Database of Politically Incorrect Films

[Igor Alexander]

I'm starting this list for mainstream movies that have politically incorrect themes but that don't necessarily qualify as pro-white.

[Igor Alexander]

(Warning: The following descriptions contain spoilers.)

Jaded (1996). Carla Gugino plays a woman who is brutally raped by lesbians. It may sound like the plot to an exploitation movie, but this is not an exploitation movie. Most of the story revolves around bringing the rapists to justice. The movie ends with the text: "Today, many states have changed the laws governing rape in the first degree to read 'person' and not 'man'. This modification finally takes into account the viewpoint of the victim, who feels raped regardless of the gender of the assailant." The movie's tagline was, "Not Every Sexual Predator Is A Man." I'm not sure what the filmmakers, who are female (and one of whom only seems to have been able to get work producing softcore porn after this), were trying to do with this movie, but I'm sure it didn't meet with the approval of Big Sister.

The Wicker Man (2006). It was while watching this remake of the 1973 horror classic that I came to realize that Nicolas Cage is a terrible actor. Just awful. But that's beside the point. This is not a faithful remake of the original, but puts its own anti-feminist spin on the story. Cage, playing a cop, is the patriarchal figure of the movie. He gets lured onto an island where it turns out that the community is being run by a coven of witches. The society on this island is unmistakably matriarchal; there are constant references to honey bees and beehives, and the few men on the island are essentially drones who are subservient to the females. In the end, we discover that Cage was lured onto the island for the purpose of being sacrificed. Basically, this movie is about a feminist utopia (or dystopia, if you happen to be a man).

Mother of Tears (2007). This is the third installment of Dario Argento's "three mothers" trilogy, the first two being Suspiria and Inferno. Argento might be a Jew, as I think "Argento" may translate to "Silver." The main character is played by Asia Argento, Dario's daughter. Asia has looked good in the past, but here she looks as though she just got off a six month heroin binge. There are some gratuitous homosexual characters, which seems to be an Argento trademark (though these characters always end up being murdered in sadistic ways; one wonders if Argento is sympathetic or hostile towards homosexuals).

Unlike Suspiria and Inferno, the story here actually makes sense and is relatively easy to follow; but what this movie gains in coherence, it loses in the atmosphere and striking visuals of its predecessors. For the first half hour, I thought Mother of Tears was going to be really good, but then it turned into the usual corny, predictable horror movie fare, and with an anticlimactic ending to boot. For some reason Argento decided to cast a homely chick with breast implants as the main antagonist, who I'm guessing was supposed to come off as a femme fatale. It didn't work for me. There was also something weird about the film quality; I wonder if this wasn't shot in "HD" rather than on real film.

Artistic merit aside, the reason I'm including it here is because it pits the forces of good (law and order, civilization), represented by the Church (patriarchal), against the forces of evil, represented by a coven of witches (matriarchal). And to make sure the viewer doesn't miss the point, the queen of the coven is impaled by a huge, phallic obelisk near the end. There is also an allusion to Pandora's box at the beginning of the movie, when a woman, unable to restrain her curiosity, breaks the rules and opens a chest that wasn't destined to her, releasing the third mother into the world and starting the Apocalypse.

Barfly (1987). Mickey Rourke plays the character of Henry Chinaski, the alter ego of real-life writer Charles Bukowski, who also wrote this film. Henry Chinaski is a poet and writer living on skid row who basically does nothing throughout the whole film but fuck, fight, and get drunk in a variety of seedy Los Angeles bars. That's it. That's the entire movie! It may sound like a downer, but it has an odd charm to it. It's so rare nowadays to see a movie that unapologetically shoves such raw maleness in the viewer's face. A movie like Barfly wouldn't get made today.

Charles Bukowski was almost certainly of Jewish descent, but still, I'd have to rank this as being among my favorite movies. I love the line "It's a cage with golden bars," which Henry Chinaski replies when a wealthy woman wants him to move in with her and clean up his act. Fight Club eat your heart out.

These movies are probably all available on torrent:
http://btjunkie.org/
http://isohunt.com/

[Kievsky]

A Russian movie with English subtitles called "Brother"



Here you can get it cheap:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...83&refid=store

He comes back from teh Chechen war and finds his brother in St. Petersburg Russia, and kills Chechen gangsters who are collecting racket money from honest Russian vegetable marketers.

There's a sequel, Brat 2, where he comes to America and kills groids and rescues a Russian prostitute from black pimps and brings her back to Russia. At the airport, the customs agent tells her, "you overstayed your visa, you won't be able to come back (to America)" she says, "That's fine" and off they go. I think that's the last line of the movie, so it's a nationalistic message. Unfortunatley, Brat 2 doesn't have subtitles, but you still get the idea. There's a scene inspired from first person shooter video games, where he goes room to room shooting people, and all you see is his pistol and the victims getting blasted.

[Mark Faust]

Idiocracy - Most of you have seen this one......

An average well intentioned white man is put to sleep in a time capsule and wakes up 500 years in the future where, race mixing, lack of education and mass media has dumbed down the population so badly that the average IQ is at a clinically retarded level. The possibility of this coming this story coming true is so real that the Jews pulled this from the theaters and give it not a single mention anywhere.

[Gott]

The system is smart and doesn't make movies just for money. Except for really extraordinary circumstances, they don't allow politically incorrect films. Ever.

The only coherent exception in modern times is (you guessed it) the great Paul Verhoeven films: RoboCop, Showgirls and Starship Troopers.

Spielberg and Scorsese have each made many a titanic commercial flop (Scorsese has made two commercially successful films since 1991 - Good fellas and The Departed [and I'm not that sure about The Departed]. Spielberg has fewer failures, but still plenty, and his are as expensive (both directors spend top dollar and their flops lose tens of millions each). Yet these two don't-rock-the-boat Hollywood insiders get project after project going.

Of all Verhoeven's American films, only one was a bone fide box office failure - Showgirls. Three of his six American films made fortunes (RoboCop, Total Recall & Basic Instinct) and two at least broke even (Starship Troopers & Hollow Man).

Yet, Verhoeven is dead in Hollywood - precisely because his films are such overt attacks - scathing, condescending, sarcastic and ironic - on the dominant ideology.

Even if some of you guys can't see it, the Hollywood establishment definitely can and does, and also sees to it that Verhoeven isn't given any more opportunities to call it as it is.

There isn't a better illustration (etched in sulphuric acid) of the amerikan 'entertainment' (read prostitution/pimping) industry/racket than in Showgirls, or a more true to life portrait of today's moron millions than in Starship Troopers. Government/organized crime/big business as the same thing (RoboCop) - ditto - it cuts too close to the bone, no matter what the box office returns.

That his artistry - his ability to tell his stories and draw his characters visually, and the beauty of the imagery - are as superior as is his subject matter makes Verhoeven not just the best filmmaker of modern times, but just about the only one deserving of any thinking man's respect.

I'd write about other movies, if there were any other movies (modern ones) worth writing about. Just as painting and music are dead, so too is movie making. Today, movies are pretty much agit prop for third grade retards. And that goes for Idiocracy, which is a total zero in terms of how it's made (it don't get cruder) and what it looks like (it don't get uglier -ironically, this movie is an excellent example of the intellectual and artistic debasement it ostensibly illustrates). Subject matter is so gingerly treated and so fundamentally PC (it's white trailer park trash bloodlines we see charted at the start of the movie), that, duh, no one possibly could or would be offended. Free speech is offensive speech. Nothing about Idiocracy is offensive to anyone, almost everything about Showgirls and Starship Trooper is offensive, and intentionally so - they mean to cut deep and they do.

[Steve B]

Originally Posted by Gott

I'd write about other movies, if there were any other movies (modern ones) worth writing about. Just as painting and music are dead, so too is movie making. Today, movies are pretty much agit prop for third grade retards. And that goes for Idiocracy, which is a total zero in terms of how it's made (it don't get cruder) and what it looks like (it don't get uglier -ironically, this movie is an excellent example of the intellectual and artistic debasement it ostensibly illustrates). Subject matter is so gingerly treated and so fundamentally PC (it's white trailer park trash bloodlines we see charted at the start of the movie), that, duh, no one possibly could or would be offended. Free speech is offensive speech. Nothing about Idiocracy is offensive to anyone, almost everything about Showgirls and Starship Trooper is offensive, and intentionally so - they mean to cut deep and they do.

Why don't you do one of your stunning reviews of The Blue Max? I don't think it could be made today as it portrays (excepting the main character the ruthless Bruno Stachel) WW1 German fighter pilots as aristocratic and chivalrous.

Directed by John Guillermin with the jew Jerry Goldsmith doing the score.

[ben shockley]

Boondock Saints .... 'nuff said

Office Space... stereotypes women and minorities..

Fight Club.....bashes all feminist ideologies

[Bassanio]

If you can forget that it was meant to turn Americans against Iran, then 300 is one of the most politically incorrect Hollywood movies you'll ever see.

Troy is politically incorrect in that there isn't a single shitskin throughout the entire film, and Achilles is portrayed as an Aryan warrior and womanizer.


Of course the Lord of the Rings trilogy is also quite politically incorrect.

[floyd]

Taxi Driver

[Alex Linder]

movie: Longford

[This movie, & review by Oily John Zmirak, heads for Camp of the Saints territory]

Our Age's Reigning Sin: Now on DVD
by John Zmirak
12/02/08

Periodically I hear or read of a film that's a "must-see" for Catholics. Depending on who's recommending it, I'll find out that the film is essential because it:

* Affirms the sanctity of life. (Bella)
* Celebrates the fundamental goodness of every person, even the simplest. (Forrest Gump)
* Dramatizes a sacramental vision of life. (Babette's Feast)
* Tells the story of an important saint. (Therese, 1986)
* Depicts priests or religious as multi-dimensional people worth taking seriously. (Into Great Silence)
* Shows practicing, sacramental Catholics who are neither unlettered peasants nor Mafia kingpins, but likeable, smart Americans. (Return to Me)
* Powerfully tells the story of a conversion. (The Third Miracle)
* Gives "our side" of historical events that are typically slanted to fit some Black Legend or Whig Authorized Version. (A Man For All Seasons)
* Shows Catholics resisting the Nazis. (The Assisi Underground)

These are all important benefits, even if not all of the above are important films. And it's hard enough to find entertainment these days that's not embarrassing to watch in mixed company (let's leave out the question of kids). It's a bonus if such a film is not just inoffensive, but actually paints a world that we as believers can recognize. When I finished watching my favorite film of those I listed, The Third Miracle, the only way I could describe the experience to a friend was to say: "Imagine if all your life you'd been watching movies that pretended gravity didn't exist -- where people just floated around like Peter Pan. Then finally, finally, somebody makes a movie where objects fall to the ground and people have to use stairs. That's what this movie does for religion."

This week I'd like to commend for your holiday viewing a movie that offers none of those happy attributes: Longford. While it isn't profane or "dirty," I wouldn't suggest you pop it in and gather the kids, since one of the main characters is an infamous child-murderer. It's not a feel-good movie about the Church, since its Catholics are clearly in trouble. But I think Longford is essential viewing for Christian grown-ups of every variety, since it tackles what Mother Angelica called the "reigning sin of our time."

This vice isn't one of the Seven Deadly Sins, although it enables each of them. It's not exactly a heresy, although it gives heretics aid and comfort. A sharp, if hostile, observer -- Friedrich Nietzsche -- looked at Christianity and thought this error lay at the very heart of our ethics, which led him to label ours a "slave morality." And wherever this vice takes over a Christian's heart, slave morality is precisely what we’re practicing.

This vice is misguided compassion. That was the good sister's term for it, although St. Thomas might have "gone medieval" on this vice by describing it as Liberality and Meekness corrupted by neglect of the governing natural virtue, Prudence. An easier way to say all that is simply "mercy without justice." As we all know, that's not real mercy at all, and it's not what we expect from Christ on Judgment Day. As a lover of Byzantine art, I've seen plenty of icons depicting Our Lord enthroned as judge of the human race. He isn't grinning.

The movie Longford depicts misguided compassion gone horribly, wildly out of control -- to the point where it ruins lives and destroys the good name of decent people, all to serve the purposes of a manipulative criminal who wishes to make a mockery of justice. But the story it tells could serve as a microcosm of the postconciliar crisis in the Church, and the current futility of Catholic political activism in America. (Have I sold you yet? Are you ready to go rent the DVD and open the kettle corn?)

Frank Pakenham, the Seventh Earl of Longford, was a kind and pious man. Born a British aristocrat, he flouted public opinion by converting to Catholicism in 1940. An accomplished historian, loving husband, and nurturing father -- one of his many overachieving children is historian Antonia Fraser -- Lord Longford was also active in politics. Long a member of the British House of Lords -- and a convinced socialist -- he led campaigns against pornography and gay activism, in the face of widespread mockery in the press. (It didn't help, I guess, that he insisted on conducting widely publicized fact-finding tours in strip clubs, with journalists in tow. Did I mention that Longford lacked the virtue of prudence?)

Educational reformer, chronicler of the Irish war for independence, visionary moral crusader: For none of these things do Englishmen remember the Earl of Longford. Instead, they know him as the British lord who tried to get Myra Hindley out of jail. Hindley's name is still a watchword for hellish cruelty; she was convicted in 1966 along with her lover Ian Brady for jointly kidnapping, sexually abusing, torturing, and murdering five children -- whose anguished cries they tape-recorded. The Moor Murders, and the subsequent trials, were the media sensation of the middle 1960s, and neither Hindley nor Brady showed remorse at their public trial. The two were sentenced to life in prison.

And that's where poor Longford came in. As a deeply religious Catholic, the Earl made a point of visiting prisoners -- which, you might remember, is one of the Corporal Works of Mercy. What you might also recall from Catechism class is that it nowhere says you have to try to get the prisoners out, assuming they're guilty. That distinction eluded the good Lord Longford, who responded to a letter from Myra Hindley requesting a visit.

As the film depicts their dawning (fawning?) friendship, it is clear that Hindley is a brilliant manipulator, skilled at reading Longford's character and telling him what he most wants to hear: That she is deeply, profoundly sorry for what she did. That she was an abused child, seized and dominated by a strong, sadistic lover, who forced her to take part in the murders. Oh yes, and that she is deeply attracted to Longford's Catholic faith. Would he consider sending her some Catholic books, including her in his prayers, and returning for future visits?

Soon Longford is traipsing back and forth between the House of Parliament and a dingy women's prison, listening wide-eyed to Hindley's fabricated accounts of her spiritual progress, and flattering himself for his attraction to "the most despised, most marginalized members of society." What he leaves aside is the fact that some people are marginalized and despised for very good reason; looking only at Hindley's suffering at the hands of her (rightly disgusted) fellow prisoners, he sees her as a kind of Christ figure, and he proceeds to take her on his personal cross. Convinced that she has been rehabilitated -- forgetting that prison's first and most urgent task is punishing guilt and offering victims and society justice -- he launches a campaign to win her parole.

The results are predictable, and they play out in the film like a slow-motion train wreck of the Little Choo-Choo That Could. Longford squanders his political influence (which could have done significant good), nearly wrecks his marriage, humiliates his family, outrages and pains the parents of the murdered children, and becomes a public laughingstock. Even when Hindley's accomplice shows Longford letters where she mocks him and makes light of her repentance, the Earl continues his efforts. Which, thankfully, are futile: At story's end, we see Hindley dying in prison, admitting that her conversion was a sham -- reminiscing, indeed, about the murders, which taught her this: "That evil can be a spiritual experience, too." Indeed it can.


The first thing this movie reminded me of was the story of all those bishops (some two-thirds of current American prelates) whose criminal folly reassigned "penitent" sex abusers to parishes. Then I thought of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, smiling vaguely as he endorsed the use of Islamic sharia in England. After that, I remembered those clerics and columnists who blathered on throughout the 1980s about the "seamless garment" that somehow made support for legal abortion morally equivalent to favoring budget cuts in Medicaid. And I thought of the time a papal speechwriter compared rejecting economic migrants to destroying unborn children. And so on, through the long detour so many Christians took through genuine slave morality. By the film's end, I favored the death penalty -- for Longford.

Then the movie's message turned and smacked me in the face. I remembered the times I myself had won cheap grace by engaging in fake compassion -- the kind that disregards the truth, vitiates justice, and treats the virtue of prudence as something stuffy or unheroic. (You and I are above such worldly concerns.) Specifically, I remembered how I'd listened to a long series of implausible, heartrending sob stories from someone who craved my time, attention, and treasure -- and dangled before me the prospect that she might "come back into the Church."

I don't know if this has ever happened to you, but it happens to me: The prospect of "saving" a soul, of leading someone to Christ, is a heady temptation indeed -- one designed to fool those who've conquered more straightforward sins. (Dorothy Sayers famously wrote that Satan is at his most dangerous when he attacks us through our virtues.) This heavenly prospect can overwhelm rational judgment, blind you to contrary evidence, numb the self-protective instinct, shunt aside prudent counsels to "avoid evil company," and end up in scandal and squalor.

In my case, I introduced this potential "convert" (who later turned out to be a textbook sociopath and compulsive liar) to close and trusted friends. Friends who trusted me -- and expected that I would use good judgment in choosing my associates. The least outrageous outcome? She bilked one friend out of thousands of dollars, and stole another's identity to rob several thousands more. By the time I accepted the truth, the list of people who deserved my apologies was long and appalling.

So I have no room to throw stones at the Earl of Longford. His vice is as commonplace now as vengeance was in the age of dueling, or bigotry during the Crusades. A predominant sin, the one that rules an epoch, is rarely obvious to those who were raised to find it natural, normal -- even praiseworthy. It's like a toxic ozone that hangs over our heads, clouding our thoughts and blurring the light of day. It takes works of art to blow away the fog. Longford is that kind of artwork. For my penance this Advent, I'll watch it again.

John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the graphic novel The Grand Inquisitor and is Writer-in-Residence at Thomas More College in New Hampshire. He writes weekly for InsideCatholic.com.

Readers have left 12 comments.

This remind me of the point often made by ethicist Stanley Hauerwas that those who are most committed to "being good" are the most prone to self-deception, an inclination we all should take into consideration. I agree with your assessment of "The Third Miracle," by the way, which I thought quite remarkable when it came out, as you say, for its realism.
Written by Deal Hudson

I just stumbled across a comment by p.D. James about Hindley. Can't find the quote but the essence was that if Hindley had truly come to grips with what she'd done, she wouldn't want to be released. I saw Longford some time back, and found myself totally befuddled by Lord Longford. Thank you fro this article which gives the issue some context for further consideration.
Written by Mary Pav

The Third Miracle and Longford to my Netflix list. Thank you, Mr. Zmirak.
Written by Kirt Higdon

Thank you for your interesting post - food for thought indeed. I'm curious to know your opinion of the movie in which Susan Sarandon plays a nun fighting to keep murderers off death row - I don't recall the name of the film. I'd also like to see MANY more movies like "Return To Me", as I agree with your assessment of that film completely.
Written by nan

Charity/agape wills the best for the person loved. And that means it wills justice and the truth.

My fellow school teachers will relate how, when we demand from our students high standards of conduct and scholarship, parents (who otherwise neglect or indulge their brats) accuse us of lacking "compassion".

H. Emmett Tyrell (I'm probably not spelling his name correctly) back in the 1980s observed that Samuel Johnson was wrong: The last refuge of a scoundrel isn't patriotism (Johnson meant "nationalism") but compassion. Ambrose Bierce corrected Johnson to say that nationalism was the FIRST such refuge. Bierce too was wrong.

Tyrell wryly commented how he would attend dinner parties where he was forced to endure the prideful monologues of a dinner guest, usually a woman, about how compassionate she was, and thus how she ought be for this admired. Tyrell usually took refuge in the wine. And Tyrell also perceptively has said that despite all their poesy about compassion, the capacity of "liberals" (by which I mean the "useful idiots" of Cultural Marxists) to hate with such intensity is quite breathtaking. I myself have never experienced "the principle pleasure of New England", hate, to such a degree as among "liberals". Our Lord's attack on the Pharisees was more than an attack on hypocrisy; one can become so convinced of one's own goodness that one can decide that one doesn't need the Grace of God anymore, or (even worse), that one is God.

This is one of Dr. Z's best articles. Thanks.
Written by Sid

I think the Susan Sarandon movie was "Dead Men Walking". Funny - that movie was supposed to be somewhat of an apologia against the death penalty, but I came away from it more persuaded in favor of it.

Was "Return to me" the one where the dead wife's heart was given to Minnie Driver and she falls for the husband? Loved it! That group of old men made that movie!
Written by Jason

John I have really come to appreciate your thought provoking and excellent writing.

You hit on a topic of which I have much interest and without question my own share of guilt. I’ve long been a sucker for “compassion” with or without justice. You helped me see a well needed blind spot in myself.

What hit me most in your piece is how “normal” it has now become, especially with its cousin, false (misguided) goodness. In this culture of “celebrity is God”, all it takes is a foreign adoption, audience car giveaway, a school in Africa, or even the promise of free national welfare, and all other sins of the giver become null and void.

The new messiah (s) then have the celebrity stage to influence the culture in the “null and void sins, for after all, they CAN’T be sins, the person is a saint by virtue of the “goodness.” So, as we are led on our merry way into new age hell, Marxism, “altruistic cloning”, or any avenue of darkness, we keep being reassured, by warped rationalization, that “it’s all for the greater good", while the culture assures us the smallest good trumps all.

All said, false compassion fosters false goodness, and false goodness fosters moral relativism, and then it gets really scary. Why? Because the only unforgivable sin is not thinking that we have one, of which without repentance, there is little to no hope of salvation.

Great article John, thanks. I will now be much more aware of the perils of false compassion.
Written by Klaire

Thanks for this piece.

One of my favorite moments of compassion: Jesus, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, calling them hypocrites and a brood of vipers. I'm not being sarcastic. The word "compassion" literally means "suffering with," that is, feeling in an act of imagination what another person is feeling, or is not feeling. That means that I have to get partly inside someone else's sin. I have to understand, from within, what it is like to be so degraded, or so false, or so culpably stupid, or so selfish -- whatever it may happen to be. It is not a nice thing, this sort of compassion. That's why we hate it so much, and substitute for it the parody -- where we shut our imaginations off, block the real sins out of our vision, and pretend to feel for someone else, when really we're only feeling for ourselves.
Written by Tony Esolen

Compassion come from com = with + patior = to suffer. So compassion means to enter into and share the suffering of another, regardless of whether such compassion actually removes the suffering.

I appreciate the movie reference. Another example from literature is to compare the actions of Atticus and Stuart in Hansen's
Atticus. One enters the suffering of his son, although knowing he cannot alleviate the debt his son owes (and indeed he still goes to jail at the end). The other gives a token to a single beggar, more to assuage his guilt than to actually share the suffering of the unfortunate.

Our Lord - always the perfect model of virtue - enters into our sin by becoming sin (in the words of St. Paul) and dies on the cross. He certainly could have removed our sin with no cost to himself, but that is not the way of our compassionate God. He walks with us through the valley of tears and death, sharing our suffering and making it bearable when we accept his true compassion.
Written by James Nicholson

Actually, false compassion does correspond to one of the seven deadly sins: pride, the mother of them all. It consists, after all, in refusing to admit that what you do not want to be true might be true. And is that not a prideful attitude?
Written by Michael Healy, Jr.

I've been suspicus of people who make a prectice of congatulating themselves on their compassion ever since I worked on a pediatric rehabilitation unit in the 80s. One of the most common reactions I used to get when I told people where I worked was "Oh, I could never do that. I just love children too much." or "I'm just too tender hearted" or the very slightly more honest "I would just feel too sorry for them" or some such self-serving justification. The people who uttered these gems never seemed to think it was odd to point to their 'compassion' as the reason they would stay away from the children who were its supposed objects. They were too caught up in praising themselved to understand that what they were calling 'compassion' was nothing more that sentimental self-indulgence.
Written by CO

Thank you Tony & James for your clear insight.

You bring up an insightful point that most of our "compassionate" acts and gift "giving" are actualy rooted in selfishness which we do not recognize within ourselves.

Mother Teresa realized that Americans' greatest poverty is lack of charity for others due to selfishness.

False compassion is woven throughout the fabric of our nation as reflected in goods & services advertised plus the fairytale notion that in life all are winners regardless of individual culpability. Everyone gets a 1st Prize Blue Ribbon.

Is the massive push by Pharmacutical companies of legal drugs really for the good of society? What about animals being elevated past the level of dignity ascribed for human beings where we protect endangered turtle eggs, but allow & encourage the murder of human babies in the name of choice or a more affluent lifestyle? What about freedom of speech to include hate speech or other destructive agendas in the name of fairness?

What about greedy shoppers trampling to death a Wal-Mart employee with no one stopping to help??...all for bargain electronic inanimate products. What about "compassionate" loan companies giving credit to all people so that all people can own homes?? What about "spreading the wealth" so everyone can have the unecessary items our advetisers say we must have and can't live without?? Phone contracts and Ipods?? As handy as these items are we as a nation pay a great price in the formation of our future genertions becoming totally self-absorbed and out of touch with any type of charitable acts.

Pope John Paul II said that a culture of life & love is other-centered while a culture of death is self-centered.
Capitalism without moral grounding and boundaries is destructive to the good of society as a whole. Our values have been turned topsy turvey; so that we can no longer properly discern even the basics of what is good & what is evil.
Written by Baby Rose

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/ind...4990&Itemid=48

[Dan Allan]

Conan the Barbarian, the good guy is Austrian (Schwarzenegger) and the bad guy is Negro (James Earl Jones).

Pretty weird for Hollyweird.

[Karl Lueger]

"A Russian movie with English subtitles called "Brother"

I have both with subs..

the only others I saw are LoTR and Troy...

[elbwgreez]

Originally Posted by floyd

Taxi Driver

Goodfellas too.

"You know who goes to jail? Nigger stick-up men. You know why? Cause they fall asleep in the getaway car."

Then, later in the same movie, Sam Jackson plays a character that does just that. Joe Pesci shoots him a half dozen times in the head.

[Gott]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

movie: Longford

[This movie, & review by Oily John Zmirak, heads for Camp of the Saints territory]

Our Age's Reigning Sin: Now on DVD
by John Zmirak
12/02/08

contents excised...as an act of mercy.

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/ind...4990&Itemid=48

This boring pile of shit is so typical of what passes for logic (this is a 'movie' review, right?), intellectual capacity (it takes this avalanche of words to make this tiny little point?), and cultural sophistication (apparently, the film medium exists solely to communicate obvious, heavy handed and completely unambiguous 'messages,' being basically an audio visual aid for third grade retards).

In reading through this mountain of tripe, I don't recall a single reference to the fact that the writer actually WATCHED a movie. If the article wasn't prefaced by 'movie review' how would anyone know this? It's the standard English Department thematic reading of a script, which is only one aspect of what a movie is, unless we are talking about a BAD movie. In which case, why would anyone waste their time writing about it in the first place?

Oh, yeah, because, theoretically, it communicates OUR ideology. How nice it does so with sort of an embedded fairness doctrine in that it is as obvious and as heavy handed as the agit prop coming from the other ideological perspective. The playing field is level, each side equally stupid.

Art, even just plain old entertainment, is a little more that these crude billboard messages targeting the mind set of the moron millions.

I don't need to go to some fucking movie to be straightened out ideologically, and I doubt in the extreme that the unconverted will flock to this film and leave the theaters on our side. it's just another fucking pretentious, arty movie looking for some newish angle to exploit in the search for bucks.

If this subject matter interests anyone, ah, why not READ A BOOK about it? Movies are designed to sway the emotions. If the facts are what you want, reading is a much more objective way of getting them.

There is one good Catholic movie director - the lefties mostly hate him because of it. His name is Ermanno Olmi and he makes rich, ambiguous, deeply interesting films centered on rounded characters, not ambulating ideological bill boards. Il Posto and The Tree of Wooden Clogs are both on DVD and are excellent films.

[Alex Linder]

Zmirak I find funny because he admitted to reading Camp of the Saints every year. Every year. Yet he lacks the guts to acknowledge that Raspail is right. And in this review he also gives a nod to Nietzsche's view of Christianity as a slave morality. But yet, the guy churns this stuff out by the barrel. To me he's a classic example of why you cannot be a Christian and a man. You must make a choice. He knows that Raspail and Nietzsche are right about race and Christianity but he can't acknowledge it. Wouldn't be good for his career. That makes him a career-girl fag, like Sam Francis.

[Agis]

Originally Posted by Gott

Of all Verhoeven's American films, only one was a bone fide box office failure - Showgirls. Three of his six American films made fortunes (RoboCop, Total Recall & Basic Instinct) and two at least broke even (Starship Troopers & Hollow Man).

Yet, Verhoeven is dead in Hollywood - precisely because his films are such overt attacks - scathing, condescending, sarcastic and ironic - on the dominant ideology.

Basic Instinct was anti-white ("blonde poison" aryan Stone), pro-jew (kike cop Douglas) propaganda. The only difference between it and the usual trash is that it is well made:

youtube.com/watch?v=kHUJ1Fg9W4w

Verhoeven impresses me as a competent European artist of the anti-american snob school willing to work for the kikes when the money's good enough, so long as they let him do it his way.

[floyd]

Francis Ford Copolla is a catholic and made some unpc movies like The Godfather part 2, where the mobster stands up and says to sell drugs to the niggers because they are animals, lmao.

[Gott]

Originally Posted by Agis

Basic Instinct was anti-white ("blonde poison" aryan Stone), pro-jew (kike cop Douglas) propaganda. The only difference between it and the usual trash is that it is well made:

youtube.com/watch?v=kHUJ1Fg9W4w

Verhoeven impresses me as a competent European artist of the anti-american snob school willing to work for the kikes when the money's good enough, so long as they let him do it his way.

You bet he is anti-american. And why shouldn't he be as this place is and has been for way, way longer than any of us have been alive: TOXIC IN THE EXTREME.

And he was just as anti-dutch when he was making movies there. The arty crowd hated him for making vulgar commercial films, and the special interest groups hated him (cripples, gays, feminists - vis a vis Spetters in particular and his movies in general) for calling things as he saw them instead of according to the PC playbook. He loathes the status quo, and as I loathe the status quo, I like his movies. They express the same hatred I feel, but way better than I ever could, and with the wickedest irony.

He is no snob though, he's a slob - you can't be more unpretentious than Paul.

I like Verhoeven because his movies are not ideological. They are character studies, not political billboards. Basic Instinct (which is - as he has always said - an absurd movie but elegantly made [astonishingly so]), is not about a bad woman and a good man, Aryan or non Aryan. Verhoeven doesn't take any ideological side - he's not ideological - he's neutral, he's objective.

It is a grim character study of three people who are not what they initially appear to be, and who we can never feel we understand or know. Douglas' character is presented as a fucked up guy who has been way into the dark side in the past, and who goes right back into it when he meets Catherine (Stone). The Jennie Trippletorn (sp?) character is presented exactly the same way - what we first feel about her we must progressively alter as he gives us more and more troubling, disturbing information.

The movie is a very nifty mind fuck for intelligent viewers as the deeper you go the more you realize that what you think/feel about all three main characters is wrong. As you are getting your bearings on them at any given moment, Verhoeven (and Esterhaz, the writer) present more information still, that undercuts your most recent reading. It's fucking maddening after a while, and I don't much like the movie because of it (and it's really bleak view of people).

It's like peeling off the layers of an onion. When you get to the center of this onion, you arrive at three dissembling, sexually obsessive, driven by blood lust human beings, so complex and ambiguous and so ambiguously (but not confusingly) presented as to be almost real people. They are all the exact opposite of PC movie characters who are either good or bad in relation to the dominant ideology. Here, they are all bad, if you must read it along these lines, or complex and with dark impulses if you read it without the good/bad tags.

Actually, Verhoeven shares 'our' basic view of people, realistic, based on observation not fantasy, and in which humanity's dark side is not discounted because of some shitty Utopian political agenda. We are animals, we eat other animals, we kill, we hate and we lie - we have instincts because we are animals - thus the most logical title - Basic Instinct.

I don't quite understand your last comment. Why shouldn't he work for the kikes if they let him do it his way, especially if that way is reaming them up the ass? They finally figured him out and now know to not hire him, but he had a good run (unique for modern times) in which he took their money and used it to expose them. Basic Instinct isn't part of this, but it also isn't remotely along the jew agenda lines. RoboCop, Showgirls and Starship Troopers are actively and volcanically anti status quo.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

[Gott]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Zmirak I find funny because he admitted to reading Camp of the Saints every year. Every year. Yet he lacks the guts to acknowledge that Raspail is right. And in this review he also gives a nod to Nietzsche's view of Christianity as a slave morality. But yet, the guy churns this stuff out by the barrel. To me he's a classic example of why you cannot be a Christian and a man. You must make a choice. He knows that Raspail and Nietzsche are right about race and Christianity but he can't acknowledge it. Wouldn't be good for his career. That makes him a career-girl fag, like Sam Francis.

Hey, today, like almost everything else, 'Christian' doesn't mean anything at all. It's not a slave morality or mentality today because it means /stands for nothing. Whatever you are, whatever you do (morally speaking), whatever you like....it's 'Christian.' Can you find a more feel good religion?

I've asked people I know who call themselves Christian, or Catholic, to tell me what it means, and to a man/woman, they can't. When, occasionally, they do try to define it, I have to work hard to not crack up as they are twisting themselves into verbal knots. These attempts to define always come down to a series of fortune cookie, extraordinarily vague, feel good generalities.

I have a cousin, who is sort of famous on the web as a kind of Anne Coulter (sp?) write alike contest winner. She (my cousin) has a thriving web site and a newspaper column that a few papers print.

She is a life long extreme alcoholic and bar fly, who spent (literally) decades of her life either getting smashed or sleeping it off in her bedroom in daddies house, where she still lives.

When the father who killed himself supported his worthless wife and kids was dying of cancer and trying to crawl up the stairs to his bedroom to die (the only place he felt safe and secure against the jungle - that's what he called life), his piece of shit cunt wife, and his piece of shit cunt daughter shipped him off to the glue factory (current euphemism: hospice). When she told me this at my uncle's funeral (in a drunken, sniveling stupor) I had to fight hard to not cry, kill her or throw up. He was a really great guy - the first person in my life to defend A. Hitler and call him a great man.

Anyway, my cousin finds nothing amiss in calling herself a Catholic now. She writes columns about the blessed Pope. See what I mean about anything you want it to be, anything goes, anything is just fine?

It's as dead as everything else in the world today. And deservedly so, except so much of Western culture and sense of self derive from it. And, for centuries, it was a bulwark protecting our people from alien outsides. Yes, it murdered classical antiquity along with its Aryan belief systems, but there is also that other side.

Anyway, shit, I gotta get back to work.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Gott

When the father who killed himself supported his worthless wife and kids was dying of cancer and trying to crawl up the stairs to his bedroom to die (the only place he felt safe and secure against the jungle - that's what he called life), his piece of shit cunt wife, and his piece of shit cunt daughter shipped him off to the glue factory (current euphemism: hospice). When she told me this at my uncle's funeral (in a drunken, sniveling stupor) I had to fight hard to not cry, kill her or throw up. He was a really great guy - the first person in my life to defend A. Hitler and call him a great man.

Anyway, my cousin finds nothing amiss in calling herself a Catholic now. She writes columns about the blessed Pope. See what I mean about anything you want it to be, anything goes, anything is just fine?

It's as dead as everything else in the world today. And deservedly so, except so much of Western culture and sense of self derive from it. And, for centuries, it was a bulwark protecting our people from alien outsides. Yes, it murdered classical antiquity along with its Aryan belief systems, but there is also that other side.

Anyway, shit, I gotta get back to work.

Good stuff, by Gott. That cunt sounds like some broad who used to write for WND. Conservawhores are the worst.

Your opinions on Verhoeven and his movies are interesting. Showgirls was universally panned. Have you commented on that? Seem to recall it was denounced as a contender for the worst movie ever made. I've only seen bits of it. Robocop and the van Dien bug movie were good, altho they didn't strike me politically. Maybe its age but seems like Hollywood can't even do a competent teen comedy like Ferris Bueller's Day Off or Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Don't like the older stuff featuring the sharp-nosed shark-lipped set speaking with English accent. I like some of the seventies stuff, like that jew Matthau movie about a bank robbery, Charlie Varrick. Seems like they quit casting people after that period.