Sully, the Movie

Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.


Think about the last time you walked through an American airport, particularly one that is heavily domestic. Who were the pilots in uniform you saw strolling down the corridors pulling their leather flight bags?

I’ll wager the vast majority were White males. That would make sense, since unlike most other professions today, piloting airplanes in America has remained in

A Nice White Flight Crew; Airport (1970)

the vicinity of 95% White male. This must gall liberals, social engineers, and other SJW’s, for these groups dream of a world of equality, that is, one in which White males are purged, eliminated, or at least relegated to humiliating positions of impotence.

And last year, comes the one hundred percent traditional film Sully (also called Sully: Miracle on the Hudson in some markets; see here for the official trailer). This movie flies in the face of endless promotion of non-White diversity and “vibrancy,” it goes against all that Hillary and her vast entourage represented, and it supports the reality that it is White males who built the public manifestations of Western civilization and to a large degree keep it going.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, who is in his mid-eighties, this film is a story of White America through and through. Sully is played by “Everyman” actor Tom Hanks, the first officer is played by Aaron Eckhart, and most of the supporting cast is White as well. Best of all, this is a story of uninterrupted heroism, as the two White pilots make split-second decisions that result in the survival of all 155 people aboard the plane that cold January day.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Here are the facts surrounding the flight. In 2009, US Airways was still a large independent airline prior to merging with American Airlines in 2015. In its fleet of over three hundred mainline airliners were better than 250 Airbus A320s, split among the base model A320, plus smaller or larger variants.  This was part of a highly successful line of two-engine aircraft built by the European manufacturer Airbus.

The plane that day, an Airbus A320, was set to depart LaGuardia Airport in New York City at roughly half-past three the afternoon of January 15, destined for Charlotte, North Carolina. The outside temperature was 20°F, while area waters were just above freezing. Clearly, it was not a good day for an outdoor swim.

Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger sat in the left-side seat, while first officer Jeffrey B. Skiles sat to his right, with Skiles slated to fly this leg of the journey. The plane lifted off uneventfully, turning northwest. As it neared 3,000 feet, the A320 struck a flock of large Canada geese, some of which were ingested into the two engines. The collision resulted in a full loss of power. Coming at such a low altitude over a major city filled with skyscrapers, the situation was critical.

To provide some backup power, Sullenberger switched on the tail-mounted APU, a generator that provides auxiliary power. The pilots had only seconds to decide whether to return to LaGuardia, try to reach Teterboro Airport on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River, or find some alternative. Drawing on his vast experience, Sullenberger determined that trying to reach either airport was a poor choice, so he opted to land on the calm winter waters of the Hudson.

First Officer Eckhart, Capt. Sullenberger, Eastwood and Hanks

Sullenberger had informed air traffic control at LaGuardia of their predicament, and controller Patrick Harten cleared a runway for the stricken plane. Sullenberger’s terse response, however, was “Unable.” When offered the opportunity to head south to New Jersey, Sullenberger answered, “We can’t do it . . . We’re gonna be in the Hudson.” Passing less than 900 feet over the George Washington Bridge, the plane landed safely in the middle of the Hudson, where all passengers and crew were rescued by nearby boats.

What is so wonderful about the film Sully is the fact that it is so true to real life. Unlike so, so many other “reenactment” and “based on” films and documentaries, Eastwood’s Sully panders not at all to liberal pieties, not even in minor roles such as an air traffic controller or the captain of a ferry boat. We don’t have the cheesy cabin ensemble of multiracial passengers, something ushered in by the likes of Airport 75 and other such dreck from the seventies. Sully is like the cast of The Waltons, imagined as if John-Boy* had grown up and become a pilot like Sullenberger. No drinking, no drugs, no wild sex. Just traditional White Americans living their lives and dealing with the challenges life inevitably throws our way.

Surprisingly, despite its debut during the run-up to the Hillary-for-President season, the same press that so blatantly supported Hillary and savaged Trump as “literally Hitler” gave Sully overwhelmingly positive reviews. For instance, reviewer Simon Thompson awarded the film nine out of ten points, writing: “Sully is a beautifully balanced, classily nuanced and hugely engaging film that avoids all the clichéd pitfalls it could have slipped into [like pandering to diversity?]. Tom Hanks gives one of the best performances of his career and Clint Eastwood’s direction is beautiful and rich. It’s not just a great movie, Sully is one of the best pieces of cinema that a major Hollywood studio has released this year.”

A reviewer at ebert.com wrote:

As Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, the plain-spoken, cool-headed veteran pilot who pulled off the impossible under immense pressure, Tom Hanks once again reminds us why he continues to be Hollywood’s best personification of the all-American Everyman since James Stewart’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Who else is so good at encapsulating such red-White-and-blue values as never-say-die commitment, pride in a job well done, doing your duty no matter the cost and selfless courage in the face of disaster without being a goody-goody bore?

Even the Village Voice said kind things about the film, despite being aware of the obvious racial message: “This is a talky, mild-mannered drama about stoic, middle-aged White men exhibiting poise amid chaos and illustrating the sanctity of simply doing one’s job.”

Of course, these reviewers are right about the roles Tom Hanks generally accepts. Consider the likes of Apollo 13 with its all-White cast, or Saving Private Ryan, Cast Away and Captain Phillips — again almost completely White films. While Forrest Gump may have had Bubba as a major character, the saga was still an overwhelmingly White story.

What about Philadelphia, though? Perhaps we can forgive Hanks for his lead role in that film, with its shameless propaganda arguing for the pure innocence of homosexual men in the time of AIDS, and blaming, of course, a bigoted White patriarchy. In the early nineties, this kind of genuflection to liberal sensibilities was no doubt a good step to take, so Hanks took it. Nobody’s perfect.

Besides its welcome pro-White male footing, Sully also serves as an antidote to the trauma of 9/11. In events of that day, the planes came in, the towers went down, and a lot of innocent people died. In Sully, we see similar imagery as well, as noted by this reviewer for TIME Magazine:

The calamity of 9/11, though it occurred eight years prior to the events of Sully, haunts the movie, rightly: The image of an aircraft coming in low along the skyline of New Jersey was all too reminiscent of the day the towers came down; Eastwood seems to take great care not to create any shot that directly resembles the images we all have of 9/11, but the memory of that day is reflected in the eyes of random characters, as Sully negotiates the George Washington Bridge and the West Side of Manhattan and comes to rest splashily atop the frigid waters of the Hudson.

Fortunately the images of planes crashing into New York high-rises are only nightmares, bad dreams which people can shake off upon waking. In the real world of Sully, people live.

Come to think of it, there is another amazing thing about Sully: Despite taking place in one of the most Jewish locations on the planet, the movie is totally free of any Jewish storyline. No concocted drama about Jewish passengers. No side story about Jewish reporters exhibiting heroism on the Hudson. No Mighty Jew organizing all the rescue teams. How did Eastwood and the producers get away with that?

It’s been my job for many years to highlight and unpack Jewish power in Hollywood and media more general, plus I’ve been very attentive to endless multicultural attempts to replace White American males with the “Numinous Negro,” most tellingly with Morgan Freeman (beginning well after he got done playing Count Dracula on The Electric Company) and Denzel Washington.

In fact, among my many discussions of Washington’s roles was five years ago where Washington appeared as crack pilot “Whip” Whitaker in Flight. I wrote a consideration of the film (Part I & Part II) before I’d had the chance to watch it. As advertised, Whitaker performs feats of flying few others can manage, but director Robert Zemeckis ended up giving us a far more complex character, one complete with serious flaws beginning, but not ending, with drinking while flying, snorting cocaine before flights, and regularly rodgering a flight attendant despite being married.

In my view, Sully is a welcome counter to any image of a mythical Black pilot performing superhuman maneuvers aloft. It also counters attempts by the likes of the 1995 HBO film The Tuskegee Airmen to elevate a historical footnote into a major role in World War II. And George Lucas’s personal $50 million funding of a film about these same pilots in Red Tails did not result in a success. In fact, the film failed to recoup its investment.

More recently, we’ve had the ludicrous attempt to attribute the success of the Apollo space program to some unheralded Black women mathematicians. Called Hidden Figures, the 2016 film may be considered a going-away present for Obama, another black figure who accomplished so little. Leave it to Paul Kersey to pick this fantasy film to pieces, as he did in “Hyped Figures: John Glenn And The PC Myth Of Katherine Johnson–Unsung Black Women Were NOT What Got Us To The Moon.”

As a bit of an aside, I’d like to run a bit with stories about real Blacks in the cockpit. I don’t mean to pick on Blacks — after all, they have precious little to do with the images Hollywood uses them for. In real life, it hasn’t always been pleasant when Blacks have entered the normally White sanctuary of a flying machine.

Take this example. Much to my amazement, Cineflex, which produces the popular “Mayday” series of airplane crash reenactments, came out with an episode called “FedEx Flight 705 — Fight for Your Life. (This URL currently gives you the show.). This true story details the events surrounding the 1994 cockpit attack by a suicidal Black pilot on three White men flying the plane. Auburn Calloway was a rare Black pilot, but he faced growing threats to his career. At the end of his rope, he hatched a plan to hijack a FedEx DC-10 by killing the flight crew, then turn the massive jet back to its Memphis base and crash the plane into the FedEx headquarters.

Riding that day’s flight as a non-flying employee, Calloway brought hammers, a knife and a spear gun aboard, thinking the blunt-trauma injuries would mimic those incurred in a crash. Half an hour into the flight, as the crew exchanged small talk, Calloway launched his frenzied attack on pilots Sanders and Tucker, and flight engineer Peterson. The suddenness of the attack is evident from the sounds captured by the cockpit voice recorder:

DS = pilot Sanders
JT = co-pilot Tucker
P = flight engineer Peterson
AC = attacker Calloway
AW = autowarning

JT: Do you, uh, live over in Arkansas, Dave, or . . . ?
DS: Naw, I live in Fisherville.
JT: Aw, Fisherville, great spot.

(Sounds of hammer blows striking pilots.)

AP: Ow!
JT: God! Oh, ah, shit.
DS: God almighty!
AP: Ow!
JT: What the f*ck are you doing?
DS: God, (groan), (groan), God almighty! God, God, God. . . .
JT: Get him, get him, get him
DS: He’s going to kill us.
JT: Get him!
DS: Get up, get him!
AP: I can’t, God!
UV: STOP! (unintelligible) Hold his goddamn . . .
AC: Sit down, sit down, get back in your seat, this is a real gun, I’ll kill ya.
JT: Get him, get him, get him, get him, get him, get him!
AW: bank angle, bank angle…
JT: Get him, get him, get him!
AC: I’m gonna kill you! Hey, hey! I’ll kill ya!

As with the “Miracle on the Hudson,” the White male flight crew succeeded against the odds in safely returning to earth.

Ironically, Sully Sullenberger himself investigated a crash in which a disgruntled Black former airline employee, David Burke, killed the White male pilots of a four-engine airliner, causing the plane to nosedive into a California field, killing all forty-three aboard. That was the December 7, 1987 Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, a story also featured in a Cineflex “Mayday” episode, which possibly can still be seen here. For what it’s worth, Wikipedia reports that Burke “was a suspect in a drug-smuggling ring that was bringing cocaine from Jamaica to Rochester via the airline. He was never officially charged and reportedly relocated to Los Angeles to avoid future suspicions. Some former girlfriends, neighbors, and law enforcement officials described him as a violent man before Flight 1771. He had seven children, but never married.”

Well, let’s get those bleak images out of our minds and instead dwell on the far happier story of Sully: Miracle on the Hudson. In an age where White males have been struggling against an organized onslaught, the fact that a film like Sully  can be made AND a man like Donald Trump can become president is welcome news indeed. Now go out and get a copy of Sully . You’ll be glad you did.


*I mentioned “John-Boy” Walton above. For those interested, you can watch the appearance of actor Richard Thomas in a TV movie called Crash Landing: The Rescue of Flight 232 (also known as A Thousand Heroes, 1992). Thomas plays the role of a fireman at Sioux City Airport, the scene of the Summer of 1989 crash of a United Airlines DC-10. This true story is yet another honest portrayal of White men performing heroically. (Enjoy Charlton Heston as a pilot and James Coburn as the fire chief.) Try this link to watch the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTvkn7B20fo.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

28 Comments to "Sully, the Movie"

  1. Dave Bowman's Gravatar Dave Bowman
    February 14, 2017 - 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I don’t usually comment here in a spirit of pique – at least, I try hard not to – but the combination of a handful of completely bewildering, inaccurate and misleading, off-topic comments – alongside the fact that by sheer chance I happened to catch the movie myself just before Christmas – has pushed me beyond the point I can resist. I’ll stay calm, Moderator, I promise.

    First of all, at least as far as I’m concerned, Mr Connelly’s analysis here – as always – is simply spot-on. The film is a pleasingly under-stated essay on White triumph against the odds in the face of sudden potential disaster, with the central role of the cool, calm veteran fighter pilot amply filled by Hanks, the truest and most talented American “Everyman” screen actor working in Hollywood today. I’m afraid Rerevisionist’s gratuitous barb against him as “tenth-rate” is simply ludicrous. I guess Rerev doesn’t get to the cinema much.

    I also have no clue what on earth is the target of Rever Leo’s comment about the movie’s “fake media narrative”. At the time, I read very widely about the original event – and not just from the day’s mainstream media newsreels. Clint Eastwood’s film, from a fact-faithful screenplay, is a sober, clear-headed account of what actually happened in those heart-stopping few minutes above New York. It seems obvious to me that both lead actor and Director have tried hard to portray the implicitly White mastery of the moment – the well-judged and perfectly-executed gamble under colossal pressure which was, it was fully proved, the only way to save central New York from a new and terrible airline disaster. Therefore Betty’s comments below concerning Eastwood’s – and Hanks’ – family histories are not only bewilderingly irrelevant, but even worse, miss the whole White-centric theme of the Movie. So since we’re on the subject, Buckle’s comments below about Eastwood’s Bird from 1988, and ex South African’s about his more recent Invictus, are also similarly irrelevant here (And in passing, as a film enthusiast myself I could also make out a good case quite seperately that those critical comments are pretty much invalid and inaccurate).

    Mr Connelly’s brilliant point in the article, that the film has a total absence of any overt Jewish context or sub-plot despite being set necessarily in the heart of New York, is also absolutely correct. It’s hard to imagine this was by either Screenplay or Directorial accident. Therefore if the point of Betty’s comment was to suggest Eastwood as some kind of typical leftie-liberal, immigrant-loving cuck with a social conscience, this is also patent nonsense. The obvious proof is that, in the near-50-years since he first shot to national and international screen prominence, Eastwood has spent the entirety of his film career in “soft, liberal” Jewish-infested California. Yet despite that heavy and unrelenting influence, and it’s undoubted power to cripple even his career – and like Charlton Heston before him – he has held on very firmly to his right-of-centre, White-conscious, and NRA-friendly political alignment, and refused to bed down with the New York Jews for the sake of his career – unlike so many firmly based there long-term including Robert de Niro, Bruce Willis, Samuel L Jackson, Sylvester Stallone, et al.

    In fact, it was said very many years ago – long before the political disasters and treacheries of the Jew-friendly Bush / Blair war criminals, that ever since the early-mid 1970’s, Eastwood had been, across the political and international spectrum, one of the most genuinely admired and respected men in America. Apparently, he was practically begged by some, following his 4-year Mayorship of Carmel, to run for Senate – and eventually Presidential – office, but had the good sense to refuse. Even if this is not directly relevant to the movie, his clear, implicit White loyalties – and Hanks’ too – certainly are.

    On the – only – downside – to this strong, clever, coherent, well-produced film, I confess to having had a sinking feeling halfway through, that the usual agenda of the (((controllers))) was about to appear in the post-drama narrative – but thankfully, this is not the case. Since the film’s screenplay actually begins at the post-accident Board of Enquiry, the critical event itself is necessarily shown in flashback. Early previews of the film therefore suggested a focus on a group of unsympathetic, cynical, stupid, weak – and of course very White – accident and insurance investigators, who wished to prove that the pilot’s split-second decision to ditch in the Hudson, and not risk a longer trip back to a runway with no power and little air control, was wrong and unnecessary. Eastwood balances nicely the presentation of the essential facts of the flight, whilst avoiding the filmic traps of too much technical complexity and the anti-climactic, administrative dryness of the Enquiry itself. So what looked to me at the outset rather like a typical tired, predictable Jewish-backed script criticizing heartless, cynical, stupid White officials and officialdom has been molded by Eastwood into a much gentler, more nuanced story focussing primarily exactly where it should – on the drama of a brave and brilliant pilot who saved an aircraft full of people and a fresh New York disaster.

    It won’t win any Oscars – for obvious reasons – but it’s a great – and implicitly White – film. See it and enjoy.

    • Ed Connelly's Gravatar Ed Connelly
      February 19, 2017 - 3:01 pm | Permalink

      Dave, a big “thank you” for that one. When I first read a few of the comments below, I actually went back and reread my article, saying to myself, “Did I really imply that?” Luckily, a careful reader like you understood what I was writing. I appreciate your support.

  2. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    February 13, 2017 - 10:39 pm | Permalink

    P.S. Having given my opinion on “acting talent , I’d also like to thank the author for his excellent analysis of the political and personal motivations of people in the movie business,etc. You have made me aware of stuff I never dreamed of and I didn’t immediately accept it as necessarily true. I’m stubborn that way. However, I have a good memory for patterns and soon enough realized the truth of the things you write of. Thank you Dr. Connelly.

    • Ed Connelly's Gravatar Ed Connelly
      February 19, 2017 - 2:58 pm | Permalink

      Bobby, thank you for the compliment. That’s exactly what I’m trying to do — show people what is deliberately happening behind the scenes, as well as how one film fits into “the big picture.” I think a lot of people would then feel as you do if they considered my arguments.

  3. February 13, 2017 - 5:52 am | Permalink

    Did the Japs capture Amelia?
    Was she asked to get in harms way?

    I would not want to spoil the adventure someone might have discovering that the official narrative about Amelia Earhart has little to do with reality.

    I suspect that Bernard Baruch was so desperate to rescue the Soviet Union he asked her to get in harms way and scrubbed all all Jap radio traffic about her in the 4 years prior to Pearl Harbor. Maybe someone can show me this is wishful thinking on my part.

    thanks,
    Jerry

  4. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    February 12, 2017 - 7:56 pm | Permalink

    I saw Eastwood’s “Bird” many years ago and thought it ridiculous. In many ways he is a net contributor to the post-65 decadence now passing for normal in the USA.

    • Betty's Gravatar Betty
      February 16, 2017 - 2:58 pm | Permalink

      He had married his black/Asian wife at this time and that’s why he made the movie. He then made the movie “Gran Torino” which predicted some kind of Asian ascendancy. These movies were really made for his then wife and their daughter. There was a joke in “Gran Torino” about a black, a Jew and Mexican walking into a bar. What degenerate humor from a degenerate white when you now know who his wife was at the time.

  5. Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
    February 12, 2017 - 11:54 am | Permalink

    Hanks reminds me more Jack Lemmon than James Stewart.
    And by the way he is not the most vociferous antiTrump actor on the scene. When he went to Rome for the local festival and was asked by Italian leftist journalists about the election results, he said that if Trump works well, all American will profit, so he hoped things will turn fine in the end. The journalists were a little disappointed.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      February 15, 2017 - 2:24 pm | Permalink

      Hanks reminds me more [of] Jack Lemmon than James Stewart.

      This is a great insight, Rosa, and completely characteristic of your usual closeness of observation and reflection. I was not really comfortable with the review quotation likening Hanks to Stewart, but I could not put my finger on just why I reacted that way. Thanks to you, I now know why!

  6. Clem's Gravatar Clem
    February 12, 2017 - 9:07 am | Permalink

    I agree somewhat with Rerevisionist. I think a better way to describe Hanks films is to say it looks as if he tried to play positive American leading roles. Somehow that turned out to be a lot of white movies no matter what the Jews try to do to them.

  7. Rever Leo's Gravatar Rever Leo
    February 12, 2017 - 3:24 am | Permalink

    Hanks is the go-to guy, when cinematic bolstering is required, for any fake media narrative.

  8. February 12, 2017 - 1:24 am | Permalink

    “For the Fun of it” was the title of a book written by Amelia Earhart. Her home town newspaper recently published a concise article on her last flight.

    http://www.atchisonglobenow.com/voices/columns/guest_columns/article_58782e1b-a270-55ad-81be-fbff5040da18.html

    thanks,
    Jerry

  9. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 11, 2017 - 10:38 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to recommend Bone Tomahawk (2015) to Dr. Connelly. Decent whites and barbaric Indians.

  10. Peter LaFreniere's Gravatar Peter LaFreniere
    February 11, 2017 - 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Excellent and informative. “Sully” is now on my short list of 2016 films to see; understandably not up for any Oscars as you explain.

  11. Betty's Gravatar Betty
    February 11, 2017 - 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Clint Eastwood was married to a black/Asian woman and had a kid with her. Tom Hanks has a black granddaughter. This seems to be attempt by these men to make up for their degeneracy. I won’t waste time and money on a movie like this. I know the historical facts.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      February 12, 2017 - 11:49 am | Permalink

      That doesn’t detract to the merits of the film.
      And anyone of us may commit sins. The important thing is to repent, for instance to divorce from a black/Asian woman. And if your son or daughter goes with a black person and has a kid with him/her, it’s not your fault.

    • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
      February 12, 2017 - 12:08 pm | Permalink

      Eastwood – this is news to me. I quite enjoyed his western movies.

      I was quite dissappointed (to put it mildly) when I found out that he was the director of the movie ‘Invictus’. He made an impression on me as being somewhat politically shallow.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 12, 2017 - 10:02 pm | Permalink

      The creative arts speak above all to the heart, not the head. It’s my belief that the heart commands the head in almost all instances and individuals. And so any movie that engages the audience and celebrates virtues that are singularly white is great.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        February 12, 2017 - 10:13 pm | Permalink

        Unless he is a far better actor than I’m giving him credit for, Eastwood seems a well-adjusted person in real life.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        February 15, 2017 - 2:07 pm | Permalink

        I am not in the least surprised that in this comment you have cut closer to the bone (i.e., the creative and aesthetic bone) than anyone else.

        As far as the heart is concerned, the structural inability of the vast bulk of our fellow humans to grasp that the heart, too, can be not so much disciplined as made less unkempt in its responses to stimuli accounts for the closure to them of emotional (and indeed psychological and spiritual) access to the high arts. Yet the deep-seated need in virtually everyone for some such access goes partway toward explaining the power of “popular” entertainment forms, a fortiori movies and TV shows.

        I’d like to gloss (not nitpick) your very last word. I take “great” here to mean “furthering the good”—not merely what seems good to us, but the good—not least because the (((entertainment))) foisted upon us celebrates “virtues” that, till the day before yesterday, all save the Jews and their fellow Luciferians more aptly termed the foulest of vices.

        In other words, I’d say that “greatness” in the sense of “superlative artistic merit” can never sit fully comfortably in a sentence also inhabited by “any movie,” even where that phrase is qualified by “celebrates virtues.”

        Though it’s almost brazen for someone who sees as few films as I do to make the comment that follows, I think that the sole American film produced in this century and known to me to even approach the summit of artistry is Shyamalan’s The Village. Few things have surprised me less than the fact that this intellectually frank, morally profound, root-and-branch assault on the whole enterprise of modernity proved to be a virtual career ender for the director, at least in an A-list sense. And I say this despite the presence in the film of such authentically contemptible performers as Brody and Eisenberg.

  12. Ron Johnson's Gravatar Ron Johnson
    February 11, 2017 - 3:22 pm | Permalink

    I just saw “Hidden Figures”. there were “bogus” scenes that lost me, from what may have been a believable story. A 1957 chevy is stalled, with one of the women under the car looking at, apparently, the radiator or the oil pan from the front. Ground clearance of that model, really required a lift to get under it. Then after a stereotypical encounter with a white policeman, she starts the engine miraculously with a long screwdriver by shorting out, with a bright spark, some mystery elements. There were other absurd scenes, not worth describing.

  13. February 11, 2017 - 11:42 am | Permalink

    You haven’t understood the Jewish subtext of much of this material. For example Hanks’ AIDS stuff is based on mythology of AIDS, which is almost pure Jewish fraud. The ‘Forrest Gump’ character was a half-witted white, fighting in a Jewish money-making scheme, genocide against Vietnamese: as in the WW2 joke film, and in the absurd moon film, Hanks is just a tenth-rate actor doing what Jews want subservient whites to do.

    • Edmund Connelly's Gravatar Edmund Connelly
      February 11, 2017 - 4:08 pm | Permalink

      You wrote, “You haven’t understood the Jewish subtext of much of this material.”

      I haven’t? Did you really read my article? Have you read my many long essays on Hollywood in TOQ? If you had, I don’t think you’d say what you have.

      For example, I was critical of Hanks for taking the role in “Philadelphia.” And do you really think I was going to get into a discussion of AIDS in a review of the film “Sully”?

      As for “Forrest Gump,” sure Forrest was a half-wit but a highly sympathetic one at that. I saw him as an overwhelmingly positive White character — and so did the masses.

      If you have strong opinions about Jews and war, please consider writing about it. I was thinking of the movies more as stand-alone performances. Thus, I stand by my praise of the Hanks films I mentioned. They are good White films and they are good for Whites.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        February 16, 2017 - 8:17 am | Permalink

        While I think that reasonable men can differ as to whether Hanks’s work, in Sully and elsewhere, genuinely constitutes a net plus for whites, it’s good to see you come out of your corner at the bell punching, Dr. Connelly. Or to use the words of the twentieth-century’s foremost black intellectual,* “stinging like a bee” rather than “floating like a butterfly.”
        ___________________________
        * Facetiousness alert!

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 11, 2017 - 10:29 pm | Permalink

      Hidden figures, indeed. The set, too.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 11, 2017 - 10:31 pm | Permalink

      Regarding the AIDS/HIV controversy:

      —-

      (Mod. Note: Trenchant, thank you for TELLING US about the links you provided, and not just posting a “naked link”. Most “naked links” by commenters who don’t actually TELL US what the link is about end up in the trash. This is a gentle hint to other commenters who post links w/o TELLING US what the link is about, and why they are providing it.)

      • Dave Bowman's Gravatar Dave Bowman
        February 15, 2017 - 11:51 am | Permalink

        I can’t thank you enough for this video link, Trenchant. Some of this I knew. But most of it has appalled and shocked me to my core. This is easily the best produced, best structured, clearest, most intelligible documentary about HIV I have ever seen. Even the speaker names and sub-titles are handled throughout with clarity and pure intelligence. This kind of quality shows the BBC up for the Jew-controlled, dumbed-down, closed-minded, soundbite-led socialist lie failure it has become over 40 years. I will do all I can to make this available to friends, family and interested parties, for we all know that truth is a dying breed. Thank you once again.

    • Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
      February 13, 2017 - 10:09 pm | Permalink

      I once heard Hanks compared to Gary Cooper. Now, Gary Cooper was kind of a tool as were so many actors of the black and white era of movies. But, to compare Hanks to him, is utterly absurd. Cooper had a subtlety that few actors had. He acted with his hands, his face, his whole body, in such a way as to make at least myself, count him as probably the greatest natural actor of all time. I have nothing against Hanks, but ……please…..

Comments are closed.