Ben Stiller and “Meet the Parents”

Life does not seem good for poor Harvey Weinstein, as it is now reported that his once high-flying production company will likely file for bankruptcy after his sexual harassment scandal has clearly metastasized. As reported at the end of February, “Harvey Weinstein’s film and TV production company is to file for bankruptcy after the sexual harassment scandal that has engulfed the beleaguered firm scuppered a last-ditch $500m deal to save the business.”

I wrote about the Jewish-gentile undercurrent of this scandal in “Harvey Weinstein: On Jews and the Shiksa.”  On the heels of this came my unpacking of  Dustin Hoffmann’s numerous shiksa films, particularly The Graduate. Since so many Jewish men crave “the golden shiksa,” or blonde Gentile woman, and given that Jews most certainly do control Hollywood, it follows that the theme of many movies feature Jewish men chasing Christian women. Just think of When Harry Met Sally, a 1989 American romantic comedy film written by Nora Ephron, whose friend Richard Cohen said of her, “She was very Jewish, culturally and emotionally. She identified fully as a Jewish woman.” Directed by Rob Reiner, who played the “revolutionary Jew” son-in-law “Meatball” on “All in the Family,” When Harry Met Sally stars the very Jewish Billy Crystal as Harry, the love interest of the very goy shiksa Sally, played by Meg Ryan.

As we shall see, one of the more interesting cases of actors with “shiksa lust” comes in the form of Ben Stiller, one of today’s Hollywood mega-stars. Stiller achieved acclaim for his 1998 appearance in There’s Something About Mary, an off-beat comedy about love denied.  Paired against rival Pat Healy (Matt Dillon), Stiller’s Ted Stroehmann fights for the affection of old high school flame Mary Jenson (blonde, blue-eyed Cameron Diaz).  While Stiller does not play an openly Jewish character in this film, his shtick seems to fall into that mold, particularly when he banters with his best friend and confidante, Dom.  Son of comic actors Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara, Ben Stiller adopts in this movie a kind of gentle schlemiel identity that keeps the humor moving.  Since there are no overtly Jewish themes in this movie, however, we might label this an “incipient Jewish character” and his desire for blonde Mary “incipient shiksa craving.”  Any doubts, however, are removed in a pair of movies he made two years later, the first of which is the subject of today’s review.

Meet the Parents is a story about a Jewish boyfriend who is finally going to meet the wealthy parents of his shiksa girlfriend, Pam. The father is famously played by Robert De Niro as a retired CIA agent. The movie opens with a love scene as Stiller muddles through his attempt at proposing to Pam.  From the beginning, Stiller is scripted as a likable loser. Appearing to be that stock Jewish character “my son the doctor,” a mensch, he is in fact only a male nurse, a career choice the movie belittles.  His name in this movie also emphasizes this loser quality: Gaylord “Greg” Focker. Naturally, the play on his family name accounts for a dozen or more juvenile laughs throughout the movie.

Astute readers may at this point question my claim that Ben Stiller is even a Jewish actor, since his mother Anne Meara was Irish Catholic, though she converted to Judaism when she married Jerry Stiller in 1955. Jerry Stiller, however, is not just Jewish, he is flamboyantly Jewish, and this contrast gave rise to the dramatic tension used by the couple during much of their comedy team career.

As a married couple appearing as such, Stiller and Meara were guests on “The Ed Sullivan Show” a total of thirty-six times, appeared frequently on “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson,” and released a number of LPs featuring their comic routines. In the 1960s, Stiller and Meara were well-known characters in American comedy. Thus, they were an instance of the shiksa phenomenon right in plain sight, showing the American public what many Jewish men wanted. It is fitting, then, that this union produced son Ben Stiller (1965) who has gone on to adopt a Jewish identity in his hit films— productions that often feature the love interests of a Jewish man and gentile woman.

Ben Stiller is a diminutive man, standing 5’7”. Slightly built and sporting dark hair, Stiller comes across as more Jewish than Irish, though his light-colored eyes and facial structure do exhibit traits he no doubt inherited from his mother. With an inner energy that he restrains well, Stiller consistently creates a plausibly Jewish character—a choice he was wise to make since it has been very successful at the box office.

One more factor about Stiller’s life has to do with his choice of a mate and mother of his two children: Christine Taylor. Clearly, she is a “golden shiksa” if ever there was one. (After seventeen years of marriage, they separated last year.)

Now that we have set the stage for an examination of Meet the Parents (script by Jim Herzfeld), we can better understand the inner dynamics of the film, where Jewish elements are hardly limited to desire for the non-Jewish woman. As noted, Stiller’s Jewish character, Greg, is a Woody Allen-esque schlemiel (though far more attractive). Having decided to propose to his girlfriend Pam, Greg sets out to meet her parents.  Comfortably situated in a wealthy Long Island suburb, Pam’s parents and their neighbors are of the better WASPy sort, and from the initial introduction, father Jack never warms to his daughter’s boyfriend. In fact, when the young couple first arrives by car, Jack doesn’t even acknowledge Greg’s presence, instead lapsing into a childish skit Pam used to love while growing up, setting up the central tension of the comedy: outsider intrudes upon a foreign tribe and all kinds of things go wrong. In other words, Meet the Parents is a fitting parable of Jews among the goyim.

We see this early on when they sit down for dinner. Because of Jack’s formality and seriousness, the atmosphere is unwelcoming, and Greg is clearly uncomfortable. Though non-Jewish director Jay Roach does not use camera tricks to show Greg as a Jewish boy from the shtetl, seasoned film buffs will immediately recall the hilarious scene in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall in which Allen’s character Alvy Singer sits down to dinner with his shiksa girlfriend’s family and feels every bit the coarse Ostjude. Enduring the withering stare of the non-Jewish grandmother throughout dinner, Singer practically melts in his seat, and later his girlfriend says, “You’re what Grammy Hall would call ‘a real Jew’.”

How Allen’s character Alvy “Max” Singer imagines himself in Annie Hall

Greg is almost as uncomfortable as he sits among the gentiles—”a Jew in a nest of WASPs,” in Los Angeles film critic Kenneth Turan’s words—and is asked to say grace.  Pam protests, however: “Dad, Greg’s Jewish.”  Thus, early in the film his identity is firmly established, a critical factor since the inner grammar of the film is the Jewish-gentile Kulturkampf. Though Greg is the butt of jokes and is routinely humiliated in the film, there is also covert hostility directed at the culture of these non-Jews, particularly Christianity. For instance, Pam’s compulsive father Jack forces his cat to use a human toilet to do its business; any hint of cat litter odor would be unacceptable. This sets up a scene where the family is again at the dinner table, and Greg pops open a thirteen-dollar bottle of champagne, the cork hitting the urn on the mantel holding Jack’s mother’s ashes. The urn totters and falls, shattering on the floor, at which point the family cat urinates in the ashes. This conflation of bodily elimination and symbols of gentile culture increases as the movie progresses.

To unpack this, we must retreat to a parallel story about the (Christian) wedding of Pam’s younger sister. Because family friends are also taking part, there is a breakfast scene in which virile non-Jewish men discuss their jobs as doctors and such, allowing another joke at the expense of Greg Focker, RN. Venting his feelings about the tall, thin doctor, Greg mutters to himself that this doctor is another “Torquemada.” This telling reference to the famous Grand Inquisitor alludes to a worldview of persecution of Jews.

Nearly an hour into the comedy comes the starkest Jewish-gentile contrast. In fact, it is so blatant that I wonder if this was really meant as a comedy at all. Greg, who is small in stature and insecure about his relationship with Pam, is handed his worst nightmare: he must meet Pam’s former fiancé. Arriving by car, Greg and Pam’s family drive up to an enormous mansion owned by Kevin, the old boyfriend. Obviously enamored of Kevin’s talents, Pam’s father Jack joyfully embraces Kevin at the doorstep. Wondering why such a bond exists, Greg is told by Pam that Kevin and her father became close at one of those typically WASP places—a lacrosse camp.

Surely Kevin’s physical features are no accident in this film. Tall and handsome, he exhibits those most Aryan of features—strong nose and chin, long, flowing blond hair, and sparkling blue eyes. Consistently, these features are contrasted with Greg’s short stature and dark features. This is even emphasized by their clothing: Greg wears dark, heavy clothing, while Kevin has on a brilliant white sweater.

Once inside, the humiliations continue. Kevin still keeps pictures of himself and Pam, and Greg agonizingly looks at each of them—Kevin and Pam skiing together, Kevin and Pam horseback riding together, Kevin and Pam skydiving together. Greg’s insecurity grows. Once in the kitchen, Kevin and Greg, as rivals, feel out each other’s position, with Greg clearly losing. Kevin, it seems, has made millions in the stock market, all without trying and without really craving money. Greg, on the other hand, has no portfolio and merely rents his apartment rather than owning his own home.

Because Kevin is financially secure, he can devote himself to his hobbies, and it is here that the movie becomes explicit. Showing his guests his extensive carpentry shop, Kevin goes on to display some of his highly adept work. Then, when Greg asks him why he chose “carpentering,” Kevin gets even more serious and replies, “Because Jesus was a carpenter.” Kevin has been established not only as a Christ figure, but as a rival to the Jewish Greg. Minutes later, Kevin unveils his masterpiece: a wedding canopy hand-carved from a single piece of wood that will serve as Pam’s sister’s wedding site in the yard. Though it would seem that a wooden canopy without any religious symbolism would serve just as well, in this movie it is a specifically Christian prop, carved by that Christ-loving figure, Kevin. Soon the audience sees what role it plays.

In the meantime, guests continue to arrive for the wedding rehearsal; they are all fair-skinned, fair-haired, outdoor WASP types. Soon, they drum up a game of volleyball in Greg’s spacious indoor pool, the gentile men aggressively going for the win while Greg, the male nurse, predictably performs poorly, earning the noisy censure of the  males who surround him. Pam, in the meantime, has symbolically paired up with her former boyfriend who, in the heat of the competition, cannot even remember Greg’s name.

Thus provoked, Greg resolves to show his manliness. Since this is ostensibly a comedy of manners, however, when Greg succeeds, he loses. Jumping high above the net for a spike, Greg in slow motion slams the ball into the face of the soon-to-be bride, breaking her nose and giving her a black eye. The others all berate Greg and circle around the bride on one side of the net while Greg is ostracized literally and figuratively to the other side of the net. This filmic portrayal of gentiles on one side and the lone Jew on the other recurs throughout the movie.

Next comes an adolescent feces scene. Despite being told not to flush the guest room toilet, Greg forgets and sets off a disaster: the cesspool overflows into the yard where the wedding rehearsal is to be held, covering it with slimy brown human waste. Then, into this semi-liquid mess comes Kevin in a large flat-bed truck, delivering his wedding canopy. Though Jack and the others scream for him to stop, Kevin backs into the soggy yard and the wheels begin to sink. Not appreciating the situation at all, he then guns the engine, throwing feces in the faces of Jack and family.

Things can and do get worse. Chasing the wayward family cat onto the roof, Greg surreptitiously sneaks a forbidden smoke. Unfortunately, his cigarette tumbles into the leaf-filled eaves trough and ignites a fire. Attempting to put out the blaze, Greg inadvertently kicks the eaves trough away from the house, causing it to fall over a live electric cable, which snaps and falls onto the malodorous ground. Then, in a scene of some significance, the sparking cable snakes over to the wedding canopy and ignites it. Greg, the Jew, has burned the Christian artifact to black charcoal, a scene in which the symbolism is manifest.

It is almost as though John Murray Cuddihy’s observation in The Ordeal of Civility about what Freud wrote has been enacted in this scene: “to my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organization of the Catholic church.” The parallel is intriguing: is Greg carrying out on screen a version of a fantasy Freud himself had?  Cuddihy’s remarks bring us to the brink of a match: “Clearly, Oedipus does what the young Freud wished his father had done. It is a forbidden wish, one that Freud cannot admit into consciousness except in ‘sublimated’ form. He will unmask these goyim. Like Hamilcar’s son Hannibal, he will storm Rome seeking vengeance.”

Lest there be any doubt about this juxtaposition of Christianity and excrement, the next scene is of a Christian minister rehearsing marital vows in the yard, a scene that immediately segues to a group of workers who have inserted a large hose into the open cesspool to suck out its fetid contents. The sentiments that inform these multiple Christianity/shit scenes implicitly imply that “Christianity is shit.”

(OK, can readers recall an article I wrote, originally posted on Christmas Day 2008, about South Park’s Christmas special, “Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo”? Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Jewish boy Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror.

Eventually, Greg and Jack have their showdown and both give some ground yet refuse to budge on other issues. A full reconciliation is eventually made, however, and Greg is welcomed into the “circle of trust” that exists in Pam’s family. His proposal is accepted and they will be happily married after all. Curiously, though, an intriguing scene is tacked onto the ending. After all has been settled, Jack breaks the circle of trust and checks a hidden surveillance tape of his soon-to-be son-in-law. Greg’s soliloquy here opens up serious questions about the degree of reconciliation gained between the Jew as outsider. Quite aggressively, Greg speaks into the hidden camera and berates Jack for his absurd values, unmasking his supposedly superior status. Greg has the final words, words that securely put Jack in his place. This is precisely what Cuddihy means when he discusses, “the unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the European society which closed them out.”

Remember, Meet the Parents was released in 2000, yet for a few years afterward, as I wrote about the Jewish elements in it and talked to professors and others about it, not one person agreed there was any such theme embedded in the film. This drove me to distraction. Well, come 2004, the world was treated to the sequel, called Meet the Fockers. And who were “the Fockers”? None other than Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman starring as Gaylord Focker’s parents! The entire comedy was framed around the differing sensibilities of Jews and gentiles, though this time explicitly.

At this point, readers might think that I view Ben Stiller as an actor caught up in Jewish attack on Whites and Christianity. In fact, it is more complicated than that, because in 2000, the same year Meet the Parents came out, Stiller starred in another “get the shiksa” film, but one with remarkable subtlety and compassion. That will be my next review.

60 replies
    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      True. Otherwise, why did it take them 10-20 years to suddenly decide they’d been “sexually abused”? Someone started this wimmin-can-do-no-wrong project and they were good to go!

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      Generally speaking those arrangements tend to be between starlets and directors, not the producers (according to Ian McKellen when asked about the Weinstein scandal). From most of the accounts about Weinstein, the assault came as a surprise and did not lead to sex / rape, since they managed to escape before he escalated the situation.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      No, he’s not too keen and this article further demonstrates Jewish hostility to whites. There are many other movies with the same kind of hostility and 99% of the people watching them won’t or don’t acknowledge it. I recall a Woody Allen comedy from the 1970’s in which Woody Allen also plays a part and he refers to a blonde character’s “Aryan” features and talk of “NAZI(s)”. This was hostility towards Germans, and most Americans most likely viewed it that way. But when the characters in movies are not explicitly “German”, but WASPS, people still don’t say anything. Again, 99% of Americans simply don’t know what is going on, that Hollywood is dominated by Jews and that Jews have hostility, not just towards Germans, but all whites, and blonde haired blue eyed WASPS in particular. Since it’s considered improper to talk about Jews regarding almost anything, unless it’s to praise them in some way, and since most people will never have read about Jewish hostility to whites anywhere (except for a rare website like this) if you bring the subject up with someone he will most likely not acknowledge it.

      I worked with a Jewish colleague who knew I had German parents and when I made a comment about an attractive Hollywood blonde, my colleague said he didn’t like “blondes” and later when an unflattering story came out about a Hollywood blonde my colleague talked about how low class she was. I don’t recall exactly what he said, but the fact that a German talked about “blondes” apparently bothered him. I also recall this colleagues hostility towards Maria Shriver (well into her fifties already), wife of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, calling her unattractive or “ugly”. I took this as more indicative of his hostility towards the Austrian “conservative” Arnold than Maria.

  1. Sheila
    Sheila says:

    In a talking film from the late 1920s, I noted a scene whereby a female office manager (wasp with blond hair) tells a message-boy (who is clearly Jewish and calls himself by the name of Goldstein) who is ingratiating and talkative in street slang, that she is glad he is in NYC for there are too many Christians there. I wish I could recall the title of the movie, but that is the earliest form of that particular theme I have noticed. I am sure there are others in silent films as well. There are some deadly covert ones.

  2. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Is it “antisemitic” to laugh at Jews with other Jews? What about “Seinfeld”? What about that movie comment by Woody Allen, along the lines of: “We mustn’t call it a ‘Jews Harp’ any more – you know those people, they write [protest] letters”? Or Jackie Mason? “Fiddler on the Roof” lyrics? Frank Zappa’s “JAP”? Books of Jewish Jokes? Never mind “Portnoy’s Complaint” & suchlike.

  3. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    “The unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the Europeans society which closed them out.” Well, they may not have unmasked us, but have instead stripped away our respectability evidenced by the laughter gross, over paid comedians get with feces and body fluid ‘jokes’, with Jewesses like Dunham and Schumer posing as ‘liberated’ women, with …with…with…I could go on and on. Even an innocuous movie like There’s Something About Mary throws in a spitball evidenced in the “hair gel” scene where the lovely shiksa smears Stillers spunk into her golden locks. What was telling and depressing about this scene is that, according to youtube comments, people thought it funny, even the high point of the movie. Whites, for the most part, have been degraded to a conglomerate of biological functions.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      The Jew has reduced love amongst the Gentiles to simply ejaculation as evidenced by the morality wrecking spread of pornography. The vile Jew Ron Jeremy once interviewed was asked why Jews control the pornography industry. His reply was “because Christ sucks”.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      This is absolutely correct. The truth is, that scene – and many, many more in the same vein from full spectrum of “comedy” movies across the last 40 or so years – arise from the same stinking cesspool of a Hollywood populated by entire nepotistic generations of moral and sexual degenerates, who accept no limits in their “artistic” pursuit of White hatred – and of course the mega-dollar.

      These people now represent, particularly in Hollywood and New York, an entire sub-nation of anti-White, anti-American, racist haters and wreckers. Their undermining and subversion of the White Christian establishment they choose to live in – but still despise – is accomplished under cover of a deeply deceitful, “harmless”, sniggering, adolescent, schoolboy-like fixation with toilet humour and sexual offence (always against White females, therefore staunchly racist), which is as quintessentially Jewish as matzos and menorah. But it is far from an “in-house” only trade, since they have also been rat-cunning enough to understand that it appeals to the new generation of “liberated”, empty-headed, brain-rotted, under-30 SJW liberal snowflakes across the western world, who have been conditioned and blinkered to see the social subversion and moral sabotage of their own White communities and societies as harmless multi-media “fun”. That part of the problem, at least, is our own.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Dave Bowman “as harmless multi-media “fun”. ”
        They are sheep and cowards, who have identified the current culture of self hate and are following it merely because it is the current culture. They do not want to challenge anything their college lecturers tell them as this would give them hassle in their life. Surely they must be aware of double standards (eg land just for Africans = great, but land for whites = bad ). They do not think deeply about the double standards. They must be aware of them, but do not care. They accept all the lies with no inner voice making them uncomfortable. This is how most humans are wired to be, ie to accept whatever the culture is. The dominant culture in the West given to us by our enemy within plus allies consists of huge lies that the young today know are lies but they know you have to go along with the lies for an easy life. So they are wired to follow whatever the dominant culture tells them, and to not be concerned that much of the culture is obviously completely false. Eg men and women being the same in behaviour is another lie, and they know it. The dominant culture being full of such obvious falsehoods does not disturb them. They must be aware of the figures for black-on-white rapes versus white-on-black rapes, but they just go into denial about such facts, as the culture tells them to. They do not think deeply, but even if they did they would still not switch away from self-hate towards self-interest until the self-interest lot had the upper hand.

        Another factor to explain why the young in the West hate their own is that humans have an instinct to ‘help the underdog’. This comes not from pure virtue, but from our animal behaviour side that tells us that if we all get together as a group we can take what others have. So it is a stealing and taking instinct that sometimes we all have, but we call it ‘fairness’ and ‘sharing’ and convince ourselves that it is a virtue. (I am not saying it is always totally wrong). A distortion of this has occurred. The way it is meant to work is the underdogs get together and steal from the top dog – like what is happening in S.Africa regarding farms now being appropriated. In the white millennials this hostility to the top dog has been transformed in to a hostility to — guess who the top dog is –themselves!

        So this animal behaviour instinct of seeking ‘fairness’ has been distorted into seeking a fairness that involves bringing down their own race and culture.

        • Dave Bowman
          Dave Bowman says:

          I agree with everything you say about the motivations and blindnesses of the ignorant, self-deceiving, (mostly) under-30’s SJW mob who have a sad, desperate emotional need to follow the pack. But I do not agree that all humans as a massed species always have an instinct to ‘help the underdog’. Jews do not – they are, of all peoples on earth, the most ruthlessly “hard-wired” to oppose, exploit, combat and overcome all opposition in resource-hunting – money, mating, or physical health/well-being – without a shred of regret or remorse for the game losers. And Moslems, most certainly, do not. Moslems care absolutely nothing for the welfare of others – including “loved” wives and children, since the satanic filth of Islam brainwashes them hourly that everything which happens in the world is ultimately the “will of Allah”. Therefore in their psychological madness it is impartial and “fair” to family, friend and foe alike – If Allah wills that women and children should die and rot in the gutters, even the most “enlightened, Westernised” Moslem will accept it without a word.

          Only in the West – only among weak, cowardly, unthinking, virtue-signalling hypocritical Whites – do we see the fatal, self-destructive weakness to care much more about others -those who appear to be “disadvantaged”, poor, sick, starving, etc, than about our own homes, families, streets, communities and societies. there is nothing remotely “fair” about putting the interests of complete sirangers and outsiders above those of our own kin and communities – in centuries past those displaying such behaviour would be cast out. This behaviour has certainly been made very much worse – a chronic, critical flaw in our own makeup as rational, thinking individuals – by the guilt-traps of the “Christian” churches now controlled by liberal cretin, anti-White puppets and Black (and women) priests. But I believe that was not the root cause. Treachery in White societies and lands goes back always, if you trace the threads and “do the math”, to the same covert, predictable, incorrigible, hate-filled, ruthless destroyers of nations. Nothing has changed – nor, with them, ever will.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Karen T

      The “heroine” in this mucky movie Cameron Diaz chose to have a Jewish wedding in “real life” even though unlike “shiksa” lookalikes, Johansson & Paltrow she is not Jewish.

      Not all Jews have opposed family values; e.g. Midge Decter, Don Feder, Jack Wertheimer. But the ethnocentrism is also paramount. Incidentally, the “trope” of the pushy Jewish Momma goes back a long way: Matthew 20.20-21.

      What did the Jewish mother bank clerk say to her customer? “You never call, you never write, you only visit when you need money.”

  4. The AntiLoser
    The AntiLoser says:

    It’s a shame that Jewish assaults on Christianity cannot be discussed without creating an appearance of anti-Semitism. Despite what some people say, very hostile criticism of Islam is easy to find and seldom leads to the critic getting in trouble. The perception is that whoever criticizes anything Jewish is evidently willing to be labeled anti-Semitic, and who but a real anti-Semite would be so eager to criticize Jews as to take that risk? However, if a Jewish offense is sufficiently horrible (e.g. bombing Gaza), some gentiles on the left will stick their necks out. Criticism of Jews or Israel is still considered Hitlerian if it comes from the right. 30 years ago Pat Buchanan used to lock horns with Jewish spokesmen over one thing or another but not recently.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “It’s a shame that Jewish assaults on Christianity cannot be discussed without creating an appearance of anti-Semitism.”

      Why be afraid of anti-Semitism? It’s a completely rational common-sense reaction. Instead, explain your (perhaps partial) dislike of Jews, and add that “anti-Semitism” is their word, not yours.

      “Criticism of Jews or Israel is still considered Hitlerian if it comes from the right.”

      The trouble stems from Whites/Euros totally caving into the taboo against anything associated with Hitler. This was not the case even throughout the war. But once the Third Reich was crushed and disassembled, and not a word in its defense could be spoken anywhere, the propaganda of Hitler the monster was carried on up to this very day. That’s how powerfully attractive Hitler’s message was, that they still cannot allow him to be seen through a normal lens or his words to be read without extensive ‘commentary.’ His message could be widely attractive again, except that so many refuse (are afraid?) to even consider it.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        “And not a word in its defense could be spoken anywhere”
        not even in jest – a man has been sentenced to go to jail in Britain (‘Count Dakula’) for training his dog to do a Nazi salute and them filming it for youtube. There is no other political idea that invokes a prison sentence for making a joke about it. Except the H although really the two are the same.

  5. JimB
    JimB says:

    “…Rob Reiner, who played the “revolutionary Jew” son-in-law “Meatball” on “All in the Family,”…”

    Meat-head, not meatball.

    As to the rest of the article, it’s excellent reading… and I can see exactly what you see in regards to the subtext of Meet The Parents along with the sequel(s).

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      All in the Family was the first of many cultural propaganda shows devised by the Jews. Starchy Bunker the White WASP bigot set straight by the open minded liberal Polock Michael Stivik (jewish implications). The Jeffersons set free from the bondages of slavery and poverty, living an upwardly mobile lifestyle because of George’s (black racist) cunning, intelligence and stick-it-to-the-man-ishness , up and away from the bigoted White WASPs. Which later launched them their own sitcom.

      Footnote: The Dukes of Hazzard was removed from syndication simply because of the Virginia Battle Flag on the top of the orange Dodge Charger. However, in the Jeffersons George can be heard belting out “HONKY!” no less than 20 times per episode in some episodes.

      The Jews, they love their propaganda and teaming up with other nation wreckers like the African.

      • Edmund Connelly
        Edmund Connelly says:

        Charlie, those are good observations about TV.

        A dozen years ago, The Occidental Quarterly ran one of my most popular essays, “The Jews of Prime Time”:

        There I wrote:

        “In the same year that The Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres disappeared from television screens, All in the Family made its debut, placing before the American people a completely different representation of American character and culture. Jewish liberal Norman Lear had created Archie Bunker, an icon that became familiar to and loved by millions of television viewers. In an important sense, Archie’s primary role was to usher out the older era of a white, male-dominated America, represented by people like himself, and to instruct this soon-to-be disestablished class in the manners and attitudes befitting a new, multicultural America, one in which blacks could own their own businesses and homosexuals could come out of the closet.

        Most of all, this new, multicultural America was one in which Jews and all things Jewish had a new-found prominence. “By the end of his twelve years on prime-time television,” the Pearls inform us, “Archie Bunker, America’s best-known bigot, had come to raise a Jewish child in his home, befriend a black Jew, go into business with a Jewish partner, enroll as a member of Temple Beth Shalom, eulogize his close friend at a Jewish funeral, host a Sabbath dinner, participate in a bat mitzvah ceremony, and join a group to fight synagogue vandalism.”

        I wish there was a good way to recycle those old essays.

        • Charlie
          Charlie says:

          ” one in which blacks could own their own businesses and homosexuals could come out of the closet”

          Not one in which black “could” own their own businesses but one in which they “should” own their own businesses and use them as a vehicle from which to openly discriminate against and destroy Whites. And also not just come out of the closet but to “mainstream” homosexuality as brave, courageous and the preferred sexual orientation.

          Footnote: Blacks should own their own businesses and open them in the formerly white neighborhoods that they poached and destroyed. They should invest in their own areas and stop putting their greasy mitts out to the White man for support. As far as homosexuals, I couldn’t care less that you’re a sodomite. Good I hope you die of colon cancer from using an exit door as genitalia.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        I have found nothing conclusive about Johnny Speight being Jewish. All In The Family, like Sanford and Son, Three’s Company, and others were US versions of BBC TV programmes. In the BBC versions, the language used was very similar to what was heard on the street. “Nigger” was commonplace as was Jew bashing. All In The Family was tame.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      Yes, you are right! As someone who watched “All In the Family” during its original run, I KNEW it should have been Meathead, but I muffed it. While reading my draft, I looked at that sentence five times and knew something was odd but I just couldn’t see it. Thanks for letting us know.

      (And what crypsis it was to disguise Meathead merely as “Polish.” Oh, if he was Polish, it wasn’t Polish Catholic, that’s for sure!)

  6. Dennis Gannon
    Dennis Gannon says:

    Orthodox Rabbis and the Talmud forbid marriage outside the faith of “Judaism”. Christians also forbid marriage outside the faith of Christianity (2 Corinthians 6). So Weinstein and Stiller are not being true to their history and faith and would be seen as infidels and heretics, (Especially in Israel). That he has fallen may have come about through very Orthodox parties, and the MeToo movement are just pawns.

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      I saw that movie, although it has been many years since I did.

      I realize that Redford is nothing more than one of the worst, most despicable liberals that Hollywood ever produced – and, for most of his career, he (and the part jew Paul Newman) usually preferred to play roles that were designed to appeal to straight White males and I suspect this was because these guys wanted to make money and be profitable at the box office.

      Off screen, however, both Redford and Newman were typical liberals – although in their hey day, Hollywood liberals tended to not draw too much attention to their liberalism – for fear of alienating the White males who paid to see their movies.

      In the movie ‘The Way We Were’ , if my memory of it serves me well, Redford played the role of a Navy officer who was a big time patriot and a conservative and Streisand was some goofy, mentally deranged, SJW liberal snowflake activist who somehow let her yum yum organs get infatuated with the good looking, clearly Aryan, and blonde haired Redford character and they had a tumultuous love affair – that eventually had to be flushed down the toilet due to their political incompatibility.

      That movie has popped into my mind quite frequently, over the decades since it’s release – because it persists to be a fairly good illustration of the hopeless degree of incompatibility that exists between traditional conservative Whites and the still blue pilled, White liberal idiots – the vast majority of whom, I am sad to say, are White females.

      • Mark Hunter
        Mark Hunter says:

        Newman not so typical a liberal. PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award in 2006 went to Sibel Edmonds. There used to be a YouTube video of Paul Newman praising Edmonds but it was pulled after his death.

        I suspect he met Edmonds in the course of his grocery products business. She runs a consulting business that helps businesses get shelf space. Here’s Newman on the award:

  7. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Aside from the obvious pattern of males conquering territory being reflected in the mtDNA remnant of the prior population, “shiksa lust” is evident in the origin of the Ashkenazi. Most particularly, “court Jews” seem to be well positioned to engage in a zero sum competition at the peak of civil sexual selection. This doesn’t wipe out the indigenous population, but it does — permit a great deal of absorbtion of indigenous leadership through conversion of shiksas (a routine pattern) then through matriline Jewish identity.

  8. MrOk
    MrOk says:

    Meet the Parents was originally a very low budget ($100,000) student-type film written and shot by a Chicago film maker named Greg Glienna (who I’d assume is Italian or Eastern European.) He co-wrote the script with Mary Ruth Clarke, who I’ll guess is Irish Catholic or WASP. This film was purchased, and reshot with a new script written by two Jewish hacks, Jim Herzfeld (The Gary Shandling Show) and John Hamburg (“Zoolander 2”). Essentially, the story was processed through the same kosher meat grinder that The Graduate was put through. The Graduate was based on a novel by Charles Webb. I’ll let Steve Sailer take over from here:

    “[Webb] had published The Graduate in 1963 at age 24 based on his growing up a wealthy WASP in old-money Pasadena. A committed anti-materialist, he’d already turned down a large inheritance and has spent much of his life since his moment of fame in principled poverty…. Director Mike Nichols likes to claim that he hadn’t realized what The Graduate was actually about until he saw it parodied in a juvenile humor magazine in October 1968: ‘It took me years before I got what I had been doing all along — that I had been turning Benjamin into a Jew. I didn’t get it until I saw this hilarious issue of MAD magazine after the movie came out, in which the caricature of Dustin [Hoffman] says to the caricature of Elizabeth Wilson, ‘Mom, how come I’m Jewish and you and Dad aren’t?’”

  9. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    Re the wooden carving burning and other subtle references – such symbolism is probably only intended for a minority of the audience to understand, rather than being a message for the masses. It is included as an in-joke, first of all to please those who get it and approve (getting the joke not because they are clever, but due to them spending their lives thinking along these themes), and secondly to antagonise those like the author of this article who can see it.

    For an example of a film with a message that is making no attempt to be subtle, there is ‘Avatar’, where all the ethnics were living in harmony with nature until the evil white USA military came along to exploit them. The only good white was a soldier who betrayed his own side and destroyed his own military.

    The strange thing about these obvious anti-white messages in Avatar (as oppose to the subtle ones of Meet the Parents) is that the white indigenous who are not lefties who cheer when their own side is defeated in the film, the strange thing is that the other whites who are not self-hating lefties do not seem to care about these anti-white messages. Partly because they cannot see the bias even though it is slapping them in the face, and partly because even if you point it out to them, their attitude is ‘I do not care, it was a good film’.

    What chance does a race have to withstand sustained attacks from the enemy within when it does not even care about such attacks? Such a race can afford to take this attitude when it is still rich and powerful and safe, but when it is outnumbered and unsafe and its economy collapses, the people will switch to a different mode of thinking, as self-interest becomes activated and they start to turn against the culture of anti-whiteness.

  10. buckle
    buckle says:

    Not sure about Speight but the actor Warren Mitchell who played Alf Garnett was definitely Jewish in the original British series upon which AITF was based. A piece of trivia is that the son in law was played by the actor James Booth as in the the father of Tony Blair’s wife. The family is related to Lincoln’s assassin!

    Speight came across as a complete moron when interviewed. He attempted to extend his repertoire with a show about an Indian immigrant played by a blacked up actor but it was pulled for being racist as long ago as 1969.

    • Franks&Beans
      Franks&Beans says:

      Buckle, I am surprised that the jew would insult a Hindu as the jews love Hindus since they claim that the Hindus never treated them badly like the white Christians did. Jews also pretend to love negroes, but the negroes i know hate Jews and consider them as sly people.

      • Charlie
        Charlie says:

        But the Negros have not yet discovered that jews are NOT White. They believe the jew to be an offshoot of Whiteness.

  11. Mitchell in CT
    Mitchell in CT says:

    How about an article on blonde bullies in the movies?

    Karate Kid, Revenge of the Nerds, Animal House, Pretty in Pink, Just One of the Guys, Weird Science, Back to the Future, etc. Every 80s blockbuster had an Aryan bully, and a Jewish/Mediterrean protagonist with a Gentile girlfriend.

    • Tom
      Tom says:

      Blonde bullies are displayed as moral defects lacking in normal human comportment outside the realm of any particular racial or religious animus. They are just bad people who will be indiscriminately bad to anyone.
      Non-Christians and non-whites are not represented as such however, or not in a long time. They are represented as well-meaning underdogs who are victims of the brutish (always implied) insensitivity of the larger European Christian culture.

  12. Tom
    Tom says:

    This is all based on tribal jealousy. Everyone in America knows or senses that traditional America was, and still is to some extent, Northwest European in terms of heritage. So if you’re not Northern European or don’t identify as such, then it’s favorable to one’s sense of self-identity (bolstering) to critique the culture. The critique involves anything from mild or humorous lampooning (movies) to outright intellectual demonization (academia). This is what humans do naturally when distinct peoples opt for the same living space – always a bad mistake.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Good point by Tom. It is just human behaviour in action. Another example of this is that everyone likes to rubbish the top dog. Another example of this is that no nation has ever expressed gratitude to another nation helping it. The Allies say of the US joining the War not ‘thank you’ but ‘why were you so late joining?’ . There is no thank you letter in existance as far as I know from any African country for the billions given to them (in return for a lot of abuse) by the West.

      Within Britain the Scots and Irish and Welsh continually rubbish the English and the English do not even notice as they enthusiastically support the Irish and Scottish cultures. In a football competition the English will cheer on the Scots Irish and Welsh, and never take offence or notice even that the Scottish Irish and Welsh always hope the English lose when the English get through to the final. The other way around if one of the other teams does well, the English eagerly cheer them on.

      The reason the host population tolerates this within a country like America is because the host population is still wealthy and safe, so they can take the self-abuse that is being orchestrated by their own self-hating left (plus allies) – abuse that orchestrated so intensely that in the end it has become the culture, ie those who do not think but blindly follow the culture just follow this self-hate as they are sheeple

  13. Floda
    Floda says:

    Todays America and much of the West, seems more like Weimar Germany every day. The debauchery, the deliberate planned destruction of culture, the financial chicanery. All of this brought about a resistance which led the expulsion of the Jews, then a war in which 50 Million of OUR people died. Almost as if that was the plan all along. Will it happen again?

  14. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    “Jews have a fine tradition of scatological humor” they really really to boast about.
    It goes deeper into their collective psyche:
    “Jack Kugelmass, professor of anthropology and director of Jewish studies at the University of Florida, elaborates. “Scatological humor is about transgression. It’s about crossing a line,” he says”. It is deep down a curse, blasphemy.

  15. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    I have seen very few of these films, simply because I know to avoid them: I have no stomach for Jewish excreta and porno-sex with sickly-runt Jewish men. But Dr Connelly describes these films with a rollicking sense of enjoyment, as if their ‘humour’ really tickles him, and its dimensions merit a sociological study. Piffle.

  16. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Don’t forget Michael Medved, “Hollywood vs America” (Harper 1993). Give credit when it’s due.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Michael Medved is an Israel Firster and cynical toady to Christian Fundamentalism who wants ‘god’s chosen’ to keep their status. Personally I have much more respect for Larry David.

      • Charlie
        Charlie says:

        No one should have ANY respect for Larry David – he is truly a nation wrecker through and through and should be prosecuted and executed.

        • Karen T
          Karen T says:

          Your comment that Larry David should be tried for treason and executed would make a good Curb Your Enthusiasm episode…oops!…already done, but in a less extreme version. The final episode of Seinfeld features the politically incorrect trio sentenced to a year in jail for breaking the Good Samaritan Law by mocking a fat man.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        The facts and arguments in that book are what matter, and how they can be used; they are not invalidated by Zionism or anti-Zionism.

        I have no respect whatever myself for someone who urinates on Jesus, although I am not a Fundamentalist nor even a Christian. The problem for the latter is that many Jews regard a “New” Testament that “supersedes” their Tanakh as ipso facto antisemitic, not to mention their view that “Matthew”, “John” and Paul were ultimately responsible for the Shoah.


        (Mod.Note: Mr. Ashton, was the last term above referring to the radio show at The Right Stuff titled “The Daily Shoah”? If not, to what are you referring?)

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          I was referring to the frequent accusation by many Jews and some liberal Christian liberals that verses in these two NT gospels and I Thessalonians 2.15 are responsible for European “antisemitism” and eventually “therefore” the Shoah, which is the Hebrew term for Catastrophe that Jews themselves use for the persecution and killing of Jews by Nazis, aka “The Holocaust”. Quotations on request.

        • Karen T
          Karen T says:

          Michael Medved would send thousands of young White Americans to die for Jewry, the very people who are orchestrating our downfall. Larry David, in a comedy show, accidentally sprayed a drop of urine on a picture of Jesus the point of which, if you watched the entire episode, was to mock irrational superstition and gullibility. Charlie laments the state of Earth, and so do I, thus Larry Davids’ outspoken criticism of factory farming overrides his mocking the overly religous. Nothing balances Medveds’ support of using White boys as cannon fodder for Greater Israel, and that the ‘overly religous’ would sacrifice their sons for the ‘Holy Land’ is the epitome of gullibility and irrational superstition.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            @ Karen T

            I am against “wars for Israel” too.

            But why “Jewry” as a whole would “orchestrate the downfall” of America and Europe on which it depends please elaborate

            See Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ & the Christian Right,” Haaretz,
            February 3, 2014, online.

          • Karen T
            Karen T says:

            @David Ashton, I never said “Jewry as a whole.” I was defending Larry David and condemning Medved.

  17. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    (Mod. Note: “Charlie”, you make some good points but the language isn’t suitable for TOO. Clean it up a bit and resubmit.)

  18. Hadrian
    Hadrian says:


    Why don’t you have some respect for your own race and refer to us as Whites, and jews as non-Whites? Stop living in their frame.

  19. Franks&Beans
    Franks&Beans says:

    Edmund Connelly, you forgot when Ben Stiller spray painted the cat to pass him off as Mr. Jinx. I wonder what that could be interpreted as. Also, the part when he is boarding the plane and the gentile woman stewardess is being mean to him and he calls her a ‘B**ch’ Yeah, jews are very fond of scatological humor.

    But I wonder why the Irish miscegenate with jews and negroes? My sis in law’s sis who is Irish Catholic has married a jew and the kids are being raised jewish. His mom who is jewish is a big liberal married to her 2nd husband who is half irish and half italian and also Catholic, but does not practice. My liberal brother and his wife are great friends with the jewess that loves Obama and Hillary.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      “My sis in law’s sis who is Irish Catholic has married a jew”

      You don’t want the truth but here it is anyway – your sis in law’s sis is a Western whore who’ll do anything for a few extra shekels in order to buy the last of the oil from the last dead whale in order to spread the oil on her eye wrinkles.

      • Franks&Beans
        Franks&Beans says:

        Charlie, she may have made a mistake, but there is no need to call her a whore. Please tame your language and I have noticed that the mod too has told you to not use bad language. So, please make your comments more appropriate for this site and do not call people anything since you do not know them. Maybe you are the one that consorts with ladies of the evening and I demand an apology from you.

  20. Rich Faussette
    Rich Faussette says:

    Great stuff, Mr. Connelly,
    If you haven’t already commented on the Nat Turner movie, or the glorification of anti white murderers in the movie titled Black Panthers, or “Get Out” in which whites capture blacks and lobotomize them to use as sex slaves, please consider doing so. Rich

Comments are closed.