pilates_fan

This evening I watched a movie titled "Our Very Own". After seeing it, I am prompted to ask, our very own what? The plot is simple enough. An idyllic family life, punctuated by periodic sibling rivalry, is ruptured when one sibling peevishly informs another that the latter is adopted, and 'has no rights'. The adoptee manifests a crisis of loyalty, characterized by pining to see her "real mother", and by diffidence in all her relationships. In the end, she gives a high school graduation speech extolling the importance of appreciating one's adopted country, which symbolizes her decision to appreciate her adoptive family after all. How sweet! Yet the movie insinuates neurosis wherever feasible. Puerile teen interactions and affected group behavior accentuate the adopted girl's moody and despondent reactions. One might venture the apology that conflict creates a story, but no, I think the story could have been far better.

Art serves as a mirror, held up as part of our cultural dialog. The Jew, who resents the 'Mirror, mirror, on the wall' implication that we have forever regarded him as a grotesque interloper, is the one we let hold the mirror. His distorted mirror is presented as a story worth telling. That's what they teach at school, except they teach that the distortion is 'conflict'. That's the paradigm in all the artistic media. We do not have possession of our own cultural space. This is a serious problem.

Why not the following story line: A pleasant family seeks to adopt a child, and comes to the rescue of a woman in distress. The adoptive family is uncertain about whether to 'tell', but eventually the daughter finds out, and seeks to make her natural mother a part of her life. The conceit presented to the audience then becomes whether or not two families can be partly conjoined, rather than a strained question of belonging. Now, if MGM tried it this way, they could easily mock the whole thing and make it look mawkish and maudlin. Even now you may be thinking, Where's the story? But my story line could easily be presented in a gripping and uplifting way. A good movie doesn't have to trade on affected neurosis. Real conflict doesn't need it. Meaningful vicarious experience doesn't need it. But neurosis is what the Jew peddles.

Why do we lap it up? Are we 'guilty'? The fact is that they are tight networkers, and, with their control over money, spanning countries, they can bring about pretty much any outcome that suits them. Does their control over money prove that they are our natural superiors? No, it means that the Jews as a group are larger and more organized than any specific government (not to mention that they are in the government). And throughout the centuries, governments can be tempted into war, which causes debt, which causes Jews.

War -> Debt -> Jews -> Culture products -> Derangement -> War

It's an adaptive strategy.

Because it's an old movie, viewers are wont to perceive a pleasant view of quaint dreamy America. The black servant is productive, rather than noisily gyrating in praise of 'yo EBT'. The teens are all well-behaved if a bit stiff, because they haven't been diversified yet. The adopted girl learns to love her adoptive family after all. But this movie is a forerunner of the modern genre of dysfunctional family movies. Today the Jews no longer need to bother bringing a movie to a generally pleasing conclusion.

It's hard to establish our very own mirror because anything truly good is given no coverage. The Jews have a stranglehold over money and media, so, no matter how we squirm, they can exert countervailing pressure, always helping us to see ourselves in their mirror, in their image. It is as enlightening to see how far back the problem stretches, as it is engaging to imagine how much longer it will continue.