“Moneybull”: An Inquiry Into Media Manipulation

The film Moneyball was well-received by both audiences and critics and an Academy Award contender for best film at the 2012 Oscars.   It was based on Michael Lewis’ 2003 nonfiction book by the same name and directed by Bennett Miller from a screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin (who I understand was the guiding force behind the film) and Steven Zaillian.  Moneyball recounts the story of the 2002 season of the Oakland A’s major league baseball team.  The film centers on A’s general manager Billy Beane’s efforts to put together a winning team that year despite a limited budget.  The thesis of this writing is that Moneyball is a good illustration of how the media distort reality and transmit negative perceptions of white people and their ways.

The dramatic conflict in Moneyball revolves around Beane, portrayed by Brad Pitt in a superb performance, trying to interject new ways of assessing players and thinking about game strategy amid strong opposition from the tradition-bound A’s player personnel people and field manager.  Beane is advised in this effort by his young, mid-twenties, assistant, Peter Brand — short, pudgy, non-athletic, baseball outsider.  Brand is portrayed by Jonah Hill in an impressive performance — both Pitt and Hill were nominated for Academy Awards.  The Brand character, the only one who doesn’t go by his real-life name, is based on Paul dePodesta, an assistant to Beane at that time.

Brand makes the case to Beane that statistics should guide player selection and game decisions rather than the experience and judgment of the team’s baseball-lifer scouts and field manager.   Beane, in his early forties, is himself a long-time baseball man as a player and front office executive.

Brand underscores the importance of OBP (the percentage of times at bat a hitter gets on base by any means — hits, walks, and being hit by a pitch) as a key indicator of a player’s productivity.  The numbers reveal, says Brand, that the more times on base the more runs, and the more runs the more wins.  Brand points out to Beane that, contrary to accepted thinking in the game, bunts, stolen bases, and fielding count for little in producing victories.  He also makes the case that productive players have been overlooked when putting together the team in the past because they didn’t look or act like ballplayers by the conventional standards of the A’s scouting department.  Outcomes, Brand insists, which statistics measure objectively, are what matter in winning games, not antiquated notions about the physique or face a player needs to possess, or requisite personality traits or personal habits.

Beane finds Brand’s perspective particularly appealing given his limited financial resources, because the kinds of players Brand is hyping are available on the cheap since their skill sets are currently being overlooked by teams putting together rosters.  He says to Brand, let’s you and I get it done.  He signs a washed-up catcher whose arm is shot and who is basically immobile by the name of Scott Hatteberg to play first base.  He brings on board aged outfielder David Justice, whose legs are gone and whose fielding range is virtually non-existent.  Why?  They are high OBP types.  He promotes to the A’s major league roster a minor league pitcher, Chad Bradford, whose progress has been blocked because he throws funny, just about underhand.  In baseball argot, he’s a submarine pitcher, and you need to come over the top (throw with your arm raised high) to make it in the big show according to traditional baseball thinking.

None of Beane/Brand’s maneuvers go over with the crusty A’s scouts and their beer-bellied field manager, Art Howe.  It’s important to note in this context that these are white guys; there is something really white about the antagonists in Moneyball, it jumps out.  In fact, they are archetypal white guys: from small town or rural backgrounds or the South and of the sort likely to be fundamentalist Christians, in stark contrast to the Peter Brand character played by Jonah Hill (born Jonah Hill Feldstein), who comes across as distinctly Jewish.  The Brand character also contrasts with the real person, Paul dePodesta, a tall, lean, and athletic gentile, who played both football and baseball in college.  Unlike the Brand character, who is new to baseball, dePodesta was a baseball insider who had worked as a major league scout before assuming a front office position with the A’s.  It appears that the makers of Moneyball inserted a Jewish protagonist into the 2002 Oakland A’s story.

In any case, we have our heroes and villains in the movie: our man Beane and his smart Jewish advisor representing enlightenment and progress on one side and, on the other, the dim, anachronistic, vaguely malevolent white scouts and field manager saying what the hell is going on, Beane, we thought you were one of us, and who is this fat little alien handing you file folders?

Since Beane is higher up in the A’s chain of command, he wins the day and things are done his way during the off-season. The 2002 season begins, but he soon runs into a major problem.  The manager Art Howe wants to play somebody else at first base rather than Beane/Brand’s guy Hatteberg.  Beane solves that problem by trading the player Howe prefers to another team.  Another problem comes up — the A’s turn out to be a pitcher short.  A lengthy, and very well edited, scene in the film has Beane working the phones with aplomb to wrangle a pitcher, Ricardo Rincon, from the general manager of another team.

The season progresses.  Beane, edgy and unsettled but a good guy and highly appealing (imagine Brad Pitt), pumps iron to deal with the stresses of the season and does his best to stay in contact with his teenage daughter as a divorced parent.  The underdog A’s go on a winning streak and win the American League West division championship (imagine the last scenes in Rocky with everybody cheering ecstatically and the music blaring).  They lose to the Minnesota Twins in the first round of the playoffs, but that doesn’t detract from the victory of Beane and his sidekick Brand and their modern ways over the ignorance and rigidity of the past as represented by the scouts and field manager.

Quite the guy that Billy Beane.  And Peter Brand too — being obese and nerdy and “other” didn’t obscure his superbness in our discerning eyes.  We were there with both of them every step of the way.  We knew what those loser baseball throwbacks couldn’t get through their thick heads.

Moneyball is a well-crafted mass-market film.  I’m prone to quit on DVDs these days, and I lasted all the way to the end.  That said, this writing isn’t about Moneyball as an entertainment or a work of art (for certain, it’s not a work of art).  It’s about Moneyball as a depiction of reality: what it leads viewers to believe happened in Oakland, California in 2002 and what it meant.

Moneyball is based on a non-fiction book.  With the exception of the Brand character, everybody in the film goes by the name of the real person involved.  What is on the screen is presented as being what truly happened back then.  But really, the film isn’t true; or better, it is true here and there but fundamentally untrue.  Moneyball obscures significant truths.  It portrays things as lucid and simple and resolved that are in fact muddy and complex and open to debate — also the case with the book.

From what I can tell, both audiences and critics unquestioningly accepted the film (and the book too) as an accurate account and valid interpretation.  But there is enough fraudulence and slick propagandizing in Moneyball for me to dub it “Moneybull.”  The way people were taken in by this film needs to be understood, both for itself and to help us get a clearer sense of how media socialization, education, indoctrination, conditioning, salesmanship — whatever the best word for it — operates.  I’ll offer some thoughts on that.

To begin, it’s important to keep in mind that a great percentage of our contact with the world is mediated rather than direct (thus the term “media”).  That is to say, we weren’t there — in this case, in the A’s front offices and locker room in 2002 — someone showed us and told us about what went on and why and what it all meant.  I wasn’t in the Civil War or World War II, I never met John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, I’ve never been to Iraq and Iran or met their leaders, I’ve never been in the presence of President Trump.  Anything I know about any of that list I’ve gotten second hand; I didn’t experience it with my own senses, directly.

If upon examination it turns out that Moneyball can’t be trusted, it surfaces the question of what other mediations, call them that, are one-sided, distorted, or outright misrepresentations?  I hope this focus on a single film and its creators prompts your critical, analytical, examination of other mediators, interpreters, of reality, among them, public intellectuals, writers and artists, interest groups, political and religious figures, television and music industry owners, producers, and performers, magazine and book publishers, news organizations, journalists, teachers and professors, and internet communicators.  Who are these people and what are they selling and how do they go about it?

Let’s look at Moneyball.

It’s grounded in the premise that bringing high OBP-type players to the A’s roster will result in more runs scored and thus more wins.  The film leads us to believe that the A’s went in that direction and it worked and that’s why they won the division championship.  Good for Beane and Brand.  The reality is that the 2002 A’s scored the fewest runs of any team in their division.  They scored 800 runs over the course of the season, which was a whopping 84 fewer runs than the A’s scored in 2001.  The A’s didn’t win the division in 2002 because they were scoring runs — no team was as bad as they were at doing that.

The A’s won in 2002 because they prevented runs.  The statistic that jumps out when you review the A’s record in 2002 is team earned run average (ERA is the average number of runs pitchers give up per nine innings).  It was the best in the division, an excellent 3.68.  That accomplishment didn’t result from the performances of the pitchers Beane brought on board, Chad Bradford (with the funny throwing motion) and Ricardo Rincon (the pitcher obtained in the trade). They won a total of four games between them.  It was due to three superb young starting pitchers, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and Mark Mulder, who collectively won 57 games.  You will be hard-pressed to find three pitchers on any team, any year, that won that many games.  Who scouted those three remarkable pitchers?  That’s right, the out-of-touch white guys.

Something else that leaps out when you review the A’s 2002 season is the performance of two young position players, shortstop Miguel Tejada and third baseman Eric Chavez.  Who found them?  You got it.

I follow baseball closely and I’m trying to think of a collection of better young players drafted by a major league team than the ones on the A’s in 2002.  And yet the player personnel people who signed those players were very effectively made to look like morons, dinosaurs, in Moneyball.

The first baseman our hero Beane traded away to force misguided manager Art Howe to play Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane/Brand’s big accomplishments according to the film?  Twenty-four-year old Carlos Pena, who went on to make the All-Star team, lead the league in home runs, win a Gold Glove (best fielder) Award, and play for twelve more years in the major leagues — all of these accomplishments for other teams and not the A’s because of Beane/Brand’s put-down of Art Howe the manager that the movie theater, DVD, and streaming audience cheer on in Moneyball.  What happened to Scott Hatteberg, who no one has ever claimed was more than a non-descript journeyman player? Gone from the A’s in three years.

Moneyball promotes the idea that there is but one criterion for assessing success in baseball: the number of wins in a season.  The game is about winning, says Brand: do whatever it takes to win.  By that measure, the A’s were successful in 2002.  They won the division championship, although the movie disingenuously leaves the impression that the A’s became big winners that year compared to prior years because of Beane and his clever advisor.  Exactly how many more games did the A’s win in 2002 than in 2001?  One.  One.

Lewis in the book and Sorkin and Zaillian in the screenplay stayed clear of two valid measures of success other than winning:

The first, profits.  The Oakland A’s are a company.  The company’s product is baseball exhibitions they charge people to watch and television and radio stations to transmit.  And it sells concessions and paraphernalia, hats, jackets and so on.  That’s how the company makes money.   The bottom line in professional sport is, well, the financial bottom line.

How did Beane do when measured by the profits he generated in 2002?  Commercial sport companies don’t go public with their profits, but we can get a sense of them from looking at attendance figures.  The A’s had the worst attendance in the American League West division that year.  Average attendance was up a bit in 2002 compared to 2001, 26,788 versus 26,337, about 450 people a game.  Attendance didn’t increase dramatically that year as the movie’s increasingly large and frenzied crowd scenes imply, and the A’s 450 person-per-game increase over 2001 was worse than every other team in the division save one, the last place Texas Rangers.  Any increase in revenue from attendance has to be considered in light of the 21% increase in the A’s player salaries in 2002 over 2001.   A scene in the film with Beane and the owner leads us to believe that Beane didn’t have more money to work with in 2002 — not so.

Something — say, Scott Hatteberg and his on-base percentage — could win a game here and there, but at the same time not put people in the seats or increase television ratings.  Whatever his merits, and I can personally attest to this, Scott Hatteberg standing at the plate looking for a walk, and pretty much guaranteed not to give the ball a ride, and lumbering from base to base if he did get on base, was a yawn to spectators.  That year I went with a friend to an A’s game; bored stiff, we left in the sixth inning.  In contrast, Carlos Pena, the player Beane and his advisor traded away, blasting the ball over the outfield wall makes the turnstiles spin.

Beane remained the A’s general manager through the 2015 season. Attendance under his watch was consistently nothing special. Near the end of his time, the A’s ownership went public that their revenue had hit rock bottom, the worst in the major leagues, although some argued that it was a ploy to support their desire to move the franchise to San Jose. Whatever the case is on that, I see no evidence that Beane contributed positively to the A’s profits as a corporate entity.

The second valid measure of something’s success is its effect on the game of baseball.  Baseball isn’t simply about its final result — winning or losing — it about its process, what happens during the game.  It is about the experience of both players and spectators during the game.  It is about the quality of the game as an activity.  Most fundamentally, baseball is about playing baseball.

Sabermetrics, the use of statistics to guide operations, arguably has hurt the game of baseball as it is played.  The emphasis on on-base averages has resulted in batters taking strikes and waiting pitchers out in an attempt to get walks and thereby increasing their OBPs.  Seldom these days does a batter swing at the first pitch.  Pitch counts run up.  An already slow game gets even slower.  Action is replaced by inaction.  Assertion is replaced by passivity.  The joy of the game is diminished for both players and fans.  Steal attempts are fewer and the excitement of the game is diminished for both players and fans.   Bunts are fewer and strategy goes out of the game.  Like life, baseball is not just a destination, this and that outcome; it is also, and most basically about, a moment-to-moment experience.  The quality of the moments of our lives, including the time we spend playing and watching baseball, needs to be taken into account.

Beneath the particulars of the story, the larger, tacit, message in Moneyball is that the whole of America, not just baseball, is messed up and needs to be transformed.  And who is standing in the way of that?  Whites, that’s who.  More specifically, as demonstrated in Moneyball, gentile white men of northern European heritage.   Simply, their time is up.  They’ve got to step aside, or be pushed aside.  Moneyball gets across the idea that one good way to make that happen is to “expertize” things — that is, let our enlightened betters (Peter Brand is what they look like) call the shots and get things to where they need to be.

A message, lesson, of Moneyball is that the experience, personal judgment, and instincts of average (white) Joes can’t be trusted.  These scouts had come to conclusions about the physical characteristics and personality traits that give a young player the best chance of being successful at the major league level, and the field manager had decided what contributes to wins on the field.  Well, they were wrong, says Moneyball.   It’s Peter Brand, who by the looks of him never swung a bat in his life, who has it wired.

This “don’t trust your perceptions” message in Moneyball squares with the message coming at the public with regard to every area of American life: don’t believe your own experience and thinking; instead, go by what I’m telling you.  Politics, history, morality, foreign policy, education, gender, race, art — reality is what I say it is, not what you think it is.   It’s like the old Lenny Bruce joke:  A guy’s wife walks in on him in the heat of a romantic interlude with his secretary.  She’s aghast.  He says to her, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”  If you get across the lesson that connections with reality and the inferences drawn from it and one’s own reasoning can’t be trusted in baseball, you pave the way to getting people uncritically to buy what the Peter Brands are promoting in other, more important, areas of American life.

A message in Moneyball: have faith in the numbers I put in front of you.  Peter Brand says his statistical data indicate the insignificance of fielding. To the contrary, statistical measures developed since the early 2000s have confirmed what anybody who has ever played the game of baseball, or watched a shortstop wave at a ground ball that went through for a hit, knows in the depth of their being: fielding matters big time.  Dumb (white) Art Howe was on to something.

Looking at the film from a racial angle, the hero in Moneyball, Billy Beane, aligns himself against his white kinsmen, the scouts and manager.  The lesson: doing that kind of thing is good.   For decades that has been a theme in the mainstream media.  I recently saw Saving Private Ryan which depicts white young people slaughtering other white young people because they were evil Nazis.  I’m trying to think of films about blacks heroically killing bad blacks, or Jews killing bad Jews, say, in Africa or Israel.

Why did people accept the ideas in Moneyball so uncritically?  Some reasons:

Film is a literal medium.  Motion pictures, and this applies to television as well, are literal representations of something.  You can see and hear what’s going on right in front of you. There it is.  You know there is a script and those are actors and it’s a partial depiction of a feigned reality and it’s been edited.  But still, since you can see it happening and hear it, it looks real, it’s no abstraction, and thus you believe it.

We buy what attractive protagonists sell.  Brad Pitt is a very appealing guy.  When we look at Billy Beane in the movie we see Brad Pitt.  He’s a handsome guy, and those other people aren’t handsome, and he is really nice to his daughter.  The movie is about him.  The camera is on him from the beginning of the film to the end.  We watch him take on challenges and confront obstacles, and we see him take hits and come back from them.  We come to identify with him and root for him.   If someone like Brad Pitt is for it, it must be good, so we’re for it too.  We transfer our positive feelings toward the attractive protagonist to the messages, or lessons, he embodies.  If you have some ideas you want to propagate in a film (or want to sell beer or cars), have someone attractive represent them.  I understand that Jews call gentiles, like Pitt, who serve that purpose for them “toy goys.”

We like the familiar.  If you are promoting some ideology, program, whatever it is, it helps to embed it in what is familiar and thus comfortable to an audience.  Stay within your audience’s frame of reference; don’t stir them up or make them stretch, keep them feeling cozy; that’s the best context for getting across your messages.  Moneyball was replete with familiar themes and images: the appealing lead on a worthy quest; the unenlightened, stuck-in-the-past, establishment bad guys; the underdog storyline (the lowly, small-market A’s); the outsider who is scorned at first and then accepted (Brand); the committed dad; the ultimate triumph of the good guys.

Imagine the reverse of Moneyball:  Underqualified Beane and his zero-life-experience, know-it-all, weaselly little partner in crime are the villains.  Beane is played by an unattractive, anonymous character actor.  The scouts—one of them played by Brad Pitt — and field manager are dedicated, hands-on-get-it-done, real men who have signed all these terrific young pitchers and position players, and here are these two suits presuming to tell them how to do their jobs.  The camera follows the scouts and field manager; it’s their movie.  The Beane and Brand combo bring in a lead-footed retread to play the outfield and make the fine young pitchers’ jobs tougher — balls that should be caught turn into doubles and triples.  The two jerks congratulate themselves for trading for a pitcher who wins exactly zero games.  They pull rank on the manager and dictate that he play a Frankenstein’s monster in the field and sleep inducer at the plate.  When the manager objects, they trade a future all-star to take the decision out of his hands. They impose deadly dull, no-steals, no-bunts, no-strategy, station-to-station baseball on the team, which sends fans streaming out of the ballpark by the sixth inning.  Beane’s ex-wife is given a scene where, tears streaming down her face, she relates how her husband abandoned her.  The A’s win the division in spite of the two front office dickheads and the music swells and the scouts and field manager hug each other in triumph and the end credits roll.

The idea that tearing down the current ways of conducting affairs is a really good thing wouldn’t play well within that story line, and I’m saying that angle is as plausible as the one Moneyball actually employed.

We believe what makes us feel good about ourselvesMoneyball is a self-confirming experience for its audience.  We get to feel in the know and on the side of the angels and linked up with a cool guy like Brad Pitt, and all we had to do to achieve that status was spring for a movie ticket or a DVD or streaming rental.  And we are safe; nothing goes on that challenges or threatens us.  We are nestled comfortably among the wise and righteous and don’t have to think about anything or do a damn thing.

We are basically lazy.  If you are halfway slick you can tell people just about anything that is simple to understand and has a surface level of plausibility (as long as it doesn’t make them feel bad about themselves—these all go together) and be rest assured that they aren’t going to put effort into thinking about it or checking into its veracity or coming up with alternatives to it.

So what can we do?

We can take seriously my mother’s advice to me when I was a kid: “Robert, you are a nice boy, but you believe everything anybody tells you.  Quit doing that.”

We can differentiate mediated from direct experience.

We can distinguish abstractions—images, words, concepts, assertions — from the concrete realities they supposedly represent.

The Lenny Bruce joke: we can trust our eyes more, our senses, our experience of things.

We can look directly at the people pushing something and ask: Who are these people?  What’s their agenda?  What’s in it for them and theirs if we buy what they are selling?

We can think for ourselves and not let other people do the thinking for us.

We can become mediators of reality ourselves.

And we can find better movies to watch than the likes of Moneyball.

Robert S. Griffin is Professor Emeritus at the University of Vermont.  His website is www.robertsgriffin.com.  He invites you to read his recent book manuscript, From Old to Elderly: A Decade of Thoughts, available on his site free as a PDF.

79 replies
  1. Sir Charles Pipkins
    Sir Charles Pipkins says:

    You only see this after swallowing the red pill. I loved the original Karate Kid movie as a child. I watched it again recently and noticed all the bad guys from the antagonists gym (thuggish, stupid, animalistic) were White. The gym could have been in Stockholm. The hero is I believe an Italian. But he is a dark Mid East looking southern Italian who can easily pass as Jewish. The wise sage is Japanese. Rarely any good White guys. NEVER Aany good

    • John Walton
      John Walton says:

      The proper way to fight this is by creating a counter-culture. Talk and think in ways that spotlight your rejection of the other side’s assumptions and imperatives. Daily Stormer, however odious its ideology, was masterful at this. I read a piece recently contrasting the substantiality of old-school scientific racism with the shallowness of Alt-Right troll culture. IMO the troll culture is far more effective in countering the left than any laborious examination of African IQs, as the total failure of The Bell Curve to affect public policy demonstrates. In particular we should revive as much politically incorrect lingo as we can. Without appealing to the rebellious spirit of youth we won’t have a Chinaman’s chance of turning the tables.

    • Guilty Too
      Guilty Too says:

      Right, I love the movie too, but then I thought about it: what’s going on here? A meditarean looking boy comes from the northeast, is bullied (persecuted?) by aryans, but teams with other nonwhite immigrants to defeat the aryans. So I formed a hypothesis about the writer of this story. Sure enough!

  2. JRM
    JRM says:

    Well-written piece about a movie I would never have considered watching (I’m not very interested in sports with the exception of boxing which I gave up watching for reasons that should be evident to anyone reading this website).

    I was thinking when I started reading this article “hey, if you think there is a propaganda problem with this baseball movie, I’ve got some World War II movies you really need to watch”.

    But the payoff here is that the propaganda is fairly subtle – as these things go. It reminds us just how many angles the Jews in Hollywood have covered.

    I’ve long maintained that one of the most important factors that made Whites sit still and cave-in for desegregation, including our Gov. running social experiments on our own children in the form of forced integration of schools, was the cumulative effect of 1950’s and 1960’s films with the likes of Harry Belafonte, that depicted blacks as hard-working, God-fearing, devoted spouses and parents; they only wanted a fair chance to be allowed to work their hearts out in pursuit of a little well-earned happiness, but evil Whites kept doing horrible things to them, like burning down their humble-but-lovingly tended homes. Oy!

    To close, let me say I would like to read similar articles that reveal the propaganda angle in movies that might not immediately be apparent. One thing I’ve learned from Hollywood: all blacks are good and wise in much the same way, but the perfidy of White folks comes in many forms!

    • Ed Connelly
      Ed Connelly says:

      “To close, let me say I would like to read similar articles that reveal the propaganda angle in movies that might not immediately be apparent.”

      Ask and you shall receive! Though I should first praise Prof. Griffin for his fine review, instead I’ll reference my own good writing. Some years back, this appeared in the pages of The Occidental Quarterly (which I hope all readers receive). See: http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v9n2/TOQv9n2Connelly.pdf

      UNDERSTANDING HOLLYWOOD
      PART III: RACIAL ROLE-REVERSALS

      EDMUND CONNELLY
      _______________________
      “We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the
      Black man.”
      —Edgar Steele

  3. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    The mainstream media has always been dishonest. From the “yellow journalism” of the late 1800s and early 1900s to today’s “fake news, journalism has shown its true (communist) roots.
    From the lies about the Spanish-American war to the New York Times’ walter duranty hiding the truth about and denying the artificially engineered and forced communist “famine” in the Ukraine, to the lies about the 1968 Viet Nam communist Tet offensive (a military victory for the South Vietnamese and American troops) reported by walter cronkite as a military defeat, cronkite and his ilk were successful in prolonging the Viet Nam war for years, giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, who bragged about being supported by the U S media.
    Look at NBCs doctoring of GMC truck gas tanks, rigging them to explode, and the deliberate mischaracterization of George Zimmerman’s conversation withe the 911 dispatcher, deleting a key phrase, as well as showing Trayvon Martin as a 12-year-old rather than his more recent “thug” facebook picture.
    The media has become a “fifth column” of the government and is not to be trusted.
    To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ability for ordinary citizens to be real “journalists”, quite often getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.
    In fact, there are calls by “mainstream media” to “license” journalists, in an attempt to keep these “citizen journalists” out…twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays…

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      … the lies about the 1968 Viet Nam communist Tet offensive (a military victory for the South Vietnamese and American troops) reported … as a military defeat …

      I write as someone who, having arrived as a drafted enlisted man in Vietnam in December 1967, was stationed at a division headquarters in the Central Highlands, a post that sustained rocket and mortar attacks during the Tet offensive, exactly fifty years ago less eight weeks or so.

      What you write about Tet is certainly true, but it’s also true that the offensive represented a significant psychological and moral defeat for US forces and their commanders, whether in absolute terms or in relation to the South Vietnamese civilian population and the uniformed layabouts of the South Vietnamese army—or as we GIs over there called them, the ARVNs. General Westmoreland and his publicity apparatus had been proudly asserting for some time that it was no longer possible for the VC or the NVA, whether separately or in conjunction, to mount such a well organized and geographically extensive operation to such disruptive effect. Put otherwise, the “bad” guys sacrificed a lot of lives, true enough, but they succeeded in making what they regarded as important points while also killing a nonnegligible number of GIs and Vietnamese. Nor should it be forgotten that the subsequent “military victory for the South Vietnamese and American troops” was anything but a casualty-free cakewalk.

      Back here in the States, the Johnson administration, with its accustomed bluster and bravado, had also been proclaiming much the same unchallengeable dominance and superiority. (Indeed, it’s a safe bet that LBJ and McNamara instructed the always complaisant Westmoreland to do likewise.) Even absent a press corps that held Johnson in contempt—even as it lavished praise on his (((Soviet-style))) domestic agenda—the offensive would have been a PR nightmare for the administration, one it richly merited.

      To be clear, I am far from defending the actions of either the media or the administration. I merely say that one should not reflexively conclude that those two foes of ours must have been working in tandem because they had a shared goal: namely, wrecking white Christian America. As the old saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin a mule.

      That the true winners of the Vietnam war were our Jewish masters should surprise no one who reads or comments here.

      • anarchyst
        anarchyst says:

        I too served in Vietnam (I Corps USMC 1970-1971) and must respond to your comment. There was (and still is) a “soft spot” for communism in the American “mainstream media”. All one has to do is look at Ken Burns’ “documentary” on Vietnam to see his sympathy and admiration for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong military while denigrating the efforts of both American and ARVN troops. Add to that the minimalization of the extent of the South Vietnamese “boat people” and their suffering to escape that communist “paradise. After “reunification”, the North promised that “re-education” would take about a month–nothing could be further from the truth–Ken Burns “let it slip” that people were in re-education camps for 20 years or more. The attack on the South WAS an invasion–no other way to look at it. Of course, it was not reported as such. If Cronkite and his ilk had reported the Tet offensive truthfully, the war would have been over within a year. The North Vietnamese were “ready to deal” until they found out that they had an “ally” in the American “mainstream media”.
        I stand by my statements.
        Regards,

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Dear anarchyst,

          Thank you for your reply. Please note that I didn’t challenge your statements; rather, I disagreed with the conclusions you have drawn from those statements.

          My reaction to your reply is largely similar to my initial reaction. (I write “largely” because there is no hard evidentiary basis for concluding that “the war would have been over within a year” had public media figures responded to Tet otherwise.) The crux of my disagreement lies in this: Whatever injustices the people of Vietnam suffered, it was not our suffering to remedy nor our war to fight.* After US involvement in both world wars plainly served only to slaughter even more millions of our white Christian brothers and sisters whilst aiding and abetting the cruel, insidious purposes of our (((historic foes))), why wasn’t the knee-jerk reaction to the Southeast Asian situation something more akin to good wishes and prayer than armed intervention that had many goals, none of which, a fortiori, was defeat of the enemy du jour or meaningful, useful assistance to their victims?

          Surely, anarchyst, you know the answer to that question as well as I do.

          Last of all, I hope that you’re not suggesting that I have a soft spot for communism.
          _________________
          *You are probably already familiar with perhaps the only smart and wise thing ever spoken by John Quincy Adams (July 4, 1821). I quote it here for its central or marginal relevance both to the case you seem to be making and to the subtext of effectively every article ever posted at TOO dealing with our subversion and betrayal at the hands of what KM has eloquently termed the hostile elite that rules our society and pollutes our minds.

          Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

          Adams’s speech in its entirety may be found here.

          • anarchyst
            anarchyst says:

            There were admissions by North Vietnamese official that they would have settled in 1969 as their forces were decimated. There are also valid concerns about “the domino theory”–communism being like cancer, spreading from country to country due to border proximity. It is possible that our involvement in Vietnam slowed down the “progress” of communism. According to those who espoused the “domino theory”, It is very likely that Thailand would have been next.
            Regards

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            @anarchyst: How can you affirm the correctness of Charles Frey’s comment and then blithely say that it “push[ed] us into war,” as if the pronoun “us” actually referred to something non-risible? Had you written “it dragged the American people into war under false and immoral pretenses,” your response would have acquired the dignity accorded to just observation.

            It is possible that our involvement in Vietnam slowed down the “progress” of communism.

            Almost everything may be deemed possible when the deck is properly stacked. But as the “communis[t] … cancer” managed to terminate the already sickly and critically compromised popular self-government of white Americans, in the country their ancestors built, without reference to dominoes or any other silliness, this sort of speculation is rendered vacuous.

            Besides, under the terms of the neocons’ domino theory, which neighboring domino is to be convicted of falling into and thereby spreading its Red infection to “us”? Canada? Mexico? The Mariel boat people from Cuba?

          • Sam J.
            Sam J. says:

            I see stuff written about the Vietnam war and it never fails they don’t talk at all about the whole picture. The Vietnam war was a war to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. In that aspect it won some and lost some. Vietnam had nothing to do with oil or Colonialism. Any look at a map would show it’s vast strategic location for the Communist. It has one the best ports in Asia. They talk about Tet defeating us. Nothing could be further from the truth. It ended forever the Viet Cong in the South. From then on all the attacks were from the North. The next big attack…

            Jerry Pournelle,”…And in Viet Nam the North sent 150,000 men south with as much armor as the Wehrmacht had in many WW II engagements. That was in 1973, and of that 150,000 fewer than 50,000 men and no armor returned to the North, at a cost of under 1,000 American casualties. Most would count that an outstanding victory…”

            “… (Alas, in 1975 North Viet Nam had another army of over 100,000 and sent it South; the Democratic Congress voted our South Vietnamese 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per man, but refused naval and air support; Saigon predictably became Ho Chi Minh city as we pushed helicopters off the decks of out carriers in our frantic evacuation; but that is hardly the fault of the US military)…”

            The South lost when they ran out of ammunition. During the time we were fighting in Vietnam all the other Asian countries with their own Commies attacking them were fighting also. Many of them won. The ones that fell like Cambodia paid a harsh price. By all measurement of what we went to Vietnam for we didn’t lose. It did stop the spread of Communism to all Asia. Rarely in any wars do you get all you want.

            The Democrat party has been saying that the Vets fought a losing war when in actuality the Democrats directly are responsible for the loss of South Vietnam. There are only a few highways leading South and they were packed with tanks and troop transport in ’75. It would have been a complete turkey shoot like the war in Kuwait. We even had battleships at that time that could have pounded them from the coast. If we would have attacked it would have probably caused them such a defeat that they would have never attacked again maybe even the government of the North would have been overthrown by the people for such incompetence. Unfortunately the Nixon was gone and Ford was directly told if he helped the Vietnamese with air power he would be impeached.

            The idea that the Vietnam vets died for nothing is a huge psyops by the Democrats. The South had defeated all the guerillas. All they needed was support to hold off the North and the Democrats sold them out. If the South Vietnamese had not fell it’s very likely that the Cambodian Genocide would have never happened.
            The Democrats had said the war was lost so many times that they had to prove it so by actually losing it.

          • John Walton
            John Walton says:

            I believe this passage is from a somewhat celebrated letter Adams wrote to a European noble who was thinking of emigrating and wondering if Adams could fix him up with a sinecure. It’s a wonderful letter. The man could write!
            As for our neo-communist transformation, it occurs to me that all of our problems could be solved by a free internet or a prohibition on usury. So maybe we need to hope the Muslim infestation becomes more than the latest prop in the hands of the NWO. First achieve dhimmitude, then Christendom. One thing at a time.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            @John Walton:

            I believe this passage is from a somewhat celebrated letter Adams wrote to a European noble …

            No, it isn’t. Look at the supporting link and its documentation. Look it up in a bio of JQA. Or look it up in any of a hundred now easily accessible sources.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            @Sam J.:

            The Vietnam war was a war to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.

            Uh huh. And Moneyball is “based on a true story.”

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        Pierre,
        My late cousin and his cousin, both Viet Nam vets, long, long ago told me that there was a lack of political will, because there was enough fire power to “turn Viet Nam into a parking lot”.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Curmudgeon,

          The cousins and I see eye to eye, need I even say?

          Perhaps this is the place to note that the Vietnam conflict in its entirety has, to my knowledge, so far failed to receive the full-bore demythologization, whether hesitatingly from court historians or plainspokenly from genuine ones, that both world wars have gotten—not that straight talk about the latter two precisely lies thick on the ground, but still, it’s out there! Even the seemingly Perpetual War on Terror has had its share of straight talkers—so long, that is, that one recognizes from the get-go that the Tribe’s criminal influence is going to be hinted at a thousand times for each time it’s named in so many words.

          The importance of having a close, accurate analysis of the Vietnam conflict lies in the phenomenon seen in this thread and many others: the understandable reluctance of a great many of my fellow vets, especially those who enlisted, to come to grips with the realization that the American, Australian, Canadian, and other lives lost or permanently damaged and the military service given with the most honorable of intentions weren’t just perverted to evil ends by people who mocked and derided those who fought, suffered, and died for what they mistakenly believed was a high purpose, however muddled, distorted, or betrayed that purpose was by those entrusted with managing it (the politicians) and supporting it (the press). Rather, everything about the war was rotten to its very core from the outset, and (((those present at the creation))) saw white Christian slaughter as, simply, an unalloyed good of the process.

          Instead even now, more than fifty-five years after Ike began the slow introduction of US “advisers,” a great many vets and the loved ones of deceased vets still think that defending the war’s waging is the only option for those disgusted by the ever so Semitic press’s perfidy and slander.

          What I think is the truth—that the Vietnam war was a hot tub for parasites and exploiters engineered by a nest of vipers (forgive the badly mixed metaphors)—is, sadly, unlikely to get a proper airing so long as both the retrospective cheerleading and the ongoing self-congratulation of (((our masters))) are used to keep our fellow white citizens deluded into believing that the War on Terror, combined with the mass importation of those responsible for the terror, somehow keeps the West both free and great.

        • John Walton
          John Walton says:

          I took a course on the Vietnam war and the one thing that stuck in my mind is that the Vietcong couldn’t make weapons so we should have bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail from Day One, but we were afraid of ticking off China and starting a nuclear war. If that was our fear we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. The other thing I recall is that the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the communists that was painted as a victory by US commies like Walter Cronkeit, and that Ho Chi Minh was by no means as popular as the official narrative has it. There is a scholar who is or was at Clemson (Edwin Moise, probably) who has written some good revisionist material on Vietnam. E.g. he says it’s not at all clear that Ho would have won an honest election. Some right-winger needs to work up a compendium of revisionist history that is intellectually solid but doesn’t pull punches in discrediting myths and pointing out helpful truths. Did you know that Roosevelt’s Veep Henry Wallace was a Soviet spy?

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Wallace and a dozen others: from Yalta’s Hiss to Bretton Woods’ Harry Dexter White [ Weiss] under Treasury’s Morgenthau; handled by GRU Central in Moscow.

            On a different note:

            Everyone of our vintage remembers that photo of that naked little napalm-bombed girl, Kim Phuc, fleeing her annihilated village. That picture made it around the world in a day and strongly supported the anti-war sentiments and movements.

            There is a fascinating brief clip on the net, showing the photographer of that photo actually attempting to give her first aid by pouring water over her. Her burnt skin falling off parts of her body, while she examines herself in disbelief. Another mother is carrying her baby in that scene whose skin has also come off. It also includes the footage of the actual pulverization of her temple-centered village.

            As I mentioned in a comment especially addressed to Pierre previously, Kim is now living in Ajax, just east of Toronto. An anonymous Montreal donor had given her a house, for her husband and first son and her now late father. If memory serves, the realtor and/or lawyer handling the land title registration, confided to her, that the Montreal donor was a war material manufacturer. Quebec had a firm either supplying chemical components for napalm or the end product itself.

            Worth a look for ” the girl in the picture “, or under Kim Phuc.
            Especially recent videos with her explaining her current endeavours.

            It is also important to remember, that the US took over, after the military defeat of the last French COLONIAL administration at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, by the Vietminh in 1954. During a period in which more than one country sent their masters packing for London, Paris and the Hague.

            One can not simultaneously wave the flag on the 4th of July and deny these people their right to self- determination; whatever they make of it. And they appear to have made a pretty good job of it; after everyone, including Beijing, left for home.

            Where, when and why did Eisenhower garner his wisdom about the ” military complex “, which played such a role in his farewell speech ?

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            I took a course on the Vietnam war …

            A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
            Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
            There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
            And drinking largely sobers us again.
            —Alexander Pope (1688–1744), An Essay on Criticism (1711)
            _________________________

            we should have bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail … we were afraid of ticking off China … If that was our fear we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place …

            You seem remarkably free with we‘s and us‘s and our‘s, Mr. Walton, especially as you are someone whose perspective appears to stem from a single classroom course of inherently dubious provenience.

  4. Pierre le Blanc
    Pierre le Blanc says:

    Well, I hate to admit it but I was royally fooled for all the reasons spelled out in this fantastic article. I can see now how blinded as was by Brad Pitt’s charisma and good looks, how I easily side with the underdog because without a doubt that’s how I see myself. In short, this feel-good movie is mostly for people like myself who don’t feel too good about themselves. Although I think sometimes that I’m smart and critical about things, I was really taken with my guard down. I’m surprised, but I’ll do better next time now that I’am more aware of the tricks these movies play on us. Thank you Mr Griffin for taking the time to analyze this and sharing it with your readers.

  5. Karl Nemmersdorf
    Karl Nemmersdorf says:

    You could do this with every single movie done at least back into the 1950s. I haven’t had a TV for 95 percent of my life, and haven’t watched movies for years now. TV shows are nothing but constant sex sex sex. Just the Jewish outlook on the world. Got better things to do.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Bravo, Karl; seconded.

      I’d add, too, that if Ed Connelly had assessed and analyzed this film side by side with the present article, I wouldn’t have been the only one to find Mies von der Rohe’s dictum, Less Is More, coming unbidden to mind.

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      Karl you must realize you are in the minority. You would be disgusted if you could see what constitutes regular programming on Netflix. They have the masses blindfolded as they serve them crap on a platter.

      We need more articles like these dissecting the anti-White subtext of the media our hostile elite produces so we can convince more people to boycott their poison.

  6. Mumoffour
    Mumoffour says:

    Being red-pilled makes watching movies unenjoyable. I rarely watch a movie to the end. Even the ‘chicks rule’ & ‘men are weak’ messages in Game of Thrones are becoming hard to watch. I have to turn off my mind and stop being angry at the propaganda. Books also distort reality with their hard-core, tough female characters because, feminism. I can handle a lack of truth in entertainment as long as it is for the purpose of pure pleasure and not to brainwash.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      I feel the same way. Many movies and shows I used to enjoy I can not go back and watch. I see the constant manipulation to attack Whites.

  7. Mike
    Mike says:

    Michael Lewis did an interview to advertise his new book. It [ the interview ] was about abusing Donald Trump and white people generally. Lewis panders to his publisher, a Jew(?) and the enemy within. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. Lewis on Don

  8. Karl Nemmersdorf
    Karl Nemmersdorf says:

    Didn’t mean to sound cranky. It was a good article. However, I don’t get why people who sympathize with this website still try to find “good” (Jew) movies to watch. There really aren’t that many, and watching them means you’re supporting (Jew) Hollywood. When my wife and I still watched movies, we had narrowed our choices down to four or so that we could stomach. Finally we got sick of watching them, and quit.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I assume, Karl, you’re speaking of DVDs, not (((movie theaters))), when you refer to watching movies. Yes?

      Apropos which, if you haven’t seen Dean Spanley or The Dish, you can widen your option range by adding them to your short list. In the past ten years, they are the only films I’ve wanted to watch more than once. (Although I gratefully acknowledge that I’ve gotten some very fine film recommendations from Trenchant over the past years, one viewing has sufficed for me in each case.) The point about Dean Spanley and The Dish is that they aren’t simply good; they are truly admirable.

      • Karl Nemmersdorf
        Karl Nemmersdorf says:

        Thank you. Yes DVDs, on our computer (we’re not THAT out of it!). We do let our kids watch movies, old Westerns, WWII (with a lecture on anti-German propaganda, natch!), lighter fare. If we ever get in the mood to watch something, we will look those up. I do believe there are good movies out there, but my wife and I simply prefer to do other things.

        Perhaps you can clue me in about something. Why are words here sometimes surrounded with multiple parentheses?

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          I sympathize with your puzzlement, as I had to ask the same question eighteen or so months ago!

          The pair of triple parentheses is a shorthand indication that the seemingly neutral or anodyne word or locution within the parentheses actually masks a concept, institution, movement, project, or the like that was Jewish from the outset, has fallen under Jewish control, or exists primarily or solely to serve Jewish ends.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Pierre, Shakespeare would have paid you top pounds for editing and/or improving on his style and searching out the odd anachronism; though chapters apart.

            Thanks for expanding on that Tonkin matter, to the broader point I erroneously thought to have made. As always, your brain scan gizmo is more than functional.

            [ @ Karl Nemmersdorf. I have not forgotten the ‘ weightier matter ‘ promised at the bottom of the comments section of your recent essay. Just having a hell of a time relocating a link to a link ].

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Apropos

            Thanks for expanding on that Tonkin matter, to the broader point I erroneously thought to have made.

            That it didn’t register as it should have was no fault of yours, my dear Charles. See my extended reply to our friend Curmudgeon if our Moderator approves the reply for release.

      • Karen T
        Karen T says:

        I enjoyed Dean Spanley so much I bought the DVD but still cry towards the end, even on the fourth viewing.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Dean Spanley was never even released here in the States, Karen. I learned of its existence from an Amazon reviewer named Boyd Cathey, a gentleman one of whose claims to fame (and to our respect) is that the $PLC has done a profile of him that singles him out as a hater and and an anti-Semite.

          After I discovered what a gem Dean Spanley was, I scoured Cathey’s reviews for other unfamiliar titles. That’s how I learned of The Dish, which also stars Sam Neill.

          As folks were always saying about the Lone Ranger, I wanted to thank Cathey before he rode out of town.

  9. Sursum corda
    Sursum corda says:

    Even television shows, like Little House on the Prairie, pushed a Jewish agenda, a Jewish viewpoint. The real Ingalls family would never have embraced thoughts and actions that would lead to the genocide of white Europeans.

  10. Ed Connelly
    Ed Connelly says:

    As a long-time film analyst for TOQ and TOO, I must highly praise Prof. Griffin’s review here. Outstanding. And to be honest, I missed much of the propaganda in this film because I lack the factual baseball background Prof. Griffin has.

    I’ve been teaching in universities for decades how Hollywood (and other media) constantly work to destroy the White male by promoting women, blacks, etc. Maybe I should give more initial emphasis to the importance of media. If I do, I think I’ll use the whole of Prof. Griffin’s paragraph, as it explains how modern media exercises so much power over us. And we know (((who))) controls so much of the media in our world.

    The paragraph:

    “To begin, it’s important to keep in mind that a great percentage of our contact with the world is mediated rather than direct (thus the term “media”). That is to say, we weren’t there — in this case, in the A’s front offices and locker room in 2002 — someone showed us and told us about what went on and why and what it all meant. I wasn’t in the Civil War or World War II, I never met John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, I’ve never been to Iraq and Iran or met their leaders, I’ve never been in the presence of President Trump. Anything I know about any of that list I’ve gotten second hand; I didn’t experience it with my own senses, directly.”

      • Ed Connelly
        Ed Connelly says:

        Sorry, Charles, but the movie sounded so vile and so loaded with anti-White propaganda that I wouldn’t go near it. On the other hand, I did happen to watch Fargo before I knew what it was, so I’ll say a few words about that below.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          I haven’t been to a movie in forty-five years and that particular piece of fecal matter would not have been my choice to break my record. Its trailers alone all but sent me to the loo to bring up.

          My discount store’s generic popcorn tastes better than Orville’s and comes out just fine in my microwave.

          On the streets of post-war Berlin, Cowboys and Indians was the name of the game: favourite comic-books collections and all. An American cap-pistol with holster and belt was the ultimate status symbol.

          I can’t possibly describe my disgust at seeing these trailers: this unnecessary, impudently Jewish attempt to denigrate yet another healthy and integral part of popular American history.

          I’m happily unsurprised by you not deigning to watch it either: even professionally.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Your citation of Dr. Griffin’s paragraph would suggest, that Hitler’s Table Talk was chiseled in soap stone, as opposed to granite.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      @Ed Connelly – Your online piece ‘Understanding Hollywood …’ in my view doesn’t emphasise Jews anywhere near enough; I hope you can persuade yourself to do more in future. NB I note you say Jews are most visible and vulnerable, and therefore least powerful, in racially and culturally homogeneous societies. This sounds right, but in fact in most of western Europe I don’t think this is true. Most people in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries had no idea at all that there were powerful and malevolent Jews in their countries. Many, perhaps most, still don’t. Secrecy appears to be far more important than immigrant races.

  11. Mitchell in CT
    Mitchell in CT says:

    Basically, every Adam Sandler is the same worn-out formula: the tall, Aryan man is always the villain, and the short homely Sandler walks off into the sunset with the beautiful blond woman.

  12. Grauhund
    Grauhund says:

    I recently caught a couple scenes of the movie FARGO which I confess to liking before I understood Jewish malevolence. In this particular scene It shows the white minnesotansl eating , with the camera focusing on their mouths as though they are cows chewing their cud. I was stunned to realize this was an inside joke for Jews (who call us goyim which means cattle.)They really hate us.

    • Floda
      Floda says:

      Fargo is a Coen Brothers movie, they have made quite a number of them. One of their favorite actors is George Clooney. Not all of their movies have the brutal gore of Fargo but all have at their core the lamentable position of the hapless white male.

    • Ed Connelly
      Ed Connelly says:

      Grauhund, I am convinced you are quite right about the hostility toward us contained in Fargo. In a different setting, I wrote about it extensively, but others just wouldn’t buy my arguments. For starters, that the Coen Brothers showed so many unintelligent Whites is obvious. But it gets worse as the unthinking violence ramps up, culminating with that brute feeding his former partner in crime into the wood chipper.

      BTW, do any of you think the use of the town “Brainerd” was a deliberate word play attempt such as “Brain” + “Nerd”? That is, people in that region are brainless nerds? Or is that going too far? I’ve always been curious about that.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Collins Dictionary.

        Inertia:
        1 The state of being inert; inactivity.
        2 Physics. a) The tendency of a body to retain its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by AN EXTERNAL FORCE.

        How about Brain inert, overlapped as Bra inert or Brainerd, instead of overlapping the two n ?

        Oh ! The available time on Sundays.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Collins Dictionary.
        Inertia:
        1 The state of being inert; inactivity.
        2 a) Physics: the tendency of a body to preserve its state of rest or uniform motion unless ACTED UPON BY EXTERNAL FORCES. (etc.)

        What about Brain-inert as in Brainerd ?

        Either or any other way a step up from the Fiddler on the Roof ” cattle-beast ” crossing the Russian Orthodox Cathedral yard, behind the Jewish mother, entering cattle-beast territory to arrange the wedding of her daughter to a young inconvertible Russian revolutionary about to be banished to Siberia by the Czarist regime. Which apparently had married housing barracks, unlike its Jewish Gulag successors.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          I don’t stutter, yet: apparently my computer does, despite federal grants in the millions, given to net providers to improve rural services. No doubt they improved their portfolio with these funds, instead, through unfriendly takeovers.

          My first comment was effectively ‘lost’: this afforded my subsequent inclusion of my favourite ” cattle ” beast.

          Would love to see the original script with its accompanying instructions for the director as to the where and why of said symbolic goy representation.

  13. Grauhund
    Grauhund says:

    I recently watched a couple scenes of the movie Fargo during which the camera focuses on the mouths of the white minnesotans as though they are chewing their cud. Now I understand how much the Jews who made that movie despise white people

  14. Hammerheart
    Hammerheart says:

    Dr Griffith’s analysis contains an error.
    “Don’t tell people bad things abut themselves”: small church to megachurch pastors, as well as writer/intellectuals do so & they can make a lot of money off that procedure.

  15. Karlfried
    Karlfried says:

    This description of the film shows to us, that we need to go into detail, that we must look from different angles. From this work with small psychological observations there will be results that are big and strong. We can make use of the finest and smallest “happenings”, of those things, that go un-noticed for most of the time. Not only un-noticed, but we do not know, that they might exist at all (and than get un-noticed). – – – If the enemy makes his propaganda using films to entertain and to manipulate the masses, than he can do so. But he gives with this very film also a document of his deeds and that document can be analyzed in detail, even years later. So it can backfire to them, some years, even decades later. If you see the Hollywood-film-productions as a whole, than you can see the underlying aims (for example they tend to show the Germans as morally bad people [I am German, and as a young man I detected that by watching Hollywood films.])

  16. White Witch
    White Witch says:

    I believe that people are literally hypnotized by films and television. I often watch someone who is watching a tv screen and they really do seem to be in a trance. In this state they are very open to suggestions and the messages are suggested, hinted, oblique, leading the viewer to believe they, by ‘getting’ the message are more enlightened and understanding than the average person. Their resulting opinions are bolstered not by reality but by more and more media messages. Their perception has been manipulated and they feel that they are really in touch when the opposite is the truth.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      I agree completely. Years ago I studied the effects TV had on people. Besides the fact that the average American watches TV for 13 YEARS of his life, it also increases aggression. Hundreds of studies have shown this. The programming doesn’t have to be violent, either. The introduction of TV, some researchers think, was a big cause of the hugely rising crime rates of the 1960s.

    • Arch Stanton
      Arch Stanton says:

      Perfectly stated. Instilling the hypnotic trance is what all those constantly flashing images, whooshing, booming, thudding background noise on TV are all about – mesmerizing the stupid goyim.

      The old saying goes “you can lead a horse to water . . .”. Jews have reformulated this old saw to read, “you can lead the goyim to lies and then make them think they know the truth.” Seldom do Jewish media makers make straight out statements, instead they ask questions. This technique is as old as the Rabbis, long noted for the use of this very Jewish technique. Ask a leading question and then let the fools come to their own “logical” conclusion.

      Most people have a natural aversion to bluntly stated information. They resist most everything stated in an outright manner, typically recalling anecdotal evidence to the contrary. However when the goy are led to the conclusion by what they think are their own devices, then it is permanently etched upon their gray matter.

      For example:

      Typical awakened white statement,

      Negroes are unpredictably violent, murderous, animals! No white person should trust them!

      Typical liberal programmed reply,

      Not all blacks are like that! I once heard Martin Luther King give a speech and I was greatly impressed by how thoughtful and understanding he was. His message was all about peace and love for his fellow man.

      Jewish method,

      Is it fair to stereotype people? Look at how badly the white man has maligned blacks. How many blacks have been unfairly targeted by whites for supposed crimes they never actually committed? How often have white men lynched blacks for no other reason then they were black?* Isn’t it obvious blacks have been terribly mistreated by the white man? Isn’t it about time we allow blacks the same equal status allotted to privileged whites? Any thinking person can watch speeches by great men like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela to see for themselves just how noble and caring blacks are towards their fellow man.

      Questioning goy reply,

      These are fair questions, I’m going to listen to Martin Luther King speeches to find out the truth for myself!

      *Such statements are of course, heavily supported by various (((TV))) programs and (((movies))) espousing these lies.

      ———-

      (Mod. Note: “Arch”, I’m just adding this note to let you know how much this moderator APPRECIATES your deeply perceptive comments. May I suggest that you submit an article to the TOO editor on the topic you often return to, i.e. the TECHNIQUES of “psych-war” our tormenters use against us? You seem, above all, to cut through the superficial details of “the play of current events”, and get right down to the essential concepts and tropes IN PLAY. It’s very much appreciated.)

  17. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    It’s worth noting that much literature as studied in literature courses is Jewish or Jewish-biased, unfortunately. (I’m including religious material too). And of course material exposing Jews is suppressed. I wrote up something on this a few years ago in http://www.big-lies.org/napoleon-revisited/ and this isn’t usually propagandist, unlike 20th century writing, which of course is heavily Jewish. I have some sympathy with e.g. Hindus saying “England has no culture”. It’s not unlike trying to find US films which aren’t defaced by Jews.

  18. Karl Nemmersdorf
    Karl Nemmersdorf says:

    Reading E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. The Catholic head of the Production Code office (put into place after the scandal of immoral films in the early 1930s) said of the Jews of Hollywood:

    “Sexual perversion is rampant … any number of our directors and stars are perverts … These Jews seem to think of nothing but moneymaking and sexual indulgence. The vilest kind of sin is a common indulgence hereabouts and the men and women who engage in this sort of business are the men and women who decide what the film fare of the nation is to be … Ninety-five percent of these folks are Jews … They are, probably, the scum of the earth.”

    “Pervy” Weinstein’s style of life goes way back.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Karl, another of their poster-boys, not going all that far back, was Dominique Kahn-Strauss, Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund; with sufficient power not only to make or break any country but entire regions.

      In no particular order, and to keep it brief:

      01 One of his wives’ name was Anne Sinclair, conjuring up a pretty Dublin inn-keeper’s daughter; who, however was of Tunisian wealthy Sephardic stock, bearing the name Rosenberg.
      02 He had an out-of-wedlock love child while heading the IMF.
      03 He had his famous sexual assault and rape allegations by that maid at NYC’s Sofitel Hotel. Case dismissed, despite his DNA semen on the maid’s shirt. Civil suit by her with an undisclosed settlement.
      04 Return to his native France, where he prepared to run for the presidency for the Socialists.
      05 Earlier an activist for ‘ Judaism and Democracy’.
      06 Criminally charged with pimping.
      07 Charged for arranging sex-orgies in France and Washington.
      08 Attempt to replace the dollar as international payments instrument with International Drawing Rights money drafts.

      And then his most noble and noteworthy piece de resistance.

      One day I bought a copy of Toronto’s GLOBE, arguably Canada’s paper of record, only to read the following on its front page; recounted here in short form:

      At the Carlton Hotel in the northern French town of Lille, he had been given a party in his honour on the occasion of announcing his candidature for the presidential run for the Socialist Party.

      His party had been attended by all the political scum in France, with de rigueur underworld connections. Most of the
      ” lady ” guests had been running around in the nude and were known prostitutes.

      Facing more than a little critique by the nation, his Jewish lawyer, in his client’s defense, stated to the press, that Monsieur Strauss-Kahn was not aware that his nude female guests were prostitutes; which, in a Jewish sort of way explained everything as being normal and beyond suspicion.

      I laughed out loud reading this in the GLOBE, but promptly re-read it twice more to make sure I got it right. I also wondered about how many times that paper’s lawyers would have checked the facts before they risked their paper being sued into bankruptcy.

      It’s never too early to compromise an up and coming politician, pursuant to the Protocols. I guess. Or even later, as with Lewinsky.

      This swine slime determines the fate of nations. What in hell is wrong with us ?

  19. Robert Bloch
    Robert Bloch says:

    This is a stunningly good article and I am a sabermetrics guy for 30 years. I hate baseball “strategy” which consists of: (a) forcing batters to swing arbitrarily at pitches when batting is the most difficult feat in sports; (b) bunting when it is so obvious that the third baseman looks like he is playing basketball defense and; (c) relying on low NPV “steals” by latino’s. You know what’s exciting? The three run homer, that’s what’s exciting! “Strategy” takes it away at the whim of some journeyman who never hit a three run homer in his ignominious playing career. Hey: Earl Weaver was an old white guy who would back me up.

    That grousing out of the way, this is really a clinic in valuation. The author uses numbers to beat numbers. He does so better than most Wall Street coverage guys. Bravo!

    The Jew thing? Meh. I have Broadway musicals and baseball-obsessing in common with our kosher friends. The ones who really love baseball will treat us better in the Gulag. We could get snacks.

    Brilliant analysis & argument. Approximately the best movie review in history.

  20. Guilty Too
    Guilty Too says:

    I thought it interesting how you mention the genre of déclassé versus country club types in the 80s. I watched Dirty Dancing for the first time the other night, I blush to disclose, more cheesy than I ever imagined, but has anyone else found a vaguely anti Semitic overtone in that movie? Most of the antagonists seem intentionally cast as these incredibly snott-nosed Jewish medical students, while the protagonists are white proles. It’s a weird inversion of the high class wasps country club supposedly excluding Jews. This movie wasn’t far after caddy shack, relatively speaking, so perhaps it was almost in answer to the picture painted in that movie.

  21. Huwhitey
    Huwhitey says:

    Excellent article. I see the type of mind manipulation described here all the time. The Charlottesville narrative is a great example of media manipulation of facts and reality.

  22. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    Virtually all “sports movies” are fiction. A team can’t win without some talent, but what is most important is cohesiveness. The more “club house lawyers” a team has, the less likely it is to win. There are dozens of high talent teams, in every sport, that have underachieved, and dozens of lesser talented teams that have over achieved.
    Colin Kaepernick is one who found an “I” in team.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Curmudgeon, another way to win 40 gold medals at the Montreal Winter Olympics in 76, is through state-sponsored doping, as institutionalized in an all-encompassing fashion by East-Germany, with a then puny population of ca. 16 million.

      Literally hundreds of their physical education teachers, from grade school through university and scientists, physicians, pharmacologists and bio-chemists were recruited and sworn to signed secrecy agreements under punishment; watched over actively by the STASI.

      Their ” superior Marxist-Leninist ” ideology, and its image was at stake: as it was perceived in all their cultural pursuits.

      My Toronto brother-in-law W, whom you may remember from my lengthy Rudi Hermann comment, had a friend from his student days, who, after 1961, ended up on the other side of the Wall. He had obtained a degree in Bio-Chemistry.

      W and my sister met him in East-Berlin in late 1975. Naturally they exchanged pictures and I still remember W’s friend’s stately bungalow outside of East-Berlin. Indeed even grander than W’s own at that time. How so, asked W. His friend went into East-German whisper mode and told him that it was an
      ‘ honorarium ‘ from the state: then added, I remember W’s recounting verbatim : ” Just keep and eye on our female swimmer at the Montreal Olympics next year “. Nothing more.

      I detest ‘big sport’ and regard it the same as the stock-market: the richest owners purchase the best players, for their ‘return on investment’. The same goes for the Olympics with their never-ending corruptions and doping from its top
      ” Committee ” on down.

      But, as part of the ‘ CBC National ‘ news, I saw this particular woman swimmer take her FOURTH GOLD at that one Olympics. Friend; bio-chemist; state-honorarium; hint to watch; fourth Gold. I put two and two together and came up with my own theory.

      I wonder whether W, my sister and I were the only ones who really knew what she most likely thought when she put her arm around the runner-up and exclaimed on CBC: ” You should have really won ! ”

      You undoubtedly recall the Ontario Court of Appeal Chief Justice Dubin head the federal Inquiry into Doping in Sports, in 1988, triggered by Canada’s runner Ben Johnson’s doping.

      By that time the DDR was in its Leipzig, etc. death throes and I thought it relatively safe for W’s friend; so I wrote a letter to Dubin, outlining the above, with the implied guarantee of total confidentiality, so as not to endanger W’s friend. Hand-delivered to Dubin at Osgoode Hall.

      To at least read one or two of the many articles on East-German state-sponsored doping on the net is really part and parcel of being politically and historically informed. Too many fascinating details to include here.

      In the mid-90s I saw this friend being interviewed by German media. Apparently his special accomplishment was the development of a performance-enhancing drug, which at that time, and for some time thereafter, could not be discovered by contemporaneous testing-methods.

      Unlike this friend of W, I am still paying the mortgage on my house a quarter of a century later.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Said swimming competitor/champion, alone, took 4 Golds; ANOTHER 36 were attained by her compatriots in all other Winter Olympics activities; similarly helped along; sometimes without their knowledge or under false pretenses to be merely administered vitamins. Followed by a myriad of publicized post-reunification law suits founded on consequent medical and even mental conditions; for decades. Apparently all of their experts, with unlimited ideological funding, scholarship and equipment did no better than El Chapo’s Latino hinterlanders.

  23. Lou
    Lou says:

    off topic

    Gates and LockKeepers
    An heiress to the Sears Roebuck fortune, Rosenwald spreads her millions through the William Rosenwald Family Fund, a nonprofit foundation named for her father, a famed Jewish philanthropist who created the United Jewish Appeal in 1939. His daughter’s focus is more explicitly political. According to a report by the Center for American Progress titled “Fear Inc.,” Rosenwald and her sister Elizabeth Varet, who also directs the family foundation, have donated more than $2.8 million since 2000 to “organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia.”
    Besides funding a Who’s Who of anti-Muslim outfits, Rosenwald has served on the board of AIPAC, the central arm of America’s Israel lobby, and holds leadership roles in a host of mainstream pro-Israel organizations.

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Gatestone_Institute

  24. Sam J.
    Sam J. says:

    Prof. Griffin this is a great analysis. I would have never have know all the back story. Knowing it makes the bias even more blatantly obvious.

  25. dubya
    dubya says:

    Holy shit based vermont… how is this guy a professor?? makes me wish I went to UVM.. very interesting article as usual from TOO. Amusing part about imagining the inverse of the movie.

Comments are closed.