Jewish Themes in The Graduate (1967)

The 1967 film The Graduate was a landmark in Jewish cultural subversion (see also Edmund Connelly’s treatment). By the time of the film’s release, Jewish film-makers in Hollywood were becoming more explicit in their antipathy for White Americans and their culture, and this was increasingly reflected in their output. In 1963, the Jewish producer Larry Turman came across the 24-year-old Californian Charles Webb’s novel The Graduate which, he claimed, “had an emotional coloration for me like [the Jewish playwright] Harold Pinter. The book was funny, but it made you nervous at the same time.”[1]

In his novel, Webb looks back in anger at his gilded California lifestyle as the son of a Pasadena cardiologist. His semi-autobiographical protagonist, Benjamin Braddock, a 20-year-old recent graduate from an East Coast college, returns to his Californian home for a long, hot summer over the course of which he stumbles into a passionless affair with the much older Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s business partner. Braddock becomes infatuated with Mrs. Robinson’s daughter Elaine who reciprocates his feelings but rebuffs him after learning of his relationship with her mother. Mrs. Robinson sends Elaine off to college at UC Berkeley, where she becomes engaged to her classmate Carl Smith. A desperate Benjamin crashes their wedding and elopes with Elaine to the great distress of her family.

Turman bought the rights to the book for $1,000 and sent it unsolicited to Jewish director Mike Nichols (born Mikhail Peschkowsky) who signed on to the project. Turman’s search for financing led him to Jewish film mogul Joseph E. Levine—“the schlockmeister of the world”—who put up $3 million. Turman’s impulse purchase of the rights led to one of the most consequential films ever. Released in December 1967, The Graduate grossed almost $105 million (equivalent to almost $1 billion today), the third-highest ever at the time, and was nominated for seven Academy Awards including best picture and acting nods for stars Anne Bancroft, Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross, plus an Oscar victory for director Nichols. The Graduate has since become one of the most referenced films in the popular culture lexicon of the Western world.

Nichols assigned Jewish screenwriter Buck Henry (born Henry Zuckerman), then writing for the TV spy spoof Get Smart, as screenwriter. Henry ended up sharing writing credits with the non-Jewish Calder Willingham who had written a rejected first script. Songs by the Jewish duo Simon and Garfunkel were used for the soundtrack. Given the many Jews involved in the film’s production, it’s hardly surprising that Jewish sensibilities and ideological fixations pervade the final product.

The Graduate was not meant to read Jewish in the novel: the non-Jewish Charles Webb wrote the 1963 novel when he was just out of Williams College, which at the time is alleged to have been “notoriously anti-Semitic, even at the administrative level.”[2] In the hands of director Mike Nichols, however, the story became a scathing critique of bourgeois WASP American culture and the oppressive burden it purportedly imposed on young Americans. Nichols employs two recurrent visual metaphors to symbolize this oppressive culture: black-and-white stripes and water. The former representing prison bars confining Benjamin, while the latter (the numerous scenes referencing pools, aquariums, Scuba diving and rain) are said to symbolize the oppressive weight of societal expectation. The “troubled water” theme recurs throughout the film, with Benjamin floundering in a toxic social order where “he is submerged, underwater, trapped,” his world appearing “claustrophobically enclosed like a fish in a small water tank.”[3]

Nichols’ prison bar metaphor

The film resonated with a generation of young people concerned, as recent college graduate Benjamin Braddock is, about their place in the adult world they were reluctantly entering. Beverly Gray, author of the 2017 book Seduced by Mrs. Robinson: How “The Graduate” Became the Touchstone of a Generation, claims the film “strikes me as having a Jewish soul.” Laurie Shapiro, writing for the Forward, agrees, observing that “Despite the All-American storyline of the novel, The Graduate, the film version has always signaled a very Jewish sensibility to me, starting with Dustin Hoffman oddly cast in the lead as super-Waspy Connecticut kid Benjamin Braddock.” Referring to its Jewish director Mike Nichols, Gray notes how:

The film seems to me Jewish in a social sense, in terms of the Jewish outsider, which is certainly the way Mike Nichols viewed himself. Nichols was feeling a bit askew among the comforts of bourgeois America. It’s important to remember Nichols as a very young refugee from Nazi Germany. He never really got over the experience of fleeing Berlin at age 7. I’d go on to add that Nichols has made the following comment: “Dustin has always said that Benjamin is a walking surfboard. And that’s what he was in the book, in the original conception. But I kept looking and looking for an actor until I found Dustin, who is the opposite, who’s a short, dark, Jewish, anomalous presence, which is how I experience myself.” It’s a provocative statement, because Nichols was neither short nor dark, though clearly he felt a strong inner discomfort about the way he presented himself to the world. He certainly identified with the angst felt by Benjamin Braddock.[4] 

The perennial theme of Jewish alienation from a WASP-dominated mainstream American society played an important role in how the character of Benjamin Braddock—and the entire film—were conceived by Nichols—though this only became fully apparent to him after the film had been made. “My unconscious was making this movie,” Nichols later recalled. “It took me years before I got what I had been doing all along—that I was 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 character of Dustin says to the character of Elizabeth Wilson, ‘Mom, how come I’m Jewish and you and Dad aren’t?’ And I asked myself the same question, and the answer was fairly embarrassing and fairly obvious: Who was the Jew among the goyim? And who was forever a visitor in a strange land?”[5]

It was with his casting of Benjamin Braddock, described in the book as a tall, blonde, and athletic, that Nichols took his biggest risk. Unable to resist the urge to engage in Jewish ethnic networking, he passed over Robert Redford for an unheralded, diminutive 29-year-old Jew, Dustin Hoffman. Nichols cast Hoffman, “despite the fact that he was virtually unknown and looked nothing like the leading man described in the script, which called for a tall, blond track star, not a short, Jewish guy with a schnoz for the ages.”[6] Hoffman later recalled telling Nichols, “The character is five-eleven, a track star. … It feels like this is a dirty trick, sir.” The director replied, “You mean you’re Jewish, that’s why you don’t think you’re right. Maybe he’s Jewish inside.” Nichols claimed that casting Hoffman emphasized Benjamin’s alienation from the WASP middle class world around him and its oppressive expectations. For the Jewish director Steven Soderbergh, Nichol’s choice was “the seminal event in the defining of motion picture leading men in the last 50 years.”[7]

Director Mike Nichols on set with Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft

A number of early reviews of The Graduate described Hoffman as “ugly.” An article in Life magazine referred to him as “a swarthy Pinocchio,” and made humorous reference to his prominent nose. According to Gray, however, “What was important was the way young audiences embraced Hoffman, big nose and all. Suddenly it was okay not to look like Robert Redford and still play a romantic leading role.”[8] Hoffman’s anti-heroic character gave the green light for Hollywood to promote “the ethnic Jewish matinee idol and youth icon in the forms of George Segal, Elliot Gould, Richard Benjamin, Charles Grodin, and Gene Wilder.”[9] These Jewish romantic leads were invariably paired onscreen with beautiful non-Jewish actresses like Marsha Mason, Candice Bergen, and (in the case of Dustin Hoffman) blondes like Mia Farrow, Faye Dunaway, Susan George, and Meryl Streep. The new era was boon for Jewish actors, who, as Gray points out, suddenly

no longer had to fret about not resembling the WASP ideal, nor did they need to hide (as such stars as John Garfield and Kirk Douglas had done) behind anglicized names. The casting of Dustin Hoffman as The Graduate’s leading man was a shock to Hollywood, which had spent decades trying to sidestep the Judaic roots of its founders. But in the wake of The Graduate, young Jewish males were suddenly everywhere, and often they were playing characters with backgrounds similar to their own. This was the era that launched Richard Benjamin (Goodbye, Columbus, 1969), and Richard Dreyfuss (The Goodbye Girl, 1977), along with Grodin. It was all part of what film critic J. Hoberman, paying tribute to Elliott Gould in the Village Voice, wittily called the Jew Wave.[10]

While celebrating the “Jew Wave” inaugurated by Hoffman’s casting as Benjamin Braddock, Shapiro laments that Hollywood’s enthusiasm for casting Jews as romantic leads didn’t extend to Jewish women, who, she contends, “still struggle to be cast in a lead if they don’t look like Natalie Portman, Mina Kunis or (yes, she’s Jewish) Scarlett Johansson. Men can keep their original noses and surnames (Ben Stiller, Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody, Adam Brody, Adam Levine) but Jewish women elect for plastic surgery to ‘correct’ what Hollywood execs like Harvey Weinstein deem ‘unfuckable’ looks, and then hide their names and heritage.” Shapiro also resents that some Jewish biopic female roles have been handed to non-Jews like Nicole Kidman (as Diane Arbus) and Felicity Jones (as Ruth Bader Ginsburg)—despite the existence of Jewish actresses that “meet or even surpass most people’s standard of beauty” like Natalie Portman, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis. This is largely, she insists, because “Hollywood seems to have never gotten over its infatuation with blondes, especially when paired with dark-haired men.”[11]

Hollywood did make efforts in the 1960s to promote Jewesses as romantic lead characters. The Jewish film historian Neal Gabler notes, for example, in his book Barbara Streisand: Redefining Beauty, Femininity and Power, how, in the late sixties, Streisand was repeatedly cast by Hollywood studios who deliberately attempted to make her Jewish ethnicity part of her public appeal. Gray notes that “In the wake of her success, many young girls thought twice about requesting a nose job as a Sweet Sixteen gift. But I would argue that Streisand started no trend toward the acceptance of other leading ladies who defied the WASP standard of physical attractiveness.”[12]

Dustin Hoffman certainly defied the WASP standard of male physical attractiveness, and Nichols sympathized with the young actor’s view of himself as an alienated Jew in a gentile world, and Hoffman, in turn, was able to comprehend the role once “he caught Nichols and Henry’s vision of Benjamin as the ultimate outsider—not a part of the culture, but not a part of the counter-culture either.” Nichols and Henry envisioned the Braddock character as a “genetic throwback” among the “walking surfboards” of angular, blond vigor—the American WASP mainstream. Nichols wanted Hoffman to project an estrangement that began in the blood. Renata Adler, writing in The New York Times, was the first to openly state the reality of Benjamin’s Jewish identity—with the Jewish film critic J. Hoberman endorsing Adler’s observation, identifying Benjamin as an obvious “crypto-Jew” and “an example of an ascendant Jewishness” in Hollywood.[13]

Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin Braddock: “an example of ascendant Jewishness”

Hoffman won the role over Charles Grodin, another Jewish actor who was no model of conventional WASP good looks. On the morning of Hoffman’s screen test for the role, he was marched into the makeup chair, where experts worried over his thick eyebrows, muscular neck, and less-than-perfect features. Hoffman recalled Nichols fretting, “Can we do anything about his nose?” Two hours later, when he went before the camera alongside co-star Katharine Ross, matters got worse: “The idea that the director was connecting me with someone as beautiful as her, it became an even uglier joke. It was like a Jewish nightmare.” Trying to ease the tension between them, he pinched or patted Ross’s buttock (accounts differ), leaving her furious. Nor did his reading of the role of Benjamin run smoothly. Just before the film’s release, when Ross was asked about her first impression of Hoffman, she pulled no punches: “He looks about three feet tall, so dead serious, so humorless, so unkempt.” She remembered thinking “This is going to be a disaster.”[14]

While Benjamin Braddock might have been, according to Nichols, Jewish on the inside (and on the outside to the extent of his casting Hoffman), the Braddock and the Robinson families were supposed to be representative of WASP middle class America. Despite this, Jewish characterizations even crept into the portrayal of these characters, and Gray notes how

the film is basically Jewish in a Lenny Bruce sense: New York neurotics are all Jewish, whatever their ethnic and religious background. Interestingly, the two overtly New York characters in the movie, in terms of speech patterns, are Ben’s father and Mrs. Robinson. I can certainly see Mr. Braddock (played by William Daniel) as an upwardly mobile “Jewish” man, enjoying the fruits of his labors. And of course Mrs. Robinson is the very definition of neurotic. But her husband and daughter don’t seem in any way Jewish to me, despite their presence in a Beverly Hills mini-mansion of the type that Jews of that era favored and that I recognized all too well.[15]

As those who have seen the film know, Benjamin Braddock sleeps with Mrs. Robinson but loves her beautiful daughter, Elaine, who is disgusted when she learns what her mother and boyfriend have done. Elaine ends her relationship with Braddock and becomes engaged to Carl Smith, portrayed by the decidedly non-Jewish actor Brian Avery.

Carl Smith (Brian Avery) with Elaine (Katharine Ross)

Undaunted by Elaine’s rejection, Benjamin pursues Elaine and crashes her wedding. This scene, as conceived by Nichols, is laden with Jewish symbolism and socio-political fixations. Hoffman’s character invades the sanctity of the church (a metaphor for the Jewish infiltration of Western societies?) to take Elaine from Carl who is depicted as Braddock’s physical and ethnic opposite (a tall and blonde Nordic archetype). Benjamin uses Christianity’s most sacred symbol (a crucifix) as a weapon to fend off the wedding attendees’ attempts to stop this profane intrusion. He then thwarts their attempts to reclaim Elaine by jamming the crucifix into the door of the church, leaving them barricaded inside and allowing him to flee with Elaine (see lead photograph).

The wedding scene of The Graduate

Such overt anti-Christian imagery jarred with the film’s first audiences—but was only the start of Hollywood’s disparagement of Christianity, and seems tame by today’s standards. Such efforts culminated in depicting nuns in sexual roles. Notoriously, the opening scene of the pilot of Californication, a program starring and produced by the Jewish actor David Duchovny (whose father was a publicist for the American Jewish Committee), depicts a nun performing oral sex on Duchovny’s character Hank Moody in a church. This pornographic debasement of Christian symbols by Jews is a blatant way of defiling Christian culture.

The wedding scene in The Graduate is supposed to be a triumphant moment: two young people rebelling against and liberating themselves from the oppressive expectations of their parents and their pathogenic culture. The conclusion to The Graduate glorifies breaking away from familial, cultural (and implicitly ethnic) constraints in favor of individualism. The Graduate’s core theme can be broken down to a general societal and political defiance. In the first scene of the film, Benjamin rides to the left on an airport conveyor belt as everyone else accedes to the airport’s public announcement system’s request to “Please stay to the right.” The political symbolism is obvious.

The Graduate was made at a time when the New Left was ascendant in the United States, and when the ideas of Jewish intellectuals like Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse were displacing orthodox Marxism in leftist movements throughout the West. Indeed, Nichols’ film can be seen as a subversive exposition of ideas espoused by Marcuse in his seminal 1964 work One Dimensional Man. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Marcuse’s work was probably the most influential social theory of its day and enjoyed a wide readership. In One Dimensional Man, he argued that advanced industrial societies like the United States repress their populations by creating false needs via mass advertising, industrial management, and modes of thought which resulted in a “one dimensional” universe of thought and behavior which stifled people’s capacity for critical thought and oppositional behavior. Marcuse advocated what he called the “great refusal” as the only effective opposition to these all-encompassing methods of social control. He championed sexual and ethnic minorities and outsiders “to nourish oppositional thought and behavior.”[16]

A generation of young radicals took up Marcuse’s texts as “essential criticism of existing forms of thought and behavior,” and Marcuse himself identified with the New Left and defended their politics and activism. For Marcuse, the traditional European family structure served “to legitimate authoritarian institutions and practices” and predisposed individuals to “accept social authority.” Alongside fellow Frankfurt School intellectuals Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, he viewed the traditional Western family was an important institution “for the production of ‘authoritarian personalities’ who are inclined to submit to dominant authorities, however irrational.”[17]

Herbert Marcuse

There are also strong points of intersection between Marcuse’s ideas and those of Jewish post-Freudian intellectual Wilhelm Reich. In his 1933 book The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Reich argued that the authoritarian family is of critical importance for the authoritarian state because the family “becomes the factory in which the state’s structure and ideology are molded.”[18] Crucial for Reich was the repression of childhood sexuality, which, in his view, created children who are docile, fearful of authority, and in general anxious and submissive. Reich claimed the role of traditional “repressive” Western sexual morality was “to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order.” Marcuse agreed with Reich that the “liberation of sexuality and the creation of non-hierarchical democratic structures in the family, workplace and society at large would create personalities resistant to fascism.”[19]

Marcuse, like Nichols, a refugee from National Socialist Germany, is said to have been “extremely sensitive to the dangers of fascistic tendencies” and his work was an important part of the great cultural shift from the affirmation to the repudiation of inherited values.[20] The familial, religious and ethnic ties of White people were presented by Jewish intellectuals like Marcuse (and Hollywood writers and producers) as an oppressive burden imposed by the past—a way in which parents encumber their offspring with an inheritance of dysfunctional norms.

Frankfurt School intellectuals, including Marcuse, held that the psychologically healthy White person was someone who had broken free from these dysfunctional norms (i.e., the traditional Western moral code), and realized their human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups. The embrace of radical individualism among non-Jews, promoted by the likes of Marcuse, was, of course, conducive to the continuation of Judaism as a cohesive group. Yet while Marcuse promoted individualism and condemned White racial feeling as deeply immoral, he was a committed Zionist who strongly supported “the establishment of a Jewish state, capable of preventing the repetition of a holocaust.” Marcuse justified supporting ethnic nationalism for his own tribe on the basis that “The United States didn’t do a goddamn thing under Roosevelt about the persecution of Jews before and during World War II,” and because “There is a continued effective anti-Semitism that could explode at any time in a neo-fascist regime. … Anti-Semitism is rampant in all states, and still exists in all states.”[21]

This line of thinking motivated the activism of Jewish New Left leaders like Mark Rudd who actively promoted Marcuse’s ideas. Rudd claimed that for him and his New Left colleagues, “World War II and the Holocaust were our fixed reference points. We often talked about the moral imperative not to be good Germans. We saw American racism as akin to German racism towards the Jews.”[22]

Alongside intellectual activists like Marcuse and political activists like Rudd, Hollywood has played an incredibly important role in this Jewish campaign to attack and destroy the fabric of White American society. Hollywood’s guiding principle, as articulated by Jewish Hollywood director Jill Soloway, resides in the perceived necessity of “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust.”[23] This ethnic “defense” has entailed the promotion of radical individualism for White people, racial diversity and mixing, the denigration of Christianity, the hypersexualization of popular culture, the glamorizing of sexual non-conformity and the breakdown of traditional gender roles—all alongside constant reminders of “the Holocaust” with its concomitant themes of Jewish victimhood and unsurpassed German (White, European) evil. This is Jewish ethnic warfare waged through the construction of culture. The Graduate was an early shot fired in this ongoing war.

[1] Alec Scott, “When ‘The Graduate’ Opened Fifty Years Ago, It Changed Hollywood (and America) Forever,” Smithsonian Magazine, December 2017.

[2] Laurie Gwen Shapiro, “50 Years Later, Just How Jewish Was ‘The Graduate?’” Forward, November 15, 2017.

[3] Gus Cileone, “What does the water imagery in ‘The Graduate’ express about the 1960s youth mindset and destiny,” The Take, October 7, 2015.

[4] Shapiro, “50 Years Later,” op cit.

[5] J.W. Whitehead, Appraising The Graduate: The Mike Nichols Classic and Its Impact in Hollywood (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011) 58.

[6] Steve Almond, “Remembering Mike Nichols And The Cinematic Landmark That Was ‘The Graduate,’” wbur, November 21, 2014.

[7] Scott, “When The Graduate Opened Fifty Years Ago,” op cit.

[8] Shapiro, “50 Years Later,” op cit.

[9] Whitehead, Appraising The Graduate, 63.

[10] Shapiro, “50 Years Later,” op cit.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Whitehead, Appraising The Graduate, 63.

[14] Beverley Gray, Seduced By Mrs. Robinson: How “The Graduate” Became the Touchstone of a Generation (Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2017), 42-3.

[15] Shapiro, 50 Years Later,” op cit.

[16] Douglas Kellner, “Introduction to the Second Edition,” Herbert Marcuse, One-dimensional Man: Studies in Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (London: Routledge, 1991), xi.

[17] Douglas Kellner, Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) 110.

[18] Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (London: Penguin, 1970) 64.

[19] Kellner, Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism, 111.

[20] Ibid., 296.

[21] Herbert Marcuse & Douglas Kellner (Ed.), The New Left and the 1960s: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse (London: Routledge, 2004), 180.

[22] Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillan, 2014), 254.


66 replies
  1. SS
    SS says:

    You could probably count blond leading men heroes on one hand for the entire history of the movies. Blonds in minor parts getting abused by little dark men, plenty of those. Blonds playing dumb asses or weirdos, plenty of those. And there were always plenty of black-haired, beautiful women in the movies, despite all the lies the Jewish writers tell.

  2. Tom
    Tom says:

    Well, it it were only Jews who could produce and accept the message of films like The Graduate, that all social norms were oppressive and worthy of abandonment by doing the opposite of societal dictates, then they’d be preaching to the choir. But the 60s were unique in that there existed a large class of juvenile delinquents (college students) who wanted nothing more than to engage in the contrarian behavior of all adolescents. Imagine the thrill of being an immature irresponsible idiot and being told by supposedly learned men that it was your moral right and duty to oppose all normal convention. Hey now, that’s a choir that is going to listen and listen well. But why was there no large adolescent class of contrarians in previous generations? They were too busy working, from 13 years old onward, to support themselves and their families. So they wouldn’t have listened to the crap spewed out by alienated (and alien) intellectuals.

    • RobertDolan
      RobertDolan says:

      It took a couple of decades for the Frankfurt School indoctrination to really kick in, and that explains the 60’s.
      It’s not as if the “boomer” generation is uniquely stupid or wanton or degenerate…….EVERY generation since then has been totally jewbrained.
      In California “protests” a very high percentage of the participants are young whites…..surely every bit as stupid as the 60’s generation. Perhaps even MORE vapid and ethno-masochistic.
      But we probably shouldn’t be so hard on the jewbrained whites when the entire system works to promote jewish interests and denies that whites have any interests at all.
      Our people are the suffering victims of a very real jewish oppression.

      • Tedesco
        Tedesco says:

        Good summary. The Frankfurt School should have been stopped at its inception, back in the 1930’s, when they first arrived in the US. NS-Germany had the right idea to eradicate the decadence of the 1919-1932 Weimar period. We should have been alert to the same danger, back then. Then we could have avoided this horrible mess today.

        Our country suffers from systemic stupidity, induced by jew-financed attack on our culture and education system. For example, the 1967 film, The Graduate, written, directed and financed by jews. And all the later films.

        Jews control and finance the news-media too. Hence all the lies in support of domestic terrorist groups, also funded by jews. Anarcho-tyranny is a jewish operation.

      • Andrea Ostrov Letania
        Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

        The influence of Frankfurt School is vastly over-exaggerated.

        Decadence takes over a society when people take things for granted.

        Also, the failure of the white community to develop a critical theory of its own and its wallowing in complacency led to Jewish domination.

        Critical Theory is like teeth or claws. A small fish with sharp teeth will defeat a big fish without sharp teeth. Jews sharpened their teeth with critical theory while whites were having their teeth removed under the spell of laughing gas.
        Jews are great dentists.

        • Achilles Wannabe
          Achilles Wannabe says:

          I think you are nailing it Andrea, Whites were too busy getting “real” stuff done – making things instead of intellectualizing So they turned their intellectual institutions over to the Tribe, The rest is history or should I say Jewstory which is how Jews write history for the goyim.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      But why was there no large adolescent class of contrarians in previous generations? They were too busy working, from 13 years old onward, to support themselves and their families. So they wouldn’t have listened to the crap spewed out by alienated (and alien) intellectuals.

      Oh is this your idea of an alternative to Judaization Tom? We can all get back to the good old days when we worked from 13 onward to support ourselves and our families , Gee, you left out the exciting part where we get to go to church on Sunday. Oh and I am sure you forgot to mention a return to limited government with no medicare or social security. or unemployment insurance.

      How come I think I would rather be Jewed? There must be some semetic in my genome. Or could it just be that I am not Anglo?

    • Chris M
      Chris M says:

      “This is a fair-to-middling undergraduate term paper, nothing more.”

      Said the JIDF Troll.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      We neither desire nor require a ” traducteur ” [ translator ] to set us straight about what we are served up daily, directly from the Jewish horse’s mouth.

      Corey need not apologize for his, in your paid opinion, substandard
      ” term paper ” !!!

      I wonder whether you were in the large, Government-mandated audience, surreptitiously videoed in Tel Aviv, during which Dershowitz pontificated, that ” International Law was an invention of a bunch of do-gooders ” : to cover for your latest Einsatzgruppen activities in the West Bank.

      I can visualize your clever smirk on your face, when you decided on this brilliant, double-entendre handle to help out the obtuse cattle.

  3. Yves Vannes
    Yves Vannes says:

    There’s a rotten Jew in the state of Denmark.

    Webb’s adolescent rebellion against Jewified into a Chosenite rebellion against the oppressive dangerous goyim…is as is every other “front” in their ethnic war…waged quietly until they’ve managed enough control to then go public.

    The majestic honorable and brave Western hero gets to be a bit player while the mutant outcast liberated from his role as the quiet infiltrator who hardly gets noticed now gets to play the anti hero. But unlike his Western counterpart the Jew is seedy, sleazy and a destroyer of nature’s order.  Instead of a young leader rising to the challenge of tasks earned we get the porno peddler. The young maiden once expected to complete herself and her husband is now either the shiksa whore or a stolen conquest. The ideal Western woman is no longer Penelope waiting for Ulysses but is now Diane Keaton waiting for Mr. Goodbar. Hearth and fertility left behind for a joy ride on the cock carousel whatever the consequences. Beauty’s fullest cultural sensibility and its manifestations are now deformed and weaponized against us.

    Ascendant Jewishness is their tribe dancing in conquest, no longer having to stay in the shadows. We’ve seen this pattern repeated in business, academia, all of the arts, and now we are seeing it more and more in government. We had two Jews running for president, Jews holding open public tribunals on television obsessed over goyim collusion and any attempt at political organizing. Their final ascendant push will be the destruction of the white family and the last few vestiges of white community.

    The white Western hero playing the bit part is no longer even necessary.  They are so sure of their dominance and victory that they are now casting us in a repeat performance as kulaks. The Negroes, Celestials and Aztecs can pick up any slack. Goodwhites will play kapo until their time comes.

    Western Civ is now a 24/7 psyops aimed at Westernkind.

    • Tedesco
      Tedesco says:

      Your analysis is accurate. “Porno peddler” – exactly.

      The impeachment hearings last January in the House and the Senate were part of a jew-coup.

      The same is true for the Mueller inquiry and the anti-Russia hysteria.

      As you said, they no longer have to stay in the shadows. They are openly hostile and genocidal against Whites, as they were in Bolshevik Russia. Goodwhites are race traitors.

  4. RobertDolan
    RobertDolan says:

    Insightful analysis……it’s all right there……everything they have done to us…..right down to the desecration of the cross…..the defiling of our women….the destruction of our culture……

  5. John
    John says:

    Great article.

    So the Jewish kid gets the blonde non-Jew as his wife.

    Many Hollywood gentile actresses do in fact marry Jews, often, it seems, on the production end.

    I guess the Jewish men are rich, sensitive, and understanding, which tough gentile men supposedly are not.

    I did like Charles Grodin in The Heartbreak Kid (1972) where he dumps his Jewish wife (unfairly so, I believe) and takes up with the gentile blonde Kelly played by Cybill Shepherd. Symbolism there too.

    By the way, I think Grodin could pass as gentile much more than Hoffman.

    • ChilledBee
      ChilledBee says:

      “By the way, I think Grodin could pass as gentile much more than Hoffman.”

      Indeed he would. That is the reason that Hoffman was chosen over him. They wanted no doubt left what their point was.

      • Andrea Ostrov Letania
        Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

        “By the way, I think Grodin could pass as gentile much more than Hoffman.”

        “Indeed he would. That is the reason that Hoffman was chosen over him. They wanted no doubt left what their point was.”

        No, I don’t think so. If Nichols really wanted a Jewish-looking character, why not someone with Jewfro? Surely, he could have found something even more Jewish-looking than Hoffman.

        Grodin is a gifted actor but better at playing glib and smug. He was perfect for THE HEARTBREAK KID. THE GRADUATE needed someone who could show vulnerability as well as defiance, and Hoffman was perfect casting coup.
        The scene where he apologizes to Mrs. Robinson for suspicions that she was seducing him couldn’t have been done any better by another actor.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        And Mrs. Robinson was played by Anne Bancroft, an Italian-American

        And Mrs. Robinson was played by Anne Bancroft – Jewish.

        Fixed that for you. You’re welcome.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          It is said that Mel Brooks’ Jewish mother wasn’t thrilled at news of his “interfaith” marriage to Anne Bancroft (née Anna Maria Louise Italiano).

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is sound advice. Anne Bancroft loved and married a Jew, but she wasn’t born one and never became one.

  6. a. b.
    a. b. says:

    A little off-topic, but I think it’s interesting and I admit, surprising, that Ann Bancroft [Mrs. Robinson] is only a couple, maybe 3 years ? older than Dustin Hoffman.

    • Andrea Ostrov Letania
      Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

      “Ann Bancroft [Mrs. Robinson] is only a couple, maybe 3 years ? older than Dustin Hoffman.”

      Actually, six years older. Sort of reminds me of the age difference between Laurence Harvey and Angela Lansbury in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. Only 3 yrs.

      And Angelina Jolie who played mother to Colin Farrell in ALEXANDER was only 1 yr older. ROTFL

  7. Tedesco
    Tedesco says:

    Great article. I learned a lot. I never knew before how (((jewish))) this movie was. Everyone involved with it, almost. Certainly, all the producers and writers. And all the financing, of course. It is enemy propaganda.

    Too bad it was such a hit. So many sheep flocking to see it, for dubious entertainment. No surprise they gave it so many awards. Jews always reward their own.

    Edited quote from the concluding paragraph – “Alongside intellectual activists like Marcuse and political activists like Rudd, Hollywood has played an incredibly important role in this Jewish campaign to attack and destroy the fabric of White American society…..This is Jewish ethnic warfare waged through the destruction of culture. The Graduate was an early shot fired in this ongoing war.”

  8. Sandra
    Sandra says:

    Surprised there was no mention of the Dustin Hoffman role as being an abusive character to his girlfriend beyond the affair with her mother. He had nothing to offer her, humiliated her on their dates, was not attractive in any way, just pathetic with the expectation that she grant his wish to have her and offering nothing in return. I hated that movie.

  9. Hugo Acosta
    Hugo Acosta says:

    Hey Brenton please do Jewish themes in Brokeback Mountain (2003) it was clearly an attack on rural America.

  10. stealth
    stealth says:

    it is a bit of a tangeant but this article triggered me to think about fascism as being akin to an inflammation response in the body.necessary but destructive long term.and maybe antifascism is like antiinflammatorys-necessary but not getting to root with vaccinations,the different parts of the immune system can be trained to attack each other.follow the analogy as far as you want.perhaps ,as often the case,we can innovate technology by copying natural systems..perhaps we can chemo the water supply with LSD so normal people pull through while the psychopaths self destruct.take away the sugary money system that feeds the cancer..not sure

    • Tedesco
      Tedesco says:

      That’s a great analogy, although you are taking it too far. (I am not too sure about the LSD part.)

      Nevertheless, your basic idea is correct. Fascism was effective, domestically, to destroy decadence and judeo-communism. It acted as an antidote to jewish influence.

      However, Fascism was also pro-war – that was the reason for its downfall.

        • Tedesco
          Tedesco says:

          With respect, Fascism and Nazism. glorified war openly. It was inherent in their ideologies. And by that I mean aggressive war, to conquer land belonging to others, at great cost to innocent human life. .

          For example – Operation Barbarossa, where Germany tried to conquer Russia in 1941. And Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia in 1935. And Italy’s unprovoked attack on Greece in 1940, where Greece successfully defended itself..

          I wish Fascism and Nazism had been anti-war, except for self-defense. Not pacifist, but against wars of aggression and conquest. I support their domestic policy to suppress judeo-communism, although not their sadistic methods.

          I have never read David Irving’s books – maybe I should. The consensus is that he is a great historian. I think he should never have been jailed. He is entitled to his views, whatever they are.

      • Jane
        Jane says:

        fascism was intended to destroy judeocommunism? then explain how that is when it was formed by socialist mussolini and his bolshevik, jewish mistress? it’s true there was some push back against jews, it probably had more to do with the alliance with the nazis than fascism being antijewish.

  11. John Lilburne
    John Lilburne says:

    The role of Mrs Robinson was first offered to all American girl, Doris Day. She refused because she saw the moral degeneracy of the part.
    The Jewish makers of the film would have reveled in the symbolism if she had taken it.

    • Tedesco
      Tedesco says:

      Interesting. An internet search confirms the truth of what you say. Obviously, Doris Day was a moral person, with a healthy common-sense. Jews hate that. They would have cackled with glee to get her into such as movie as the Graduate. She was right to reject them.

      Contrast that with Katherine Ross. She was well rewarded for her role in The Graduate. She also starred in The Stepford Wives, another jewish monstrosity.

    • Andrea Ostrov Letania
      Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

      “The role of Mrs Robinson was first offered to all American girl, Doris Day. She refused because she saw the moral degeneracy of the part.”

      I believe the father role was offered to Ronald Reagan, but don’t quote me on that.

      But seriously, who would rather watch a stupid Doris Day movie than THE GRADUATE? Doris Day was in a handful of good movies, especially Hitchcock’s THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH.
      But most of her films were pap. If your idea of good movie is the Old Disney, go for it. That stuff was toothless and dull. Of course, New Disney is worthless for different reasons: It’s total filth.

      THE GRADUATE is an intelligent movie done with wit and brilliance.

      • Jane
        Jane says:

        the graduate was pedantic. i never saw the appeal. it always seemed so over rated, filled with stereotypes. Hoffman’s character was a scumbag.

  12. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I am always amused by talk of authoritarians and sexual repression. The observable fact is that “sexual liberation” means political control. What could be more authoritarian than political control at the hands of commies like Marcuse. And then the issue of “alienation” amused me too. As an (legal) immigrant who grew up in a “diverse” community in Chicago, I am well acquainted with alienation. Alienation is not the monopoly of Jews. It is not the monopoly of Jews like Hoffman, Nichols, Streisand and the others who have done well for themselves in a Jewish industry. Alienation is the inevitable and inexorable result of Diversity, of whatever kind that exists.

    • Andrea Ostrov Letania
      Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

      “I am always amused by talk of authoritarians and sexual repression. The observable fact is that “sexual liberation” means political control.”

      But it’s a different kind of social control. While both women in Saudi Arabia and women in the West are socially controlled, it’s obvious that the systems and means of control are different. Politics is always about control, and the real question is WHO controls. You can control through repressing sexuality and you can control by releasing sexuality. Still, it takes special skill to control an animal out of the cage than inside.

      “As an (legal) immigrant who grew up in a ‘diverse’ community in Chicago, I am well acquainted with alienation. Alienation is not the monopoly of Jews.”

      True, but most goyim have weak identities. Thus, over time, they just merge with the prevailing identity and values. Thus, their alienation lessens over time. Most non-Jews in the US are just ‘Americans’ whose meaning of life is consumption. In contrast, Jews have a strong identity that survived 2000 yrs in exile. So, they are bound to feel more alienated from goy society. This is why Jews feel such camaraderie with homos.

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        Political control means violence or the threat of violence. Various political bodies have passed laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals. Certainly, that represents political control. In a free country, anyone can discriminate against anyone else for any reason. Of course, the political control does not stop there. Illinois, under the political monopoly of the socio-fascist party (aka Democrat Party), passed legislation forcing public schools to teach LGBT history–more political control.

  13. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Jews are superficially interesting, but profoundly boring.

    The problem is, most people live on the surface.

    The other problem is, you simply can not sustain a civilization more complex and unpredictable than ever before with everyone from top to bottom living on the surface.

    That’s why Jews are exactly the people tailor made by history to preside over the complete collapse of an entire civilization.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      By the way, great article.

      I loved this movie as a boy when it came out. But, by my 20’s the sort of things touched on in this article became more and more apparent and the movie began to lose its appeal.

      Now, it’s joined the long list of movies I’ll never watch again.

      Unfortunately, that’s even included some great old corny B Westerns. Because even in them one can detect what would eventually become Identity Politics and anti-White themes.

      It’d make for an interesting TOO article.

      In any event, regarding Brenton’s article, the one thing that really stuck out was the fact that their self-obsession knows no bounds.

      Talk about being prisoners.

      Another thing was that Jews are the master, par excellence, of radical ingratitude.

      After all is said and done, Jews are a power hungry people incapable of creating their own civilization.

      So they had to glom onto another people’s civilization and climb to power using their genius for exploitation and deception to do it.

      And, being the creators of The Scapegoat because they completely lack the power to face unpleasant facts about themselves, they proceeded all the while to project their hatred onto their mostly smiliing, unsuspecting victims, until they had enough power to come out of hiding, only to have the whole thing come crashing down on top of them, as it is now.

      Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing is nothing less than

      The Pyrrhic Victory of Jewish Supremacy Inc.

      • Luke
        Luke says:

        “Unfortunately, that’s even included some great old corny B Westerns. Because even in them one can detect what would eventually become Identity Politics and anti-White themes.”

        I decided to watch the 1969 John Wayne Western ‘The Undefeated’ last week. This is a movie that is 50 years old, and in it – the jews inserted their still-then-mildly subtle anti-White propaganda by depicting a young and beautiful White girl (daughter of the character played by Rock Hudson) rejecting the romantic advances of a young, White, Jay Michael-Vincent and instead lusting after an adopted Indian son of the character played by Wayne.

        John Wayne himself, despite being a well known ‘conservative’ in the political sense – was a hard core race mixer himself. All 3 of his wives were Mexican. With his formidable clout in Hollywood as one of its biggest and most profitable box office stars – even he did not object to allowing the jew script writers to use his movies to push themes and propaganda that spelled genocide for White European people.

      • Tedesco
        Tedesco says:

        Good analysis. I like your last two sentences – “Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing is nothing less than
        The Pyrrhic Victory of Jewish Supremacy Inc.”

        I certainly hope so.

    • Jane
      Jane says:

      tailor made by history… ? so you blame the anti-Christian, anti-gentile jews actions on their victims? you do know they have been trying to impose power over long before the wwii

  14. moltas
    moltas says:

    Great article. Just one possible mistake I noticed: “for the Jewish director Steven Soderbergh…”. I don´t think Soderbergh is jewish.

    • Yves Vannes
      Yves Vannes says:

      He’s not…but his wife is a question mark? Before being married to SS she was married to Ed Asner’s son.
      That and he works in Challahwood…so he’s caught up in their cultural milieu.

  15. Sandy
    Sandy says:

    I quite enjoyed the Graduate when it came out but I remember, for reasons unknown,being uncomfortable with the ending. Now I know why. Thanks.

  16. Peter
    Peter says:

    “he viewed the traditional Western family was an important institution “for the production of ‘authoritarian personalities’ who are inclined to submit to dominant authorities, however irrational.” “dominant authorities, however irrational” LOL. Did he have anyone particular in mind when he wrote that?

    I have never seen the film in its entirety. I remember asking my German born mother about it but she did not comment on Jewish aspects of the film or anything about it being anti-Christian. But she may have thought that and just not said anything. But by the 1980’s my parents were fully aware of the Jews anti-Christian attitudes which were on full display for everyone to see. But first you have to recognize the fact that it is Jews doing this and you have to decide to mention the holy people, those that no one should ever say a negative word about. You won’t read it anywhere in the mainstream media and some low IQ idiot might call you a “conspiracy theorist” when you explain it to him.

    “It’s important to remember Nichols as a very young refugee from Nazi Germany. He never really got over the experience of fleeing Berlin at age 7.” That would have been 1938, when at the same time just outside of Berlin young Jews were being trained in trades so they would be useful in Palestine, as part of the agreement the Zionists and National Socialists made to deport German Jews to Palestine.

    Such descriptions sound scary so while growing up I began asking my mother about what she saw as a young German growing up in the 1930’s and 40’s and when I consider what she said, it doesn’t sound nearly as dramatic. She recalled she had a few Jewish classmates that left, apparently for England. Not too dramatic. They didn’t have to escape. Germany encouraged them to leave. So, to dramatize things Jews had to grossly exaggerate things and suggest there was violence against Jews, when in fact there was not and Germany probably had less violence than the USA in the 1930’s. They didn’t have Chicagos or Al Capones. The Jewish kid that was interested in my mother when she was still a young girl wasn’t bothered by the “NAZIS” too much but my grandfather didn’t like it. There are many pictures of Mike Nichols on the internet and he’s smiling in most of them. Apparently he recovered very well.

  17. phredd
    phredd says:

    ”…Marcuse agreed with Reich that the “liberation of sexuality and the creation of non-hierarchical democratic structures in the family, workplace and society at large would create personalities resistant to fascism.”

    Of course as is ALWAYS true wth that jewish-created entity called “the Left’ – what they clain to intend ALWAYS has the antipodal opposite effect. As we see in current events, two generations after destroying the family has yielded the opposite effect upon youth; hence the attraction of Antifa, itself victim of the same reversal. Has any other group ever existed that was more facist than these self-described “anti-facists”?

    With the Left, opposite results of what they clsim to intend usually are entirely ignored, or at best ascribed to “unintended consequences. Intention are what they boast of – never net results.

  18. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    You plainly haven’t read many term papers. Term papers, especially those written nowadays by (((students))) at the Ivies, consist solely of rewordings of the cited sources, the point being that by rewording, the writer evades the charge of being a plagiarist.* He or she virtually never evades the charge of being thoroughly sycophantic and functionally illiterate, however.

    Dr. Sanderson, on the other hand, uses citation as it was meant to be used: to buttress with supporting factual data his own interpretative insights. That he regularly has insights aplenty is plain to almost everyone who has read his work here at TOO and at TOQ. Of those subtended by the prior “almost,” some are, through no fault of their own, simply thick, whereas others are, like you, a troll.†
    * You know what a plagiarist is, don’t you? Think of Stephen Jay Gould, Charles Ogletree, Martin Luther King, Doris Kearns Goodwin … Get the picture?

    † h/t Chris M

  19. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    The crucial question is: What measure or action should we take in the face of this Jewish onslaught?
    I think it is time for us whites to counter-attack and begin to act and defend ourselves. Time is running against us.

  20. Sad Williams Grad
    Sad Williams Grad says:

    Interesting take on The Graduate. I liked the movie, but did recognize the anti-Christianism. I actually thought “Benjamin Braddock” was Jewish. His first name is typically Jewish, and many Jews have last names that are often also Gentile: Gordon, Ross (Katherine Ross is not Jewish, but many “Rosses” are), even “Stephens” and “Smith” sometimes.

    A correction. Soderbergh is not Jewish (though I long thought so, too). See this:

    {“They dug deep to get conscious of me,” says Gould (née Elliott Goldstein), who committed a Tischkoff-like faux pas when he asked if director Steven Soderbergh was Jewish. “He said, ‘No, I’m Swedish,’ and I said, ‘Well, you know, Swedish is a nationality, while Jewish is a way of life,’” Gould recalls. Soderbergh looked nonplussed.}

    This, however, was by far the most important part of the essay for me:

    {The Graduate was not meant to read Jewish in the novel: the non-Jewish Charles Webb wrote the 1963 novel when he was just out of Williams College, which at the time is alleged to have been “notoriously anti-Semitic, even at the administrative level.”}

    This statement apparently was taken from this Jewish writer and publication:

    {[2] Laurie Gwen Shapiro, “50 Years Later, Just How Jewish Was ‘The Graduate?’” Forward, November 15, 2017.}

    Why is this insignificant statement (allegations of antisemitism being not exactly infrequent) so important? This is one of those rare times when I get to feel like Orwell’s Winston Smith, in the early scene in Nineteen-Eighty-Four where he accidentally stumbles upon a document that exposes the mendacious nature of the whole regime.

    I graduated from Williams in the 80s. I had been initially shocked at how Jewish the student body was. Using our class “facebook” (yes, that’s the origin of the name), I deduced that at least one quarter of my class was Jewish (and throughout my tenure there, I would routinely discover that someone I had thought was Gentile was actually Jewish). But here’s the ‘kicker’: many of my Jewish classmates were ‘legacies’ (alumni children)! They had fathers and even grandfathers who were alumni. Do the math. Obviously, many of those family members had attended Williams substantially before 1963, when it was alleged to have been “notoriously antisemitic”. It is most unlikely that Williams got MORE antisemitic in the early 60s than it had been in the 50s or 40s (interestingly, it may well be MORE antisemitic today than in the 80s, but that is only due to the post-80s affirmative action explosion combined with increasing POC-based anti-Zionism, itself often a proxy for antisemitism).

    Moreover, Williams had many (many …) Jewish professors. I can recall at least two of them who had been teaching at the college since the … 1940s. One, an open Marxist, was as obviously Jewish in looks as Mel Brooks (the other, much less so). I’m sure there were other Jewish professors at Williams in the 1980s who had been teaching since the early 60s (35 years later, I can only recall two).

    So here, for once, at least this Gentile Heritage American has PROOF of one type of Zionist Big Lie in action. Kinda makes one think about other times and places deemed to have been “notoriously antisemitic” (or “racist”, or “oppressive”, etc).

    Thanks for this review – and this unexpected personal insight into a tiny corner of the ‘matrix’ of lies and subversion I suspect, nay, know, I inhabit.

  21. Susan
    Susan says:

    The late 1960s -1970s were my high school and college years, so I saw lots of movies on dates, including The Graduate. I wasn’t the slightest bit Jew-wise so I perceived the Dustin Hoffman-type characters as underdogs of no particular ethnicity, that you side with over the boring white guy in class, as I am sure was intended. Coming of age is confusing enough with culture that distorts your values. How I wish I had had someone wise to advise me back then. That might have saved me from a few big mistakes. The practice of changing names by actors and many others to hide their ethnicity is dishonest and acts to further obscure what is/was going on in these movies and other areas.

    If I may mention another movie, I remember seeing The Sterile Cuckoo (1969) with an awkward and overly emotional female friend. The plot involved a similarly insecure female character played by Liza Minnelli, who, I think if I remember correctly, had an abortion at the end of the movie. My friend was sobbing uncontrollably as the final credits rolled. The director/producer was Alan J. Pakula and that his credits included Sophie’s Choice (holocaust story) and Klute (prostitution/serial murder). Pakula could really push your emotional buttons.

    Thanks for this interesting article.

  22. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    —For the Jewish director Steven Soderbergh, Nichol’s choice was “the seminal event in the defining of motion picture leading men in the last 50 years.”—

    Others have noted Soderbergh isn’t Jewish, but is he right about the leading men in the past fifty years? Let’s consider some of the biggest male stars since the 60s: Robert Deniro, Jeff Bridges, Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Sylvester Stallone, Leonard DiCaprio, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sam Neill, William Hurt, Al Pacino, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, James Spader, Rob Lowe, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, Jon Voight, Val Kilmer, Colin Farrell, Robert Redford, Donald Sutherland, and etc.

    Now, one could argue that some of the non-Jewish actors listed above got roles for their ethnic flavor. In a way, Al Pacino was like an Italian Dustin Hoffman, though bit more versatile. But Hoffmans’ impact on leading roles was vastly over-exaggerated. Also, old Hollywood was fully of ethnic types, especially in gangster movies.

  23. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Here as previously, I am indebted to Brenton Sanderson for his care, energy, and insight. To be ignorant of history, especially the history of Jewish subversion, is to handicap oneself in a struggle with an opponent who never hesitates to employ every weapon at hand.

    I have not watched “The Graduate” in almost fifty years, and I shan’t pretend that the article has awakened a desire to see it again; rather the contrary. I do clearly recall, however, both my own reactions to the film and those of friends, acquaintances, and colleagues. My inclination now is to think that Doctor Sanderson is correct in all significant details with regard to what Mike Nichols intended to do, but I am curious whether my reaction, widely shared, to the very last scene was or wasn’t also a response to something the director intended.

    After the couple jump triumphantly on the bus and move to the full-width seat at the back, their exultation contrasts sharply with the stares of the hostile goys from Central Casting, whom we are obviously meant to see as so congenitally unhip as to be beyond redemption. Yet within thirty seconds, Katharine Ross’s expression goes from elation to a look that all but screams “second thoughts” at the viewer. (At the time, I imagined her thinking, “It’s been a real groove to piss off my parents, but what the hell do I do now?”) All of a sudden the true incongruity is not with the Unhip Many but with Hoffman himself, whose face moves quickly through half a dozen equally unconsidered configurations before settling comfortably—perhaps forever—into the same pointlessly self-confident, moronic grin that characterized it at the film’s opening scenes. As a smart Jewish girl I knew at the time said, “I give it six months; a year at the most.”

    Perhaps Nichols simply didn’t want to end his consciously revolutionary film with a pair of elated lovers conventionally smiling and hugging as the camera cut to the credits. Perhaps that’s all. Yet I can’t help thinking that he was hedging his bets and playing to the gallery with an ending that seems to suggest that not every break with convention is an unalloyed good, especially when the break might entail the loss of a superstar Jew”s genetic heritage to the hated shiksa enemy.

    • Sad Williams Grad
      Sad Williams Grad says:

      Very good comment, sir. I rewatched that little clip that Sanderson had included in his post, and had a similar thought. After they had settled into their seats, they looked more bemused than elated – not a good sign mere minutes after their “jailbreak.”

      Anyway, at the risk of seeming self-important, consider my comment a few persons above yours. I think my little anecdote is the kind of ‘proof’ of the true nature of our sociopolitical environment that we rarely get hold of personally.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        After reading your remarks, I looked for a clip of “The Graduate” that would show the thirty or so seconds that follow the abrupt end of the clip that Dr. Sanderson includes in his article. I found this. This newer clip is certainly grainier than the other one, but the payoff compensates for the grain. The other clip now seems deliberately tendentious in its editing; that is, the equivocation implicit in the film’s final moments have been, as it were, disappeared.

        Till I watched the linked clip, I had quite forgotten that the film concludes with S&G singing “The Sound of Silence,” a tune that sounds as “then” now as it sounded “now” then. Whether its implicit message—”you have just been shown something radical and deep; go your way and contemplate the mysteries revealed unto you”—was as clear to me as it evidently was to others fifty years ago is something I can’t recall.*

        With respect to the song itself, however, back then I did share the general awareness of those who were, like me, out of step with the soi-disant progressiveness of the times that no song had been so intimately linked with social attitudes or a political movement since Woody Guthrie’s heyday thirty years before.

        Overall, with regard to once again seeing the very end of the film, although I am happy to have my decades-old recollection confirmed, the pleasure is entirely intellectual, not aesthetic. Few normal men, however old they may be, lose interest in seeing a beautiful woman, but not even the pleasure of seeing the youthful Katharine Ross can tempt me to follow where Brenton Sanderson (bless him!) has led.
        *It probably wasn’t. The only music that affected me in any positive way then was what my less fortunate fellow creatures call “serious” or “classical” music. Things now are no different.

  24. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    I was trying to recall any Hollywood movie that treated hell in anything less than a jocular manner, but could think of few. The Dantesque ending to Lars von Trier’s unpleasant “A House that Jack Built” and maybe “Event Horizon”.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Hell isn’t played for laughs in “The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima” (1952; John Brahm, dir.), but you’d hardly expect it to be.

      In ’54 or ’55, when I was in grammar school, the film was shown to me and the rest of my runny-nosed peers at a school assembly. I quickly spotted a familiar face on the screen: Gilbert Roland.

      Being not yet ten, I was still young enough to be confused upon seeing an actor known from another film or a TV series playing a different part, and so when my mother asked me to tell her about the film, I said that one of parts was played by the actor who played What’s His Name in “The Adventures of Whatever.” I mentioned my initial confusion, saying that I thought that Roland was portraying the same character. Very drily, my mother replied, “Well, dear, he always does.”

  25. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    Yeah y’all

    The thing about jews is that some of em make great art and movies that are pro white. Even Truffeat the greatest movie maker ever was probably half jewish.

    Even the frankfurt school who were incredibly hostile towards european culture and art did some great research that does have some relevance. Research on radio and massmarket effect on art.

    But I think many of their ideas were utterly wrong and will be proven so. For example they had the idea that massmarjet products wil become more and more bland and bad in an attempt to appeal to ass many people ass possible. I think the best most forward supreme things will have mass market appeal in the near and coming future.

    The deep knowing white or may we say SHINING or people of the SUN (no reference to nordic wiking early culture here, Odin was depicted with both sun and moon symbols in his necklase, maybe symbolising the indo european and pre indo european nordics that were also white, had genetics associated with white skin, but then the japanese are often fair skinned but do not have these genes) are the new outlaws the outsider, the rebel.

    Yes most white people are kinda a bit racist dont wanna live near the negro and such and disslike muslims or whatever but most don’t even know about true white or SHINING people history or the heavy culture and art and science and inventions and stuff. They don’t know about IQ differences and have no idea about em being brainwashed and the holocaust directed at white SHINING people and how it’s done.

    They are sleeping they are drugged by propaganda often in the form of fine, good or great culture and these days often also opiods and weed.

    They are in a sad are they zombies or can they be awoken.

    I mean I had white looking folks kinda racemixed firing me for saying that arabs and [redacted term for negros] that terrorized me may be expressing “reverse rasism” due to segregation and similar. BUT WE ALL KNOW IT’S BECAUSE THEY ARE INFERIOR AND THEY KNOW HENCE THEY WANNA KILL US OFF. but that dud who caused me loosing a job was probably racially mixed and who knows what by anyways.


    (Mod. Note: Robert, do TOO a favor and stop splashing “That N-Word” into your comments. Keep TOO up to some level of standards, and don’t be the cause of shutting us down, OK? I’m getting tired of having to close read your posts and sort out the little “bombs” you leave. Next time, comment won’t get approved.)

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      This commenter brings to this site something it has long lacked: a deep thinker. His use of full caps is especially instructive and original.

      What a learning opportunity this could be for Doctors Sanderson, Joyce, MacDonald, and others!

  26. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    And I think that actor looks a bit Italian. But apparently jews are largely Italian that emigrated to Israel 6’500 years ago according to new DNA things and then there were also blue eyed folks in Israel.

    But these days it seems that jews have mixed with arabs, most of them and also even more common with [redacted term for Negros]. Hence there obsession with this race.

    Apparently around 75 % of jews have backround in the middle east (8 % shared dna with sand niggs aka arabs). And even more have nigger background. So probably wery few jews are 100 % white these days.

    Many of the 100 % white jews probably married gentiles and some jews were kinda christian anyways as a way to stay white and the fell in love and stuff.

    Can one say that people who mixed with arabs and niggs and thereby going against GOD’s law are still GOD’s chosen people. I mean the bible pretty much lays out the efect of racemixing the consequences will be incredibly bad. It’s certainly a different people these days still with a high IQ though.

    And like Mozart could be partly jewish look at that nose same with Bach and Vivaldi aswell as Grieg. And most of em werent blonde either they just wore wiggs. But they were probably if partially jewish heritage from the 100 % white jews i.e. from the Italian and blue eyed folks heritage or something.

    And this site kinda focus on jews who are more racemixed and more anti white, whereas the mainstream intellectuall will respect jews that do great art. So there are two sides to the coin different aspects. A lot of jews complain about PC policies also and some implicitely complain about massimmigration of poc’s and stuff. But yeah, the general organized assault is well documented by now and this certainly is a tendency…

Comments are closed.