A series of vignettes of a foursome of white middle-aged obsolescents. One man (John Malkovich) is downgraded at work, so quits; his wife (Tilda Swinton) wants to leave him, the termination of the nice income stream being the final straw; her lover (George Clooney) is as promiscuous as an MTV teenager; one of his other partners (Frances McDormand) is obsessed about her fading maiden-looks, and will do anything, including betraying her country, to get the money to pay for cosmetic surgery. There are two environmental foils for this action — the CIA at the high end, and a fitness center at the low end. The fitness center is a symbol for the pursuit of superficialities, while the CIA is a symbol for the ultimate control of destinies, not just jobs but even life and death, by shadowy powers that are not publicly known or accessible.
Kikenbrüder Coen
Just as with Woody Allen in his late-period Deconstructing Harry, the true character of the writer/director Coen-brother team is becoming crystal clear. As jews consolidate their hegemony over every aspect of American life, they gain the confidence of self-revelation. Here is an implausible story of impossible characters that are obviously written for the actors (rather than actors being sought to fulfill a pre-existing literary role). In the HBO kikencomedy Curb Your Enthusiasm, actors appear under their own names: the final barrier between fiction and reality is broken down, the guild of actors becoming an end in itself, a world unto itself, as if they were the real world and the audience the corp of pretenders. (And that’s exactly what we have become!) It aims at complete role-reversal, in service to the even more ultimate end of confusion and mockery. Clownish faces for whom nothing is sacred. Brad Pitt appears here as a motiveless and soulless misfit, with no credibility beyond the chuckles one would get from classmates in improv class responding to the mincing and jerking of a spontaneous shtick of narcissism. So too the twitchy mannerisms of Frances McDormand: obviously these are actors that love each other — if the dialectic of mutual- and self-admiration can be called love — and are having quite a fun time watching each other act silly. Their faces become leering masks of abandoned humanity for whom everything is a joke. Nothing whatsoever matters. Betrayal of the secrets of one’s country is funny, frolicsome; even the “enemy” agent (Olek Krupa) gets quite a chuckle out of it. (And if we can smile at the antics of a woman trying to betray her country in exchange for cosmetic surgery, a fortiori we should be able to wink at jews that betray our country for love of Israel. ) Loveless, nay passionless copulation, for which the frozen face of nude Frances serves as an apt eternal symbol. A sex machine too obscene to describe is meant to add to the hilarity halfway through. Our Savior’s name is dragged repeatedly through the mud with the F-word.
Jewish fucking kikes! People that create sewage like this, that at once blasphemes God and degrades humanity, are worthy only of nooses and gas chambers. But in our society, they become wealthy.
The anti-theonomists used to taunt that we would re-establish execution for blasphemy. That was supposed to be a prima facie reductio of the theonomic position, as if the mere concept is self-refuting. And many theonomists showed their deep capitulation to the current age by rushing to argue that theonomy does not mean executing blasphemers. But a film like this makes it intuitively clear that if there is one crime that should be punished by the sword of the state, just one, it is blasphemy. That is the fulcrum upon which the entire safety of the nation pivots. Let it be that the technicality of the theonomic thesis is wrong. But these nation-wreckers have got to go. Let the petty ax-murderers go free, in comparison. Christian antinomians, if they express any concern at all, think they can “love” them into the kingdom; and they keep their silent and impotent “loving” going while their nation is destroyed by predators, the people degraded and demoralized, the name of their God made poison, and finally the image of their own bodies being carted off to disappear made funny as well.
These same conservative antinomians think they find the refuge of fellow-spirits in the right wing of the kikenpresse held down, for example, by Michael Medved. Medved gushes about the “goofy plot,” its “cast working at the top of its form,” characters that are “surprisingly believable” and “almost endearing” in a plot that is “intriguing and sometimes hilarious.” The blasphemy matter does not even register in Medved’s mind. Our Christian conservatives bob their heads solemnly at Medved’s nattering chatter, thinking they are part of a broad coalition that will someday, somehow prevail to incrementally “restore standards.”
No. The kikenblasphemy will end when full-metal jacket meets skull, when the word goes out, “spread your blasphemy and sleep with the fishes.”
The antinomian conservatives are commonly flag-waving hawks when it comes to meeting physical enemies by force. There was no talk of “loving the Japanese” into submission, nor any other real or imagined physical foe since then. But for some reason, they think the termites that will wreck the spirit of their nation from inside the borders can be loved into the kingdom.
Execution for blasphemy is actually an inescapable concept. The fact that these destroyers mock our Savior’s name with impunity while Ernst Zundel is seized by US agents and exported to prison for blasphemy against the Holy Myth of the Chosen People indicates what is happening. Soon, Bible-faithful preachers will also be thrown into prison, and those that kill them not prosecuted. (But many that think they are faithful are actually fully reprocessed and platonically reconstructed dupes of the new kikentheocracy. I know this by bitter personal experience.)
As Steve Schlissel pointed out with brilliant insight, the name and honor of a society’s god is always unmockable. Our deposed God, the only God that is, is mocked, and professing Christians chuckle right along.
This is fantastic; thank you for analyzing this latest piece of trash from these two Jews.
I know a preacher who watches and enjoys everything the odious Coen brothers produce. This is the same preacher who believes that he has more in common with some professing “believer” from Zimbabwe than with his own blood brother. He (and many like him) perfectly symbolizes the concept of amusing one’s self to death.
Jewish [expletive deleted -- tjh] kikes…this is the sort of phrase to make most churchmen flinch and retreat. But it’s perfect…perfect. It’s precisely the sort of response our people need to make to the Christ-hating sewage that the Coen brothers and other cinematic antichrists spew at our people.
Bravo to your courage and clarity and Christian manliness. Well done.
the final barrier between fiction and reality is broken down, the guild of actors becoming an end in itself, a world unto itself, as if they were the real world and the audience the corp of pretenders. (And that’s exactly what we have become!)
Too true.
As an aside, the small irony in all this is that John Malkovich, although a bit of neoconservative, is probably the actor in Hollywood closest to us in ideology. It is sad that he is so capable and relaxed playing a character in such an awful movie.
I walked out after the first half amazed at how bad it was. I was especially fumed after paying for the film after I had paid to see No Country for Old Men just recently. I thought the Coen brothers owed us one for the ending of that film and assumed that Burn would make up for it.
TJH –
Do you feel the same way about No Country for Old Men? I thought that that was a great film. Which, in my opinion, is largely due to the fact that it is an adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy novel. I didn’t even bother seeing Burn After Reading. I could tell from the previews that it was trash.
danielj –
What didn’t you like about the ending? I ask because this was one of my favorite aspects of the novel/film. Was it only the ending that bothered you or the film in general?
I thoroughly enjoyed the film.
I just hated the ending. I imagine one of the major reasons you liked it so much was because it stayed true to the novel.
I thought that the Brothers took the easy way out using the ending they did. I thought it was an extremely anti-climactic 1/2 hour of cinema.
I don’t think the wife would have acted the way that she did in reality and that it wasn’t “true” to life. She also “psychologized” the killer without having any idea who he was.
Unless, I was missing something the two boys and the car accident was just pointless.
Excellent writing, thank you.
What do you think of this?
How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?
By Mark Weber
http://www.ihr.org/weber_revisionism_jan09.html
Can you look into this and write about it? Thanks.
Larry A., Jewish Supremacist, is elated:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012915.html
Rusty, have you read Faurisson’s response to this nonsense?
http://www.codoh.com/newsite/sr/
We’re a bit off topic from the movie, however, here are my thoughts on Weber. I’ve never met the man, but I’ve seen pix and maybe a you-tube. He always struck me as grim and frightened, like the proverbial deer in the headlight. Now, that kind of persona could be a naturally timid man that with courage is overcoming his disability; but we now know the real cause: he was simply insincere all along. He has basically confessed that he has been lying all this time. Consequently, in my mind, nothing that he will say from now until the end of his life should be taken seriously.