
My understanding of KMac’s work is that American society did not change, rather it was changed by ethnocentric, subversive Jews bent on destroying traditional, ancient, organic, and perfectly viable and sustainable white Gentile cultural patterns of family and ethnic loyalty and cohesion.
I must say I didn’t mean to offend you and I am honored that you asked me a question. I am new to Rightist thought and I am sure I do not have the same level of education as most who post on this forum so forgive me if I have misunderstood something. I have not read Dugin’s work on “liberal conservatism.”
I realize the Enlightenment turned on Western Civilization by somewhat fanatically privileging reason over tradition. I also realize that the Enlightenment facilitated the cultural subversion of the late 20th century. I simply do not believe that reason must be rejected wholesale by traditionalists. The problem is that anytime a traditionalist appeals to reason to defend tradition, the subversives accuse such persons of being driven by irrational fear and not reason. I see this as a totalitarian tribal tactic to crush dissent.
Again, I am sorry if I offended you and I am sorry if I misunderstood something because of my lack of background.
@Alice Teller: True Alice, and one of the most infuriating things about Cultural Marxists is that they are repeatedly warned over and over again that their social engineering projects will lead to ruin. Opponents of abolition warned that blacks would refuse to work and therefore be a burden on whites and now look.
Now I am NOT defending slavery but we now have what amounts to reverse slavery by transfer payments and that is totally unacceptable. Yet liberals refuse to look back at the results of their tinkering and take responsibility. They refuse to acknowledge that insitutions often reflect, as you said, “inherited wisdom.”
The same warnings were made about easy divorce and feminism leading to extinction but the social engineers just won’t leave well enough alone.
@JustaWhiteMom: I would also add that traditionalism and “liberal conservatism” are not completely distinct. The idea of “going slower” that is presumably characteristic of the liberal conservative simply reflects the caution and deference of the traditionalist. That is, any change to existing patterns must be based on a compelling need for change, and even then must proceed slowly and continuing reform should be contingent on positive results.
It’s interesting that there is a play that is the mirror image of this movie. In Die Pestnot Anno 1634, a villager in Oberammergau goes to another village to commit adultery, and literally brings the plague back with him.
Only through a pious sacrifice (this play is about the origins of the Passion Play in Oberammergau) can the plague be ended…incidentally, this pious sacrifice also involves a reminding people of the dangers of Jews.
Die Pestnot Anno 1633, by Leo Wiesmantel.
@Alice Teller
Thank you Alice, for the response and thought provoking article. I hope I can give you a report of planting a seed of PCMC doubt soon.
@freebolius:
That is a bad idea. A westerner turning muslim is a traitor.
I remember the 1980s action B-movies… almost all produced by two Israeli jews: Golan and Globus from the Cannon Group.
These movies are like a mental preparation to the neocohen agenda but late discovered the truth.
Sometimes I am really shocked at how people on dissident sites have internalized the cultural psyops (ex. women’s liberation rhetoric, unfulfilled women which could just as easily apply to men) that they have claimed to have rejected. Kenny Rogers’ “The Gambler” has answers for all of the defeatists and all of you who do not really believe that our own culture was complete and rational.
-”On a warm summer’s evening, on a train bound for nowhere…” The destination hasn’t been determined yet.
-For a taste of your whiskey, I’ll give you some advice.” Help your people. There’s a Celtic expression: “I’ll tell you that much for nothin’.” I’ll help you, you don’t really have to pay me (anything more than friendship and hospitality).
-”Then the night got deadly quiet & his face lost all expression, he said if you’re gonna play the game boy, you gotta play it right.” You need to control your emotions and approach ‘the game’ professionally, don’t show your hand. If you are going to live life, you have to live it right (intelligently, with a good strategy, morally).
-”They’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.” The dealin’ ain’t done!
-”Now every gambler knows, that the secret to survival, is knowin’ what to throw away, and knowin’ what to keep.” Every survivor knows… We had an excellent and outstanding, winning culture in the 50s, for one example. Traditional American culture was a winning culture, it doesn’t have to be lost. Women were valued in American culture, esp. frontier culture. We need our Boudiceas (Queen Boudicca).
-”…cause every hand’s a winner, and every hand’s a loser…” It depends upon how you play it. Don’t give up.
-”know when to walk away, know when to run.” Choose your battles and even when you lose a battle, you haven’t lost the war.
Here’s one that isn’t from The Gamber: It aint over till the fat lady sings. It isn’t over until the Valkyries come and take you to Valhalla. It isn’t over until you hear the banshee wail and you are taken away.
Hang in there baby! Don’t give up. Don’t forget what is good and valuable in our culture. It’s not over.
Remember the beautiful things that your grandparents and greatgrandparents gave you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wflylF_eIm4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE2FQ6gC8bc&feature=fvwrel
The 50s were not great as some older people such as my parents related it to me.
Here in the US a leftist took control of the GOP and the White House, purged the Taft wing, destroyed McCarthy and expanded all the New Deal programs at home and abroad.
The Interstate Highway program destroyed the core of many cities and hastened a bland, characterless suburbia.
The draft was in full force as were the 91% wartime tax rates.
The Cold War was used to increase government involvement in education, medicine and the detestable ‘civil rights’ program.
Psychiatry was running high unchallenged then and the three martini lunch was common.
Parents were absorbing the miswisdom of Dr. Spock.
Mindless sitcoms invariably portrayed the husband as boob.
A homosexual, Tennessee Williams wrote acclaimed plays on heterosexual relationships.
The Left dominated intellectual discourse with the major exception of the CIA supported National Review.
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in 1957 was the only major cultural challenge to the prevailing New Deal orthodoxy and was smeared across the board by all including the National Review.
A major depression happened in 1958 and resulted in a leftwing Demo takeover of Congress that year.
The Cult of the Organization Man was in full bloom then.
Leftists were taking over Asia and Africa, Sukarno, Nkrumah,
Nasser, Nehru, ad nauseum.
The Kennedy Cult began in 1957.
No, those were not the glory days of misplaced Pat Buchanan lore. They were simply a prelude to the horrible 60s.
@Athanasius:
I’m surprised that there are not more amature players putting on passion plays. Veronica, Thecla, and Stephen the first Christian martyr were also popular subjects at one time too.
@Tom: The Oberammergau passion play has been under intense pressure from the ADL and WJC. They would love to see it stopped, but some things are too powerful even for them. Regardless, they’ve have had an unfortunate influence on the creative decisions surrounding the play. (They were responsible for the abandonment in the 80′s of the script that had been used for 150 years)
@freebolius: I hope you realize that you are converting to a religion the primary goal of which is to become an Arab.
@Athanasius: Thanks for this fascinating bit of information. A dear friend of mine, a Dutchman (now deceased), had read historical novels by Weismantel, but apart from that, what I knew of him was weniger als nichts.
What we need now is for Trenchant to dazzle us all by finding a link to an English translation of this play. (My hunch is that this is one of those rare instances where betting on his success wouldn’t be a winner.)
@dubyasee:
Good Luck! The good news is that you have reality on your side.
It reminds me, in COC, KM points out that the whole bogus ‘authoritarian personality study” (which was sponsored by you know who) sought, like freudian pychology, make one think that everything you thought was ‘normal’ was just a veneer for underlying evil (The ‘classic’ East European Jewish view (think Phillip Roth) view of an american small town) . At the exact same time, the groups who sponsored the authoritarian personality study were encouraging Jewish communities to stress the things that they were calling dangerous and abnormal for gentiles
Thanks for the article, Alex.
You bring up a lot of important issues.
Here is what writer, producer, and director Gary Ross said about the movie:
I thought others might be interested in his thoughts.
===================================
@Alice Teller:
Hi Alice
You wrote:
Great point.
Those old-fashioned values seem beautiful to me.
===================================
@freebolius:
I’m not sure your comment was serious.
If it is, I want to wish you good luck. I suspect that their way of doing things is better than the Jew-controlled media wants us to believe.
From the relatively small amount that I know about Islam, some of their values make sense to me. There is something admirable there.
@me: @Richard:
I am reminded of The Ordeal of Civility – in which our ability to distinguish between public and private is translated as repression. Everyone assumes that there is truth to the notion that because white women were willing and able to abide by the custom of avoiding blatant displays of sexuality in public, that they took no pleasure in it. Who is likely to be the better dancer, the woman who practices with the same partner for years, or the one who has a new partner every other evening?
@Franklin Ryckaert: All movies are a magician’s trick. Everything is contrived to make it turn out as the magician wishes. A wise person realizes that such a thing cannot be so, and seeks to discover the modus-operandi of the magician’s trick, starting from that premise.
In this case, the modus-operandi is casting shame on the society of the ’50′s. I am not totally opposed to this, because I am sure I would not have fit in, but I would rather this change come from OUR people, and in OUR way.
If one wants to see a movie that criticizes ’50′s society, I would recommend “Edward Scissorhands.”
There is no sex; it celebrates creativity, and it freely engages in caricatures, but self-consciously and self-mockingly so.
“In the Kali Yuga, the Thundertoad will vomit hideous ichors on the wooden-headed squashers of creative souls.”
@Marcy Fleming
The collectivists (cultural marxists, et. al.) have been continuously imposing collectivism for a very long time. There has been continuous progress toward collectivism. They were working on it in the 50s, too but the daily life in the 50s was infinitely better than ours, like getting groped at airports, something that even the Communist Soviet Union and Communist China didn’t do. Not to mention the fact that the official conspiracy story of 9 11 fingers Arabs for 9 11, so why are they ignoring Arabs in the airports and groping Anglo-American grannies and little white girls with Teddy bears and why are they not paying dearly for it? The culture of any previous decades is almost certain to be better as you go back in time because of the progress of the cultural marxists. These things would not have happened in the 50s. Can you imagine them feeling white people up at train stations in the 40s and claiming that they were looking for Japanese spies? How about doing it in the 50s and claiming that you were a Chi-Comm spy? Absurd! It’s that absurd now. Arab terrorists are the ones fingered for 9 11 and so TSA feels up old white grannies and little white girls at the airport and they ignore Arabs! Would that have happened in the 50s? Now we have terror watchlists simply for libertarian or other “dissident” thinking. Thought crimes known as Hate Crime legislation.
Media consolidation is much worse now, too. 5 corporations controlled 90% of the media in the USA last I heard.
Now Obama promised in his Senate campaign that he would vote to end the Patriot Act when the sunset clause came up, and he didn’t do it. Does Romey call him on it? Does Romney call him on any of Obama’s egregious attacks on our Constitutional Rights like the claim to the right to extrajudicial indefinite detention or killing of Americans at home and abroad? No! Because he intends to continue that! Would any of this have happened in the 50s? No! Are any of the candidates bringing attention to their incumbent opponents’ support of totalitarianism? No! Would that have happened in the 50s? No! What would the 50s people have done if this had been imposed upon them? I cannot tell you. This is 2012. It’s 1984 but it is late. Thank God for that at least.
The cold war. Communism should be fought, of course without violating The Bill of Rights. The most maligned man in U.S. history, Joseph McCarthy was right, it turns out. The Venona papers and recent research has shown that McCarthy was correct about Communist moles. In fact, practically everyone here constantly, and correctly, refers to “Cultural Marxism.”
Most of what we decry here is instilled in children in school. Schools now, but not nearly as much in the 50s, are communist reeducation camps. Any slack left is taken up by the media. You cannot enjoy any entertainment without some addled sixties love child or hippy with holes in his (OR HER, I don’t want to speak in a sexist manner, that wouldn’t be politically correct) brains harping at you about feminism, racism (really more like “the evils of the evil white race”), diversity, the ingenuity of blacks, the evils of European civilization, the wonders of immigration and economic displacement, and the magnificence of Great Zimbabwe. All of these things were in the works and underway but were not nearly as far along and minority groups knew that they needed to behave with decorum and wouldn’t dare publickly call for the extermination of whites as they do now, and with impunity, I might add. England had no Paki sex gangs enslaving English girls in the 50s. I wonder what would have happened if they had?
I think I’d rather watch Ed Sullivan after a long day of waterskiing and lawnmowing in my beatiful 50s suburban home because the suburbs were pretty good, but not as good as living in the country.
@me:
Not just Jews, pretty much ANY non-European group, from the introduction of “The Authoritarian Personality”:
Groups in which there was a preponderance of minority group members were avoided, and when minority group members hapened to belong to an organization which coperated in the study, their questionaires were excluded from the calculations. It was not that the ideological trends in minority groups were considered unimportant; it was rather that their investigation involved special problems which lay outside the scope of the present study. (lol!)
http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/AP4.pdf
Now, black Americans have also been tremendously affected by the dissolution of the family, but it seems unlikely that recent immigrant groups will be so easily re-molded into philosemitic “Genuine Liberals.” This could leave the Jewish and traitorous white liberal elite in the US and Europe/Canada with nowhere to hide from a very hostile, traditionalist, “unenlightened” new majority of Hispanics and Muslims respectively. Karma at its most delicious!
The problem with America before the Cultural Revolution was part of what made it great: its values of openness, trust, overarching idealism, etc. It was very easy to get people who had been brought up believing in hard work and honesty above all to buy into a crusade against the Krauts and Japs: the good guys wore white hats, innocent populations were being held down by “fascists”, etc. IMO there was not even a real need for Pearl Harbor in order to gain public support for entering the larger war. When the Cold War came, the struggle was a single-minded one against an opposing set of ideas. People weren’t concerned with the sources of this enemy ideology, and certainly not with the possibility that the insidious “soft” Marxism could eat their society from within.
@Franklin Ryckaert: Do you know what the term, “paranoid nutcase” means? Believe me, I’m jew wise. I grew up in inner city Los Angeles. I’m plenty jew wise. Wise enough to know when a jew is at work and when one isn’t.
A lot of WN’s these days like to play this game where the white race is some sort of unsullied pure snowflake, quivering in the wind, about to be gobbled up by a monstrous jew. While it’s obvious that the jewish hive mind has bad designs for white civilization, let’s not pretend that the white race is not ALSO full of artists, experimenters, philosophers, outcasts, heretics, thinkers, and even criminals. We are not the chaste virginal race you people like to pretend we are, and the truth is that the jew hasn’t had to work very hard to get most of us to go along with his plans.
We can discuss the flowery good things of western civilization, but let’s not be fools and pretend that we’re a race of spotless heros forever being dragged down by unseen enemies. That nonsense reeks of the same silliness that today’s blacks use in their, “Da white man be holdin’ me down” excuse.
You want to see a jew at work? Google Barbra Lerner Specter or read the history of the $PLC. You want to try and convince me that some milquetoast movie about mild white discontent within the 50′s framework is some insidious jewish plot? No deal.
@mark:
I saw, but now they know who killa is?
@JustaWhiteMom:
The problem is one of terminology, which can be confusing because many of the everyday labels used to describe the various tendencies in modern politics are misleading or contradictory. I have been using the labels in a more technical way.
The conservatism referred to in the article is, as stated in it, liberal conservatism. Liberal conservatives are not Traditionalists. They are liberals who, in an age when liberalism is the dominant political paradigm, want to go a little slower, maintain the status quo, or take a few steps back. However, they are thoroughly Modern. American paleoconservatives, even the most reactionary of them, are an example of the kind of liberal conservative who wants to take a few steps back—towards the Classical Liberalism of the Founding Fathers, although to varying degrees. The Founding Fathers were also Modern—their way of thinking was distinct from the Mediaeval or the Ancient.
A Traditionalist is far more radical: he would like to dismantle Modernity altogether. And since liberalism is closely linked to Modernity, Traditionalism is thoroughly anti-liberal. Pleasantville’s townfolk don’t want to dismantle Modernity; they are fully Modern, only they represent a slightly older, or antiquated, expression of Modernity—comparable to the most reactionary paleoconservatives.
Traditionalism does, of course, imply conserving, but it also involves constant reinvention and accrescence (adding new elements), albeit always within the tradition.
@Fenria:
Of course we have our own misfits and criminals, but the thing is the Jews have recruited such people to work for our own destruction. This is called the “Hostile Elite”. Other countries have their criminals too but they don’t have a (Jewish controlled) Hostile Elite. Japan for example has its own criminals even in high places but they don’t form a Hostile Elite bent on the destruction of their own people. The difference is : Japan has no Jews.
If you can understand Barbara Lerner Specter and the SPLC, then I wonder why you can’t understand this film for what it is. Have you read the link I referred to?
To me this film appears almost like a classical manual for nation wrecking, all in the typical Jewish style of first underming sexual morals. It couldn’t be more obvious than that.
@JustaWhiteMom: I am pleased to see more and more references to Cultural Marxism appearing in the readers comments that are posted on pro-White and White Nationalist oriented websites. This suggests to me that Whites who run across this term in their reading and web-surfing are taking the initiative to research it further on their own, and are becoming more and more educated on the history and long-term objectives of the Cultural Marxism gang and this is very good news.
Incidentally, the originators of the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism were quite braggadocios in their claims that they would overthrow and destroy White Western Civilization – and that they would ‘make Western civilization stink’ so profoundly with their subversive and destructive machinations, that even the people of the West would be happy to see it wither and die. And, the key point that these Frankfurt School termites continually made was that they would do this without ‘firing a single shot’, i.e., without resorting to any direct physical revolutionary caliber violence, such as what the Bolsheviks did when they seized control over Russia in 1917. This boast has largely come true – but, as always with any of the endless destructive schemes that jews hatch out of their anti-white, hate filled, demonic brains – there is a fly in the punch bowl.
That ‘fly’ is that the targeted victims of the Cultural Marxist war on the White West, once awakened and educated about Cultural Marxism in sufficient numbers, are not likely going to decide to pursue a peaceful, non-violent, 40 or 50 year long counter-revolution to unseat the Cultural Marxists from all positions of power and influence. Instead, I suspect that there will be a very violent and ruthless backlash against the Cultural Marxist enemy and instead of removing these cancer tumors over a 40 or 50 year span of time – I have a feeling that they’ll be identified rather quickly, and either removed from their perches of power and influence by physical means or they’ll be fleeing like rats off a sinking ship, scrambling to get aboard the first plane or passenger ship heading for Israel.
By the way, as if we didn’t need any more reasons to dread Obama winning a second term to the White House, now we have another reason to fear such a development. A 54 year old Madonna has promised to strip completely naked on stage if Obama wins in November.
Granted, there are probably only a few hundred adult men left worldwide who’ve not bedded down with this piece of female trash, but protecting the eyeballs of our young sons and daughters from such a disgusting spectacle is certainly a worthwhile reason to make sure we all cast our votes for anybody but Obama.
@Franklin Ryckaert: I often wonder if these ‘Hostile Elites’ (a.k.a,, White race traitors) have occasional nightmares about the day when the fellow tribesmen and women who they’ve been betraying decide they’ve had enough of their race treason and decide it’s time to engage in some serious ‘counseling’?
@Marcus: Brother Marcus may have a point about all these non-whites not automatically being transformed into the prototypical ‘Liberal’ as we’ve come to recognize from the White liberal left. However, every single one of these non-white racial groups do agree on two things. Which are: They hate the White race and have a parasite-host attitude towards the White race and they all want to breed with our White females.
Hence, Whites absolutely must have a White Ethnostate that allows zero non-whites (including zero jews) to reside within it. That is the only way Whites can survive.
@Mark White: I found one of those multi movie DVDs in a bargain bin at a local department store that had about 4 of the old Charles Bronson ‘Death Wish’ movies on it, and since I had only seen the first installation of that series, I bought it.
I pay very close attention to the opening and closing credits on movies I watch these days, and sure enough – those flicks were produced and directed by not simply jews, but jews that had very Israeli-sounding jewish names. As expected, in one of them, Bronson was doing battle with a gang of highly unlikely ‘White neo-nazi skin-heads’ who were allied with black gang bangers and together, these unlikely groups of bad guys were tormenting a poor, innocent jewish couple who conveniently had Menorah’s and stars of david all over their apartment, plus a lot of sob stories that they shared with Bronson about the holocaust. Martin Balsam played the old jewish gent part, and I could almost see him struggling to suppress a big grin as he went through his ‘guilt trip the white goyim routine’.
Conclusion: The jewish media brainwashing and white guilt tripping has been going on for a very, very long time, folks.
@Alex Kurtagic: Well I reread your Death to Modernity, and I continue to believe that Pleasantville Paleoconservatives are in fact more traditionalist than liberal. They reject equality in favor of difference, excellence and gender roles. Racial integration was imposed from the top down on Americans who saw themselves not as atomic individuals but as members of families, churches, communities, and ultimately a White European descended nation.
I think paleoconservatives’ devotion to constitutionalism looks like liberalism but is really traditionalism. They believe that the original intent of the Framers would not have permitted the top-down, socially engineered destruction of the family, the Christian character of the nation, and White racial identity. Indeed the Supreme Court has had to invent notions like the “living document” and “penumbras” in order to justify its culturally revolutionary judicial activism.
Now I am not saying that constitutionalism is not in fact liberal, only that paleoconservatives really are traditionalists trying to use a document that enjoys universally good PR to promote a fundamentally traditionalist and anti-liberal agenda.
They themselves are not aware of this, but that is what they are doing. But I agree with you that conservatives will “always lose” until they realize that they are traditionalists and just go ahead and embrace that rather than conceding to every liberal advance and attempting to draw another line and expecting it to hold.
@Marcy Fleming
Excellent list, and Billy Wilder helped lead Americans into the 60s with gender-bending Some Like it Hot (1959) and infidelity-promoting The Apartment (1960).
Whites were the big losers of the 60s; Jews the big winners. Homosexuals–seethingly hostile to family values and Christian morality–still now romanticize the sex, drug, and rock decade that culminated for them in the 1969 homo-lesbo rebellion at the Stonewall Inn.
Intelligent Euro-Whites, though, recall that Jewish designed and implemented decade as the one that beat their White culture to a bloody pulp. The effects were permanent for both sides.
“Pro-60s” and “Pro-White” is a cognitively dissonant notion, signifying something rotten in Denmark.
@Luke:
This contradictory love-hate relationship of the parasite with his host is characteristic of all these groups. You see it with Jews, Blacks, Hispanics and most Asian groups (especially Muslims). They hate us intensely but they always want to live among us. We should solve their emotional problems by expelling them for good.
@JustaWhiteMom: I stumbled across a link to a video on youtube this morning that had the despicable Ann Coulter being interviewed by the even more despicable Sean Hannity about her latest book, that I think is titled ‘Mugged’ and which supposedly documents how the left has used the race card to intimidate the GOP and conservative whites in general ever since the early 1960s.
While I detest both of the above named characters, something made me click on the link and I managed to watch about half of the youtube clip. Coulter was spewing the same tired old Kwanservative line – reminding me once again, of Sam Francis when he dubbed the GOP as the Stupid Party.
This line goes something like this: Instead of facing up to the realities of race and realizing and admitting that Whites are in an openly declared race war, the outcome of which is of paramount importance to the survival of White European people – kwanservative neo-con nitwits like the brainless Ann Coulter will write books, endless articles and give endless TV interviews that whine and moan and cry like jilted teenage girls on her high school Prom Night that serve to repeat the following basic themes:
1. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln and Lincoln freed the black slaves (and then turned them loose to prey upon the Southern Whites – my analysis, not hers).
2. The awful Democrats used to be the party that defended the White South and that meant they stood up for segregation (which helped keep black crime out of white neighborhoods and communities and how that can ever be viewed in a critical light is beyond my ability to grasp).
3. White and black Democrats constantly use the race card to shore up their minority voting base by constantly lying to them that the Republicans want to bring back the KKK and start lynching blacks and a whole gamut of other totally ridiculous claims.
4. Usually, at some point in such charades – Coulter or one of the many other kwanservative nitwits will start heaping glowing praise on the known Communist, plagiarist and serial abuser of female prostitutes MLK Jr. and try to assert the incredibly ridiculous notion that MLK Jr.’s views were in perfect synchronization with today’s GOP conservative platform.
All in all, the video was about what I expected out of the likes of Coulter and Hannity. Never will either of these two clueless morons ever acknowledge or get anywhere near the ugly truth about race and politics in 2012 America.
What is that truth? Simple. White European Americans, and White European people around the entire White Western World, are in an openly declared race war to decide whether these non-white racial competitors are going to seize complete, permanent control and dominance over the historic and native homelands of White European men and women. These lands are OUR birthright and we are entitled to do anything that is necessary, up to and including a physical confrontation that involves fighting in the streets – to maintain our dominance and control over our homelands. Each and every one of these minority race hustlers who are trying to steal our native homelands from us have one or more nations around the world where their race and their culture are in complete dominance and control – and Whites have every legitimate and justified right to expect to maintain our control and dominance over our homelands.
Running away from the race issue and allowing our enemies to set and enforce what they define as the ‘acceptable range of discourse’ on this subject is a recipe for failure and defeat, Annie girl. You do not fight a race war by avoiding the subject of race, you nitwit. You make race the focus of your debating points – and you challenge your opponent to justify the displacement and genocide of White European people inside their native homelands.
Granted, these minority race hustlers are not about to be embarrassed when they are called out for the genocide craving criminals that they most certainly are – but forcing them to openly admit that they support White genocide and the theft of White European nations by non-Whites can be a huge benefit to our side of this struggle. It can help wake our people up to what they and their children will face if they continue to allow themselves to be race whipped.
Kwanservatives like Coulter and Hannity are wasting time and helping our enemies to run out the clock on our race, folks.
It is time to accept the fact that non-whites are our enemies and our racial competitors and stop crying in our beer because they refuse to love us and vote for GOP candidates.
@Fenria:
Right. And the stupid culture of this country that some people here wax nostalgic over is a big reason why jews were able to come in and seize power while facing hardly any resistance. Remember that Hitler was an artist.
The idea that jews didn’t dominate the US until the 60′s is flat-out ridiculous. They had the upper hand by the 1930′s at least, and a lot of influence before that time. Americans smashed the last resistance to jewish power in Germany in 1945 and were tremendously proud of that achievement. But the men had short hair and the women wore long skirts, so I guess everything was culturally fine back then. The truth is that this country was completely screwed by the 1950′s and to view that period of time as some sort of golden era is to take a very superficial view of things.
As for the 60′s, part of the problem is that we can’t possibly know how society would have developed if there had been no jewish influence. So it’s difficult to say to what extent the 60′s were “engineered”, and to what extent they were a backlash against the culturally insipid 50′s that was bound to occur anyway. The main political issue of the 60′s was US involvement in Vietnam, which the conservatives were on the wrong side of, just as they are with the Mideast wars today. The most lasting political change to occur during the 60′s was the 1965 immigration act, which seems to have gone essentially unnoticed at the time by pretty much everybody and probably could have been passed even if the counter-culture had not occurred. So I hardly see the issue as being as cut and dried as some here want to make it out to be.
@Connor McNessa: Poor eyesight is no excuse for spelling “publicly” with a “K” dear. Use your SpellCheck.
I’m appalled by the way people write here — including the author of the piece. You do not capitalize “white” unless it’s the first word of a sentence or you’re writing about Betty White.
It is TOO policy to capitalize White when it refers to the White race. I feel that that it White Race should be considered a proper noun. We do the same when referring to Blacks.
@Luke: I agree completely. Coulter is beating around the bush and Hannity is a liberal, but I think paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan are true traditionalists. I don’t think the Council of Conservative Citizens crowd are 300 year old scared liberals. I think they really are traditionalists. At most you could say they believe in liberal government, but they are not “thoroughly modern” reactionary liberal conservatives.
@Luke: Luke, your 12:34 post was brilliant and to the point. I cannot believe that there are still European-Americans, that waste a single second listening to the likes of Hannity, O Riley, Coulter, Limbaugh!!, etc. These people all know the score Luke. They are not stupid and deluded, but rather those whites that take them as some kind of guardians or spokespeople for them are deluded. All of these people are making tens of millions, in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, and like the jazz musicians say, have a good gig going. They know what would happen if they actually started writing and speaking what they’re really thinking. Off the gravy train, with no one pitying them at all. How many times have we seen it happen, especially with thise despicable so-called conservatives, that will throw one of their own under the buss without the slightest quiver, for some sin that person committed, like expressing “racism”, or “meanspiritedness”, or “exclusion”, and on and on. Yet they full know that the subversive nation destroying left, excludes, denigrates, and dehumanizes white conservatives on a daily basis. COWARDS……………….ALL OF THESE PUNKDENTS. That’s right, PUNKDENTS.
@Marcy Fleming:
It is an old trick to proclaim that since white culture or achievements are imperfect they are worthless. Nonsense. The gist of this article is an examination of the life of family, gender roles and sexuality, not political structures. The basis on which these institutions should be judged is not are they flawless or even was everyone perfectly happy, content, and fulfilled. It is not even is it vibrant and exciting. The basis to judge a family is how well they accomplish the basic tasks of life in order to enable each member to make the best of themselves. By those standards – economic security, family stability, well-nourished children and adults, and the business of turning out civilized well-educated citizens, capable of taking responsibility for themselves and their loved ones – the fifties were clearly superior.
@Gerry Lincoln
Listen, dear. I do not need your approval! How dare you tell me how to write!? I would match my writing skills against yours any day! Furthermore, I can write well in Spanish and Portuguese, too. How about you, dear? Why don’t you try writing about the subjects that we are discussing instead of attacking others? You sound suspiciously like a politically correct cultural marxist communist to me!
I have been pretty consistent in my capitalization.
Nit pickers try to distract from the arguments at hand.
It does not seem reasonable to allow a nit picking attack on someone and then require a moderator to decide whether a reply is allowed. The reply used no foul language.
I haven’t capitalized “black” either. What an egregious affront! Something is rotten in the state of Denmark! I think that someone is trying to silence me for some reason.
@Fenria:
Hi Fenria
I’m going to include quotes from the two comments that you wrote, and then respond to them.
(My comment here is for you and anyone else who reads it.)
But first I should mention that it’s been more than a decade since I saw the movie (edited version?) on T.V. when I was an adolescent.
Even back then, I sensed that the movie had an agenda, but I didn’t give it much thought.
Anyway, you wrote:
What do you mean by “relevant”? Do you have any evidence that women in general were more frustrated in the 1950’s than today?
I’m not expecting you to answer my questions, but you can if you want to.
I can’t imagine a person interpreting this movie that way unless he or she happens to agree with the message. For those who hold traditional values, the movie is probably seen as mocking and aggressive, not gentle or humorous.
Do you believe that being chaste is diametrically opposed to being an artist, philsopher, or thinker?
A lot of people think that chastity of body and mind is a source of creativity, not its adversary.
(My definition of chastity is that sex is for procreation. Others might define the word differently.)
Pleasantville was written, produced, and directed by a Jew.
===================================
I’m not trying to be a jerk in my comment. I know that if others closely analyzed some of my comments, they could probably find a lot of shortcomings or inconsistencies or something to criticize or question.
I think one of the reasons I’m writing my comment is to play some kind of “devil’s advocate”.
A part of me thinks your comments are sort of offensive and possibly harmful. Another part of me enjoys them and thinks they’re refreshing and helpful.
When it comes to these issues, I’m not sure what to believe.
@Kevin MacDonald
Sir, I will capitalize as you wish in the future. I am sorry for the grave affront to the readers. I take pride in my Celtic-Germanic heritage.
@Kevin MacDonald
“It is TOO policy to capitalize White when it refers to the White race. I feel that that it White Race should be considered a proper noun. We do the same when referring to Blacks.”
I will respect your wishes.
@Luke:
Speaking of Cultural Marxism…
I saw an advertisement earlier today for a new television show titled “Elementary”, which premiers tonight on CBS.
It’s a modern version of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes and Watson is now played by a woman –- an Asian woman –- an Asian woman who is a martial artist.
Maybe some people thought it would have been “racist” and/or “sexist” to stay true to the original characters – two White men.
@Franklin Ryckaert: You wrote: “It is all too obvious to be irritating anymore, but it could be used as instruction material to show how the Jewish strategy works ( always by first undermining sexual morals, then the rest follows).”
It’s a pity that one of the best reviews of “Pleasantville” now seems lost to the Internet. It was my favorite essay unpacking Hollywood’s subversion of our formerly ordered life. See Kevin Beary’s “Adorno’s Bastards: Pleasantville and the Frankfurt School,” which parses the storyline of the anti-White film “Pleasantville.” Unfortunately, Beary’s colorful site with film stills has disappeared, leaving only this truncated version on another site: http://www.vivamalta.org/index.php?topic=4617.0;wap2
@Edmund Connelly:
Indeed, what makes this particular movie interesting is that it seems to be a rather transparent celebration of the success of the cultural revolution: we own the present and now we are going to contrast it with the past, just look at how much has been “achieved” 40+ years! I particularly like the bit about the SPLC agent playing the role of Pleasantville’s “Jennifer” in real life during her mission to enrich the culturally deprived rural white town in Maine:
Miss Chandler writes: “Ninety-five percent of the students at Noble High School are white and Christian, if they profess any religious affiliation at all. One of my first priorities when I took a job at this large high school in rural Berwick, Maine, was to incorporate more diverse, multicultural texts into the sophomore English curriculum. In a unit on justice, I included a short reading about a neo-Nazi group’s 1977 attempt to demonstrate in Skokie, Ill., a predominantly Jewish community….
“I had hoped that literature by Langston Hughes, Amy Tan, Elie Wiesel and Mary Crow Dog would help to open their minds and show them other worlds outside of Berwick, Maine. For many of my students, that literature was eye-opening. But I have learned, sadly, that even literature has its limitations, especially for kids as inexperienced and isolated as mine. In addition to reading, real experiences need to be created for them that will challenge their prejudices in a very concrete, immediate way.”
For Miss Chandler, the small town of Berwick, Maine, is just another Pleasantville. The students, “white and Christian,” “inexperienced and isolated” as they are, have to be helped out of their repression. Miss Chandler must destroy the small town of Berwick just as Bud and Jennifer destroyed Pleasantville.
When I read some of the things Bill Bryson wrote about growing up in the ’50s – or even Stephen King – I realized it wasn’t such a bad decade at all.
@Bob Wallace: The point that people—both the filmmakers and some TOO commenters—are missing is that virtually everyone who is now writing or thinking about the fifties is doing so from one of two perspectives: (1) that of not yet being alive during the decade or (2) that of having been a child during the decade.
A more or less adult vantage point—the one from which, it is claimed, the fifties are now being judged and either praised or found sadly wanting—has real instructive value only when the adult doing the looking was an adult then and is one now. But as far as I can tell, no one on this thread has yet filled the bill, not to my knowledge anyway.
Most present-day historians and cultural commentators with whom anyone is familiar are Jews or Jew-suborned gentiles. As such, their claims and diktats about the decade are hopelessly tainted. Those of us lucky enough to have older siblings, parents, or grandparents who are compos mentis would be wise to thank our lucky stars. No matter how unreliable they may be on family matters, a process of adroit questioning and interpretation of their answers is liable to yield far more reliable information than any soi-disant trustworthy source is able to provide.
@Alice Teller:
In 1950, under 2 percent of children were born out of wedlock among Whites in the US. For Blacks the percentage was about 17 percent, far lower than the percentage for Whites today. The White birthrate was over 3 children per couple, quite above replacement level. In this sense (and other senses also), the 1950′s had a functional White society.
What we have now is the result of the planned sexualizing of society, and the destruction of the society’s cultural, religious and moral values.
Sources:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf
CDC:National Vital Statistics Reports
Social Indicators of Marital Health and Wellbeing – Trends of the Past Five Decades
In the post immediately above this one, there are three links. The first two are the same (meant to delete first one but it was accidentally left in).
@thm:
Thank you for the links. It is interesting to me that we so rarely ask ourselves how one judges the good life. Even if we abide by the simple rule regarding how much dissatisfaction people complain of the fifties look better to me.
@Pierre de Craon:
I quite take your point about vantage point, but even those of us who were very young can attest to the levels of sheer rudeness and expressions of anger abroad in the public sphere in the fifties. Surely this is one measure of the good life?
Bob Wallace-
Are you the Bob Wallace who was ejected from the Rockwell site?
“Are you the Bob Wallace who was ejected from the Rockwell site?”
You bet. My bad.
@Bob Wallace: How come Bob, what’s the story? Is the Rockwell site another fraud being pulled on European-Americans?
“Is the Rockwell site another fraud being pulled on European-Americans?”
Let’s just say he’s a PC “libertarian” who, although he may privately know exactly what the truth is, certainly isn’t going to allow it on his site. You’ll never see any criticism of blacks, “Hispanics,” Jews or any other tribe on his site. If he ever did, the criticism would be extraordinary.
I have found there are rightest libertarians and leftist ones. The leftists ones are just plain leftists, who apparently think everyone is totally equal in all ways and pointing out that isn’t true will cause hysterical verbal assaults, as happened to me.
Big L Libertarianism, I realize now, is not American.
By the way, I forgot to mention Ludwig von Mises was funded by the Rockefellers and apparently never made a dime off of the free market during his life in the U.S.
@Gerry Lincoln:
I support capitalizing the term ‘White’, because it turns it into a noun – a proper noun – as opposed to an adjective. If we say, white people, black people, brown people, it makes the noun ‘people’ the central term, with color being a mere modifier.
We want to emphasize that Whites are a different group. It is not mere skin color that makes us unique. I actually like the term Aryan – notice it does the same thing – it is a proper noun that is capitalized because it refers to a specific and unique people. However, I know there is disagreement over the term. Indo-European is another good term, but probably not good for general public use.
However, I slip myself sometimes, so I don’t make a big deal out of it if someone feels differently. But I think there is a strong argument for it.
@Bob Wallace: Thank you for the explanation.
FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:
I have great respect for all scholars and those with an eye for detail, so kudos for the author for giving an assessment of a movie and the subtext, as he sees it.
However, the 1950′s American is a period i wonder if some WN’s here yearn for, ie an illusion of the “American dream, white picket fence an all!
Could it be “The little house on the prairy” illusion, or “The Walton’s” nice but never metioning, or referring to Yesua/Jesus livity.
America has always been one mans palace and another’s prison dungeon and until one realises that, Heimiwood will always capture the imagination, minds and behaviour of those born and yet to be conceived.
Yes there IS a war on white America, but not before the war commenced on those of colour, who for the most part, have been said to be savages, just savages and nothing more.
Stepping outside the box is not necessarily a reason or a fact that morals and fidelity go out of the window, but was it not Capuricus who was an outside of the box’ thinker, bringing colour which was frowned upon by those guardians of truth?
@#”k Heimiwood and its mind control concepts, distortions and pleasant lies, it has done worse for the black man and we all know this.
Again a big big bigup for the author, for if he and other white writers didn’t write, i couldn’t read and learn, thus see a little bit clearer.
Join the family of man and seek that fellowship, forming a bond unbreakable by the king of deceit and deception.
Look about you and see the devastating effect the advirsary has had on the black family, to the point that i am sickened to see some of the behaviour posted, gleefully on You Tube!
No ethnic race is safe and no matter how they slide their cuddly movies under the radar, using YOUR favourite sons and daughters to star iin, it means the same and has meant the same.
Am i ranting? Possibly, as i am not yet an academic, but i surely we all know the story of Adam and Eve and the adversaries attack on who he knew was the weakestlink?no?
Flattlery my fwends flattery get one deceiver very far.
Seek the good in men, the best in men and build on that foundation regardless of colour and if you disagree, vote for your boy Mitt Romney!
Oh i am certainly no Barak Obama fan either, but IZ YOU SMART OR IZ YOU DIM?
Ron Paul running as an independent can change things, BUT you must protect that man, if not he dies and so does your freedom.
Weeeell, not really, you will be FREE to worship at the race bating, divide and conquer adversary.
Love you all, keep the free speech coming!
A great piece from nine years ago: “PC Libertarianism and the jewish Taboo”
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_pclib.htm
The jew Eric Garris is (or was) webmaster for Rockwell and Raimondo. Garris’ mother was a card-carrying communist- Wiki actually carried this information until maybe two years ago.
Rockwell was financed by jew coin dealer Burton Blumert until Mr, Blumert passed away (RIP) on March 30, 2009. Mr. Blumert was so important that he has his own Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_Blumert
“. . .In a 2008 interview he credited his experience in the coin industry as spurring him to adopt a libertarian political philosophy and to support fellow gold advocate Ron Paul.[3] In 1988, Blumert was chairman of Ron Paul’s first presidential campaign.[5] Blumert was a close friend and supporter of the late Murray Rothbard,[6] with whom he founded the Center for Libertarian Studies in 1975. As president of the Center for Libertarian Studies, Blumert published the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the Austrian Economics Newsletter, and the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. Blumert served as chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and was publisher of LewRockwell.com.[2]
In his often humorous contributions to LRC, he positioned himself as anti-Rudy Giuliani,[7] pro-Barry Bonds,[8] and skeptical of the medical establishment.[9] A selection of Blumert’s essays were collected into the 2008 book, Bagels, Barry Bonds, and Rotten Politicians (available online), for which Lew Rockwell provided a foreword. . .”
@Noble Lord:
Yes there IS a war on white America, but not before the war commenced on those of colour, who for the most part, have been said to be savages, just savages and nothing more.
There was no war on “colour” any more than there was a war on the poor Irish etc etc. What there was – was a perfectly natural human instinct to “flock together” Just like blackeys do.
And blacks were savages by European standards. The war on Whites is to force integration with non-whites.
Get over it . We are not the same and mixing us up is the tribes plan.
BTW, many blacks are still savage, by Euro standards, to this day. Visit an inner city.
But, that’s to Euro standards. We’re very different and we come from very different evolutionary influences, so that “savage” is a subjective call.
@Noble Lord:
I could be wrong, but I think that since you have adopted white standards and that deep down you know darn well that whites and blacks are not the ‘same’, that this presents a conflict for you that forces you to blame whites for the very obvious lack of performance by blacks in white societies.
I think this is a problem that is predominant amongst blacks and can not be resolved because you are not about to own up to the painful truth. The only answer is to separate black from white as nature intended.
That may sound harsh but the status quo is far worse and it is not going to get any better. And we can all see that it is not going to get better from you many blame whitey posts.
If you forced B students to go to class with the A students and then the teachers told B students that they did not do well because the A students were cheating them and the teachers had told them this right through the many years of schooling… I do not think that the B students would be able to say ” oh , it’s not that we are cheated , it is that we just aren’t as smart”
It would be much better to form different classes. But that is not something the B students would want since they are not going to get rid of their crutch. It is up to the A students to demand the truth and to stop the unfair blame game.
And, keep in mind, that is A students by WHITE standards.
If everything were reversed , then white students would be the B students, since it would be black Africans that had set the standards having created the society and it’s values.
But, I think we all know that would not happen. ‘Nuff said.
@John hearns:
Are you homosexual?
@Noble Lord:
No NL , are you projecting?
Projection
Description
When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target.
@Noble Lord:
I think I really summed you up. You have to blame whites because you just can’t handle the truth about blacks.
That is why we should separate.
It gives you blacks a complex to live in a white society, and it gives some whites a complex too. These whites patronize you people.
@TabuLa Raza:
Insightful article — thanks for posting.
@John hearns:
who for the most part, have been said to be savages, just savages and nothing more.
I don’t know what you mean by “nothing more” but savage IS what blacks were and often still are.
To illustrate….
There is something happening today in Africa amongst your brethren who are more pure black blooded where some blacks are killing and selling body parts of albino negroes because they think these white negroes possess magical power. Support groups have been created because these albino negroes rightfully fear for their lives.
Google it.
That is savage by white standards but obviously not savage to some African blacks.
^ should be @ NL
@Bob Wallace: I was a frequenter of LRC before you were cast out, and I well (and happily) recall your articles. I wrote a number of articles for the site myself (in the persona by which the IRS knows me), and in the last one a completely unflattering reference to a famous Nazi simply got deleted. The chill was palpable.
Having been a reader of Triple R back in the long-departed Age of Print, I retain the distinct impression that the PC framework you very well describe was imposed on Lew, at least with full force, only after Rothbard’s death. I wonder whether your reaction is or isn’t similar.
@Alice Teller: It surely is. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think there are even grounds for argument about the superiority of life then in these here overly united states compared with now.
I wished simply to do what I’ve jocosely suggested to JS and Trenchant they shouldn’t do—namely, erect a few Fact Barricades across Great Argument Boulevard. That thoroughfare has been in a perpetual rush hour jam-up for the duration of this thread.
@Bob Wallace:
Hard to imagine then why RF didn’t even secure Mises an academic position at a prestigious college, were he such an asset.
Economists are not necessarily interested in money in the same prosaic way as businessmen.
It is true, however, that today’s Rockwell is not the one of yore:
http://www.dailypaul.com/195023/lew-rockwell-wrote-racist-newsletters
@Noble Lord:
There is something happening today in Africa amongst your brethren who are more pure black blooded where some blacks are killing and selling body parts of albino negroes because they think these white negroes possess magical power. Support groups have been created because these albino negroes rightfully fear for their lives.
Google it.
Just wanted to add a question for you …
What do you suppose would be the white/black racial makeup of these groups who are trying to save albino negroes from being killed and turned into good luck charms and potions by other negroes?
Irony anyone?
@Pierre de Craon:
I think someone had a stern word to Rockwell (dual-passport donors/academics, Dark Suits?) about ever seriously discussing 9/11. Craig Paul Roberts got the cold shoulder for his refusal to play dumb. Sobran, who gave a great presentation on Shakespeare and war, was clearly an embarrassment after his lecture at IHR.
http://www.mises.org/media/1074/Shakespeare-on-War-and-Empire
And other heads rolled, when Jewish interests were offended enough.
The calculation, as I see it, was to save Ron-Paul-for-President and thereby give some profile to his Old Republican ideas; P-C house cleaning the cost of the exercise.
@Trenchant: I think you’re right—on all counts. Morgan Reynolds, too, got shown the door for failure to behave re 9/11.
Pierre de Craon
“I was a frequenter of LRC before you were cast out, and I well (and happily) recall your articles. I wrote a number of articles for the site myself (in the persona by which the IRS knows me), and in the last one a completely unflattering reference to a famous Nazi simply got deleted. The chill was palpable.”
I ceased to read LRC years ago. These days, VDARE, American Renaissance, Occidental Observer, and, of all things, L. Neil Smith’s the Libertarian Enterprise. Smith does not censor articles. LRC did, and still does, a lot.
The cartoonist for TLE is Baloo (site: Baloo’s Ex-Army) and he is clearly a White Nationalist. I find that very significant especially since he is friends with Smith.
Strike the Root is also worthless. Supporting open borders and worshiping State-created monstrosities like Wal-Mart.
Years age, I decided most “libertarianism” is anti-American.
The entity known as “John Hearns” is the Anglo-Israelite, TyronParsonRoberts. Simple linguistic analysis proves this.
@Bob Wallace: I sympathize with you. You’re not alone. N. Joseph Potts’ articles have been expunged, since he was outed as a Holocaust denier.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/potts1.html
I prefer The Last Ditch for political analysis. Despite good anti-war credentials, David Gordon has never reviewed Sniegoski’s The Transparent Cabal for the Mises Institute.
Beats me how Rockwell thinks he’s going to restore liberty with self-censorship, but there you go.
@Pierre de Craon:Years ago, (Rabbi) Israel Kirzner had The Freeman(!) editor Hans Sennholz fire Hans-Hermann Hoppe for his truthful comment comparing Hitler with Stalin, the former as the less evil.
@Bob Wallace: Here’s a peek into the oubliette.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041012184357/http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace-arch.html
Ben O’Neill articles are re-run by Lew Rockwell, but his name doesn’t appear on the contributors list. An expedient to avoid the racist tag?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/oneill3.1.1.html
@Bob Wallace: Agreed re just about all. I wish Smith didn’t buy into the Holohoax, however.
@Trenchant: I remember the Potts article you link to. Impressive. Of course, I’d never seen the program he writes about. Still haven’t. Never will—at least not till Feds in body armor point automatic weapons at me as they scream “Watch it, m****rf****r!”
Not that I expect that to happen . . .
@Pierre de Craon: Potts’ end with LvMI:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/mises-daily-columnist-is-holocaust.html
@Trenchant: I read this when it was first published but had entirely forgotten that Potts was its target. Thanks for the reminder. The hypocritical egomania of the hit’s author, Jonathan Harrison, and the kosher kommenters is nauseating. Jeff Tucker doesn’t precisely cover himself in glory either.
What a team of hasbara artists that site must have to produce such far-flung documentation! All volunteers, doubtless, working for the greater good of international Jewry and anyone else willing to kiss its fat bottom.
Potts is lucky they let him live—or did they?
The Hitler/Stalin evil contest was brought to mind when I read ‘Koba the Dread’ by Martin Amis.
Amis described Stalin’s furious reaction to the Soviet Census Board when that body produced a population figure which did not match the Russian leader’s own higher estimate.
Stalin ordered that the Census Board be executed – thus compounding his own demographic problem.
@Al Ross: Reading your comment, Al, I realize we should be grateful that to commit similar murders, Obama still needs to sign a document or two placed in front of him by a kosher adviser.
Quite so, Pierre. At the considerable risk of introducing a blinding flash of the obvious, I would point out that Gary Ross, the Jewish director of ‘ Pleasantville’, purloined an ancient Scottish surname. Yet another egregious example of Jewish crypsis.
Thank god I refuse to watch the filth produced by modern Hollywood.
@Alice Teller: Brilliant comment.
@dubyasee: “How do you combat decades of TV, print media, and movie propaganda? Is such a thing possible?”
You do it by doing it. I realize that sounds stupid but it’s the only way – you have to put one foot in front of the other and keeping walking towards the truth, no matter how many branches hit you in the face.
I haven’t watched TV for 20 or more years, btw, dubyasee…
@Thundertoad:
The entity known as “John Hearns” is the Anglo-Israelite, TyronParsonRoberts. Simple linguistic analysis proves this.
I don’t know what your problem is but you can think this entity is the Anglo-Israelite Sant-ee Claus and that would be just fine. Simple linguistic analysis or not.
haha
@Marcy Fleming: As usual, You’ve nailed it the soft-focus lens most mature (in age only,) Americans apply to their television-manufactured past. Not many realize how indoctrinated and propagandized they are and how unrealistic and idealized their memories of their childhoods are.
@Alice Teller: ” Who is likely to be the better dancer, the woman who practices with the same partner for years, or the one who has a new partner every other evening?”
The answer to your question is obvious. The woman who changes partners is much more likely to become a better dancer than the one who sticks to one partner.
But the real answer to your ridiculously naive question should be that when you stick to the same partner you learn how NOT to step on each others’ toes…
And to me and my love, that’s more important, fulfilling and comforting than virtuosity.
I just watched The Hunger Games last night and noticed it had the same director as the movie featured in this article Pleasantville. I tried looking for a movie review similar to the ones that I’ve seen here but came up short. Is it possible to see one posted on this website sometime in the near future?
There were several underlying themes that stuck out to me in this movie. It takes place in the future where the country has been divided into 12 districts, which appear to be racially segregated. The peasants live under some sort of serfdom while the cities are large and grande. The cities appeared to be populated with white tyrannical aristocrats who dressed in some sort of futuristic victorian fashion, with almost no people of color except for a one in a servant type role and maybe a few others who were part of the security forces. All throughout the movie not one Jew was in sight. One would imagine they would be the supreme rulers of a future such as this,but as in real life it appears to be the same in fiction. The white man is the scape goat of their evil deeds.