Archives for posts with tag: Germanicus Fink

[Ideological Content Analysis is pleased to present a guest review of the psychoactive pseventies TV artifact The Point by Germanicus Fink.]

PointThe Point was the ABC movie of the week and aired on February 2nd, 1971. Since television was the most popular form of home entertainment at that time one can easily deduce that they wanted as many people as possible to see it. Also, since it was broadcast on a Tuesday evening rather than on a weekend, it’s also safe to assume they wanted young people to see it because, Tuesday being a school night they knew that most kids would be stuck at home.

This film was such an obvious instance of social engineering it’s actually kind of redundant that I’m even bothering to review its ideological content, but I think the fact most people have either long forgotten it or are too young to ever have seen it makes the endeavor somewhat worthwhile.

The movie was allegedly based on the Harry Nilsson album of the same name; but, considering the movie aired only a month after the album’s release, clearly the two projects were more closely intertwined than that.

PointNilssonNilsson, at least according to my facile research, was not himself Jewish, but Norm Lenzer who wrote the screenplay for the television movie, obviously is.

According to Nilsson, who was a pretty popular songwriter and musician in his day, the idea for this album was conceived when he was on acid and he had an epiphany where he said to himself, “Oh! Everything has a point, and if it doesn’t, then there’s a point to it.”. It must have been some weak acid if that was all he got out of it.

Actually, the acid story was likely a lie. It was very popular at the time to ascribe inspiration for well-known contemporary artistic works to drug experiences. The thinking was that these ideas were already out there, floating around in the zeitgeist, and that certain substances made you more sensitive to these ‘cosmic trends’. However, anybody with any idea of what’s actually going on knows this is nonsense and that really all these subversive concepts were deliberately injected into the mass consciousness by manipulative little Semitic trolls.

So, contrary to what your old, burned-out hippie aunt or art teacher tells you, things didn’t change all by themselves because the “time was right”. That kind of talk is all just empty-headed, new age baloney.

The feature is animated in that intentionally sloppy and scribbly style which was pretty common in the late 60s and early 70s. The songs were made to sound sedate and old-fashioned. There was a “nostalgia craze” around this time, an obvious reaction to all the new toxins our hostile elites were starting to force-feed us in ever increasing doses. Naturally, faced with all this new insanity most people pined away for simpler times when life actually made some sort of sense. Of course those Chosen hacks also cleaned up on exploiting that aspect of the madness they choreographed. They never miss an opportunity to turn a buck.

I’ve provided a link to this movie on Youtube. This version is narrated by Ringo Starr. They used Dustin Hoffman in the televised presentation, which I thought worked much better, but due to a contractual conflict they had to ditch him for the video release.

Anyway, on to the actual film:

PointOblioWe are shown a town where everything has a point, even the people. Everything and everyone has a point directed at the heavens until one day a child is born named Oblio, who has no point at all, just a round head. To compensate for his deformity, he wears a pointed cap while out in public.

Oblio is a happy, sociable, and well liked kid until one day, after being challenged to a game of “triangle toss” by the Count’s evil son, he soundly defeats him in front of a cheering crowd of their school mates. Triangle Toss is the official sport of the Pointed village and is played by catching a triangle on the point of one’s head. Since Oblio suffers an obvious handicap here, he is permitted to play assisted by his dog Arrow who has a long pointed snout.

Interesting side note here, keep in mind this was the early 70s so all these communist ideas had yet to take firm root in this country. Although all the pointed townsfolk are orange, the evil Count and his son are dark purple and the good guy, Oblio, is bright White. LOL!

The count is so outraged that Oblio defeated his son in front of all the young men in the town that he holds a tribunal and insists Oblio be banished from the town for “not having a point” which violates the letter of the law of the Pointed Village.

While this meeting is in session, we hear one of the women in the audience say to another woman who confessed to feeling sorry for Oblio, “Listen, neither one of us were born yesterday, and we both know that if we let one of Oblio’s kind stay, ugh, before long the whole village will be crawling with…”  I like how the opposition likes to quote things we may have said or thought back at us in a mocking way while always neglecting to explain exactly what is wrong or mistaken about such sentiments. This is a psychological trick they use. It’s enough to make us look or feel ridiculous. There is little need to give a cogent explanation of the facts of the matter after successfully having done that. Again, they always play directly on the emotions and entirely bypass rational thought.

Funny side note here: It seems that this movie is saying negroes are pointless.

In another scene soon after the above mentioned, some other woman was going on about what a polite kid Oblio was when a man interrupted her by saying, “Yeah, but would you want your daughter marrying one?”, and the woman responded by saying, “You are baiting me! You are deliberately baiting me!”, which, again, evades answering the question, “How would you feel about your offspring mixing your genes with a freak?” Concerns like these are not altogether as groundless as they would have you believe.

PointRingoThe tribunal decides, although reluctantly, to banish Oblio and his dog into the Pointed Forest which surrounds the village.

In the next scene we see the whole town gathered at the gate to see Oglio off. “Stay loose O!” we hear one person shout as he is leaving to the Pointed Forest and all the contrived adventures that await him.

Upon entering the Pointless Forest the first entity they encounter is a three-headed being called the Pointed Man who checks in with Oblio and his dog from time to time throughout the film. Evidently, even in the Pointless Forest one needs someone with a point to point things out to you, but according to this character himself, “To point in every direction is the same as having no point at all”. I really don’t know how people back then were able to even stomach this pretentious crap.

Later Oblio encounters a rock man who tells him, “Us stone folks are everywhere, just open your eyes and look around you. There’s a whole family of us rock folk”, and, “You don’t have to have a point to have a point”. I think by now we can all see where this is going and what the message is they are trying convey to the young people of 1971. It was only seven years since the Civil Rights Act, and six years after the Open Immigration Act so they were busily paving the way through the American mind toward that jewtopian, multicultural, gender-fluid Nirvana that was looming large on our collective horizon!

Then they discover a bottomless hole that throws a pie into their faces after singing them a song about loneliness. This one segment epitomizes the Semitic entertainment industry as a whole in my opinion.

After they venture deeper into the forest they meet an enterprising Jewish tree who claims to be in the leaf business and doesn’t want to let anyone step on his leaves claiming it costs him money because he turns “green leaves into greenbacks”. The Jewish tree then offers Oblio and Arrow what he assures them is a golden opportunity in the leaf business. However, when they inform him “they have no roots”, the Tree man retracts this offer.

PointCoverAfter this Oblio and his dog are abducted by a giant bird that deposits them on a giant egg. The huge egg then hatches, revealing an exceedingly small bird, whom Oglio tries to converse with. He interprets all his various squawks as questions and he strives to answer them all. This is the whole movie in a nutshell, answering questions nobody has bothered to ask in the first place.

The Pointed Man then shows up, and during the course of the mostly one-sided conversation he mockingly tells Oglio he’s “thinking”, and that “thinking is very destructive indeed! If a person does enough thinking, knowledge is sure to follow. The results, Sonny Boy, is a life of misery!”  That certainly would not result from this kind of ersatz thinking and questioning, which is more along the lines of a guided tour through a nursery. It avoids hard-hitting questions and, most importantly, does not question or interfere with the powers that be. Shoot a bit higher, however, and the results could be fatal! However, it’s perfectly safe to question your parents and religious leaders (unless you happen to be Jewish). Hell, you should question ALL authority! At least, that’s what they were telling us young folks back in the 1970s before these aliens completely commandeered the establishment.

After this corny exchange the Pointed Man again vanishes. Oblio wonders aloud where he always vanishes to and he pops back briefly to inform him, saying, “The Vanishing Point, naturally!”

Right after this he has to rescue Arrow, who has somehow slipped into this hidden dimension. (For some reason Jooz are obsessed with hidden dimensions and alternate realities. Something about their own deceptive natures possibly?) “That vanishing point. Hmpf! It only made it so I couldn’t see you, it didn’t make it so you really weren’t there!” Oblio muses to himself. Then he goes on to say, “I’m starting to think that the Pointless Man, as nice as he was, was the only pointless thing in the forest…I don’t think having a point on your head is so important after all. It’s what’s in your head that’s most important!”

After Oblio arrives at this disingenuous conclusion he heads back to the Pointless Village where he is accepted back with much boisterous fanfare and announces to the ecstatic citizens that everything has a point, exclusive of whether or not they display a physical point on their bodies.

All the while the Count frantically tries to shout everyone down like an overexcited, irrational hothead. Anybody who dares question the social conditioning is always portrayed as a frothing, senseless lunatic.

After Oblio presents his piece, the Count knocks off his pointed cap in a fit of anger, revealing that now Oblio actually has a point on his head! Then the points disappear from the heads of the evil Count and his son who immediately run and hide from humiliation and fear!

Inexplicably, after Oblio had grown his own point, all the people and buildings in the village lost theirs! This all makes even less sense than Oblio being welcomed back into the village after he was officially banished. This is never explained as it occurs at the tail end of the film, nor can I think of any rational reason for such an outrageous and unexpected turn of events!

The only explanation I can concoct to answer for this is that this film was an autobiographical effort about the Jews themselves and how they were exiled from various European countries and how they managed to turn everything upside down after they had managed to worm their ways back in the last time. Of course this was done through deception and trickery but don’t expect them to confess to that.

3 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that The Point is:

4. Pro-family. A father reads a story about a kid who lives at home with his mother and father to his own son.

3. Anti-drug. The film shows no drug use or drinking, which is pretty amazing since everyone in the entertainment business at the time was hopped up on something! [But the fact that Nilsson acknowledged LSD as an inspiration makes The Point, if not explicitly, then implicitly, an extrafilmically pro-drug effort. – Ed.]

2. Pro-pedophilia. The candy shop owner gives Oblio a candy bar as he leaves for the Pointed Forest, and on his return he shouts out to him,  “Come by the shop Oblio! I have some butterballs for you! Round! Completely round!”

1. Pro-Diversity. I don’t think I should have to explain why since that’s a no-brainer.

Germanicus Fink

[Read Germanicus Fink’s review of Party Monster here.]

Have shopping to do and want to support icareviews? Rainer Chlodwig von Kook receives a modest commission on Amazon purchases made through this link: http://amzn.to/2406T5h

[For those who don’t know, icgayreviews LGBTQ ally Germanicus Fink was rousted out of his safe space at murderbymedia2 this week for allegedly failing to comply with heterofascist WordPress “terms of service”. His blog account was suspended after a few complaints, a little gunboat diplomacy, and some behind-the-scenes skullduggery from Vladimir Putin’s Ministry of Slavic Hate persuaded WordPress to rain on the pride parade. Stay tuned for future developments in the ongoing saga of this internet holocaust of all decency. In the meantime, enjoy Fink’s guest review of the Macaulay Culkin club kid classic Party Monster!]

Party Monster

This was a movie I’d have never been interested in seeing, but I was the victim of a ‘perfect storm’ that resulted in my watching it. I was having a bad day and talked to ICAreviews online. Culkin came up and I mentioned that in the recent pictures I saw of him he looked like a real mess, then he told me Macaulay had made this movie in an attempt to step back in the ole spotlight as an adult actor 12 years ago. Of course I’m not talking about an adult actor as in “adult films”, I meant as a grown up. You know, a big boy star.

I had free time so I decided to watch it out of curiosity. A couple of times I almost just turned it off, but then I figured I’d try to write something about it so I ‘manned up’ and decided to ‘take a hit for the team’, so to speak.

Of course I wondered why he chose a movie about homosexual party boys in New York as his grown up debut. I figured his motivation for picking this genre must be because maybe his voice never changed, or that it was a life style he was familiar with. I’ll have to leave it up to people who know something about him to answer that one. Possibly he made it hoping to cash in on a fad? When was that “club kids” trend big? The film came out in 2003.  I had the impression that that club kids buzz happened a bit before 2003, but I could be wrong.  Since the film focused on homosexuals and hard core drug abuse I guess those subjects will always have an appeal to both the morbidly curious and confused teenagers so I suppose it’s a moot point whether that craze lined up with the film’s release.

One thing any normal person will find immediately annoying about this film is how over the top gay most of the actors behave throughout it. I suppose there are some gays in real life who behave screaming, prancing around, Priscilla Queen of the Desert gay, but so many of them on the screen at the same time kind of gets on a guy’s nerves.

Culkin plays Michael Alig and Seth Green plays his best friend James St. James, two young New York homosexuals who liked to dress up in outrageous costumes, throw lots of wild parties and do all kinds of drugs all the time. My impression was that a lot of the film was just about broken people who just could not face reality, so they stubbornly clung to their fabulous degeneracy and did whatever it took to keep the party going. It was never a good time to quit so they just couldn’t stop and kept on going until either they imploded or crashed.

In one scene Michael abandons his mother after she shared in his television debut on a tabloid talk show about him and his “club kids” phenomenon. He hurriedly told her he couldn’t get her a ride back to the airport as he ran off with his dealer for more of the hair of the dog that bit him to fight his withdrawals. I think she summed up a lot of what this film was all about when she she said, “I came in a stretch limo, i’m not leaving in a bus”.

Of course this film will fulfill all your wildest expectations assuming your expectations are actually wild enough. Semitic Hollywood is always more than willing to promote a rainbow of antisocial behavior. Whether a film is for blacks, children or homosexuals it seems they are always encouraging people to act up, get out of control and destroy everything they can. If you can’t annihilate anything important you can at least lay waste to yourself and hopefully take a few friends with you.

Of course, misfits who are not independently wealthy and can’t face reality can only maintain their delusions with the help of duped normies. In this case they exploited a club owner with an eye patch who became a sort of surrogate father figure for Michael. By allowing him to host his well publicized parties at his club he funded Macaulay’s lavish, nonstop, party party all the f*cking time life style despite the fact he always complained that he himself barely broke even.

What’s the symbolism of the eye patch? I don’t know, maybe he didn’t examine this situation in depth or was just seeing it in two dimensions? Why did he sponsor all this degeneracy? Hard to say. I honestly can’t speak for his motivation here aside from his strange, paternal relationship with the Culkin character.

Maybe the patch just indicates that the man is missing something. He’s portrayed as very straight and normal so maybe we are to believe he was living vicariously through this flamboyant little peacock with his superficial philosophy and his high flown plans and unconventional dreams. Maybe the patch is meant to represent that he is deformed inside which is why he’s making all this madness possible. Maybe it was just to make him look ominous because he was the only straight, middle aged guy in the film and everyone else was young and marvelous. Or maybe he represents the self-Chosen who are the ones making all this current cultural decay possible and his eye was lost while struggling with narrow minded gentiles? You decide.

Since this film was obviously targeted at gays a lot of it had to do with “loss of innocence”. The first example of that is when he is talking about his childhood in a small town and how his male Sunday School teacher seduced him (this kind of stuff goes on ALL the time in small White communities goyim! Watch a few more of our movies and you’ll see!). The second instance is when Michael hooks up with a straight guy who he later seduces while they are hiding in a dumpster from a cabbie after they stiffed him on the fare. How’s that for symbolism? Of course all straight guys are totally gay just below the surface so they are easily seduced by any gay guy forward enough to try. Please make a note of that all you gay goyim!

They drag lots of innocent people with them into their self-destructive hell with drugs. Drugs seem to be EVERYWHERE in this film. This “loss of innocence” motif culminates in a depressing scene where Michael, his friends and his surrogate father are all getting pretty loaded in a swanky hotel room. The guy with the eye patch, who has never done drugs before and is married to a sensible, no nonsense conservative looking young woman is shown fried out of his mind on crack with a black and possibly a tranny prostitute. Also, there was a black drug dealer named “Angel” who nobody wanted around at first, but he seemed to become their main connection as the film progressed. Oddly, once this relationship had been established he always wore angel wings whenever he made deliveries to them. In the Hotel scene, as well as all the subsequent scenes he was always demanding his money. I guess he wasn’t really supposed to be an angel at all, but the devil come to visit them in hell to collect his dues.

In line with this theme of tricking people into doing unhealthy things there is a part where he tricks his friend James into drinking his urine when he christened their embarkation on this club gig with the eye patch guy. A pretty gross scene, but not the only scene involving the drinking of urine.

One of the more disturbing aspects of this movie is it encourages bisexuality, which in light of the AIDS epidemic strikes me as more than a little sinister. I suppose you can file that under seduction of the innocent. His girlfriend is some Midwest kid who caught him and his club kids on that afternoon talk show I mentioned earlier. She was star-struck by all the glitz and glamour of his superficial lifestyle so she got in touch with him and he invited her to come stay with him up in New York. There is a scene where they are both taking a bath together and he announces he had polluted the water, so of course she scoops some up, drinks it and sprays it on Michael. He then did the same and sprayed her. Since they are both now dependent on drugs, naturally they are encouraging each other’s debauchery. They are clearly not good for each other. Near the end of the film we hear she died of an overdose.

spit

Culkin gets pissy

Everybody in this film is out of control, that is, until the Culkan character gets in a spirited argument with his angelic, black drug dealer where he demands his money one too many times and we are led to believe he kills him in self-defense. Right after cutting up the body and dumping it in the river (after they used up all his drugs, of course) Mike decides to check himself into rehab. This is one of those films that starts near the end and loops around to the beginning and it began with Michael confessing to James that he killed his dealer as they shared some of the deceased’s stash. Seth then promptly OD’d and ended up in the ER.

I realize I may be giving way too much away about this film, but I had a bad day today and this is helping me take my mind off of my problems. Besides, be honest, how many of you were planning on seeing this turkey anyway?

So, as if “loss of innocence” weren’t bad enough, we are also treated to some rather base betrayal as well. In an effort to weasel out of a possible murder conviction for killing his connection, Micheal starts cooperating with the feds to bust his father figure for supposedly dealing drugs out of his club. Ironically he was the only person to express sincere concern about Michael’s drug habit. In fact he paid for the stint in drug rehab that Macaulay took advantage of after murdering his dealer.

I strongly dislike films like this, where people are out of control and doing stupid things. I was waiting the entire time for someone to get busted, and I wasn’t disappointed.

Michael’s constant friend throughout the film, Seth Green, wanted to be a writer but never actually wrote anything. It wasn’t all talk, he really wanted to write and did actually try from time to time, but he had a bad case of writer’s block. That is until he got so high one day that he hallucinated a giant talking rat who claims to have seen Michael’s struggle with his dealer. Michael got busted but he said he only acted in self defense, which was somewhat true, at least at first. While the black drug dealer was strangling Culkin some other druggie came out of his stupor and grabbed a hammer which was conveniently placed and hit the guy. Only he wasn’t quite dead yet. So Culkin beat him some more then tied him up and tortured him to death by injecting Drano into various parts of his body (use your imagination here you sick f*cks!).

The Seth Green character uses the information he got from his conversation with the giant rat to write a best selling novel, Disco Bloodbath, and then he takes this information to the police and has the star of the film arrested and put in prison. I didn’t know that the hearsay testimony of an imaginary, giant talking rat was admissible in court, but I guess in New York it is. That’s what happens when you live in a city that never sleeps I suppose.

I suppose here is where I do the content analysis. Party Monster was:

4. Anti-capitalist. Culkin is always letting people into the club for free, giving them free drink tickets and, of course, would rather murder his dealer than pay for his drugs.

3. Racist. Actually I guess it could be construed as being kind of racist since the only black character in the film gets beat unconscious and terribly tortured to death by Culkin.

2. Pro gay. This movie was so gay I felt that I needed an AIDS test after watching it!

1. Anti-drug. Despite showing people doing and enjoying drugs for nearly 2 hours they finally landed Michael in prison. So don’t do drugs, mmmkay?

I give it a 2. Maybe you’d give it a 3 or more if men screaming and swishing around all over the place for nearly two hours doesn’t give you a headache.

Germanicus Fink

[Who is Germanicus Fink? Read Aryan Skynet’s interview with him here.]

Have shopping to do and want to support icareviews? The author receives a modest commission on Amazon purchases made through this link: http://amzn.to/1OmHpbx

Village of the Damned (1995)

Village of the Damned (1995)

Germanicus Fink, also known as Son of Europe and Mr. Weedwacker, recently saw John Carpenter’s version of Village of the Damned (1995) and gave the following interpretation at Murder by Media:

Anyway, people commonly assume the movie is anti-White because the evil alien children have blond hair (actually it’s white), but it is so obviously about the Jews.

The real giveaway occurs after they have created so much animosity among the townspeople because they have been causing many people to destroy themselves. They all suddenly decide to move into an old barn outside of town for their own protection. They then order everyone to bring them supplies so they can sustain themselves.

Could there be a more obvious analogy about Israel?

“John Carpenter’s movies, all except possibly [. . .] Prince of Darkness, deal with the Jewish question,” Fink goes on. “The Thing and They Live are obvious examples. Village of the Damned is packed with references to Jewish behavior. Once you see it I know you will agree with me.”

This writer would be hard-pressed to explain how such Carpenter classics as Assault on Precinct 13 (1976), Halloween (1978), Christine (1983), or Big Trouble in Little China (1986) “deal with the Jewish question”; but the argument has certainly been advanced that They Live (1988) is rife with such resonances, with some even suggesting that the “Hoffman” lenses in the film, which allow people to recognize the manipulative aliens that surround them, are a reference to the work of Michael A. Hoffman II.

What about Village of the Damned? Along with the original 1960 movie, the story is based on the 1957 novel The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham. Film historian  Steve Haberman, in his audio commentary on the 1960 version, calls it a “fairly faithful adaptation” of the book by Wyndham, whom he characterizes as an author of “respectable bestsellers” – which suggests that Wyndham’s work was ideologically unobjectionable and therefore promoted by the entertainment establishment.

The Midwich Cuckoos (1957)

The Midwich Cuckoos (1957)

Luke O’Farrell, writing at Heretical, sees in The Midwich Cuckoos an anti-Semitic message similar to what Fink reads into the John Carpenter film:

Mass immigration. I started thinking about it the other day when I was reading John Wyndham’s novel The Midwich Cuckoos (1957). It’s about an English village in which women are impregnated by a mysterious alien race. Someone starts to wonder about the aliens’ motives:

If you were wishful to challenge the supremacy of a society that was fairly stable, and quite well weaponed, what would you do? Would you meet it on its own terms by launching a probably costly, and certainly destructive, assault? Or, if time were no great importance, would you prefer to employ a version of a more subtle tactic? Would you, in fact, try somehow to introduce a fifth column, to attack it from within?

In the 1950s, when The Midwich Cuckoos was first published, White societies were very stable and very well-weaponed, and a direct assault on them would certainly have been costly. So the alien race that wanted to challenge their supremacy didn’t launch a direct assault. Instead, just as that John Wyndham character suggested, they introduced a fifth column to attack it from within.

Who was the alien race? Jews, of course. And what was their fifth column? It was non-whites.

Amazon reviewer Allen Smalling, however, says of the Folio Society’s edition of The Midwich Cuckoos that its foreword by Adam Roberts

makes rather too stringent a case, in my opinion, that the Midwich children represented a “subject race” much as Jews did under Nazi Germany. I don’t hold with that interpretation, but it is worth noting that the children in the book were rather dark-complected, arguably Semitic in appearance, unlike the blond Aryan types portrayed in the 1960 movie.

There seems to be some disagreement among putative readers, though, as to how Wyndham actually describes the unearthly children in his book. Haberman, in his Village of the Damned (1960) commentary, claims the novel describes them as having “gleaming golden hair”. Not having read The Midwich Cuckoos, this writer is in no position to referee, so any reader who happens to know is invited to chime in on this matter.

Village of the Damned (1960)

Village of the Damned (1960)

Haberman relates that Village of the Damned screenwriter Stirling Silliphant, who would go on to pen In the Heat of the Night (1967), claimed that MGM was “appalled to find that they had bought what they termed an anti-Catholic film. Apparently studio executives felt that the impregnation of village women paralleled the Immaculate Conception.” Consequently, MGM sent the script to its British branch with a lower budget and instructions for a rewrite.

The film was directed by Wolf Rilla, a Jew whose family emigrated to London after Hitler came to power. “In this film, these aliens become little traitors in our own homes, sort of like space-crafted Hitler Youth,” says Haberman, who adds that “it may go back to our portrayal of the enemy in World War II – the Nazi superman who was sold to the world as physically and mentally superior but obviously lacked any moral sense whatsoever.”

Martin Stephens as David in Village of the Damned (1960)

Martin Stephens as David in Village of the Damned (1960)

Stormfront poster JohnJoyTree says, “I fear Wyndham was a typical liberal in racial matters. Consider The Midwich Cookoos [. . .] with its blue/blonde alien supermen who must be wiped out: or The Crysalids, where the persecuted ‘racially impure’ telepathic mutants are the inheritors of the Earth: etc etc.” Of the anti-war, pro-disarmament Village of the Damned sequel Children of the Damned (1963), in which a new, multicultural crop of super-evolved youngsters offers the liberal dream of a one-world peace to end the Cold War, Wyndham is said by screenwriter John Briley to have “liked it very much”.

A Mondoweiss commenter, meanwhile, finds parallels in The Midwich Cuckoos with both the Nazis and Israeli settler zealots:

What I hear of the settler children reminds me of the Midwich Cuckoos, the creation of the 1950s science fiction writer John Wyndham. They are children with strange, malevolently used powers based on their ability to think and feel as a group. As I remember they are described in very Aryan fashion, so the story seems like a satire on how what began as a bunch of deluded children became the irresistible German army of 1940. But totally shared thinking is not dangerous for one race only.

Blogger MPorcius offers the following insights into Wyndham’s 1955 novel The Chrysalids, in which the mutant minority protagonists “begin to receive telepathic messages from New Zealand”:

Christianity in the novel is an oppressive scam; women have large fabric crosses sewn onto their dresses, and in a scene late in the novel the fleeing mutant women cut these devices off their clothing, symbolizing their liberation.  Maybe these crosses are supposed to remind us of the Crusaders?  I often think these oppressed-minority-with-special-powers stories are allegories about anti-Semitism, and Wyndham’s naming the main character David, and inclusion of a debate among the mutants about whether it is wise to marry “Norms,” encourages such suspicions.  Maybe we should see New Zealand as akin to Israel?

Thomas Dekker as David in Village of the Damned (1995)

Thomas Dekker as David in Village of the Damned (1995)

If a protagonist’s name in The Chrysalids reinforces the notion that he and his party are Jews, however, does this not also argue in favor of the Midwich children being Jew stand-ins in Village of the Damned? The lead alien child is named David in both movie adaptations. If Fink is correct and the movie is an allegory about the Jewish menace, then why make them so exaggeratedly fair-haired and dress them in vaguely fascistic black coats as they march in stiff lockstep like movie Nazis? Are these features fig leaves to hide the author’s or the filmmakers’ true intentions – iconographic red herrings, perhaps? What characteristics do the children have that might have prompted Fink to see them as symbolic of the Jewish state?

For one, they are aliens – outsiders – and maintain an intensely exclusive group identity. They are cruel and sadistic, for another, and separate themselves geographically by moving into a barn on the edge of the village. In the 1960 film this is mandated by the authorities, whereas in Carpenter’s version this little exodus is their choice. Then there is the implacable vengefulness and control-freakiness exhibited by the children. Obliteration – a Holocaust, perhaps? – will “not happen to us because we have to survive – no matter what the cost,” proclaims David (Martin Stephens) in the 1960 film. “You [gentiles?] have to be taught to leave us alone.” The David (Thomas Dekker) in the John Carpenter version delivers a very similar harangue.

Another alteration that the remake’s screenwriter, David Himmelstein, makes in adapting the original is that Christians are the most forcefully opposed to the alien children, with local reverend Mark Hamill actually attempting to shoot them in one scene. Is Himmelstein attempting to warn the viewer that Christianity is their best and only buttress against the Jew World Order? Given that Hamill and his supporters are unsuccessful and come across as rather crazed, one suspects that this was not the intention.

The fact, too, that Himmelstein wrote the script to Sidney Lumet’s film Power (1986), which attempts to scare the gullible with the Jonesian specter of Arab influence in American media and politics, would also tend to militate against interpreting Himmelstein’s Village of the Damned screenplay as a well-intentioned warning to the gentiles. Then, too, there is the fact that abortion, had the mothers in the story chosen to go that route, would have obviated the ultimate mass-murder of the children that brings the story to its resolution. This hardly seems like a Christian solution.

John Carpenter on the set of They Live (1988)

John Carpenter on the set of They Live (1988)

Is John Carpenter an anti-Semite? The answer clearly hinges on the subtext of They Live. “If you sat Abe Foxman down and made him sit through They Live there would be little doubt that he would begin to see this as a critique on Jews [and] on Jewish culture,” writes Robert Phoenix, “though Carpenter was really assailing Reaganite conservative culture at the time.” Numerous movies attacked conformist consumerism during the eighties, with similar themes receiving satirical sci-fi treatment in The Stuff (1985) and Happy Hour (1986), both films made with heavy Jewish participation. But does it ultimately matter whether They Live is intentionally anti-Semitic or not? Whatever Carpenter’s intentions in making They Live – and, for that matter, Village of the Damned – white nationalists can enjoy these movies as entertainments and as illustrative realizations of those aspects of the present order they must continue to combat. They Live lives – and so do the memes.

Rainer Chlodwig von Kook

IRRUSSIANALITY

Russia, the West, and the world

Muunyayo

Farawaysick for a High Trust Society...

Fear of Blogging

"With enough courage, you can do without a reputation."

Alt of Center

Life. Liberty. And the Pursuit of Beauty

The Alternative Right

Giving My Alt-Right perspective

Logos

| literature |

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

parallelplace

Just another WordPress.com site

NotPoliticallyCorrect

Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Christopher Othen

Bad People, Strange Times, Good Books

Historical Tribune

The Factual Review

Economic & Multicultural Terrorism

Delves into the socioeconomic & political forces destroying our Country: White & Christian Genocide.

Ashraf Ezzat

Author and Filmmaker

ProphetPX on WordPress

Jesus-believing U.S. Constitutionalist EXPOSING Satanic globalist SCAMS & TRAITORS in Kansas, America, and the World at-large. Jesus and BIBLE Truth SHALL PREVAIL!