- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
by Don Dillon
Friday, Oct. 09, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Why was the “psychology” of this movie not more considered in reviews? Yes one can quickly retort that it was “just” a movie, and besides artists have poetic license to be free with their work? Well maybe so, but Mr. Quentin Tarantino addresses a serious subject at a curiously serious time, and therefore he invites serious criticism that he and his critics should get—not a Hollywood club giving wide birth if it was meant to promote more guilt or whatever the U.S. film/ review industry silently accedes as OK—that is a film industry that has become part and parcel of a world not unlike that of Joseph Goebbels.
Inglorious Bastards Film Promotes Terrorism and Torture
Quentin Tarantino’s new film, Inglorious Bastards, gets relatively passing grades from a sampling of reviews on the Internet—or at least kid’s glove criticism—that is from some prominent and influential cyberspace sights—why? Granted, some aspects of the film were very good. But still one wonders why the “psychology” of this movie was not much considered? And you can take it as given that if Jewish Americans dominate in the U.S. film industry, which they do, then surely they have something to say on how movies are reviewed in America?
In the larger context of current affairs of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, such as the Palestine plight, or more importantly another series of likely lies being promulgated to manipulate the United States into “another” war, this time with Iran, with a similar litany of rumors on nuclear weapons, we need to ask why does this terrorist movie not get critically reviewed—save perhaps by a few?
But apparently it takes a folksy, Yankee-looking and acting, hillbilly from Tennessee (really making him more the Confederate cracker), who likes the idea of scalping heads Injun style (yes cracker), to beat those savage Germans? But then if you look at Quentin’s biography in Wikipedia you quickly learn his ancestry is both Italian and Native American, which strongly implies his screenplay, which he wrote, is more an autobiographical fantasy, rather than some America WASP hero leading young Jewish psychopaths on a rampage.
After all Italians tend to be proud of their ancestry, including aspects like the Roman/ Machiavellian/ mafia style of violence, such as that used to condition future Roman soldiers to a cruelty of war, by having acts of cruelty acted out in coliseums for their “glorious” pleasure, with gladiatorial debuts and the feeding of criminals to tigers and bears, etc. Apparently terrorism was not as squeamish a subject to an ancestry that could identify with Mussolini’s fascistic “fasces,” that is the bundle of sticks that could be used to beat like baseball bats to the brains of a captured enemy.
Still, despite Tarantino’s own partially native American background, one has to doubt that most native Americans would cherish the idea of a WASP running around Europe in the 20th century demanding that his subordinate Jews scalp despised German enemy combatants—that is given America’s European ancestry which subjugated Native Americans in, sometimes, less than humane ways as a manifest destiny that was rationalized by Judeo-Christian religious prejudices that colonized their strains to America. If we explore the body of Quentin’s work over the years would we really find the “soul” of a Native American?
The likes of Brad Pitt deliberately provoking Nazis with terrorist war crimes seems awkward, given that our nation, at this time, is trying to come to terms with levels of perpetrated torture that the American mass media has more or less denied for both Iraq and Guantanamo.
But then maybe that was Tarantino’s impulse—to act out a humiliated hatred with explicit on-scene bashing of brains of a recalcitrant Nazi officer, while a nonchalant Brad Pitt acts more cowboy than George W. Bush or sociopath shadowing Rumsfeld? Yes according to this pulp, it takes a backwoods justice kind of guy, to show those urbane British, and any polished film community like in Germany, a thing or two about being mean and revengeful—that is justice American style, given that there might have been some “rogue” black op translators from Titan, CACI, or other private companies, involved in U.S. related episodes of torture at Abu Graib?
David Denby’s review in The New Yorker said this about this bastard movie: “Inglourious Basterds is not boring, but it’s ridiculous and appallingly insensitive—a Louisville Slugger applied to the head of anyone who has ever taken the Nazis, the war, or the Resistance seriously.”
But then who can like a Nazi—especially given Christoph Waltz’s rendition of Col. Hans Landa—a psychopath more eerie than the recent Joker’s black humor that so well parallels the banker/ finance industry of New York Gotham City? So obviously busting heads is OK in this instance—that is the hindsight we have on the evil and racism of the Nazi regime. But then the SS would never have thought to return the favor to their captured enemies? Nevertheless now Americans soldiers and spies can no longer expect any Geneva Convention on Torture to apply to them—thanks to our current state of affairs.
Yes one can quickly retort that it was “just” a movie, and besides artists have poetic license to be free with their work? Well maybe so, but Mr. Tarantino addresses a serious subject at a curiously serious time, and therefore he invites serious criticism that he and his critics should get—not a Hollywood club giving wide birth if it was meant to promote more guilt or whatever the U.S. film/ review industry silently accedes as OK—that is a film industry that has become part and parcel of a world not unlike that of Joseph Goebbels.
We, as a culture, have recently witnessed lies to the American people from such pillars as Murdock Inc., the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., and the inner sanctum of the “Goebbal,” id est., Feith, Perle, Cambone, AIPAC, Krauthammer, Wolfowitz, Rosen, Pipes, Ross, Abrams, Kristol, Hadley, Goldberg, Lieberman, Leeden, Libby, ‘Peretz, Luti, Grossman, Shulsky, Foxman, Addington, etc., which helped launch the propaganda campaign that mysteriously took us to Iraq to kill, murder, main and torture Iraqis—and the story is not over.
Granted, Inglorious Bastards is not a Jewish propaganda movie; but we can apply another Neocon’s style of analysis, namely Leo Strauss looking for the “secret” cabalistic message in events—in this case what amounts to as a product of a disinformation campaign. (As an political philosopher Strauss argued for the “noble lie” to deceive “The People” with his disdain for and kind of representative democracy, not unlike the Old Testament lied about a monotheistic tyrant of a tribal God who, we are told in the Bible, wanted Hebrews to kill off the inhabitants in Canaan during the time of its revisionist propaganda on Moses—which atavistically gives Israeli, right-wing, jackboots the same justification to steal land and kill Palestinians today). That is if we can be led to believe Jews must have their own nation state, to be strictly Jewish, and it can be acquired by any criminal method that works—that is they have a preemptive right to own nuclear weapons, bash up recalcitrant Palestinian homes as they steal their land, and even torture in their own prison systems (see OCCUPATION101.COM).
Yes for years films have come out of Hollywood depicting Arabs as camel jockeys or cardboard characters on a terrorist bent. Even such organizations as Simon Weisenthal Center showed films like the Clarion Fund’s “Obsession” which promotes Islamo-phobia. Or if you were to study which syndicated columnists, in U.S. Jewish-American owned newspapers, used terms like “Islamo-terrorist” or “Islamo-fascist” the most over the last years, you’d find these terms especially used by Jewish columnists (not exclusively but the Jewish propaganda machine has been alive and well here in the United States). And this clamoring hate machine, that never gets cited by ADL for hate crimes, extends to the likes of Michael Savage on talk-radio, as one hate-mongering demagogue, who helped “create” the latent hatred and fear of Arabs and Islamists, that when the gloves came off, our personnel in secret prisons allowed murder to ensue (not just the water-boarding that the MSM so focused as a kind of cover). So perhaps this culture’s anxiety is looking for scapegoats in history to project elsewhere—and what better subject than the Nazi’s treatment of Jews—that is while Israelis steal more resource and land settlements and get their own oil pipeline from northern Iraq?
We should be asking why all these films lately about Nazis when today’s politics is different? Or was it just a coincidence that the two main German characters in The Reader movie were blonde—the reader himself as a youthful kid, who had some miraculous capacity to read, from youth’s naiveté, the correct pronunciation of any novel or book no-matter how foreign or difficult? And Kate Winslet as a kind of dumb ox blonde concentration camp boob? Was this casting merely coincidence—branching the dumb blonde German to that of the extremely cerebral—or was it playing on the cliché that “blondes” were the reason for Nazi’s Shoal that some find convenient because it fits their comfort zone? Yet neither character was believable—even if it was an interesting plot. No young man (not even a Bar Mitzvah child candidates working on his Ph.D. these at the age of 12) can automatically read that well. And attractive blonde women don’t need to seduce young men—they always have men chasing their skirts.
Furthermore most of the top Nazis were brunette—not blonde. Hitler was Jewish and he had dark hair and dark eyes. So this brings us to the curiosity of why the young girl (supposedly Jewish), who managed to escape from machine gun fire, while hiding underneath a floor, and who then escaped to Paris, in Tarantino’s film, evolve into the “typical” Hollywood Anglo-Saxon Barbie-doll blonde? How realistic is that that Melanie Laurent, with her non-Jewish goyim Teutonic face, was chosen to play the blonde star in this Hollywood-like cinematography?
It was all so debonair. The dark colors in the movie house clashed dramatically against the whites and reds—it really looked like the Academy awards with everyone drinking Champaign. Yes there were plenty of brunette males milling around and partying just like at Academy awards, and of course the beauties that stood out the most were blonde babes in striking costume or just being a cigar tart—very Hollywood. Funny that Hitler’s blonde lady friend didn’t show?
But it is also quite a “Italian” thing to “readily” hire blonde women, for example, who know practically nothing about Italian lifestyle, food, or history, to play hostess, barmaid or bar-tender in an Italian restaurant—yet if you scoured 50 Italian restaurants you would not likely find “one” blonde male hired to work a customer relations job unless he truly was Italian (unless management was gay). Or, for that matter, it may be true that minorities better represent New York City in shows like Law and Order, but somehow there is always plenty of availability for Anglo-Saxon women to be on the legal team. Which is exactly why the minority of blonde males in the movie industry, like Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio, are encouraged to die their hair to a darker hue—so they can square off against “all” the blonde women who get employed in Hollywood.
Yes progressives, who are so into the promotion of advocating human rights for every “-ism” imaginable, will readily defer to what amounts to as the promotion of a blonde female aristocracy, while in this case, making a movie that smashed brains up because a Nazi ideology claimed a so-called Aryan race was superior? But how was it that so called “Aryans” from supposedly India become so conveniently Teutonic in the 20th century when Eastern Europe was more likely their land?
But this minor detail of actress choice shouldn’t arouse any curiosity. After all the racism card regarding superiority evolved after Darwin and then Herbert Spensor argued for a survival of the fittest—which led to a broader notion of racial superiority in Europe—that was not some exclusive idea held about blondes. This notion further led to the idea of the superiority of nation states and cultures in general.
And not surprisingly, if we take off gloves here a moment and ask—have not some Jews lately conceived their own notion that their culture is somehow superior? What exactly is it that allows for some minority of American-Jews, especially the Neocons, to disdain the very idea of representative democracy or a republic, by promoting deceit of the masses, and working for goals the basically ruin the American experiment, if it seems to benefit Israel, so that we can continue to “devolve” to a right-wing notion of fascism and criminality that now seems to dominate in this culture? And isn’t that what the Old Testament really exemplifies—the idea that a God can be like a tyrant while castigating his subjects like a tin-pot dictator, but still claiming the moral high ground (read Jonathan Kirsch’s Moses: A Life)?
Yes the whole Leo Strauss notion is to lie to the people, to trick them by deceit—id est to criminalize the government, while mobilizing against an outside enemy, and to close off the territory to outsiders. It is a notion that has no respect for equal rights or the questioning of authority.
But nobody is suppose to question the Zionist project or the so called “right” of Israel (as a theocratic state that pretends to be a democracy) to exist. Yes obviously the Jewish culture has a unique set of circumstances such as persecution and the Shoal to deal with but since when if the psychology of Judaism and the Tree of Knowledge too forbidden to examine?
Yet it seems more than ironic, given that so many Jews have gone secular, because their reading and research has led then to realize the Bible is at best myth, have come to appreciate such philosophers as Nietzsche, despite the accusation he inspired the Nazis, and Nietzsche’s “rejection” of the herd mentality and Christianity’s rejection of any kind of elitism. Yet when it comes to Zionism “all” Jews are expected to “conform” to the plan no matter how retrograde (just like the cattle we call Congress).
But the problem is this—Judaism promotes scholarship because of the heavy emphasis on reading the Torah and other religious literature—and since reading is so highly valued in Jewish culture—Jews have studied every kind of philosophy and politics and therefore have a higher rate of dissent against their religion—basically motivated by the reality that their religion is intuitively repressive—and the look for alternative realities to explain life—that is there will always be Jews who rebel against the totalitarian notions and demands that their right-wing diehards expect—even if there are still many who conform to the herd mentiality. That is Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote the truth on the AIPAC lobby. That is why Seymour Hersh wrote Chain of Command, and why Jonathan Kirsch wrote the definitive story on Moses. That is why Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s secret Dimona nuclear base, and why Finkelstein wrote about the Holocaust industry, and why Sand Schlomo wrote an alternative history of the Jewry in Europe, etc.
The fact is the dike is breaking, and it is not just because Nietzsche, the isolationist who could not compromise to any society, declared that God is dead. Nietzsche was both right and wrong. He was right in the fact that the Judeo-Christian God was dead—and halleluiah to that truth since the God of the Abrahamic religions spurred on so much repression based on an authoritarian judgmentality. (This idea is confined to a rational intelligence class—not the American Theocracy that David Phillips so well and alarmingly describes in his book—in which case one has to wonder why right-wing Jews would be courting these nutcases).
Still God as mystery and as fate is not dead and never will be. For example we are all dependant on an ecological system that we have but little choice to appreciate. So while fanatics are marching in lockstep toward nuclear Armageddon for end times we loose all perspective on putting our best scientists to work on energy alternatives.
Furthermore, there is little to nothing particularly profound in the Old Pentateuch—that is if you are not into reading all the tribal lineage of who was the son of whom as ancestry. The Bible is basically one culture taking history and giving it a cosmic spin—any culture can do that—in fact many of its ideas are borrowed from neighboring civilizations. Rather the reason Jews are smart is because they have historically interacted with many cultures, languages, histories, and ideas, such as those of the Hellenes, and all sort of writers and thinkers—not because of some excessive wisdom of their religion or of some DNA connection. They have, in essence, been culturally adulterated and no retroactive building of Eden will change the fact.
Still we have a serious issue when people like Dershowitz, as a Harvard law professor, writes defenses for Israel that are dishonest, and when we have rabbis like Elliot Abrams, who recently is quoted to have said something to the effect that Americans will now tolerate an attack on Iran (obviously referring to a current propaganda campaign). And this is a guy who, under the George W. Bush Whitehouse, had a job title that included human rights liaison! Where is Ahmadjinedad’s U.N. speech September 23rd in American Newspapers?
But especially since 9-11 our culture has found cause to engage a major campaign of harassment and persecution of everything Islamic here in the United States. These “dark-skinned” Semites of the Levant are presumed guilty by profiling—as if there are no passages in the Hebrew Torah or Christian Bible that could be interpreted as terrorist or threatening to other cultures? Or as if the labeling of terrorism was strictly a biased state of affairs—such as not noting the bombing of a British hotel in the so called Holy Land as modern Israel was being reconstituted.
So it like some people were thinking—we can’t have these Islamists moving to the United States and getting friendly with Americans. They come over here and buy up liquor stores and hotels—and perhaps they will eventually want in to other profitable businesses. Plus they have their own counter-arguments about Middle Eastern politics.
After all the U.S. has been such a cash cow for a few select countries, especially Israel, and Israel’s constant histrionic history of crisis, and their constant reference to the Shoal, and their psychology of blackmail by quilt-tripping, and what seems to be a secret disdain of Christians and dumb Americans. And how interesting that Jewish politics on American campuses lately corresponds to a campaign to “censure” anyone who criticizes the policies or Israel or trying to get people fired for the same reason?
Apparently some thought this country was getting “too” liberal by such notions of treating all ethnic groups as equals—not like in Israel in which you have to be Jewish to be a real citizen (of course that’s not genetically so or most of the “Caucasian” Jews of Russia, Europe of the United States would never be allowed to be part of that culture since the original peoples came from Ur, Iraq with Abraham—that is according to the myth). And you wouldn’t have people singing songs at Christmas time about Goldie Hawn being Jewish.
But the point is that we are at another critical point in history in which our leaders are basically being tricked into going to war which will likely turn into a “major” world war, because again the same behind the scenes pressure groups are blackballing our country with more propaganda of a nuclear threat—this time in Iran. Despite the changing of parties in power, and the changing of the Presidency, the same pattern of lies reappears almost as a duplicate replay of what happened leading up to war with Iraq, and again it is right-wing puppeteers promoting big military contracts and Neocon types who are pushing this war. Is this why we keep getting Nazi films lately since 9-11?
But now at least The American Conservative magazine has come out with a story the mainstream media has been suppressing—the Sibel Edmonds story in which she tells us that Israeli and closely tied Turkey spies have been stealing nuclear secrets and are involved in mafia-like activities.
So it is puzzling why we are sending troops to Afghanistan to fight Taliban terrorists who “might” get their hands on nuclear weapons when such theft is going on in our own back yard? Besides the only thing we have done in Afghanistan is re-open the heroin trade that the Taliban and Bin Laden had shut down—which you argue seems hostile to some.
One can argue a potential oil pipeline from Turkmenistan to Karachi is reason enough to stay in Afghanistan—but it is not likely. The facts on the ground unequivocally show that since our invasion in 2001 the heroin trade has blossomed 20-fold and we have done nothing about it, and this reality must mean that some mafias and money launderers are making a killing, and feel the profits are worth American and NATO lives. Maybe investigative journalists ought look more at this angle?
Meanwhile the British government, via Tony Blair, lied so what ever Gordon Brown says as staged event ain’t worth nothing. Nor is France’s Sarkozy a dis-interested party. Furthermore the competition for fuel in current and future times is equally competition “between” Western countries, and so other European countries, such as France or Germany, have no reason to cry a crocodile’s tear if we blunder badly militarily or economically or both. So this tack were steering leads us up to a major war, which is like a trick.
The truth is that America really has “no” friends—zero—nada—and Israel is not a friend of the U.S. unless you think dysfunctionality and co-dependency relationships equal friendship. No one will care if we collapse to a Euro-dollar. Afghan involvement or war in Iran can lead to little good—it is far too much vulnerability. And even if the axis of Israel and U.S. manage to pull off a destruction of Iran without retaliation from who knows where—it does not change the realities of Israel’s politics.
Furthermore, the fact that the U.S. put the brutal Shah into power and allowed him to reign for a quarter century, directly related to oil politics in Iran, doesn’t bode that well with Obama’s preaching to Iranians about democratic principles. It is hollow as D.C is corrupt.
But I’m sure street-smart, Lt. Aldo Raine from the slave-holding south with its Southern Baptists, had he lived in the U.S. today, could sp’lain all this to us all, in his good-old-boy plain Tennessee vernacular—that is to us less than sophisticated American bumpkins—even if he has to write a little pulp fiction to get up to par?
Report this post as: