The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJung-Freud Archive
What Makes Stevie Run & Hide: Poltergeist, or Steven Spielberg's Proto-Sorosian Nastiness
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Poltergeist‘s question of authorship stands out among Steven Spielberg’s works. Spielberg wrote and directed some of his movies or directed what others mostly wrote; he also handed second-rate material to others to be made in pale imitation of his style. The story(and parts of the screenplay) of Poltergeist was by Steven Spielberg, but it was officially directed by Tobe Hooper, most (in)famous for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which seems, at first glance, the diametric opposite of the kind of cinema Spielberg became renowned for. But on second thought, Spielberg began his career on TV directing episodes for the creepy Night Gallery and first became noticed with the action thriller The Duel, in power and suspense far beyond the routine fare of made-for-television movies. Everyone working in TV wanted to hit the big screen, but Spielberg was especially eager to prove what he had up his sleeve as an entertainer. He wanted to be noticed and was(and The Duel even got a limited release in theaters). Also, judging by The Goonies, which clearly borrows elements from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Spielberg obviously has a grudging respect for Hooper as a man who can play with your spine like a rock guitar.

The movie that really put him on the map was, of course, Jaws, followed two years later by Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which sealed his reputation not only as a master-technician but a magician. Then, with Raiders of the Lost Ark, he hit his third home run. He had a special handle on things, a magic touch, and no one came anywhere close in bridging the lowest common denominator with the highest cinematic skills. (Like Tom Hulce’s Mozart in Amadeus, he was deemed an unserious person who had to be taken seriously for his rare talents.) With the exception of George Lucas with his Star Wars goldmine, no one’s works appealed to as many people around the world. Spielberg made them feel giddy and gushy, sometimes at once. The movies were rated PG, meaning children could see them without parents. Spielberg was also mindful with the language and nudity — he seemed to be naturally averse to obscenity —, even though his reveries could be so unabashedly rapturous that they almost qualify as ‘innocence’-porn, perhaps something he learned from the American brand of Evangelism. As such, his works were deemed fun for the whole family.

Indeed, it became almost an annual ritual for young ones to flock to the new Spielberg blockbuster in early summer. But there was plenty of horror elements in Spielberg’s movies in more ways than one. Apart from the physical terror in The Duel is the question of who and why, which is never explained. And Jaws is especially terrifying because the Great White seems driven by something other than mere hunger. It seems almost willful in its violation of picture-perfect Americana, like Jack the Ripper meets Norman Rockwell. And even though the space aliens in Close Encounters ultimately turn out to be benevolent, their crazy antics are enough to turn the Devil in The Exorcist green with envy. (William Friedkin’s instant horror classic probably had a huge impact on young Spielberg, especially as it was an A-production unlike most horror movies before and then. Perhaps the first true horror equivalent of Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Most of the grisly gore was in rather disreputable independent horror movies, such as Night of the Living Dead and its imitators. The Exorcist had the full backing of Hollywood and even the muted blessing of the Catholic Church, yet its horror was utterly unrestrained, even more so than in sicko horror indies, what with its young female character caught in a tug-of-war between the porn industry and the Vatican. A cynic might say Friedkin bundled horror-porn in spiritual wrapping, but whatever he did, he did it well. The Exorcist made all-out horror respectable, no longer the cultural aberration of those working in the margins of industry. Horror popped its cherry, the dam burst, and the genie could not be put back in the bottle. While Spielberg’s movies of the 70s and 1980s were incomparably more ‘innocent’, they operated more or less on the same principle of pulling all stops and letting it all hang out — the 1993 Jurassic Park, though sold as a family/children’s movie, is surely one of the most frightening ever made.)

Given the level of suspense, terror, and mayhem in his movies, Spielberg has amazingly managed to present himself as the great maker of mainstream entertainment. Spielberg eschewed those G-rated late-Disney-style movies that people found generic and soft, or pabulum for five year olds. The secret was to make movies equally appealing to children, teenagers, and even adults. He understood the mainstream audience wanted to be thrilled but not unduly offended, like at an amusement park where the rides are scary but also safe, suitable for adults and children.

In a way, Spielberg was carrying the torch of his predecessors like John Ford, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, David Lean, and others. Where he differed was in the shameless sense of immediacy, impulsiveness, and uninhibited sensationalism. While old masters maintained a semblance of form and structure(as a matter of professionalism and dignity), Spielberg had a more shambolic approach that shattered conventions but, amazingly enough, instead of surrendering to chaos, reorganized the detached, fractured, and uprooted forms into a new vision of order, one more dynamic and vibrant. It’s hard to think of another director whose works are simultaneously so over-the-top and on-top-of-things. Spielberg’s madness isn’t a loss of order but a realization of greater order upon increased chaos, a feat nearly unequaled in cinema.

In this, he had something of Orson Welles’ showmanship by the way of Looney Tunes. He had an affinity for Cecil B. DeMille, the most shameless of the showmen in Old Hollywood, whose Biblical epics went more for pie-in-the-sky than for piety. And for Akira Kurosawa whose action-dramas were charged with urgency and directness rarely seen in cinema, at least before the advent of Spielberg and others like him. Even though Spielberg’s sensibility had little in common with the Counterculture, he did imbibe the Rock Culture’s sense of no limits and going all in. And even though Spielberg lacked the Art-House credibility of New Hollywood’s roster of ‘auteurs’, he shared their sense of frontiers and doing what comes naturally and personally. Spielberg’s natural and personal was popular entertainment. He sought to please himself by pleasing as many people as possible. He couldn’t sell out because he was sold on movie magic from a young age.

Spielberg’s ‘innocence’ was to a large measure calculated, but it was also genuine. Though he clearly had a flair for the darker side of genres, he felt happiest when calling out the inner-child within the mental closet of every adult. He was never going to be Stephen King. And as much as he admired A Clockwork Orange, he wasn’t made for something so ‘extreme’ and disturbing. Quantitatively, many of his movies had far more violence than Kubrick’s controversial work but in the escapist mode or in the humanist, tragic, or patriotic strain(as in Empire of the Sun, Schindler’s List, and Saving Private Ryan). He wanted to be regarded as a mainstream entertainer(whose movies were suitable for the whole family) or middlebrow maker of serious films, or a combination of both. He sought popularity and respectability. He evaded anything that might raise eyebrows or stir up controversy. (His most excessive work was probably 1941, for which he got scorched by the critics and ridiculed by peers. It’s one of the few times when the project outpaced his handle on things.)

His serious movies were never quite art(with the notable exception of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, bequeathed to him by Stanley Kubrick as either gift or curse, or both; I suspect it was out of respect for Kubrick that Spielberg didn’t overly revise it for sake of audience-pandering), and his entertainment movies weren’t exactly light. It is why his genre works are more intriguing in a way. It’s like a child reveals more of himself in play than in good behavior. If Spielberg’s sober attempt at cultural good manners tended to inhibit his truest instincts, his plunge into unfettered entertainment set free his innermost energies. (It’s like Woody Allen says more about himself in funny than in serious mode, which had a stilted effect on him.) Spielberg’s serious movies were made with meticulous craftsmanship(and have much to recommend them), but what is lacking is the verve and intensity of artists like Martin Scorsese and Sidney Lumet(at his best with Dog Day Afternoon and Prince of the City). There’s a sense that Spielberg is working hard at something that doesn’t come naturally, as if insecure that he’ll be remembered only for childish fantasies and popcorn movies. One senses the effort even when the result is more successful than not.

Spielberg has two modes of storytelling, the escapist and the earnest(or the childlike and the serious), and his best works maintain a porous boundary between them(in the tradition of Frank Capra, for better or worse). So, there are serious dramatic elements in Close Encounters and magical touches in the near-tragic Empire of the Sun. The problem for Spielberg arises when the seriousness is suited up in formal wear, as if to prove he has grown up(or has an adult side to his character). But this kind of seriousness is more composure than commitment. It becomes a manner of presentation, about tone than truth. Take Bridge of Spies, certainly respectable and absorbing enough, but without any hard truths, only warmed-up cliches about the Cold War, albeit flavored with ‘nuance’ and ‘sophistication’. (What’s true of Spielberg also applies to Tom Hanks, a comic actor who did well enough in serious and/or earnest roles but at a cost to what came naturally.)

Thus, Spielberg’s consciously serious(or even ‘important’) works are akin to the products of Merchant-Ivory who perfected the middlebrow Art House fare, especially with Oscar season in mind. But, genuine film artists don’t approach subjects in terms of high, middle, or low. Theirs is a relentless pursuit of truth and/or vision, come what may. It’s more about immersion than aspiration, going wherever the clues lead than worrying as to whether the leads are ‘acceptable’ or not. It seeks the Grail than the trophy. It’s the difference between Dances with Wolves and Goodfellas, both released in 1990. The former is ‘serious’ in intent, meant to be inspiring, uplifting, and ennobling(perhaps even a bit redemptive given America’s bloody history). In contrast, Goodfellas seems down-and-dirty, vulgar, and crude but not because it’s lowbrow entertainment but is committed to the truth of the criminal underworld.

Or, consider the difference between The Agony and the Ecstasy, the Michelangelo epic directed by Carol Reed, and Andrei Rublev, a historical meditation by Andrei Tarkovsky. Reed’s work is respectable, Tarkovsky’s is revelatory. One remains within the established perimeters of ‘good taste’, whereas the other breaks new ground in the way of seeing.

In a way, the honest entertainer has more in common with the honest artist than the dishonest or half-hearted artist does. The honest entertainer really loves and believes in what he’s doing regardless of its cultural value. He trusts his talent in winning over the audience. Likewise, the honest artist believes in what he’s doing and trusts the audience, however limited in number, to join him on the journey. In contrast, the dishonest or half-hearted artist hedges his bets or doubts himself, fretting whether it’s insufficiently or overly serious. This is why Woody Allen the comedian had more in common with Ingmar Bergman. At the very least, both were being true to themselves. It is also why some of Spielberg’s most personal and inspired works are his entertainment movies where he simply followed his muse, at least far more so than in his serious movies made with a yearning for respect. As harrowing as Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan are as blood spectacles, they ultimately fail as art because Spielberg keeps the Capraesque bulb alight in the closet than delving into the darkness. David Lean’s model is as far as Spielberg is willing to go with his ‘serious’ works. Respectable, dignified, honorable enough but, all said and done, life and history as a bed of flowers than a crown of thorns. Besides, Lean, for all his limitations, was being true to his socio-cultural sensibilities, whereas Spielberg seems to be putting on airs.

There are two kinds of weirdness in culture, and Spielberg exhibits both qualities. One is of external influence, prominent in our culture and easily available even to young ones, especially via the TV. (Of late, gender-bender-mania and Negrolatry have enforced weirdness as the New Norm in TV shows and commercials.) Spielberg would have grown up watching stuff like the Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, as well as reruns of all kinds of horror, sci-fi, and suspense movies on the telly when his young mind was most vulnerable to manipulation and flights of imagination. (Just imagine the impact MTV exerted on the generation coming of age in the 1980s. It became a ritualization of every avant-gardist fresh out of film-school having a stab at pop surrealism via the music of weirdo Rock stars who celebrated excess as the American Way.) So, even if Spielberg didn’t become a niche specialist in extreme genres, like John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and Tobe Hooper, he was affected by the same kind of weird stuff, later culminating with Tarantinoia, a weirder case of niche sensibility gaining mainstream appeal(that half-redeemed itself with Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood, derived in equal measures from Sergio Leone Westerns, Roger Corman Drive-In flicks, and Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused).

But, there’s another kind of weirdness, an innate tendency that distorts one’s perception and interpretation of even what is deemed decent, hopeful, sane, safe, mundane and/or wholesome. A weird mind warps even the normal world around him. It may see something popular through ‘cultist’ lens, like the story of the husband in After Hours(dir. Martin Scorsese) who has a sexual fetish about Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. Or, it sees through the apparent veneer of normality and discerns what lurks beneath. This seems true enough of the chemistry between Spielberg and Disney classics. In his youth, Disney was synonymous with family entertainment(and even after the founder’s passing, it was some time before Disney released its first PG-rated movie, regarded as a cultural milestone). On one level, like so many other children, Spielberg was captivated by the magic kingdom. But more sensitive(and obsessive) than other children, he reacted(and interacted) in a more personal ‘aspergy’ manner, much like David the robot-boy in A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, for whom the Pinocchio story isn’t just a fairytale but a myth to live by, a dream to be fulfilled. Like the little girl in Poltergeist, Spielberg the boy was likely ‘communicative’ with the rays on the tube.

Not only did boy Spielberg respond peculiarly to something deemed normal and mainstream, but he sensed something far darker about the fantasies and fairytales. Those who fall deeper into fantasy are ultimately confronted with the traumatic discrepancy between fantasy and reality. Despite Disney’s best attempts to bowdlerize the source material to make it fit-for-family, enough of the grim and frightful elements remained. And indeed, it’s this very quality that has ensured the lasting value of certain Disney movies. Though Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Pluto, and the like have gained pop-icon status, no one cares about cartoons featuring them. Rather, it’s works like Snow White, Dumbo, Pinocchio, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, and Sleeping Beauty(relatively weaker but perhaps the last of the great Disney movies) that have passed the test of time — as for Fantasia, it defies categorization. The enchantment shines against the backdrop of horror. Spielberg understood the real magic of Disney, something ignored by later executives for whom Family Entertainment had to be harmless to the point of innocuousness, or mildly amusing for children and deadly dull to adults. In contrast, the best of Disney gave adults an excuse to attend the screenings by taking their children. It presented dreams as the flipside of nightmares. Villainy didn’t merely characterize the antagonist but was woven into the very fabric of the world. No wonder Disney classics used shadows so effectively, the looming figures symbolizing the outsized influence of the will, often malicious. Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty not only renders the princess comatose but corrupts the air all around her. It’s as if Bambi’s mother isn’t so much killed by one bad actor as by man’s bloodthirst that turns the entire forest into a killing field, or ‘naturocaust’. It’s the sheer terror and desperation that make the characters (re)appreciate the true meaning of home and family, as in The Wizard of Oz(or The Empire of the Sun). After being stalked by a squadron of flying monkeys, Kansas doesn’t seem so bad after all.

Spielberg’s formative years were when censorship was fading in all of media(and the TV screen would eventually follow suit with the advent of cable and home video in the 1980s), his sense of the bizarre and grotesque went far beyond anything in the time of classic Disney(and Hitchcock). American Cinema was producing some of the goriest, sickest, and vilest movies in the years prior to Spielberg’s real breakthrough with Jaws. Though he didn’t share the taste of the genre-extremists, they’d all been affected by the same kinds of movies and TV shows and mastered similar tricks albeit for different purposes. Though never as lewd and nasty like DePalma and his ilk, Spielberg was no stranger to pushing the envelope of sensory overdrive. Just as Rock Culture thrived on volume and intensity, the Newer Hollywood overtaking New Hollywood(with its personal ‘auteurs’) was a high-octane race of thrills, shocks, raptures, hysterics, and special effects. The overall mood shifted from creative anarchy to competitive industry, distilling and amplifying the effects and emotions shown to produce the biggest sugar-highs and fizzy-wizzes in the audience. It could be bigger splashier special effects or sped-up technique for maximum sensory stimulation(like with the fast-cutting in Flashdance or bombastic spectacle of Top Gun — Michael Bay later became almost a parody of this race to top the other in hyperbole). It needs to be said, however, that even though movies like Tootsie and Terms of Endearment were advertised as more adult fare, they operated on the same rule for ridding the material of anything but push-button emotions. All that remained were those ‘moments’.

With Jaws, Spielberg delivered all the thrills of The Exorcist but without the controversy. Cleaner fun to have a woman’s torso bitten off by a shark than to have a teen’s clit diddled by the Devil. (Even though Spielberg was many times more visceral and ‘frontal’ than Old Hollywood directors like John Ford and Howard Hawks, he shared with them more a reliance on technique than on detail to convey the impact of violence. It goes to show mastery of technique leaves a stronger impression. It’s like a boxer is rocked hardest by a punch he doesn’t see coming.) Close Encounters indulges in the tricks of the horror trade but left the audience aglow with wonderment. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a brutal(and brutalizing) movie, with people getting impaled, hacked by propeller blades, run over by a truck, and dispensed with in all manner of creative ways. And the catharsis comes with grisly effects with flesh and eyeballs melting off skulls that explode. But Spielberg perfected the method of pushing violence to the threshold without tipping over to R-rating. It didn’t hurt that most of the bloodied or bludgeoned happened to be Arabs and especially Nazi Germans, whom Spielberg’s movies did more to dehumanize than earlier movies(with the possible exception of The Dirty Dozen) that vilified Nazis but didn’t use them as test-dummies for sadistic Jewish revenge fantasies; it certainly was a major inspiration for Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds. Even E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial had stronger-than-usual suspense elements that had kids freaked out in theaters(or have nightmares about afterwards). It was a testament to his skills either as an unparalleled film-master or shameless master-manipulator that his ostensibly family-friendly movies left an imprint on the psyche of a whole generation the size of T-Rex footprints in Jurassic Park.

And this brings us to Poltergeist, one of his most revealing works, wittingly or not. Indeed, I suspect he hired Tobe Hooper to direct as a kind of insurance, aka plausible deniability. His title is as producer and co-scenarist, but it is presented as a ‘Tobe Hooper Film’. Of course, Spielberg could have cited any number of reasons as to why he got Hooper to direct. After all, didn’t George Lucas do the same with The Empire Strikes Back? It’s been said that it was a legal matter, that his movie contract forbade him from directing another movie while working on E.T. But then, why not direct it after E.T.? Why was it necessary for both movies to have been made and released simultaneously? Perhaps, Spielberg thought it was a throwaway idea, something he wanted to see realized but wasn’t fully invested in. But, it doesn’t seem like a mere piece of exploitation(of his brand) like The Goonies, little more than a financial scheme. Too much of Poltergeist comes across as obsessively personal on Spielberg’s part. It was obviously a major investment, not only of money but of the imagination. He didn’t just pen an idea for someone else to play with but insisted it be done as he envisioned it, right down to every detail. No wonder then the result is Spielbergian than Hooperian. It’s as if Hooper served as Spielberg’s clone-double. And the music by Jerry Goldsmith approximates John William’s style almost note-for-note. In the movie, someone remarks that all the houses in the neighborhood look so much alike, and Poltergeist’s signature style matches that of Spielberg. And it’s not a pale but a bold piece of imitation, which may sound odd because boldness usually tends toward originality and strong personal will. Either Hooper peered into Spielberg’s psyche and drew inspiration from the jumble of magic and terror or Spielberg breathed down Hooper’s neck at every turn, using him as a hapless bitch. Given his own fame(and notoriety), one might have expected Hooper would have imposed his own demented take on the material: A Spielberg idea gleefully shredded by chainsaw filmmaking. In E.T., the boy and the space creature soulfully merge into one, and a similar dynamic seems to have come over Spielberg and Hooper on Poltergeist: A kind of telepathic linkage, like with remote control devices in the movie.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the work that put Hooper’s name on the Cult Movie map, is trashy but primitively effective and surprisingly more reliant on suspense and mood than on outright gore. Still, it’s butcher-porn that had a corrosive impact on the culture that became accustomed to sicko movies as respite from boredom and apathy, which were made only worse by the desensitization that called for ever stronger doses for the same effect. (Though ugly and pointless, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a masterpiece compared to most of Hooper’s works, none of which I managed to get past the 20 min mark with the exception of Poltergeist, another clue it’s more Spielberg than Hooper.) Horror, like hard rock, needs to justify itself more than other genres. Otherwise, something so abusive becomes decrepit torture-porn. Given Poltergeist‘s horror credentials, it’s hardly surprising Spielberg hired a well-known specialist in the field. While Spielberg’s earlier works(and even E.T.) borrowed from horror, perhaps the fantasist in him didn’t want to be directly associated with the genre. People might have raised eyebrows and wondered about the darker side of Spielberg. (This has left Poltergeist in an authorial limbo, if not dispute, comparable to that of The Thing from Another World, of which there has been considerable debate as to the real director, Christian Nyby or Howard Hawks. But then, this ambivalence certainly adds to Poltergeist‘s mystery as to the source of the haunting.) Still, why Hooper of all people, a man associated with one of the most notorious horror movie, even more so than The Night of the Living Dead? It’s one thing to show brain-dead zombies doing gruesome things but quite another to show people with souls acting even grislier and without explanation. Was it because Spielberg and Hooper were roughly of the same generation and came to prominence around the same time, one with a chainsaw and the other with a shark? Appalling or appealing, both were predicated on overwhelming the senses.

Spielberg’s Midas Touch made Poltergeist into one of the rare post-60s horror movies(along with The Omen and inexplicably Burnt Offerings) that earned a PG-rating, not too surprising given the relative lack of gore. Especially since the early 70s(and the landmark The Exorcist), an R-rating could actually be an advantage as any loss of youth audience was compensated by a larger older audience eager for the latest thrills far beyond the once shocking threshold of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho(which aired on TV uncut in the 70s and 80s). Indeed, a PG-rated horror movie seemed rather lame by the time works like Carrie, Dawn of the Dead, and especially Halloween(and its unfortunate imitations) redefined the genre. It was as if Poltergeist was trying to have it both ways. Not only was it Spielberg’s movie but not his movie, it walked a fine line between magic and monstrosity. It’s like a sledgehammer made of sponge or a teddy bear stuffed with firecrackers. As such, it seems more the work of a prankster than a depraved soul. And, no one gets killed though the dead have something to do with all the trouble.

Even though Spielberg has never been regarded as a thinker, let alone an intellectual, a closer inspection suggests he always understood far more than he let on. Precisely because of that aura of ‘innocence’, sincere and cynical in equal measure, critics and the audience have tended to overlook the colder and more calculating side of Spielberg, often dismissed as a hopeless man-child(or a rather mushy maker of serious movies). In truth, while Spielberg did remain a child-at-heart, he knew well enough of the snake oil in the elixir of family entertainment. In Jaws, we are made to identify with the heroic Chief Brody(and give the scrappy Hooper his due), and if there’s a villain in the story, it’s the mayor for whom business trumps everything, but the movie is premised on the same logic: Anything to get the audience into the theater.

It was Spielberg’s childlike qualities that made his subversive streak less noticeable and all the more ‘dangerous’ for that very reason. Indeed, it wasn’t so much that Spielberg failed to grow up but retained what it was like to be a child, also true of Hayao Miyazaki. For Spielberg, the soul of a child is like solid gold, like the idol in the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark: so rich and so vulnerable to theft. A child can believe in dreams and magic, which makes David’s case in A.I. both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because he sees the world in mythic terms(of a blue fairy that can turn him into a real boy) but also a curse because he’s trapped in a dream that can only turn into nightmare. It also makes him vulnerable to manipulation by others who feed on the dream.

There are two daughters in Poltergeist, and the older one(sixteen) feels less because she knows more. Coming into adulthood, her main concerns seem to be pleasure and friends(who are never shown). In contrast, the younger daughter(who’s five years old) still has a dream-mind that believes in the soul of a dead canary and the spirits emanating from the TV set, whom she calls the ‘TV people’. Before mankind gained a more rational and fact-based map of reality, it believed in the gods, spirits, and demons. People lived in a magic world. Christianity both subdued and heightened this dream sense. The concept of Heaven and Hell envisioned souls after death destined for either Heaven or Hell. Without such certitudes, who knew where those souls would be wandering, perhaps as ghosts driven by envy, spite, or revenge?

On the other hand, precisely because Christianity elaborated on the hereafter(in contrast to Judaism), life after death became a central theme, and much of horror was premised on the notion of souls failing to make it to Heaven or Hell(or realizing such don’t exist after all). (Spielberg’s favorite movie, A Guy Named Joe, is based on such an idea, and Poltergeist pays it homage for reasons sentimental and thematic because Poltergeist is also about spirits trapped between life and death. Later, Spielberg remade A Guy Named Joe into Always, perhaps the most endearing of ghost movies, though it was dwarfed at the box office by the next year’s Ghost in which Patrick Swayne’s spirit enters Whoopie Goldberg’s body to have lesbian ‘sex’ with Demi Moore; now that sounds like HORROR.) Because children believe in dreams, they live in a kind of a spirit world. In that sense, they can be said to be ‘wiser’, at one with the ancients who also believed in gods and spirits as part of the fabric of reality. Growing older, modern people dismiss their childhood dreams as mere silliness, stuff about dragons and princesses when they once played with toys and believed in fairytales. But along the way they lose something integral to what lends meaning to life. This is especially so in the modern world where educated adults are expected to know they live in a material world, not a spiritual one. Thus, magical/spiritual consciousness is strictly associated with childhood whereas adulthood is about cold-and-sober assessment of reality in material and rational terms. It wasn’t always so, however, as the ancients(and indeed most people up to the rise of modernity) did believe in God, many gods, and/or the spirit world. Before modernity, people went from childhood to adulthood without losing a sense of magic-consciousness. Magical thinking wasn’t dismissed as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy that children eventually grow out of. (On the other hand, even though modern folks no longer believe in gods, angels, and demons, they have a harder time emotionally growing out of fantasies like Harry Potter and Batman.)

Spielberg has an acute appreciation of the magical thinking of children. It is what makes the little girl in Poltergeist ‘wiser’ than the others. Her mind doesn’t neatly dissect the world in categories of real and unreal. And it’s no wonder that E.T. and the young Elliott form such a strong bond. Before you see, you must be willing to believe(bordering on faith), like with Spielberg’s yearnings for U.F.O’s(as his Holy Grail) that led to Close Encounters.

Yet, Spielberg also knows the openness of a child’s mind is vulnerable to manipulation, even corruption. Thus, the little girl in Poltergeist sees more but is also easily hypnotized. She senses the TV people but is mesmerized and led astray, made to mistake hell for heaven, heaven for hell; she cannot find her way out of the haunted closet without the well-coordinated plot of others.

First and foremost, Spielberg is profoundly Jewish. Not so much because Jewishness(or sense of Jewish tragedy) was instilled in him as a child but because, in his search for meaning and purpose later in life, he returned to the ancient(but also timeless, therefore futurist as well) tribal identity, which he’d been ambivalent about in his youth surrounded by goy kids. Jewishness may have offered less fireworks(than Christmas and pagan fantasies) but was more resilient as fire. In a way, one might surmise Jewishness came to matter more to Spielberg precisely because of his utter enchantment with fantasies concocted by Gentiles; you might say he was a Born-Again Jew, also true of Bob Dylan. When many Jews were grumbling about Uncle Walt the ‘crypto-nazi Anti-Semite’, child Spielberg was sucked into Disney fantasies on the TV screen. And later in young adulthood, some of his favorite movies were by goyim like Howard Hawks, John Ford, David Lean, and the like. By today’s Judeo-centric standards, many of the great film-makers of yesteryear qualify as ‘Anti-Semites’, amusingly detailed in the book Secret Lives of Great Filmmakers by Robert Schnakenberg, who I presume to be Jewish. The book’s moral outrage about the ‘secrets’ of certain directors is relieved by the generally silly tone and sillier illustrations, so that the details about their bigotry even become endearing. It certainly had me laughing. An example of Schnakenberg’s revelations: “… John Ford was… an Anti-Semite; he was known to address letters to Jewish friends with ‘Dear Christ Killer’.” ROTFL (Of course, there’s no suggestion that Jewish attitudes about white goyim or Christians count as bigotry.)

There are certain parallels between Cecil B. DeMille and Steven Spielberg. The half-Jewish DeMille realized his Semitic roots later in life as his Jewish mother had converted to his father’s Episcopalian Faith(now known as globo-homo-anal-faith). DeMille recognized himself in the story of Moses, the subject of his biggest success The Ten Commandments, who is raised Egyptian but realizes he’s really of the Tribe. Even though Spielberg grew up with full knowledge of his (rather stereotypical)Jewishness, his fantasies derived from pagan and Christian sources, not least because he grew up in overwhelmingly goy settings. How might Spielberg have turned out if born and raised in New York like Woody Allen and Mel Brooks than in Phoenix, Arizona.

Close Encounters is Spielberg’s Ten Commandments. The space aliens represent the superior race of Jews, and the protagonist Roy(Richard Dreyfus) discovers his true destiny, which is to make cosmic aliyah with hyper-Einsteins from the Planet Zionia. (It also stars Francois Truffaut who, only later in life, discovered his real father is a Jewish dentist.) For Spielberg, the Goy World, especially that of whites, is the stage(or stadium) on which exciting things happen, but the Jewish World is his home, the place of continuity and communion with his REAL tribe. Spielberg’s imagination may wander all over the place, but his blood flows from the river of his tribal ancestors, whether he likes it or not. Then, it is no wonder the cemetery is a key motif in Poltergeist. Rather than a mere dumping ground for the dead, it is the truest metaphor of homeland, i.e. a nation is not only where your tribe was birthed, physically and/or conceptually, but where your tribesmen are buried. Americanism, with its relentless emphasis on mobility, opportunity, liberty, and individuality, looks forward than backward. More than in any place in the world, there are ample spaces for cemeteries in North America, but American modernity(now gone global) is about the living(especially the young) than the dead(or the old). It’s about seeking new thrills than revisiting old spirits. Jews, with their entrepreneurial and hustling spirit, took to forward-looking Americanism like sharks to blood, but Jewishness wouldn’t be what it is without the anxiety of memory. Americanism and Christianity only require faith and conviction, whereas Jewishness is nothing without deep sense of connection and loyalty.

With goyim, it boils down to diplomacy & contract. With Jews, it’s family & covenant. No matter how much Steven Spielberg has in common with George Lucas or Robert Zemeckis at the professional level, he probably feels a deeper connection with some Jewish guy he doesn’t even know in Israel or New York. Similarly, even as E.T. comes to share his ‘soul’ with Elliott, he must return to his own kind, without whose proximity his heart ceases to beat. No matter how much Elliot(and his siblings) love and care for the strange creature, there’s no substitute for E.T.’s deeper connection to his race of E.T.’s. It’s a happy ending because E.T. does reunite with fellow E.T.s, all of whom look like a cross between Carl Sagan and Whoopie Goldberg.

In contrast, David’s story is ultimately tragic in A.I.: Artificial Intelligence because his ‘soulful’ imprinting on Monica as ‘mommy’ is lacking in reciprocity on her part. Worse, she died a long long time ago before he was thawed from the ice, a fact his emotions cannot accept. As for Elliott, despite bidding a most tearful farewell to E.T., he comes to appreciate his own family more upon realizing E.T.’s need to be back with his own kind — it’s sort of like the moment in Gandhi(1982) when the would-be national leader tells a well-meaning white guy that the struggle must be that of the Indians; they can be friends but not of the same family. (A child or a childlike creature’s reunion with parents, parental figures, or family is a running theme in Spielberg’s movies such as Close Encounters, Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, War Horse, and others. And it is at the heart of Poltergeist as well as the little girl goes missing, albeit in some mysterious other-dimension within the house.)

But, does it then follow that Spielberg respects and defends the right of all peoples to have a sense of homeland and heritage? Hell no. Just ask the Palestinians whose land was taken by Jewish immigrant-colonizer-invaders. Palestinians have roots in that part of the world just as ancient as those of Jews. And Spielberg is fully onboard with the Jewish-dominated Democratic Party platform that pushes White Nakba on all the West. He is also a supporter of globo-homo and the mental castration of white male psychology. Spielberg’s born-again Jewishness isn’t merely about healthy tribal pride but arch-Jewish-Supremacism of the Victoria-Nuland-Neocon school.

Even though his movies seemed to idealize the norms of White Suburbia, a kind of revamped Norman Rockwellism, the ultimate message is a rejection, or a redemption by serving the higher nobility of crypto-Jewish forces. Just like the Jewish God drove the Egyptians crazy before they relented and let Moses and his people go, Spielberg’s Middle America is tormented to no end(albeit in a fun and entertaining manner) until the higher forces get what they want, like in Close Encounters where the space aliens finally take off with Roy, ostensibly an All-American on the outside but Cosmo-Zionic on the inside. So, even though one of the threads of the movie is about a woman trying to reunite with her son, the bigger reunion story concerns Roy and the space aliens. Now, one may ask how such could be a reunion when Roy is an Earthling and has never been with space aliens before. But according to Spielbergian logic, one isn’t necessarily in sync with his TRUE self. Just like Moses didn’t know his True Calling before the Burning Bush, Roy finds his Truer Self with the Space Jew Aliens; indeed, he seems to forget his earthling family soon enough. In a way, Spielberg came up with his own Scientology that has its adherents believing that their true self can be realized only with an understanding of cosmic forces. But if Scientology is literal in its sci-fi-like psycho-cosmology, it’s allegorical with Spielberg.

From the very first imaget, it’s clear that Poltergeist is a movie of ideas, Spielberg’s stab at something more along the lines of Stanley Kubrick, David Cronenberg(especially of Videodrome), David Lynch, and maybe William Friedkin of The Exorcist and Brian DePalma of Carrie. And of course, Joe Dante, one of the most adroit pop-satirists of Americana, who made The Howling the year before, contributed what many consider the best segment of Twilight Zone the Movie, and would gain his biggest success with Gremlins in 1984. At face value, it appears Spielberg’s role as provocateur came short of those ‘auteurs’. Furthermore, he got himself Tobe Hooper(a second-rater at his best) and to serve as a clone rather than an ‘auteur’ in his own right. (One wonders what the result would have been if Hooper had been given free rein to interpret as he pleased. Probably a worse movie but definitely R-rated.) Outwardly, Poltergeist seems too tame for horror and too bombastic for thought.

But beneath the surface there’s a lot happening in the movie, at least on the level of John Ford’s Symbolism 101. It’s also the work of Spielberg as a very naughty boy, feigning innocence through mischief. Precociousness usually leads to sophistication in adulthood, but it retained its pristine quality with Spielberg, whose emotions remained childlike, which is what makes Poltergeist especially odd; it’s like horror-porn made by a child.

The movie begins with the Star-Spangled Banner as the TV station is about to go off the air. The patriotic images of places and monuments around Washington D.C., especially the Iwo Jima memorial lend a sense of security and confidence in the US, the greatest country in the world. (Spielberg’s later role as executive producer for Flags of Our Fathers directed by Clint Eastwood suggests a certain ambiguity about American Heroism in World War II, at least pertaining to the Pacific War. Likewise, 1941 and Empire of the Sun are far less anti-Japanese than one might expect from such movies. Killing Nazis was great in the European sphere, but maybe White America’s War on the ‘Japs’ had parallels to the Nazi race war on Jews.) Yet, the extreme close-up of the TV screen suggests a quantum mechanics world of chaos, of reality deconstructed into subatomic particles. What TV-viewers take for granted as distinct images seem a rattling mass of pixels, as if to suggest we experience only one plane of reality among multiple dimensions. But what is the deeper reality beyond mundane reality, those infinitely smaller and bigger than the one we are accustomed to, indeed trapped in, the theme of Mothman Prophecies that surely owes a thing or two to Spielberg. At most times, we no more think about the deeper realms of reality than about the multiple angles of history. (One thing for sure, those who control the media regard reality differently from those who consume the media. The latter exist to passively receive and accept what is shown as the reality, or official narrative. In contrast, media operatives know that ‘reality’ is what they themselves shape it to be. For them, reality is fluid in accordance to powerful interests, whereas for the public it is fixed by the truisms of the Current Year.) Most Americans are rather like the family in Poltergeist. They seem content in their comfort and relative prosperity, taking it all for granted. They have no reason to question the official narrative by the big media that sign off every night to the national anthem and patriotic images.

The father has fallen asleep on the recliner in front of the TV screen, which turns to ‘static’ after the station has shut down. The static(accompanied by irritating buzz) is a jumble of chaos but are also the raw material that comes together to form the images on TV. It has no narrative value but reveals the primordial animal-spirit of the TV. It looks like pure unfiltered energy. When a show is on, viewers focus on the characters, locations, story, and effects. They are carried away by what is presented to them as a product, be it a sitcom, soap opera, movie, documentary, or the news. One becomes immersed or distracted by the narrative and the tricks of the trade and doesn’t bother about the nature of the TV medium itself. The images and information streaming through the TV seem definite and familiar, connected somehow to the reality all around us. People and places on TV look like real people and places, and people conveniently overlook the fact that TV images are assembled from a chaos of electronic signals, much like paintings are made of countless tiny little brushstrokes of various colors. In their preference of the recognizable product, people hardly think about the process that turn, for example, a mess of colors into recognizable shapes and patterns in a landscape painting. But if fine art had its Modernist moment when the attention turned from the product to the process itself, movies and TV remained more or less within the conventional narrative, of which Poltergeist is a part but one that at least suggests at the deeper realms of the medium. (Of course, TV could be a metaphor for reality as physics states that ‘matter’ is really a form of energy, i.e. what we consider to be real reality is just a TV show for God.)

As TV is considered entertainment and escapism(even more so before TV eclipsed cinema as the favored venue of more mature-oriented works), people tend not to notice the profound impact it has on their emotions, bias-formations, worldviews, and sense of norms. It was once called the ‘idiot box’, a dispenser of mostly second-rate material done with third-rate production values. It lacked the prestige eventually attained by cinema, eventually recognized as the Artform of the 20th Century. (And until relatively recently with the advent of digital technology and larger screens, the image quality even on the most expensive analog screens was far from satisfactory.) But even if ignored by most serious thinkers(though there were exceptions like Marshall McLuhan), TV had the most profound impact on billions of people. Incredibly, the dumbest medium had the biggest influence on the world.

In a way, TV’s hold on our imagination went further precisely because so many of us deemed it beneath serious consideration. It was just there, for light entertainment, sentimental melodrama, cheap thrills, kiddie programs, inane advertising, and the local news(with the usual platitudes). People are more likely to be thoughtful and/or wary of what is deemed serious(possessed of meaning and significance). In contrast, so much of TV just washed over the viewers with their guards down.

Notice how the family members in Poltergeist routinely fall asleep with the TV on, snoozing through the station closing with the montage to the national anthem. (They are so different from the frontier families in John Ford movies who make sure everything is safe and secure from animals, Indians, and outlaws before going to bed, always with a rifle and ammo at hand. In Poltergeist, the father nodded off on the recliner, and the bedroom doors are open for the dog to move in and out of each one, without anyone noticing.) The TV might as well be a lamp or a piece of furniture; indeed, family photos sit atop it. The family obviously never gave much thought about the TV and its power over them and the whole country(and the world). Now, there are real spirits and ghostly presences in Poltergeist, but the movie seems in large part about the power of the electronic medium, the television and by extension the movies.

Indeed, our underestimation of TV has been like the general dismissal of Spielberg. Whereas Spielberg far outshone TV in quality, both were regarded as escapist entertainment. One could admire Spielberg’s talent but think no more seriously about his works than any cheapie junk on TV. The consensus has been Spielberg made super-fun movies but offered little in the way of meaning, which is why he later made ‘serious’ movies to gain some recognition, which peaked with the accolades and awards for Schindler’s List. (Of course, in recent years, popular culture and mass media have become a focal point of scholars and culture critics, whereas highbrow culture has fallen off the radar. But, this isn’t because popular culture has grown in meaning and depth — if anything, the opposite is the case — but because their power to shape attitudes and change ‘minds’ are undeniable; consider how TV shows convinced Americans to celebrate globo-homo, a point made by Joe Biden who now praises TV advertising for instilling white minds with Jungle Fever and ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. Thus, fluff has become the right stuff in the Culture War, premised on the notion that most people are irrational dimwits & dummies, incapable of any real thought, and perchance they are, better to suppress their critical faculty lest it question and challenge the Power. Therefore, use irrational means of manipulation via mass entertainment, advertising, and bacchanalia to sway public opinions, and while at it, fuse the news media and state propaganda into a single entity, and why not, as both are now firmly in the control of Jewish Supremacism. So much attention is now focused on pop culture and mass media, far more so than on serious art, books, and culture, but not because the former is deep but because the masses are shallow, with the conclusion that the vast hordes are best swayed and controlled by ‘circus’. It’s telling that the term ‘influencer’ now has more currency than ‘intellectual’. The latter tries to persuade you through argument and reason, whereas the former appeals to you with personality and the ‘cool’ factor, often amounting to Queer Pressure. It used to be the Right relied on unquestioning faith in conventions and trust in authority, whereas the Left stood for challenging sacred cows and fostering a critical perspective, but now, we have ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacists masquerading as ‘leftist progressives’ and relying on unquestioning trust in authority as the cornerstone of their legitimacy and power. Because of the oppositional character of leftism, the current Power maintains the aura of adversarial politics, e.g. ‘critical race theory’, but the discourse is carefully curated to serve the dominant power of Jewish Supremacism. The suckers are fooled into believing they’re engaged in a holy crusade against all-powerful and all-threatening ‘white supremacism’ when, in truth, Jews denigrate whiteness to ensure white obeisance to all-powerful Zionist global-hegemony.)

In a way, however, his fun movies have been far more impactful and not merely because they drew larger audiences. They’ve indeed taken quasi-spiritual possession of countless impressionable souls. The audience experienced something akin to rapture, a feeling that went far beyond the WOW of Star Wars, which awed the senses but didn’t capture souls.

Some things are worthy of serious consideration because of their artistic content, but some things draw serious attention because of their tremendous impact on the mass psyche. Harry Potter books may not be much(even by standards of children’s literature), but they came to define the imagination of several generations. And even though Rap music is stupid and corrosive, its cultural impact on the world is truly momentous, what with even the nursing profession filled with ‘twerking’ ho’s. Spielberg is an interesting case because he ranks among the greatest film-makers but is also the most successful director ever. The only comparable figure is Alfred Hitchcock, great artist and entertainer. Usually, the film artist tends to lose out at the box office whereas the movie-maker tends to lack creativity. Cecil B. DeMille was no slouch and formidable in his own way, but he was no Orson Welles. On the other hand, Welles had difficulty getting his films made. Spielberg had the talent of Welles and the sensibility of DeMille. A cultural mutant who redefined mainstream movie culture. (While the sensual/emotional impact of both Spielberg and Michael Bay is primal and visceral, Spielberg’s methods are subtle, almost subliminal beneath the bombast, whereas Bay’s are crude and simplistic. It’s the difference between fireworks and mere dynamite.)

The Exorcist, Carrie, and Halloween are horror in the truest sense. The girl is demon-possessed in The Exorcist. Carrie has the power of telekinesis and, though a decent girl, is caught between a crazy mother and nasty bitches. And Michael of Halloween is an embodiment of evil so powerful that he’s near-indestructible. Poltergeist has supernatural or paranormal stuff as well, but Spielberg seems to be implying that the electronic medium IS the ghost that haunts(and manipulates and ultimately controls) the modern world. As such, it may qualify more as satire than as horror. There’s a TV in every room, so those who control the TV signals control the spirits that enter into our homes and into our dreams. Every time we turn on the TV, it’s electronic Normandy Invasion, with the spirit-armies created by Jews invading our minds, weakening all defenses, and occupying yet another piece of our souls. Electronic signals know no boundaries. Each house is fenced off from other units, but TV signals intrude(or trespass) into every home.

In other words, those who control the TV stations effectively gain entry into the private spaces of every home. And, like moths before a flame, people are drawn to rays from the tube. This condition is accentuated in the scene where the TV is affected by the next-door neighbor’s remote control. The father has friends over to watch an NFL game but the screen keeps switching to Mr. Rogers because, as it turns out, the neighbor keeps tuning to Mr. Rogers for his children. There’s a tall fence between the two houses, but the electronic signals cross back and forth with ghostly efficiency. Both are irritated by their respective TV set being affected by electronic interference from the other remote, oblivious to the larger truth that perception of reality is ‘interfered’ with in every home by the TV stations, which are the mother of all remote controls. The owner of a TV may decide between NFL and Mr. Rogers, but the narrow set of options is decided by the media oligarchs. Free to choose among what is offered or allowed.

I suspect the young Spielberg, something of a geek, was more fixated on the TV than other children who merely regarded it as an entertainment box. Spielberg, being more sensitive, intelligent, and obsessive, was more fascinated than most. He wanted to enter into the world behind the TV screen(like in Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz). One can imagine that boy Spielberg, like the little girl in Poltergeist, stared into the TV set even after the station shut down for the night. Mere static may have seemed almost like a secret message privy only to himself. And unlike most children whose relation to the TV(and movies) was merely passive and pleasurable, Spielberg finally entered the dream by entering the dream factory. When Dorothy and her friends discover the truth about the ‘sorcerer’ in The Wizard of Oz, they are disillusioned and angry(and David in A.I. says his mind seems to be frying upon meeting his real ‘mother’, a neurotic scientist), but that moment was what Spielberg relished most, that HE could be a dream-weaver and draw others into his web of dream-work, especially in their childhood when humans are most vulnerable to manipulation or ‘conversion’.

With Poltergeist, Spielberg seems to suggest, beaming with pride, that ghostly powers are indeed real enough, but they are not supernatural, paranormal, or otherworldly but electronic(and they shoot out of his fingertips). The signals are invisible but all around us, transmitting carefully selected and arranged sights-and-sounds to billions of devices(expanded exponentially since the 1980s with personal computers, laptops, and ‘smartphones’). Storytelling is as old as mankind itself, but cinema and especially television went one step further. The stories became a kind of watched ‘reality’.

Classic storytelling could captivate the reader or listener, but there was always the sense that it was something in the past, even very long ago. Not for nothing are most stories told in the past tense, a recollection of things that happened already. But the past unfolds as the living present through the medium of cinema and TV. Star Wars begins with the line “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away…” but immediately dissolves time and distance as its presents the spectacle right before our eyes as a gigantic Star Destroyer hurdles over us.

Cinema/television brings back to life the dead as if standing and breathing before our eyes. Ghosts are materialized into living images, almost tangible to the eye. Consider the TV shows Roots and The Holocaust. Both were cases of Jews in control of ghost-narratives, i.e. those who control the electronic media decide which ghosts of the past are revived to haunt(and accuse) every home. In the 1970s, someone randomly turning on the TV had a good chance of being mentally whipped with the trials and tribulations of Kunta Kinte, aka Toby. Or you might be watching a denuded Jews getting mowed down in The Holocaust the television event. Those trauma-inducing or shocking images were meant to haunt the psyche of the viewers, especially the white folks whom Jews wanted robbed of racial pride of identity and history. It was the Jewish Way of spooking white psychology with black and Jewish ghosts. And given the immense capacity of human memory, those images and sounds were bound to linger long after the series ended. White folks made to weep over the mountain-sized Negro who done love a little white mouse in Green Mile were probably marked for life. “Save that poor helpless Negro, boo hoo hoo.” It explains all the hair-pulling about St. George Floyd of Fentanyl heaven.

In Poltergeist, an archetypal white family is haunted by the dead who communicate with the little gir through the TV set(and stereo devices) and are eventually captured on video equipment. It doesn’t matter that the family is innocent of the ‘crime’(of not having removed the bodies along with the gravestones when a cemetery was cleared for housing development). The developers were the guilty party, but the family must suffer too, just like all Egyptians were punished for the decisions of the Pharaoh in Ten Commandments. The family’s name is Freeling, which could be German or Jewish(as many Jews took German surnames), but there’s no indication that the family is Jewish except that the father happens to be one hell of a salesman. If meant to be Jewish, he’s one of those types fully assimilated into White Gentile Culture(for which he must be punished), but my guess is the family isn’t meant to be Jewish.

Because Poltergeist really concerns the Jewish control of electronic media that select which set of ghosts shall haunt the households via TV sets — for sure, it won’t be about the Palestinian ghosts of Nakba or Ukrainian ghosts of the Great Famine — , it diverges from the Horror convention of evil or demonic spirits. Even though the fright-stuff appears diabolical throughout the movie, it is revealed to be justified. It is righteous rage upon the living by those who’ve had their graves desecrated. (It’s significant that the father is a real estate agent as so much of the world’s troubles arise from ‘location, location, location’, or what is lawful to some is deemed illegal by others, and what is home to some is claimed as holy by others.) So, unlike the Devil in The Exorcist or telekinesis in Carrie(that ultimately proves destructive), the apparently evil spirits in Poltergeist turn out to be understandably frustrated spirits seeking righteous release(and a bit of revenge).

In this way, Poltergeist took something from fellow Lawrence Kasdan’s script of Raiders of the Lost Ark based on the idea from another Jew Philip Kaufman who contributed the ‘ark’ angle to George Lucas’s original story. (Raiders of the Lost Ark may have been transformative for Spielberg. For the first time, he could be upfront and aggressive about Jewish themes of vengeance, and the effect likely rubbed off on the Poltergeist project.) Near the very end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the ghosts released from the artifact are spooky enough but turn out to be good angels of death hellbent on destroying Evil Nazis. In a similar vein, the spirits in Poltergeist are in turmoil because the developers economized by relocating the headstones but not the bodies in a cemetery purchased for development. (Given all the land in California, was it really necessary to turn graveyards into suburbs?)

It’s likely an allusion to the Holocaust, or Spielberg’s not-so-subtle way of saying, “You goyim think World War II is history and forgotten, but we Jews will NEVER FORGET all those Jews murdered by your white Anti-Semitic scum.” Also, if Americans in the postwar years preferred to believe that Nazism was just an aberration of Western History and ultimately defeated by good ole God-fearing Christian America, which happens to be a liberal democracy, or the Home of the Free, Jews have another perspective: The Holocaust is really a culmination of the entire history of Christian antisemitism and Aryan racial consciousness that go back eons. So, if White Americans view themselves as the Good Guys who beat the Nazi Bad Guys, Jews see World War II in terms of less-bad-guys defeating the more-bad-guys, but less-bad-guys are still bad guys whose day of punishment, humiliation, and destruction must come. No wonder Jews push the Great Replacement or White Nakba. No wonder Jews push ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) and the cuck-castration-of-white-balls.

Poltergeist is also a dig at the American Capitalist mentality, especially resurgent in the Reagan Era. Materialism based on free enterprise posited that development and prosperity are the true metrics of Americanism. It is also the great redeemer, baptizing U.S. history of its ‘sins’ with improved lives for all. American Indians lost their tipis but now have homes to live in.

And many white Americans, deracinated and consumerist, seemed content with such an outlook. (Later, this became George W. Bush telling Americans to go shopping to show the world that they stand strong after 9/11.)

While Spielberg became a super-capitalist himself(and always wanted to be one), wealth and luxury are not his highest priorities. In Close Encounters, the protagonist Roy even loses his job to discover his true place in the cosmos. In Schindler’s List, the main character is initially motivated by money alone(than by Nazi ideology or animus toward Jews) but later sacrifices his entire fortune to save the Jews. (It’s telling that, whereas the highest good for a Jew is to serve his own kind, the highest good for white goyim is to betray their own kind in favor of Jews. Now, given the great crimes associated with Nazism, one may argue that Schindler in Spielberg’s film didn’t so much choose Jews over Germans, his own people, as choose justice over evil, but I’m not sure Spielberg cares about universal justice. He must know the history of Palestine, how it was destroyed by the Zionists, but he lacks any Schindlerian sentiments about victims of Nakba. He’s perfectly happy with World Jewry and white goyim in the West supporting Zionists and stomping on Palestinians. So, his tribal morality dictates not only that Jews stick with Jews even when they do wrong but that white goyim stick with Jews even when Jews do wrong. Like Sam Harris, Spielbergian morality is tribalism packaged in faux-universalist wrapping.) In Empire of the Sun, a British boy(born and raised in China) becomes entranced by Japanese fighter planes and enamored of an American smuggler but discovers his real place is with his parents; the boy clearly serves as surrogate for Jewish feelings of cultural orphanism, i.e. Spielberg grew up chasing after so many goy fantasies but found his true place in the bosom of his own kind.

In Poltergeist, the family lives in a fast-developing community of clean and spacious new homes. It seems like a slice of paradise, the American Dream come true in the era of Morning in America. But, dream turns into nightmare when it turns out the developers, for the sake of expediency, profits, or just plain old greed, violated the trust of the families whose dear departed are buried in the cemetery that was converted into residential space. Thus, beneath the placid surface of American Suburbia, there lies the dark truth of deception and betrayal. It’s clearly meant to be allegorical as Spielberg the closet-super-Zionist is profoundly Jewish. In a nutshell, it was Spielberg’s way of sticking it to White America: “Don’t think it’s the End of History because of the good life and the American Pie getting bigger for everyone. We Jews will never forgive you white Christian goyim for the hell you people put our ancestors through.” So, the dead forgotten bodies allude to the Holocaust. Spielberg’s apparent paeans to White Suburbia are deceptive. His movies are as much about what they hide than what they show.

In the opening scene, we notice family photos atop the TV set. It’s as if the television has become the central object in the living room(and there is one in the master bedroom as well). It not only serves as a source of news & entertainment(or portal of Jewish Mind Control) but as the family altar. That everyone is asleep could be an allusion to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The family dog, a golden retriever, goes from person to person, mainly sniffing for morsels. Being a dumb animal, it has no motive beyond food, but it inadvertently wakes up the little girl, setting into motion a series of mini-events that turn the family upside down. Perhaps, it’s to suggest that humans, especially goyim, are like dogs and go through the motions without understanding their significance and implications. The dog was just looking for food but woke up the little girl by sniffing around her. Later, the mother surmises the girl, Carol Anne(played by Heather O’Rourke), was sleepwalking, but her daughter was fully awake when she came down the oddly-situated staircase, albeit in an almost trance-like state.

Why was SHE contacted first? (Carol Anne looks like a female dead ringer to the little boy in Close Encounters; Spielberg sure knows how to pick them for the eyes.) She is the first to commune with the ‘spirits’ while everyone else remains asleep. If Invasion of the Body Snatchers is about “get them while they’re asleep”, Poltergeist begins as if to say, “get them when they’re young.” Children, with limited capacity for distinguishing reality from fantasy, make ideal pickings for manipulation. Then, it’s no wonder that the spirits(or ghosts, phantoms, or whatever) came for her first.

Indeed, it anticipates what was to come with the rise of globo-homo, pornification of kiddie entertainment, and the Jewish politicization of childhood. (But then, religions have long understood this as well, initiating young ones into the order before they develop critical faculties and ask questions. Still, outside matters of God, it was widely held that childhood is mostly about innocence and ignorance, and so, children shouldn’t be politicized, let alone sexualized, at such a tender age, no more than an unripened fruit should be picked from a tree.) Jews know it’s more difficult to bring people to certain ‘values’ and inclinations at an older age. Conversion is harder as it has to overcome the initial aversion. Immersion is easier as the child grows up into those ‘values’ as the norm. It’s like circumcision is far easier with a baby than with an adult, who must be convinced(and even forced) to undergo the painful ordeal.

Indeed, the demeanor of the older daughter Dana(Dominique Dunne) is usually nonchalance or eye-rolling cynicism(until the shit really hits the fan and makes her hanker for ‘faith’). And the middle child Robbie(Oliver Robins) is too young for conceit but old enough to recognize strangeness. When the TV people contact Carol Anne, she finds it ‘normal’, not weird. In contrast, when Robbie later finds his fork and spoon suddenly twisted, he knows something has gone awry.

So, the trick is to ‘get them when they’re young.’ It might as well be the motto of Jewish-controlled ‘wokeness’. That way, Jews and their allies won’t have to convince anyone that the weird, kinky, demented, and perverted are the New Normal. Young children, with blank and open minds lacking in context, can be introduced to the New Normal as something ‘natural’, indeed as their first cognition of social reality. They can be led to accept perverted tranny drag-queens as magical fairies. And if introduced to kink at an early age at ‘pride’ festivals, they might come to regard kink as something ‘ordinary’; it’s like children born and raised in head-hunting or human-sacrificing tribes don’t find the practice sick or odd. It’s no wonder so many children’s books have been politicized with globo-homo kiddie-porn or BLM narratives(but nothing about how the IDF routinely terrorizes Palestinian children). It’s no wonder places where children congregate, especially elementary schools and public libraries, have been targeted by the get-them-while-they’re-young agenda. It is to acculturate the young ones into ‘woke’ idolatry so that they will grow into it as the First Norm than be made to accept it as the New Norm.

After all, the notion of the New Normal implies there was(or still is) an Old Norm, which invariably leads to comparisons and contrasts. But if children are raised into the New Normal as the First Normal, they will think it is the ONLY Normal. Because Spielberg made all these family movies(and has a gun collection and is pals with John Milius), some may believe that he’s a closet-conservative, but whatever is conservative about him is Judeo-centric, and that means supporting any policy to weaken white goyim into serving Jewish Supremacism. Globo-Homo and Tranny-Wanny are such Jewish tools and proxies. As a big donor to the Democratic Party, one may reasonably surmise that Spielberg is fully onboard with drag-queen story hours, ‘gay pride’ parades, kink for kibblers, cult of ‘white guilt’, and encouragement of gender-lunacy(and mutilating the genitals of boys and girls). All said and done, his agenda is hardly different from that of George Soros and the lowlifes at \$PLC.

Carol Anne talks to the TV screen, waking the others to assemble in the living room in a state of puzzlement. She then puts her Two Little Hands on the screen, whereupon the screen cuts to Two Big Trees on a hillside. It’s an idyllic image(especially with Jerry Goldsmith’s effective imitation of John Williams), but something’s a bit off. It looks like summertime, but the trees are barren. The view from the hills is a perfect encapsulation of suburbia, snugly distanced from both urban problems and small town backwardness. Suburbia is at once old-fashioned and up-to-date. It’s like the latest manifestation of homesteading, except the dwellers are professionals and consumers rather than toilers of the soil. It’s about keeping green lawns than growing corn.

We are treated to a funny sight of a bald bearded guy with a case of beer on a kid’s bike. He’s in a hurry, as if he might miss out on the most important thing. Still a boy at heart, he’s rather like Spielberg, except that Spielberg mastered childhood emotions as an instrument, even a weapon, to conquer the global imagination. As the baldo-beardo pumps the pedals, four mischievous children plan a prank with remote-controlled toy cars, which make the guy fall off the bike with bursting beer cans. The kids laugh, and it looks like innocent fun but foreshadows what lies ahead. Just like the kids use invisible electronic signals to move objects(toy cars) to mess with the path of the man-on-bike(who, by the way, remains in the dark as to what happened), the spirits later use all sorts of energies undetectable to human senses to wreak havoc on the family. The control of electronic signals that light up our devices is the dark power of modernity. It can be used for a harmless prank or to control satellites that beam news(and propaganda) to billions of viewers(or to lob missiles at nations hated by Israel). Spielberg certainly gained ‘Poltergeistal’ power with his mastery of the movie medium, through which he entered and haunted the minds of entire generations, parents and children alike.

The baldo-beardo with the beer is so eager to gain entry into the Freeling house(where his friends are watching an NFL game) that it hardly registers what happened with the bike. Things get a bit naughty here as he enters through the kitchen with leaky beers. In the foreground is Dana the daughter biting into a pickle(phallic symbol) while the baldo-beardo with the leaky beer cans looks like he’s ejaculating. (No wonder Spielberg distanced himself from Poltergeist with Tobe Hooper as a buffer.)

The men all excited about the football game seem to be in their 30s or 40s but act like teenagers. It’s as if the game is happening right before their eyes, the most important thing in the world to which they are entitled and addicted. But, it’s really just electronic signals controlled by the conglomerates. Suddenly, when the men get most hysterical, the TV switches from the game to Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. The men are aghast, speechless, until Steve, the father, explains what likely happened. You see, his TV and the neighbor’s TV respond to each other’s remote control. That explains it, but the men are outraged, and Steve appeals to the neighbor’s good graces but is rebuffed, whereby the two men act like gunslingers with remotes.

As with the toy cars, Spielberg plays on the theme of invisible powers. Despite the clear physical separation between Steve’s house and his neighbor’s house, electronic signals know no borders and pass ghostlike through fences, walls, ceilings, roofs. Thus, electronic signals enter like burglars(or the secret police) into every home via TV and radio(and now computer devices) to steal the hearts and souls of the unwitting public in their private places. The next door neighbor isn’t identified ethnically but could be Jewish, what with a push-back personality who insists on doing it his own way, even if it interferes with the game-day fun for the men in the other house. (Spielberg’s works are like a cross between football games and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, which explains their appeal. People like thugs-and-hugs.)

While the men are all excited(or upset) about the football game, Diane the mother(JoBeth Williams) makes the bed in the room shared by her son and younger daughter. The bed sheet has C-3PO, and the room is full of Star Wars toys and memorabilia, as if to suggest the Freelings are a typical deracinated white family whose only culture is sports and entertainment. Thus, what seems like a homage to George Lucas could also be a dig at him and White America. The pagan Force can’t protect the kid from the power of the Jewishy dark magic controlled by Spielberg.

It seems just another weekend for the mother, but she notices the canary is dead. Does it signify the canary-in-the-coalmine, a harbing

er of things to come? More likely, the canary represents Anne Frank, or the dead Jew. Indeed, when she notices something odd about the bird, she holds a pair of metal skates that perhaps symbolize the train-tracks that sent Jews to the death camps. But more relevant to the theme, her sadness seems minor, a mere matter of inconvenience. She asks the Anne Frank bird why it couldn’t have died a day or two later when the kids would have been at school. And her solution is to flush it down the toilet. The shadow of the canary on the upright toilet seat looks like an icon of Virgin Mary, and Carol Anne appears just when the bird is about to be dropped into the bowl. The mother chooses a more dignified farewell for the bird to spare the little girl’s feelings(and to salvage her own image before the child), more a product of self-conscious anxiety than conscience. The bird is given a dollhouse version of a ‘christian burial’. It is placed inside a cigar box, and the little girl includes a photo, licorice, and napkin as if bidding farewell to her dearest friend in the world. The cigar box may be linked to the next-door neighbor(the one who bickered with the remote) who had a cigar in his mouth. Cigar produces ashes, which could be an allusion to the Holocaust. That minor detail, along with another later, suggests the man is indeed Jewish.

While mother and daughter are preparing for a ‘christian burial’ for feathery Anne Frank, the son stares up at a tall tree right outside his bedroom. If the trees shown earlier were alive but leafless, this tree seems long dead. It serves as a double visual pun. It stands as a mangled crucifix, or how Jews look upon the Jesus symbol. For Christians, it represents sacrifice, redemption, and salvation. For Jews, it represents something far darker as, in their eyes, Jesus and the Disciples were renegade Jews who betrayed the Tribe by passing the Jewish Secret to the filthy goyim who, to make things worse, used the Faith to label Jews as a bunch of Christ-killers undeserving of trust and respect.

But, the tree has another meaning, and Spielberg gets naughty here. He associates the mangled crucifix with the penis as its branches jut out like so many erections. Thus, it also serves as the Dong Tree. (Later, a black character enters the picture, and the tree could also be an allusion to lynching Negroes in the South. A rope also enters the picture later. Given movies like Schindler’s List, Color Purple, Amistad, and Lincoln, it’s obvious Spielberg loves to play on ‘white guilt’ as much as the next Jew, albeit in a more heart-tugging way.) Robbie the son climbs the tree and sits atop a big branch as if to say ‘muh dick’. He looks far into the distance and sees storm clouds gathering towards the area. It’s as if the tree, rooted to the ground, is calling out to the clouds, much like Jesus on the Cross calling out to Heaven. As it turns out, the house was built on a great injustice, and the dead tree is like a conduit between the power of heavenly justice and souls beneath the earth calling for deliverance. It’s like Christian mythology but in service to Jewish angst. Just like the Jewish spirits in Raiders of the Lost Ark called upon heavenly powers to destroy the Nazis, it’s as if the dead souls in Poltergeist are calling for heavenly powers to bring upon their release.

While the boy is perched atop the Dong Tree, the three women of the family kneel at the garden performing funeral rites for the bird. The masculine tree and feminine garden both signify life, but the tree is dead and what’s being planted in the soil is not seeds but a stiff canary. The girl is tearful, and mommy gives her a hug, warm and approving(while Dana, the bored older daughter, just goes through the motions). The dog licks its chops as the bird is buried. The dog, with the odd name of E. Buzz, only sees it as food(or a piece of bone) with no understanding of the solemnity of the moment. Its mental field of primal appetites cannot comprehend the complexity of human behavior, and it may be Spielberg’s way of saying goyim similarly cannot understand the higher consciousness of the Jew, i.e. goy is to Jew what dog is to man. (That said, the dog does have more acute senses and notices something strange before everyone else, with the possible exception of Carol Anne.) The goy-animal comparison is later accentuated when the mother imitates a shark when saying nighty-night to Carol Anne and when her husband Steve imitates a duck on the bed.

Carol Anne seems truly saddened by the death of her bird, as if she’ll never get over it. But, as soon as the mini-ceremony is over, she is all smiles and sunshine and asks for a goldfish. It could be Spielberg’s way of reminding fellow Jews that they cannot rely on goy’s emotions. All said and done, it’s just sentimentality, here today, gone tomorrow. So, even though Jews were showered with sympathy and affection following World War II, white goyim will likely forget about it soon enough and fixate on something else; they will go from ‘canary’ to ‘goldfish’. It implies Jews must continue haunting the minds of goyim forever and ever because, the moment Jews let go of that grip, the goyim will forget about the Holocaust and move onto some other passion as the new fashion. Indeed, look how easily white goyim forgot about God and Jesus once the Church lost its grip on morals and spirituality. White goyim today are more likely to be enthralled over Noble Negro, Holy Homo, or even Kinky Tranny, the new passion-fashions of the age. But then, white folks surrendered to God and Jesus, the product of Jewish Culture, in the first place because they lacked prophetic imagination and a deep-rooted sense of their own identity and heritage, something like the Covenant.

Later that night, what had been the fun Dong Tree(for Robbie to climb) looks forbidding outside the window. It looks like a mangled crucifix. If Jesus suffered on the Cross, the dead tree itself seems in torment and agony(and rage). The storm clouds the boy had seen earlier atop the tree now looms above the neighborhood. The rain and thunder make the tree seem even more ominous. Carol Anne has her goldfish and reminds mommy to keep the light inside the closet, as if artificial electricity provides security from spooky things in the dark and the thunder outside.

In the master bedroom, Diane rolls a joint while Steve reads a book on Ronald Reagan. It plays almost like an introduction to Big Chill(released a year later, written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan who did the screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark). It’s a typical 80s Boomer Moment(though the marijuana is rather out of character for a Spielberg movie). Movies like Albert Brooks’ Lost in America and TV shows like Family Ties presented boomers who’d gone from radicals, hippies, idealists, or romantics to settled materialist professionals and members of Middle America. Steve may not qualify as a yuppie because he’s a suburban man. A subuppie? Steve comes across as a typical striving middle class boomer who put the Counterculture behind him(if he was a part of it) and is content to gain success as the top salesman of a development company. He’s not filthy rich but part of the upper-middle-class, and Diane can stay at home.

Yet, for all the material comfort and economic security, something seems to be amiss, though whatever’s lacking is open to interpretation. It’s the spooky crisis just around the corner that leads to a ‘re-evaluation of values’, progressing from the pagan to the Christian to the Holocaustian. Lawrence Kasdan’s Big Chill was about middle-class midlife anxiety for a generation so defined by youth and idealism. In having settled down with a modicum of prosperity, did they ‘sell out’? Unlike Kasdan, Spielberg seems relatively disassociated from the Sixties as a cultural expression, and based solely on his movies, one would hardly know the Counterculture even happened. Whereas directors like Oliver Stone, born in the same year, constantly revisited Sixties themes, most of Spielberg’s historical references involve the 19th century, World War I, and World War II. Catch Me If You Can, an exception, is almost entirely inspired by consumer culture and advertising that hardly reflected the political and social changes afoot(so unlike today when they play a leading role in proselytizing ‘wokeness’). Indeed, it’s about a man escaping from personal and social reality by living a fake life financed by fraud.

When most people of Spielberg’s age were into the Rolling Stones and drugs(or avant-garde European cinema), Spielberg’s biggest hero was David Lean, then being written off as old-hat. Then, even though the dawning of the Reagan Era in Poltergeist seems eerily amnesiac, the real ‘crime’ isn’t about the betrayal of Sixties Idealism but of something deeper and more tragic: What happened in World War II with the Jews.

Even though Diane’s mind is on the joint and Steve’s on the Reagan book(an odd but telling combo), the TV is on and playing A Guy Named Joe, one of Spielberg’s favorite movies(and one where the hero finds himself between life and death). The TV seems to be turned on like the lamp as neither Steve nor Diane seems to pay particular attention to what’s playing. It has become the modern equivalent of the fireplace, something that makes the house glow. (It’s like the first thing many people do upon entering the hotel room is turn on the TV regardless of what’s on. The rays and buzz fill up the room with the semblance of life, a sense of connectedness with the world.) Diane says there must be a genetic thing between Carol Anne and herself, who used to sleepwalk as a child — she doesn’t know Carol Anne was not sleepwalking. She recounts an episode when her younger self sleepwalked into a car belonging to a stranger. The motif of sleepwalking suggests how people routinely move through life unawares. The trouble that befell the unfortunate driver(later investigated by the police for a possible abduction of young Diane) is similar to what happens to the family. The man wasn’t guilty of any crime but grilled nevertheless. Likewise, the family isn’t guilty(of what the housing development company did or failed to do), but it is put through the wringer just the same. It’s like the Jewish God’s wrath is collectively targeted against the enemies of His Chosen People. So, it doesn’t matter that not all Egyptians were responsible for the plight of the Hebrews; they must ALL be punished. Likewise, it doesn’t matter that most whites didn’t terrorize or murder Jews or had anything to do with the Holocaust. What matters is that the White West must be collectively held responsible for ‘antisemitism’ and be punished one way or another for all eternity(as Jews control the Poltergeist machines of the media to haunt the minds of every new generation with vengeful ghosts of the Jewish Past, along with Negro ghosts and homo fairies); indeed, not only do Jews haunt goy minds but goyim haunted by Jews also haunt goy minds. Quentin Tarantino isn’t Jewish, but he obviously channeled Raiders of the Lost Ark in the theater-burning finale in Inglorious Basterds.

So much in Spielberg movies seems harmless or mundane, the familiar stuff of suburban life, but lurking beneath are matters of deeper significance. (No wonder the bulk of the action in The Goonies happen underground, right below the seemingly placid community.) For example, Diane expresses anxiety about the construction of a backyard swimming pool — what if sleepwalking Carol Anne falls into it? — , but the conversation shifts to jokes about diving. Steve makes several poses and makes Diane laugh. He mentions the Olympics, and one wonders if this isn’t an allusion to Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympiad, of which the diving montage is among the most famous. The swimming pool may symbolize Aryan health and vitality, and later it is from the half-dug pool filled with rainwater that the buried bodies begin to emerge. It goes from Riefenstahl’s Olympiad to Kubrick’s The Shining.

The thunder frightens Robbie, made worse by the Tree outside the window flared up by lightning. He ascribes sinister motives to the tree, but Steve assuages him with alternate interpretation, that it’s a wise old tree looking over the house and family. (The boy has a similar reaction to a jester or clown doll. It looks harmless in the daylight but menacing in the dark.) Interpretations are useful, a way of coping, but not to be confused with the truth. Steve’s interpretation may do the trick to relieve Robbie’s fears, but the truth(according to Spielberg’s story idea) is far darker. It’s Spielberg’s way of saying that goyim may explain or understand such-and-such phenomenon in their own way, but what really matters is not the interpretation of the observer but the intention of the thing itself. So, while goyim may interpret Jews as these wise and wonderful people, the actual Jewish Heart could be full of contempt and vengeance toward goyim. One interprets benevolence, but the other intends malevolence.

Be that as it may, the thunder continues, and we see Robbie and Carol Anne in bed with their parents. Again, they fell asleep with the TV on, and it’s a replay of the movie’s opening with the national anthem and the flickering images of Iwo Jima monument as the station prepares to go off the air, leaving only static on the screen. And as before, Carol Anne wakes up and communes with the screen, except that this time, a ghostly limb reaches out of the screen. Then, in a rather disturbing scene, it’s as if the screen ejaculates a beam of light onto the wall above the headboard of the bed. The light passes through Carol Anne’s head, and then the bed begins to shake orgasmically like in The Exorcist. Father, mother, and son wake up thinking it’s an earthquake.

Next, we see a bulldozer in the backyard plowing into the grass to make way for the swimming pool. Again, what looks like mundane activity in suburbia has deeper symbolism. The machine recalls Holocaust film footage of bodies bulldozed into pits. The wooden markers around the bulldozer resemble crucifixes, nudging that Christendom itself is guilty of what happened to Jews. The cigar-box-coffin holding the Anne Frank canary is unearthed by the blade of the bulldozer. It foreshadows the coffins emerging from the ground at the end of the movie. It’s also as if Anne Frank’s vengeful spirit has been released upon the community, somewhat similar to the unearthing of the Pazuzu figurine in The Exorcist, the difference being the spirits are justified in Poltergeist.

But for the most part, despite the tremors of the last night, it’s just another sunny day as the father prepares to go to work while Diane makes breakfast for the kids. Spielberg gets naughty again, as Robbie’s glass breaks and spills milk all over Dana, seen earlier with a pickle between her lips while the baldo-beardo ‘came’ all over with leaky beer cans. The sexual innuendos are unmistakable, again perhaps explaining why Spielberg handed this project to another director, Tobe Hooper. (The Goonies is also full of sexual innuendos, mostly dealing with the penis and ejaculation. Sometimes, a water slide isn’t just a waterslide. It might as well be titled, “Everything You Wanted to Know about Sex but as Innuendoes in a Kiddie Movie.” It’s as if the whole point of The Goonies is, “Goy Michelangelo made a nice statue of David, King of the Jews, but made his penis too small, so my movie will show the full force of the Jewish hydraulics.”)

As Dana leaves for school, she’s hooted at by the construction crew(for the swimming pool). She takes it in stride(and Diane watches in amusement, even with pride, as her girl can handle such situations — this was before helicopter-parenting), but it also betrays Spielberg’s disdain for macho blue-collar types, the kind who taunted Jews in Schindler’s List and cheered for robot-destruction at the Flesh Fair in A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. Spielberg was bullied by the ‘chad’ types in school, and his works are uniformly wary of them whether set in the past, present, or future. The men digging up the swimming pool aren’t exactly German soldiers in Nazi uniforms mocking hapless Jews, but they do seem crude and boorish.

From a young age, Spielberg learned to win such types over by offering them plum roles in his films. One day, some big Dumb Polack kid might be pushing little Stevie Spielberg around, taking his lunch money, and calling him ‘kike’, but the next day, Spielberg might make him the star in a home-made war movie, most likely about heroic Americans fighting the evil Nazis. Suddenly, the Dumb Polack kid who’d been knocking the weakling ‘Jewboy’ around would feel appreciative, unwittingly sucked into Spielberg’s fantasy. Goyim is to Spielberg what the colt is to the young man in War Horse. Something to tame and use for one’s own purposes. And what better way to tame the goyim than through fantasy and pop-spirituality(in a world where Pop Culture has become The Culture)?

With Robbie and Dana gone to school, only Carol Anne remains, staring at the static of a portable TV in the kitchen. Diane switches the channel to what looks like a World War II movie, once again alluding to history as trauma for Jews. With most of the ‘Greatest Generation’ dead and gone forever, World War II movies are now ghost stories, the main political utility of which, at least from the Jewish angle, is to haunt future generations with the moral burden of the ‘Good War’. You don’t have to make horror movies to haunt the psyche. Ultimately, the power of haunting is less about momentary fright than lingering effect.

As Diane cleans things up, she notices the kitchen chairs are not pushed under the table. There are six chairs. Why six when there are only five family members? The number six is significant in Jewish numerology(for ill-fortune) and also refers to the Six Million. She thought maybe Carol Anne moved the chairs but is startled to find them oddly assembled atop the table while her head was briefly turned away. She’s convinced something strange is afoot; something perhaps to do with the ‘TV people’ mentioned by Carole Anne when asked what she meant by “They’re here”.

Then comes the most artful moment in the movie. As Diane holds Carol Anne in her arms in the kitchen, they and the table/chair seem to fade into the air ghostlike, leaving an empty kitchen. Just then, Steve enters the frame with a couple who turn out to be prospective buyers. The space actually belongs to a near-identical kitchen of another unit in a newly developed part of the community. It could be intimating that Americana, enticing as it is, is without substance. All the houses are well-designed and built, but they are virtually identical and without character. People can lead nice and comfortable lives in this world but might as well be interchangeable if defined by their property. (After all, if solely characterized by property and status, there’s no meaningful difference among an affluent Irish-Catholic, an affluent Jew, and an affluent Hindu.) One American family in a nice house is like another American family in a nice house and so on, all with their TVs turned on all day long, even when asleep. Comfortable and happy, but comfortably and happily numb. It is what Roy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind breaks away from(even if it causes distress to himself and his family). He has to find his true self rather than just be like the rest, the kind of people satirized in the Carole King song(for the Monkees), “Pleasant Valley Sunday”. It’s also what the yuppie couple strives for in Lost in America, albeit with the Jewish guy discovering that the true home of his restless kind is the city where the money and action are. A Jew must shake hands(and grab ass) than touch Indians to be real.

Jews fear both the ghetto and assimilation. Ghetto means discrimination and being marked as different, separate, but then, acceptance and assimilation means dissolution of what makes Jews distinct and special, a theme of the Coen Brothers’ A Serious Man as well. So, even as modern Jews strove for full integration with goyim, they’ve maintained an internal ghetto. Rather than being walled inside a ghetto, the ghetto is walled within their hearts. It is this deeper(and often neurotic) inner sense that distinguishes Jews from most groups who, over time, just become interchangeable Americans(or citizens of the world) lacking a substantive identity or sense of roots/heritage.

Steve comes home to find Diane in an excited state, indeed as if she reverted to her boomer youth self. She pleads with Steve to be open-minded, like in the Sixties when hippies and the like were into neo-paganism, Eastern Mysticism, crystals, and the like. She finds the odd things happening in the kitchen to be far-out and groovy. It’s a paganist or animistic explanation of the phenomenon, i.e. there are spirits all around us, and it’s so cool to be in ‘touch’ with them. It’s nothing to be afraid of or worry about. Just something to accept(and exalt) as a wonder-window to the hidden dimensions of the universe. She makes her case by letting the paranormal power slide a chair across the kitchen(and then Carol Anne too). Steve can’t make head or tail of what he observed and is lost for words.

They go to their next-door neighbor(with whom Steve bickered earlier over TV signals) to see if similar things have been happening in other houses. Mosquitoes buzz all over Steve and Diane while the neighbor says he doesn’t recall ever being bitten by them. This is yet another clue that he may be Jewish. In the Exodus story, God punishes the Egyptians but makes sure to PASS OVER the homes of the Jews. God also sends locusts and all manner of pestilence upon the Egyptians but spares the Jews. So, while the mosquitoes dine on Steve and Diane’s blood, they seem to Pass-Over the next door neighbor. (That said, his son looks more like a big fat Dumb Polack than a Jew-kid. But then, the fat Jewish kid in The Goonies didn’t look all that Jewish either but as played by a member of the Tribe.) Nothing weird has been happening at the house of the neighbor who looks confused, as if Steve and Diane have either gone funny in the head or are pulling a fast one on him. The neighbor’s name is Ben, which(if he is meant to be Jewish) could be a reference to Ben-Hur or Dustin Hoffman’s role as Ben in The Graduate.

That night, flaky New Age vibes give way to terror, both natural and supernatural. All day, Diane has been feeling blissed out — she even leapt for joy when the chair moved in Steve’s presence. And her high spirits seem to have rubbed off on Steve. Both are perplexed but untroubled.

But, it all changes that night as the storm rages once again. Suddenly, it’s as if the thunder activates the dead tree into a bundle of rage. Its branches move like arms and crash through the window to carry Robbie away, and then a part of its trunk opens like a mouth and begins to swallow the screaming boy. But, if this horror could at least be half-attributed to nature(the storm), what happens to Carol Anne is purely supernatural. It’s as if the closet turns into one big vacuum cleaner and sucks everything in; but what it’s really after is Carol Anne.

As Robbie seems the endangered one, Steve and Diane do their best to pry him loose from the ravenous tree-gone-mad. This leaves Carol Anne all alone to fend for herself, and her little arms can’t grab onto the headstand for long before she is sucked into the closet, now a portal to another dimension. Saving the son but losing the daughter may be an allusion to Sophie’s Choice, a Holocaust-themed novel adapted into a movie released in the same year as Poltergeist. The closet(or more precisely the wardrobe), which is a path to wonderland in the Christian C.S. Lewis’s fiction, is quite something else in Spielberg’s movie. Steve and Diane save Robbie in the nick of time as the tree is suddenly swooped up into the sky. Dana, their daughter, believes a tornado passed by, a natural explanation of the incredible phenomenon just witnessed. (But what kind of a tornado would target only the tree but spare the house?)

The happening is rather Spielberg’s vision of heavenly power(representing the Jewish God) responding to the lamentations of the earth(representing the cries of forgotten Holocaust victims) and doing whatever is necessary to bring about divine justice. Freelings are not a bad people, and they themselves aren’t specifically targeted for punishment. Rather, they are punished almost by accident because they happen to be situated between the buried bodies and the higher power above(and because Steve works for developers who kept their cost-cutting measures unknown to the public, even to highly valued representatives like Steve).

Throughout the movie, the family(and we the viewers) come to assume all the weird occurrences are centered around the family, i.e. they must have done something to agitate the spirits or there’s something about them, especially Carol Anne, that is irresistible to the spirits, much like human blood to mosquitoes. But, as things turn out, they weren’t at the center but merely between. If something stands between you and your loved one who must be saved, you will do anything to get through it, even if you have to destroy it. The real animating core of your action is to save the one you love. What stands between you and your loved one is a mere hindrance, not the objective. If you stand between a mother bear and her cub and if the former mauls you to get to her cub, you sure got messed up real bad, but it wasn’t about you. It was about the bear and cub. You were physically in the center between the mother bear and child bear but not at the emotional center of the event. It was all about the bear.

The Freelings believe all the weird phenomena have something to do with them, but they are more the inconvenient obstacle than the guilty party. They stand on the hallowed ground of the buried and forgotten and thus must suffer the consequences of the higher power restoring justice to the dead. So, even as the movie seems family-centric, it is actually spirit-centric. The conflict really boils down to justice for the spirits than peace of mind for the family.

It serves as a useful metaphor for what’s happening all across the West. So many things are going wrong, and white/Christian folks think it’s really about themselves, their need to understand, atone, and seek redemption. In other words, the world may be saved if white folks finally see the light. The world hangs in the balance of White Salvation. But, as the world is really controlled by Jews, Jewish concerns are at the center of events. All this stuff about ‘white guilt’, ‘white fragility’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, and etc. are really ‘Poltergeistal’ mental tricks used against whites to better serve Judeo-centric interests and agendas. Whites are not at the center of this History but merely NPC-like extras.

If the tree outside is phallic, the closet door is vaginal. Steve, Diane, and Dana dash around the house looking for Carol Anne while Robbie remains in a state of shock. The family can’t find the little girl anywhere, not even in the half-dug swimming pool now filled with water. Then, Robbie hears his sister’s voice coming out of the TV set in the master bedroom, a moment reminiscent of the eerie ending of The Fly(original version) where tiny screams are traced to a mutated man-fly on a web about to be devoured by the spider. Carol Anne has somehow been hurled into another dimension that sends intermittent signals through electronic devices, especially the TV.

Steve consults a psychologist, Dr. Lesh, an elderly woman who moonlights as a paranormal researcher at a university; one might say it’s more a hobby. With her is Ryan, a black guy, and Marty, a white guy(thus forming a trinity) who handle the equipment(for recording and gauging supernatural activity).

At Steve’s place, they can’t believe their eyes: Robbie and Carol Anne’s bedroom has gone utterly looney-tunes. It’s like Regan’s bedroom(in The Exorcist) on steroids(and sugar high). So far, the movie went from Happy Americana to New Age flakiness to Shocking Terror. Now the story moves into Christo-mythic territory.

Dr. Lesh and her crew had seen weird stuff before but NOTHING like the crazy circus at the Freeling home. They are utterly dumbfounded. It’s like going from catching faint signs of U.F.O’s to having Darth Vader drop out of the sky. Despite her ‘scientific’ expertise in the field, Dr. Lesh can only offer cliched speculations about hauntings and the like.

Then, what is the answer? Perhaps, the power of faith? Even though Jesus and the like aren’t invoked in the movie, what ensues is characteristic of Christian emotionalism, likely of considerable curiosity to Spielberg who, after all, made movies for mostly goy(and largely Christian) audiences. Like Morris Dees of \$PLC, Spielberg probably learned a lesson or two about the art of conversion and rapture from Christian ways, especially the Pentecostal variety. From Encyclopedia Britannica: “Pentecostalism, charismatic religious movement that gave rise to a number of Protestant churches in the United States in the 20th century and that is unique in its belief that all Christians should seek a post-conversion religious experience called ‘baptism with the Holy Spirit’.” Spielberg, an avowed Jew, rejects Christianity as a faith but not as methodology. He has distilled and bottled certain features of Christianity for his own purposes. The crypto-Jewish spaceship in Close Encounters looks like a Catholic Cathedral(or an opulent Christmas Tree), and the feelings of rapture and deliverance are not unlike their counterparts in various forms of Baptism.

In a way, Spielberg is deserving of the title of the greatest religious director in Hollywood history because, despite the absence of Christ as the guiding light, his movies delivered in ways the Biblical epics failed to do. A number of ‘prestigious’ movies were made about Jesus Christ and Christian themes in the 1950s and 1960s(culminating in a total drag called The Greatest Story Ever Told by George Stevens), but the spirituality on display was overly solemn. The storytelling was as wooden as the Cross, and the emotions leaden than uplifting. These movies were meant to be watched with reverence and good manners as if everyone was done with caution than inspiration lest any group be offended. The result was invariably stilted and stuffy — Ben-Hur was one of the few exceptions but mainly because of the fun pagan stuff with naval battles and chariot races.

Anyway, what the Biblical epics failed to deliver was in abundance in the movies of Spielberg. The shark in Jaws was one helluva a preacher, scaring the bejesus out of everyone. Space aliens in Close Encounters put on one big Hallelujah festival though their chosen Son of Heaven turned out to be a nutty Jew. And in Poltergeist, the mother tries to wrest her daughter from the dark forces by regaining faith(in what, we have no idea, but it is about redemption by boundless love and heartfelt prayer, hallelujah, amen, like in The Blues Brothers).

In the evening, TV is turned on in the living room before Diane calls out to Carol Anne. Apparently, there is no greater bond than between mother and child, especially through the telly. As distortions of the little girl’s voice emanate from the TV, Diane’s maternal affection grows into quasi-spiritual passion, and she looks as if in prayer. It’s like something out of the documentary Marjoe, about a sham preacher who sure knew how to work a crowd. People have their own brand of addiction. Diane has her joints, Lesh her whiskey flask, Evangelicals their Jesus, and American youth in the 80s had E.T.

In a way, Spielberg’s own brand of televangelism(or cinevangelism) could be a commentary on the Christian Revival in the early 80s of the Reagan Era. Record number of Jews voted for the Gipper in 1980, largely because of Jimmy Carter’s perceived fumbling of Middle East issues(and by then, even Liberal and Leftist Jews had soured on the Soviet Union and were more likely to put up ‘Save Soviet Jews’ signs). But by 1984, Jewish votes had reverted to the norm, overwhelmingly Democratic. Increasingly, Jews came to favor Republican foreign policy but feared signs of a Christian Revival, which Spielberg competed with by appropriating Christian Passion for his crypto-Judaic pop fantasies. Even though Christian Revivalism eventually petered out(and totally crashed and burned with the utter idiocy of the George W. Bush presidency), it was often in the news with personalities like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and (for a time) Jim & Tami Bakker. And it was a time when the most prominent black political figure was a reverend, Jesse Jackson.

Partly, the revival was a reaction to the Sixties Counterculture and Seventies Me-Generation. It complemented what was called the Reagan (Counter)Revolution. Hippies were long forgotten, disco was out, and maybe it was time for God again, or at least the New Patriotism. Sylvester Stallone got the message and churned out a series of (moronic) flag-waving fantasies like Rocky IV and Rambo(pt 2) with its stab-in-the-back theory, i.e. the US military would have won but for those lily-livered politicians who, by the way, abandoned US P.O.W’s in the jungles of Vietnam. Few movies were made on the Vietnam War while it was raging. The Seventies saw some damning movies on America’s involvement, especially Hearts and Minds(documentary), Coming Home, and Apocalypse Now, with The Deer Hunter sitting on the fence politically.

In contrast, the good part of the 1980s Hollywood pandered to gung-ho-ism, with stuff like Red Dawn(conceived by John Milius who focused on the ludicrous Soviet Threat to the American Heartland than on the real threat posed by Jewish Globalists subverting the culture), White Nights, and Uncommon Valor, culminating with Top Gun starring Tom Cruise before Oliver Stone revived Counterculture politics with Platoon(and recruited Tom Cruise for Born in the Fourth of July). (The Killing Fields and Eleni were outliers among the films critical of communism in their humanism.) Rambo and Top Gun vs Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July offers a clue as to why the Right lost the Culture War, not that the Real Left won either as the main victor in the so-called Culture War seems not ideological but idolatrous(of the Tridolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos, which would make classic leftists roll in their graves). Whatever Stone’s deficits as a thinker and artist, he nevertheless struggled for some truth and meaning, one that went beyond facile cliches about heroes and villains, whereas what often passed for ‘conservative’ or ‘right-wing’ culture was mindless flag-waving, a childlike longing for simplicity(like Pat Buchanan’s love for the awful Forrest Gump), or the historical fantasies of Mel Gibson; furthermore, whereas Jewish ‘Liberals’ have routinely vilified American Whites as the biggest villains, white ‘conservatives’ focused on foreign enemies(who pose no threat to America) while sucking up to all things Jewish. Gee, one wonders why whites lost the Culture War to Zion. Jews use BLM & Antifa to tear down white monuments(especially in the South) and use ISIS to blow up ancient sites in Syria, but all we get from ‘principled conservatives’ is ‘Democrats are the real racists’ or ‘muh Israel’.

Too often, conservatism either hardens into traditionalist dogma or softens into feel-good pap. Or, it’s all about the money. Christian Fundamentalism represented neo-theocratic dogmatism, neo-patriotism(with outlandish fears of the Evil Soviet Empire) pandered to stupid prejudices, and Reagan’s prosperity politics proved shallow and inane and, worse, often advantaged the worst elements of the boomer Jewish community on Wall Street.

Still, given what had preceded the 1980s — the race riots, exploding urban crime, rising divorce rates, the drug problem, ignominious retreat from Vietnam, Watergate scandal, stagflation, the Iranian hostage crisis, and etc. — , the Feel-Goodism of the Reagan Era was widely appealing across the nation, which was still solidly white and Christian. And even though Steven Spielberg was a lifelong Zionist Democrat and George Lucas a cuck-maggot ‘liberal’, both anticipated the political and cultural climate of the 1980s, which is why they came to be despised by many who preferred the myth of New Hollywood and its personal film-making, that is before the double whammy of Lucas and Spielberg hit the big screens with populist yahoo visions, turning the industry into a competition for pop-corn movies. Or, so the cultural narrative went for those who looked back on the Counterculture Sixties and/or New Hollywood with rose-tinted glasses. For them, Spielbergism was as dumb as Christian Fundamental revivalism while Lucasism seemed to complement Reagan’s new militarism targeted at the Evil Empire. (How times have changed. These days, the ‘woke’ types greatly value mega-franchises like Star Wars and Superhero Movies as the most effective conveyors of ‘values’ and propaganda. Black Panther is like the greatest movie ever made in their silly minds, but then ‘conservatives’ wet their pants over Christopher Nolan’s ridiculous Batman movies. The so-called ‘progressives’ went from deriding Lucas-ism to riding it as their preferred Culture War Horse. But then, Lucas himself always wanted to have it both ways. He took full advantage of the New Economy under Reaganism and drew inspiration from the fascist mythologist Joseph Campbell but was ever so careful to distance himself from Reaganism by denouncing SDI and offering remarks that the Ewoks represented the heroic Viet Cong, LOL.)

The critics of Lucas and Spielberg certainly had a point, even if they tended to understate the failings of New Hollywood, especially pertaining to self-indulgence and drug use. Spielberg did contribute to cultural infantilization, and Star Wars movies made militarism far-out and cool, much more than Rambo movies ever did, and if the Reaganites were the pro-military crowd in the 80s, the new militarism is the providence of ‘wokesters’, homos, Democrats, Neocons, RINOS, and Jews(whose idea of ‘liberalism’ is to cram globo-homo-BLM-Zionic hegemony up the arse of every country). Lucas can flash his ‘liberal’ card all he wants; the fact remains his imagination did more to glamorize war and destruction than anything else in movie history.

But if Lucas’s vision was ultimately limited(and insular, as the Skywalker Ranch’s effect on him was similar to Neverland’s on Michael Jackson), Spielberg sensed and conveyed far more than he seemed to be letting on, and Poltergeist is evidence of this. It plays on the same kind of emotions as Evangelicalism does but with a twist: What seems the solution(or salvation) is merely an illusion beneath which lurks a far more powerful truth, at least from the Judeo-centric perspective. What passes for Hallelujah is really a kind of Hell, from which the avenging spirits of Jewish Power arise to demolish or punish anything that stands in their way. Even though Spielberg was pandering to the childlike side of our nature, he did so with ulterior motives, the kind that requires something far more perceptive, devious, and sophisticated than a childish mentality. It was really to replace Christianity with Holocaustianity and ‘White Guilt’, especially regarding the Negro.

So, Spielberg’s movies of this period didn’t so much complement but compete with the Christian Revival, which ranged from feely-good gatherings to celebrity cult(usually associated with Prosperity Gospel) to hardcore Fundamentalism(of the ‘God Hates Fags’ variety) — even as Jews detested all this, they exploited Christian Zionism and employed Neocons to forge an alliance with Pat Robertson and the like. As the conclusion of Poltergeist makes plain as day, Spielberg was really mocking the Christian Way of believing; it believes it is the be-all-and-end-all of truth, but there is a truth far more powerful, and it’s not about Love but about Vengeance, which is at the core of Judaism, for which the biggest holy day is the Passover when God spared the Jews but ruthlessly destroyed the firstborns of Egyptian goyim.

Anyway, as Diane calls out to Carol Anne in devotional manner, the little girl’s voice comes through the TV set and calls back at mommy. It’s as if the ‘prayers’ are working, and even Dana, the ironic teenager, begins to tremble(like folks possessed by the Spirit at Pentecostal gatherings). It’s as if Billy Graham has entered the room, Hallelujah, and the family might as well learn to speak in tongues, Amen. With faith and devotion, Diane talks to her girl on the other side, a realm of ambiguous light that could be good or bad depending on one’s station. It could be that the Light’s purpose is to guide dead souls lost in limbo to their proper place in the afterlife. It beckons them to stop wandering and enter into Heaven or its equivalent. However, it isn’t for Carol Anne because she is still alive. Going with the Light will mean entering the realm of the afterlife, or joining the dead. If the theory is true, the family is faced with quite a predicament. How do they corral the dead souls to the Light while separating Carol Anne from them, leading her back to reality?

Anyway, while Diane communes with Carol Anne, a part of the ceiling flickers with plasma-like flames, whereupon trinkets drop from it. What do these objects(mostly jewelry and watches, some antique) mean? They certainly aren’t Carol Anne’s nor anything recognizable to the family. It later turns out they are relics of the dead, belongings placed in coffins, not unlike objects put in the cigar box holding the dead canary. The trinkets may also be a reminder of Jewish treasures confiscated by the Nazis(and other ‘Anti-Semites’) through the ages. Spielberg could have been subconsciously prepping the mass goy mind with what he would fully reveal later: Schindler’s List we are made witness to Jews being robbed of property, then life. Rub it into the white goyim!

Granted, one may well ask why the world should care so much about Jews when Jews don’t give a crap about most of humanity? Just ask the Palestinians and all the victims of the Wars for Zion. Jewish finance played a significant role in Western Imperialism. Jews in America benefited from the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians. So, if white goyim must atone for Jewish suffering, Jews must also for all the pain they caused unto others. But, such moral logic is alien to the Jewish Mind that believes a single Jewish life has more value than all the goy lives in the world. The quote in Schindler’s List about how saving a single life is to save the world only applies to Jews. After all, while Jews have kvetched endlessly about how the US didn’t act fast enough to save Jews from Hitler, they didn’t volunteer to take up arms to save Tutsis from Hutus in Rwanda. Indeed, the idea of Jews expending their own lives to save goyim must be hilarious to them. Only a Dumb Polack would fall for such nonsense. Heads I win, tails you lose, or “Shame on any Dumb Polack for not sacrificing his life for a Jew, and shame on any Jew who’d sacrifice his life for a Dumb Polack.” Most Jews seem to have zero conscience about all the goyim destroyed by Jewish Supremacist meddling in Russia, Ukraine, and the Middle East. Granted, Saving Private Ryan is about saving a goy life but only because all his brothers have been sacrificed. That’s Jewish grace for you: “You can live because all your brothers are dead.” Thank you, Mr. Spielberg.

In other words, Jews have better things to do than worry about Dumb Polacks and the like, the inferior goyim; however, there is no greater calling for goyim than caring about Jews because Jews are so very special and the best of the best and the holiest of the holiest. Indeed, even Jewish feelings are more precious than goy bodies. So, if you hurt some Jew’s feelings, you better get on your knees, apologize, and grovel. However, if a Jew hurts your kind(and even wipes out a whole bunch of them), it’s just… meh. So what, it’s just inferior goyim, dime-a-dozen and disposable, like all those dead Syrians as the result of the Wars for Israel. Of course, not all Jews think this way(as there are righteous ones like Brother Nathanael), but the likes of Spielberg seem to. It’s like Jews howl about Iran getting nukes that may threaten Israel but are so blasé about Israel having 200 nukes, bulk of them targeted at Iran. Jewish Lives Matter, Goy Lives not so much… though Jews push BLM to guilt-bait whites into moral paralysis and obeisance. It’s not because Jews really care about blacks(as BLM only ended up killing MORE blacks) or historical truth because, if it were so, they’d confess to their own significant role in the slave trade, involving both black and white captives.

All the distress brings Diane and Carol Anne closer together, as if reverting to the very moment when Diane gave birth to her. Diane had always loved and cared for Carol Anne as a physical presence, someone to talk to, hug, tuck into bed. But now, as Diane yearns for her return, she comes to know her daughter on the ‘spiritual’ level. (It’s like the love between Holly Hunter’s character and Richard Dreyfus’s character in Always grows more beautiful because it can only exist at the mythic or dream level. Only myth bridges the impossible divide, though the myth is ‘materialized’ in A.I.‘s final scene as a false dream come true.) Diane can’t see Carol Anne and vice versa, but standing on the stairway she suddenly feels Carol Anne’s essence rushing through her, in tune with the Christian notion of the spirit as fully separate from the body.

Thus, despite all the trauma, Diane comes to know Carol Anne in a ‘purer’ manner, almost like an angel. Carol Anne remains invisible but passes through her like a breeze in a fleeting soul-embrace. Spielberg dials up the Pentecostal energy level, as if Diane’s faith is being restored among the flock. But just then, the living room is rocked by a frightful force, as if some beastly entity won’t tolerate the mutual divining between mother and daughter to form links, however tenuous. Diane came closer than ever, but hope once again eludes the family. They made progress with the help of Dr. Lesh and her crew but ultimately failed to break through. For that, Dr. Lesh figures, additional help is necessary. Mere knowledge and expertise, like her own, are insufficient. It calls for someone with the ‘gift’.

But, before the night is over, two strange things happen, one subjective, the other objective or noticed by all(and even recorded on video). Marty, the white aid to Dr. Lesh, scrounges for food in the kitchen, only to find a piece of steak crawl across the kitchen counter rupturing with gooey stuff. Shocked, the drumstick falls from his mouth onto the floor where it wiggles with maggots. Marty rushes to the washroom to rinse his mouth only to find his face covered with boils or warts, and his panicked reaction results in tearing his face apart. But, it was all purely subjective, a chain of hallucinations caused by the spirits messing with his mind. Marty, restored to his normal state of mind, hastily goes back to the living room, a place of relative security(as the others are there), but only to find something even stranger happening. Marty’s ordeal in the kitchen is perhaps a reminder that we go through routines without thinking about the implications and repercussions of our actions(and needs, for survival or pleasure). Steaks and drumsticks are products of animal butchery, but we regard them merely as food rather than product of death forced upon living creatures. Living and killing intermingle on so many levels, but we prefer not to think about our role in the destruction of others, not only all the animals turned into food but the death and destruction that preceded the conquest and development of civilizations. And, people don’t like to think about their own mortality either. It used to be that people buried their loved ones to remember, but now, they bury to forget, and many people now don’t even have children(and that means no grandchildren either) who will remember them. (On the other hand, they sure love to watch killing on TV and movies. Act of killing is thrilling, the reminder of death is depressing. We’d rather see soldiers or gangsters get shot than decay as corpses. Even anti-war movies focus more on the killing than on the death.)

After the freaky thing in the kitchen, Marty went back to the living room for assurance, but he can’t believe his eyes, and this time, it’s no mere hallucination as Ryan takes notice as well. From Robbie & Carol Anne’s bedroom, swirling and glowing tendrils emerge and slowly descend the stairway. It’s difficult to discern but seems angelic in body and demonic in head. Everyone, especially the Negro Ryan, watches in wonderment(than fright) and with mouths agape.

They run the video footage to see if it was captured on camera and notice more details. Whereas everyone was fixated on the swirling entity that came down the stairs and vanished into the ceiling, the video footage shows additional details, what appears like two rows of transparent figures(human in form with objects on their heads, perhaps signifying Jewish headwear). What does it all mean? Is the house blessed or cursed? Dr. Lesh, being psycho-analytic by training, opines the ghostly figures must be ‘lonely’ psyches. But from a Christo-Mythic perspective, they’d be lost souls in need of the Light to guide them to the Afterlife.

The bright day offers some respite, and Dr. Lesh informs Diane that, even though the spooked Marty won’t be coming back, Ryan the Negro will stick around the house, and furthermore, she promises to bring special help.

Meanwhile, Steve gets a visit from Mr. Teague, his boss who’s inquisitive as to why Steve’s been missing work lately. Apparently, Steve called in sick with the flu, but Teague wonders if Steve is really looking elsewhere for a better offer. Teague doesn’t want to lose a man of Steve’s caliber as a salesman and makes a generous offer: A new house for the family atop a hill overlooking the community. If America is the City on a Hill, how nice to be king of the hill?

Here, Spielberg resorts to one of his favorite methods. If David Lean was famous for his establishing shots, Spielberg often worked the other way around, culminating in the ‘unveiling shot’. So, when we see Steve and Teague walk up the hill, it is just two men on an outing. Then, we see them walk beside a white picket fence, a symbol of suburban tranquility. But as the camera pulls back, we notice tombstones on one side of the fence, and then comes the long shot that reveals a hilltop cemetery extending into some distance.

Steve likes the view but seems a bit uneasy about the site — who’d want to live right next to a cemetery even if the view is great? Besides, there won’t be enough room for a swimming pool, something Steve obviously wants. But Teague tells him not to worry. The house won’t be built next to the cemetery as the whole area will be cleared for development. All the bodies and tombstones will be relocated to another place. Steve opines such a drastic measure might be ‘sacrilegious’, whereupon Teague says it’s been done before; indeed, Steve’s very house was also built on former cemetery ground that was cleared in 1976, the bicentennial year. Steve says he didn’t know, and Teague says it wouldn’t have been good business to declare such things. It’s a key scene, akin to the bridge in a song, as it offers a vague but tantalizing impression as to what might really be the cause of the spookery about the house.

The question of origin and duplication(or possibly theft) has been at the center of Jewish(and Anti-Jewish) Consciousness. After all, Spielberg owes a great deal to past film-makers, many of them goyim. And scholars say Judaism borrowed many of its key ideas from various ancient goy sources. Jews incorporated the fables and myths of other peoples into their own culture, cosmology, and narratives. More recently, Bob Dylan’s music wouldn’t have been possible without white country and black blues. Jews have long been accused by ‘Anti-Semites’ of being incapable of originality, always pilfering or ‘pawning off’ others. Both ‘Aryans’ and ‘Africans’ have made this charge, e.g. Aryans-create-while-Semites-imitate and Jews-like-Gershwin-done-steal-from-black-creativity. When Paul Simon agreed to an interview at the black Howard University, he was met with hostile questions and accusations about how he done stole black music from Jamaicans and South Africans.

But borrowing isn’t necessarily stealing, like emulation is far more than imitation. If various influences are digested or amalgamated via inspiration, the result is something new, original in its own right, and this can be said of ancient Jewish culture(and Bob Dylan and Steven Spielberg). It’s like an alloy is more than the metals used to produce it. Thus, they are borrowers rather than thieves.

Furthermore, from the Jewish perspective, the ‘Aryans’ and whites could be charged with thievery, even wholesale robbery. Foremost among the theft was taking the Jewish God as their own and, more perversely, persecuting Jews in His name. It’s a kind of kidnapping in Poltergeist, but Christianity in Jewish eyes is a case of father-napping(or stealing the Heavenly Father of the Jews).

But it doesn’t end there. Even Christianity, though loathed by the Tribe, was the brainchild of Jews. It wasn’t as if white European goyim took elements of Judaism and invented a new religion with their own prophecy and imagination, the least that could be said of Muhammad and Islam. Rather, white goyim took as their own a religion formulated by heretical Jews. In that sense, whites are the biggest raiders and robbers of all time. (It is then no wonder Jews are eager to recast the Western Narrative with blacks in the roles of white historical figures. It could be revenge for whites adopting the Jewish History and Culture as their own. After all, white Christians came to routinely invoke not only Jesus and the Apostles but Abraham, Moses, David, and the like. It’s parent-napping in Jewish eyes.)

That said, it’s undeniable the White West made something special out of Christianity and, of course, Christmas, and Jews in turn composed a lot of memorable Christmas songs and cashed in big on the Holiday Season. And Spielberg’s cinema uses Christianesque images and feelings to perversely pop-universalize what is really an intensely tribal worldview.

Spielberg and Kubrick, who became close, almost older brother and younger brother(even more so than Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas), surely saw eye-to-eye on certain matters. A.I: Artificial Intelligence began as a Kubrick project but was handed or gifted to Spielberg. David the robot boy considers himself special and unique, but it turns out his ‘father’, the scientist, has a plan to make countless copies of him, each one to be totally committed to his ‘mommy’, whoever she may be. David deems himself as unique and seeks communion with ‘mommy’, but he’s just a prototype of commerce, merely the first of the many. Likewise, the various sections of the community in Poltergeist are called ‘phases’, but they are all nearly identical with houses built from the same blueprint. The Freelings live in phase one, slightly older than the other phases, but soon, they will all be the same and indistinguishable from the other, except for the pride of ownership that makes believe the ‘grass is greener’ on one’s side of the fence.

This anxiety regarding originality/uniqueness and generality/universality is very much at the center of Spielbergmania. It’s hard to think of another director with such wide global appeal yet so obsessively personal(and tribal) in his own oddball way. Take E.T.: The Extraterrestrial. It’s the variation of the boy-loves-dog story but bigger than ever, and the ‘dog’ looks like a walking-talking pile of turd that, incredibly enough, even attains christ-figure status. But all said and done, E.T. isn’t for humanity but for his own kind, with whom he must reunite. It’s like Oscar Schindler saved the Jews, but Jews must ultimately have a world of their own. Jews don’t belong to Schindler, no more than E.T. belongs to Elliott who did so much to protect him and take care of him(or is it her?) Who could pull off such a feat but Spielberg?

The view from the hill could be Spielberg be alluding to Nazi death camps where the bodies are buried and hidden. In one shot, a crucifix tombstone figures prominently in the foreground while Steve rests his arms on the picket fence. One might interpret it as the power of commerce, amnesia, and ‘greed’ pushing out tradition, culture, and continuity. But Spielberg doesn’t care about Christianity and Christians(except as instruments of Jews, like the Christian soldier in Saving Private Ryan who kisses the crucifix around his neck before felling another German soldier. Not exactly ‘turn the other cheek’ but rather a talisman of goy subservience to Jewish vengeance).

The meaning of the crucifix could be threefold. Steve, pushed to the edge of nervous breakdown, finds himself in a religious frame of mind, like when George Bailey, not particularly a religious man, finds himself praying in It’s a Wonderful Life. It could also represent the collective guilt that the Christian West bears for what was done to Jews. Also, the cemetery, though filled with Christian symbols, could have a generic meaning, applying to the Jewish Forgotten as well.

Now, given Spielberg inundated movie screens around the world with childish fantasies, one would think he’d be the last one to complain about cultural amnesia(in favor of commerce and profits), but what seems amnesiac on the surface may not be so underneath, where all sorts of Sorosian wizardry are at work to manipulate goy hearts and minds. His movies are like Christo-Pagan amusement parks where the rides are powered by vengeful Jewish spirits.

That night, Dr. Lesh returns with a munchkin said to possess special powers of clairvoyance. She’s a child-sized woman of advanced years named Tangina who, though played by the Jewish Zelda Rubinstein, plies her talents in the style of a Southern Baptist Preacher. (Hers is a performance every bit as remarkable as that of fellow munchkin Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously.) Being physically unimposing and funny-looking, she has to impose her authority with her psychic prowess. (Tangina could mean tangential, i.e. ultimately she touches on tangential matters but fails to get to the core.)

If the family can only hope and if Dr. Lesh can only theorize(and Ryan can only record), Tangina can divine what may be happening on the other side. Her mind comes with a set of antennae. No more amateur hour with second guessing and false hope. This time, the exorcism or ‘cleaning’ shall be carried out by a real preacher-practitioner of the art. She’s like Father Merrin, Max Von Sydow’s role in the William Friedkin movie, except the style is Evangelical and the magic is of an unknown source, even un-Christian. Tangina has ‘cleaned’ houses before and comes with experience as well as the gift.

This time, the methodology is somewhat ritualized. Ostensibly, Tangina asks others to kneel before her because it strains her neck to look up, but the gathering looks like a preacher giving a sermon to her flock. Though she speaks hocus-pocus, it has the feel of “you must get on your knees and repent before Jesus!” In other words, you must be BORN AGAIN, hallelujah, and it pushes Diane more into a “give my trust to God” state of mind. Yessir, whatever she or her husband may have done to offend the Great Divine, whatever ‘sin’ she may be stained with, she’s now on her knees to be saved and to save the kid. It’s like she turned the others into her congregation. By the way, Tangina was likely the inspiration for the Kiyoko character in the anime Akira:

Tangina’s take on the paranormal phenomena is quasi-Christian in its view of lost souls needing to go toward the ‘spectral light’. She believes the house is cursed with souls who don’t know they’re dead. It sounds like criticism of American Materialism, i.e. people are so attached to possession and pleasure that they just can’t let go and enter the spiritual realm. And so, those lost souls flock around Carol Anne because she is alive and radiant with youthful vitality, which they no longer have. She’s like a campfire to hikers lost in the wilderness. (But, Carol Anne’s unmistakably ‘Aryan’ features of blonde hair and blue eyes suggest another explanation, namely that Semites are drawn to European folks for their vitality, beauty, and normality, qualities lacking among the neurotic, insecure, and paranoid Jews. Steven Spielberg and Jewish comic-book writers before him created ideal fantasy Aryans, the kind beneficial to Jews or their agendas, like beating Nazis, and even Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur have aryan-looking Charlton Heston in Jewish roles. Even against the Aryans, employ Aryanism pulsing with natural virility lacking in Jewishness. If the horror movie Get Out is about White Liberals obsessed with possessing black bodies deemed more appealing, many Jewish-created fantasies are fetishizations of the Aryan Ideal but made Jew-friendly. Granted, another side of Jewishness wants to destroy the Aryan Image altogether as it is a daily reminder of the Jewish Inferiority Complex. It pushes race-mixing, especially ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs and the Great Replacement, or White Nakba. In the opening part of War of the Worlds, we see a white woman holding a mulatto child with a wide nose and fat lips. Steven Spielberg’s movies may not appear overtly hostile to whiteness, but he is undoubtedly on the same team with George Soros and Tim Wise. When push comes to shove, it all boils down to Jewish Vengeance fueled by Jewish Jealousy, or “Jews win, whites lose.”)

There’s another facet of Christology in Tangina’s ‘divination’, and it poses the greatest challenge. The lost souls aren’t demonic, only troubled, and could be shown the path to ‘salvation’. And Carol Anne could help them by playing an angel-like role, guiding them toward the Light. So, what’s the problem? Tangina fears there is another force within them, one filled with demonic rage and malevolence. It also works by deception and appears to Carol Anne as a ‘child’ playmate. Tangina calls it the ‘beast’, in line with Christology’s tendency to see everything in binaries of good and evil, divine and demonic, and pure and profane. It’s not so simple with Judaism, a deeper and more complicated belief system with much of the contradictions left intact and unresolved.

Christianity is an inversion of Judaism(and Spielbergonics is an inversion of Christianity, especially in Poltergeist). In Judaism, God cannot be seen or touched and exists as pure spirit; in contrast, even though Jewish souls are real enough, their continuation depends on bodily functions, namely sex through the ages. Thus, the living Jews are torchbearers of the flame passed down through the ages. In other words, no bodily functions(sex), no more Jewish souls, which means end of Jewishness. In contrast, Christianity presents God as seeable, touchable, and intimately knowable through the tangible figure of Jesus Christ, Son of God, a blasphemous idea to the Jews. And whereas Jewish souls are limited to bodily forms, with their essence being passed down through the ages by man-and-woman-lying-together, the Christian concept says one’s soul can be completely liberated from the body and ascend to a higher state in Heaven with God and the angels. Christianity materialized God into the figure of Man but abstracted the soul as worthy of reaching the realm of God Himself, an inversion of the Jewish Formula.

As things turn out, the ‘beast’ is, if not exactly a ‘good guy’, a most justified entity whose wrath may seem demonic on the surface but actually burns with a righteous sense of grievance. We are getting ahead of ourselves as the revelation comes only in the movie’s conclusion, but it demonstrates Spielberg’s mind-humping prowess. The ‘beast’ is akin to the spirits of the Ark in the first Indiana Jones movie. It is beastly for a reason. Not because it revels in evil but because a grave injustice has been committed and must be corrected.

Because the Judaic avenging angels at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark attack the Nazis but spare the All-American Indy and his girl, the audience may walk away assuming that the spirits are A-Okay with Christian America. But from the Judeo-centric angle of Philip Kaufman, Lawrence Kasdan, and Steven Spielberg, the final image of the Ark being stored in the State Archive may suggest that the spirits will haunt America as well(and guide it a new direction) because Jewish Rage will not be placated by the destruction of the Nazis, who are but a symptom of a far deeper disease, which is Christendom that defined its sanctity against Jews as Christ-Killers. (Christians accused Jews of deicide, and Jews as the god-race shall charge whites/Christians with the neo-deicide of killing the Jewish god-men.) Poltergeist could be construed as an esoteric but powerful pop-testament of Jewish vengeance on America as the New Rome.

It could have Zionist overtones as well, Spielberg’s way of saying that Jews got nothing personal against the Palestinians, BUT they happened to be situated on the sacred ground of Jewish forebears whose souls called upon modern Jews to try anything, however monstrous, to regain the land for the Tribe and put things to right — likewise, the Candyman horror movies feature a dark force that was gravely wronged in the past, i.e. a Negro in a relation with a white woman was lynched. So, just like the Freelings had to be scared out of their wits to depart from their home(claimed by the souls buried underneath), Palestinians also had to be uprooted because Jews supposedly have a deeper claim to the land. Also, as a lesson for goyim to understand what it’s like to be without a home(land), the Freelings look like nomads in the final scene. But, that’s for later.

In most horror, the dark forces are evil and demonic. Their mission is to hurt and destroy, propelled by madness or sadism. There’s nothing good about the dark spirit that possesses Regan in The Exorcist. In contrast, the forces behind the chaos in Close Encounters and Poltergeist(and Raiders of the Lost Ark) are, if not benign, not without reason or higher purpose, though usually beyond man’s limits of logic and understanding. Spielberg implies that higher/deeper powers are justified in manipulating, testing, and/or forcing lesser forms of beings, not unlike mankind’s treatment of animals, as in medical experiments, which aren’t meant to hurt the poor creatures, though it may come to that; it is for science or medicine. On the most primal level of human emotions, what happens to the mothers in Close Encounters and Poltergeist is unforgivable. Imagine the pain of a grief-stricken parent whose child was abducted by who-knows-what. It made for powerful drama in Akira Kurosawa’s High and Low. Few things are conceivably worse, like a child losing his parents, as with the orphans in Schindler’s List and the near-orphan in Empire of the Sun. The aliens in Close Encounters nab the kid in a scene that looks more like horror than science-fiction(though, to be sure, the kid seems eager to go with the aliens, like a dog running after cars). The woman should hate the aliens forever, but she is all smiles and joyful tears as the spaceship returns her son. No anger, no bitterness for what she’s been put through because, presumably, she came to the understanding that the aliens, being infinitely smarter and wiser, have a cosmic license to be snatching kids away from mothers, like zoologists taking the offspring from mother animals for study before returning them, that is if meant to be returned. Equality doesn’t exist in the Spielbergian universe. It’s a world of higher powers and lesser beings, and the only question is, “Is the higher power benevolent or malevolent?” Close Encounters or War of the Worlds? American Military or German Wehrmacht? In Poltergeist, the dark power seems evil but is actually trying to undo an evil. (Among the child abduction movies, The Emerald Forest has to be the loopiest in its Tarzanism. The white father makes peace with his son choosing to be with the brown natives who nabbed him as a child because being a noble savage means unity with mystical nature. Surely a twist on John Ford’s The Searchers, which may also apply to Poltergeist with its child-napping.)

Spielberg’s obsession with higher powers is like the current Jewish Supremacist mentality whereby the members of the Tribe are justified in the unconventional breach of norms because they, being the Chosen, simply know better, meaning we inferior goyim should just learn to live with it, which is indeed the case with so many cucked goyim. So, if Jewish gender-’scientists’ want to take your kid and mutilate his/her genitals, just nod and smile because Jews know best.

In the Tangina sequence, Spielberg plays along with the quasi-Christological interpretation of things. It comes down to the battle between the Light of Salvation and the Dark Beast of Damnation. American Materialism prevents the lost souls from letting go of worldly attachments in favor of the Light, and some beastly power fends off all attempts to rescue Carol Anne, to whom it appears as a kindly friend. Sticks for the parents, carrots for Carol Anne. It uses force and deception. Tangina devises a plan, but is her psychic prognosis correct? They all decide to go along with it. What else is there to do?

Everyone is relying on Tangina to get to the heart of the matter — indeed, she did remark that the house has ‘many hearts’ — , but her strategy for truth requires Diane and Steve to use deception, especially to draw Carol Anne from the ‘hands’ all around her, presumably belonging to the lost souls. To do this, Steve must play the role of the tough dad, one even willing to spank the kid. The distinction between man and woman becomes clearer here, a departure from the modern norm/tendency to view everyone as a mere individual. It’s as if a bit of ‘old school’ is necessary to put things to right. The threat of ‘spanking’ especially harks back to the Old Ways before Dr. Spock and the New Psychology. So far, Steve and Diane have been presented as more-or-less permissive parents, but they must get tough to brace for what’s to come. (It’s like Sarah Connors in The Terminator must go into warrior mode to survive what’s ahead, the rise of the killer machines. Poltergeist, like The Terminator and Red Dawn, suggests Americans have become too soft and must reconnect with either spirituality, history, and/or warrior instinct.) Tangina not only commands Diane to tell Carol Anne to go towards the Light but to lie that she’s waiting for her in the Light. Presumably, Tangina is trying to draw Carol Anne to the Light and then to grab her before she gets sucked into the Final Destination along with the lost souls. (Or, Tangina is rather unsure herself and playing it by ear.)

The only equipment for the ‘cleaning’ operation comprise a rope and two tennis balls, and this is where the righteous Negro Ryan gains significance as an archetype. Now, the movie came out in 1982 when the rope hadn’t yet gained the significance in recent years. Back then, a noose was usually associated with some horse thief in a Western on the verge of being hanged. Or, with Clint Eastwood in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Hang Em High, and High Plains Drifter. Today, the rope or noose is almost exclusively associated with Negrucifixion(and maybe the knee will gain significance via St. George Fentanyl Floyd). Long ago, some famous person said if Jesus had been hanged than crucified, the Noose than the Cross would have been the sacred symbol of Christendom. In the Current West, the Noose has taken on such a significance in association with the Noble Negro. After so many years of Jewish influence and goy cuckery, many white people now worship the Magic-Tragic Negro as their god. Then, it’s hardly surprising that Fake Noose stories have proliferated, as if inspired by fake or imagined miracles reported by Catholics of yesteryear. Though regarded as expressions of ‘hate’ and ‘white supremacism’, they are prized as reminders of ‘white guilt’ and need for white atonement. Just like the bogus miracle sightings of the Catholic Church(and the miracle healings of Pentecostals) were fabricated by the faithful themselves, Fake Noose sightings are perpetrated by blacks, cucked whites, or Jews(who are also responsible for most swastika vandalism on Jewish property). Just like Christians rationalized bogus ‘miracles’ in the name of bolstering faith in the Almighty, blacks and other ‘victim’ groups feel justified in their frauds and hoaxes for the sake of Social Justice in honor of the Tri-Idolatry of Jews, blacks, and homos. Long before any of this happened, Spielberg was rather prescient with his movie antics about what Jewish Power really had in store for white goyim.

Sheeeeeeeiiit, Ryan’s gots his balls back!!

First, despite the lack of any overt hostility, husband Steve clearly isn’t thrilled to have a Negro about the house. There is no camaraderie between them. But then, the whole point of the suburbs was to get away from Negroes, who are okay on TV(as football players) but could be troublesome in real life, turning the neighborhood into da hood. Ryan’s race sticks out further because Marty the white guy quit. Now, Ryan is a good guy and eager to help. But, it’s unlikely that his race is irrelevant, especially given three of Spielberg’s serious movies dealt with Negro or Negro-related themes: The Color Purple, Amistad, and Lincoln; and the voice of conscience in the opening of A.I. is that of a black woman, ROTFL. As Spielberg didn’t grow up around Negroes — the bullies of his childhood were ‘dumb polack’ types — , he wasn’t disabused of the illusion of the Noble or Magic Negro. Thus, blackness is more a symbol than a reality for Spielberg(and people like Stephen King).

Ryan is given a definite role in the girl’s rescue. He’s told by Tangina to mark two (tennis) balls and handed a rope, rather curtly by Steve. One possible significance of the balls and rope involves the Lynching Narrative. Supposedly, wholly innocent blacks were charged of rape or murdered and hanged from trees. Sometimes, they were castrated or ‘nutted’. Thus, the white family could be haunted not only by the proxies of Holocaust Vengeance but Lynching Vengeance. (Given the Holocaust consumed millions of lives whereas only a few thousand blacks were lynched over a century, often for actual crimes, why would Jews want to elevate a minor tragedy nearly on par with a major one? Weren’t the Great Famine in Ukraine, Japanese atrocities in China, oligarchic death squads in Guatemala, US bombing in Laos, and Cambodia under Khmer Rouge more comparable to the Shoah? But then, this isn’t about true morality but political weaponization of morality. The Great Famine is inconvenient for Jews because Bolshie Tribesmen played a key role. And just forget about the Palestinian Nakba. No, it has to be all this hand-wringing about blacks for the simple reason that Jewish Supremacist Power relies on the cult of ‘white guilt’ that binds white goyim to a morally inferior position. So, some black criminals who met vigilante justice deserve more attention than millions of Christian Slavs who were starved to gruesome death in Ukraine. Nothing has changed, of course. The life of George Floyd matters a thousand times more than the lives of all the Arabs, men, women, and children, killed in Wars for Israel. Jews know that whites have close to zero agency in conscience and depend almost entirely on official or approved channels of news and opinion. So, white morality is lighting candles for Anne Frank and George Floyd.)

When Tangina takes the balls(marked ‘1’ and ‘2’ by Ryan himself) and tosses one after the other into the closet, they reappear at the ‘target’, the identified spot on the living room ceiling where Ryan stands waiting. As hypothesized by Tangina, the balls drop from the ‘target’ one by one. Excited, Ryan goes ‘ghetto’ in lingo. He be all thrilled and shit to be gittin’ his balls back. “Kiss my ass!”, he hollers. It’s like the viral video of the black news reporter who be flippin’ when a fly done pop into his mouth. Ryan’s like ‘muh balls!’

Apart from the lynching allusion, the balls could signify that the weird happenings, far from merely involving spirits, has something to do with sexuality. Even though Tangina’s ideas are quasi-Christian in character, the balls suggest a lurking Jewish element. The highest ideals of Christianity are abstractly spiritual. The purest thing you could do is forgo sex and family, reject the demands of the flesh, and detach your soul from the body. There is nothing wrong with celibacy; indeed, it is preferable, as Jesus Himself chose Heavenly grace over earthly desires(even in The Last Temptation of Christ when push came to shove). Indeed, a strain of Christianity views sex, even sex within marriage, as a kind of fallenness, a betrayal of the spirit. Christianity castrates the flesh from the spirit. In contrast, Judaism, though highly moralistic about sexuality, puts family and reproduction at its core. The New Testament is about the final revelation, a handbook on how to rise above the grinding cycles of history and enter into eternal Heaven. In contrast, Torah is a story of generations, of fathers and sons, about the Jewish bloodline. So, while a Christian who loses his balls can still find comfort in the dream of Heaven, a Jew without balls is indeed a pitiful creature.

After Ryan grabs the balls in the living room, Tangina instructs Steve to toss one end of the rope into the closet, whereby it drops out of the ‘target’ for Ryan to immediately pull on. The plan seems to be, while Ryan and Steve hold the rope taut at opposite ends, Tangina will enter the closet bound to the rope in search of Carol Anne. Perhaps, she can find Carol Anne wandering in the ‘spectral light’ and find an escape hatch through the ‘target’ in the ceiling, or something. But Diane interjects and insists she must be the one to go.

Here, Spielberg gets naughty again, albeit in a clever way. The rope is given additional significance as a dong symbol, especially as it follows the two BALLS. Yes, the dong-rope. Even though Steve and Ryan are on the same team, it’s as if they’re in a tug-of-war or tug-a-dong competition. Ryan pulls the white woman Diane and her white daughter in his direction while Steve pulls in the opposite direction. Also, when Tangina tells Ryan to ‘take up the slack’ and tighten the rope, it sounds like Beavis-Boner-Hour. The rope goes from ‘flaccid’ to stiff, like an erection. So, what looks like Ebony-and-Ivory teamwork on the surface has the vibes of black-vs-white sexual conflict underneath. And when the rope is jerked away from Steve after a giant skull bulges out of the doorway, it’s like a massive ejaculation, anticipated by the baldo-beardo’s ‘cumming’ beer cans and Robbie’s breaking glass ‘cumming’ milk all over Dana. It’s Spielberg being a very ‘naughty boy’, like the kid in The Shining.

But before Steve loses his grip on the rope, something odd comes over Tangina. So far, she was in control of things, combining spiritual prowess with strategic mastery. But for all her powers, she seems to fall under the spell of the Light and begins to mutter how all must enter the Light. Steve senses something wrong. After all, the plan was to draw Carol Anne toward the Light and then snatch her away before it consumes her. So, why is Tangina reversing herself on the Light? Is she under some kind of trance and lost control of herself? Desperate, Steve takes matters into his own hands and pulls on the rope, and it is only then that Tangina regains her senses and warns Steve to stop, that it’s too early to pull Diane(and hopefully Carol Anne) out of the closet.

Just then, a giant skull appears at the doorway and hollers at Steve, who is totally horror-struck, whereupon the rope is ripped away from his hands. Obviously, things didn’t exactly go according to plan. Still, it seems to have done something as Diane, with Carol Anne in her arms, appears in the plasmic light in the ‘target’ area and then falls the full distance from the ceiling to the floor in an unconscious state. Steve rushes downstairs and yells ‘NO’ to Ryan who’s trying to touch Diane and Carol Anne. The righteous Negro is trying to help, but Steve reacts almost violently, as if HE should be the first one to touch Diane and his daughter. Ryan does help Steve carry mother and daughter to the bathroom where they are placed inside the baptismal tub.

Diane returned with the girl, but are they alive? The image of mother and daughter in the bathtub is meant to strike a chord with Christians, especially the Born-Again Pentecostal variety. It’s as if modern-day consumerist Americans who lived mainly for material comfort underwent a profoundly transformative experience and were ‘saved’. Indeed, it’s as if mother and daughter were literally born again. Diane traversed the sphere of the Light, found Carol Anne, and was ‘spiritually’ revitalized with her daughter. And unlike in patriarchal-hierarchical Judaism where age matters a good deal, there’s a childlike quality about Christianity where the purity of faith, regardless of age or station, is what matters most. So, while Judaism puts the father/parent and the rabbi over children and students, Christianity(especially the less intellectual variety) encourages adults to reconnect with the innocence of childhood. One might say it has an infantilizing effect. Indeed, Diane and Carol Anne in the bathtub look like a big baby and a little baby.

Well, all’s well that ends well, and as both mother and daughter regain their senses, it seems the problem has been solved, with no little help from Dr. Lesh, Ryan, and especially Tangina, who poses for the camera with the pride of victory. They are so happy with Carol Anne’s return that they overlook the incongruities. For starters, it didn’t go according to plan. For a while, Tangina lost her senses, and the panic-stricken Steve yanked on the rope prematurely. And Diane and Carol Anne emerged in catatonic state and could have suffered serious damage from the impact of hitting the floor. Besides, if it was all about the Light and lost spirits, why are Diane and Carol Anne(as well as the tennis balls and the rope) covered in jelly-like slime? To be born-again is a spiritual transformation, a cleansing of the soul, especially among the Evangelicals. But with all the goo on their faces and bodies, Diane and Carol seem rather ‘gorn again’. (The Catholics have a strange ritual with Communion where they believe to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ. Jews, with their fixation on reproduction and generational continuity, are more about cum-union, which may explain Spielberg’s naughty allusions to ejaculations throughout the movie.)

Too often when there’s a problem, we want the fix without the hassle of figuring out the causes. It’s why we leave it up to doctors, mechanics, and professionals. It costs money but saves us the headache. And once the problem seems solved well enough, we put it behind us rather than think about it. Plenty of people just banged on TVs set for better signals and were content with the desired results and thought no more of it.

However, many apparent solutions are, at best, cosmetic and fail to address the deeper issues. People often treat their health this way. When feeling sick, they take some pills and, if the pain goes away, don’t think about it. It’s no wonder quacks and snake-oils abound everywhere with their promise of quick fixes. Most people ponder deeper only when the problem is no longer manageable. This certainly applies to conservatism in the 1980s. So many people breathed a sigh of relief that the boomers finally seemed to have matured and that the crazy 60s and 70s were behind them. America was back with patriotism, enterprise, and confidence. Well, what has happened since? American Conservatism(as well as American Liberalism) failed because it refused to address the Jewish Question. In years to come, Jews would not only push the Weimarization of the West but the New Authoritarianism whereby principles like ‘free speech’ became the providence of Jews to do as they please, thereby undermining the very foundation of real liberalism. Today, ‘democracy’ means whatever outcome demanded by Jews. So, if a coup installed a new regime in Ukraine, that’s ‘democratic’, but if a solid majority elected Viktor Orban, that’s ‘authoritarian’. ‘Tolerance’ has come to mean compulsory celebration of globo-homo degeneracy and BLM ideology; consider the number of people fired or ‘canceled’ for refusing the BLM narrative or rejecting the tranny notions of ‘gender’.

In Poltergeist, everyone, from the family to the academic Dr. Lesh to the clairvoyant Tangina, prefers to believe the problem has been solved. It’s all back to normal, and there’s no need to look back. Tangina beams with pride as she poses for Ryan’s adoring camera: “This house is clean”, she says. And even the rationalist Dr. Lesh seems deeply moved, as if she herself went through a conversion toward faith. She has that blessed look on her face so iconic in Spielbergmania, a kind of pornography of tearful bliss and glowing innocence or pop-culturalization of Christian passion and iconography. (John Hughes took another tact with Weird Science.)

Next scene shows the family in the process of packing their belongings. A moving truck is parked right outside the house. All seems well again, with the family having grown a bit wiser perhaps. Was Tangina’s hypothesis correct, after all? Is the house really ‘cleaned’? It seems so, but why was their house affected by the spirits? There’s no real clue or explanation as yet. Still, they got their daughter back, the spooky stuff seems to have ended. One thing for sure, given what they’ve been through, they sure don’t want to live there anymore. Dana notices some gray slivers on her mother’s hair, and maybe it’s an homage to The Bride of Frankenstein(or if Spielberg was feeling especially goofy, to Susan Sontag, as if to suggest this particular movie is his most ‘intellectual’ and ‘subversive’). Robbie helps out too but dons a lampshade on his head, a possible allusion to the Holocaust with its horror stories of Jews turned into articles of furniture and a premonition of what’s about to be revealed that night.

Diane tells Steve that Carol Anne remembers nothing of what happened, and maybe that’s for the better. They don’t seem particularly keen on dwelling on the matter either. The family plans to move out before the night is out, but Steve has to spend some hours at the office with his boss to discuss matters. Dana plans to visit her friends, and Diane reminds her to return on time so that they can drive to a Holiday Inn on I-74, whereupon Dana pensively says, “Yeah, I remember that place”, somewhat to Diane’s surprise. Does it mean Dana went there with boyfriends? Or, is it something else? Did the family move frequently before Steve finally settled down to a stable career? Was the family ‘hippie’ going ‘yuppie’ or ‘subuppie’? If Dana is 16 yrs old in 1982, it means she was born in 1966. And if Diane is 32 yrs old, it means she was 16 when she gave birth to Dana. And the fact that she still smokes marijuana suggests Steve and she had a kind of a wild youth. We also learn that Carol Anne was born IN the house. For a time, it was fashionable among Counterculture types to have babies at home, especially in the bathtub filled with water, which is where Diane and Carol Anne find themselves after escaping from the other dimension.

All those details may explain Steve and Diane’s permissiveness as parents(and why Dana stays out so much) and why Steve took umbrage at the notion that HE is the disciplinarian in the house, as if that’s a BAD thing; he retorted that he never spanked any of the kids. Theirs isn’t exactly Bad-News-Bears parenting but a lot looser than the new breed of elite-centric parenting of hovering over the kids to make sure they get straight A’s and enter the BEST schools.

Insofar as Poltergeist is about amnesia(personal and historical), how fitting that its main characters are boomers come into adulthood. Indeed, if space aliens were dropped in the middle of America in the 1980s, they’d hardly realize the country had gone through cataclysmic social and cultural transformations in the Sixties and Seventies. The 80s were sold as the return to 50s stability, minus the repression and hang-ups erased during the years of upheaval. In other words, the best of both worlds, back to stability but liberated.

But in the rush to settle down and/or rebuild following the hectic crises-laden period from mid-60s to the late 70s, many Americans chose to forget or ignore certain inconvenient truths of history.

Oliver Stone certainly hit back later in the decade with Platoon and Wall Street. Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing reminded America of the racial problems that the Eighties(when the Cosby Show was the favored face of Black America) failed to resolve. Of course, Spielberg was a prime candidate among the peddlers of amnesia, the man who, along with George Lucas among others, contributed to the death knell of New Hollywood’s personal film-making in favor of summer blockbusters and popcorn movies.

Yet, in his own way, Spielberg was intensely personal, far more so than Lucas, and a closer inspection of his cinema shows that he was indeed concerned, even obsessed, with generational, cultural, historical, and even spiritual issues, albeit in a pop-esoteric mode. Indeed, Spielberg would join the ranks of Oliver Stone and Spike Lee with his Rub-the-White-Man’s-Nose-In-History with Schindler’s List. (Whereas some criticized Color Purple for being too Disneyesque and/or David-Lean-like and making the abusive black male the face of brutality, no one could mistake the starkly b/w Schindler’s List as anything but a full-blown assault on European Evil. With all the money and means Spielberg had amassed in the industry, he had the means to do just about anything he wanted. It’s telling that Schindler’s List came out the same year as Jurassic Park, one of his best works. In his Holocaust movie, Spielberg focuses on a little orphaned Jewish girl walking amidst the corpses and who is later spotted among the dead. Then, we can surmise the significance of the abduction by the ‘beast’ in Poltergeist. It could be the rage of Jewish Vengeance saying, “You white goyim murdered our children, so we will take yours and make you feel the pain.”)

In the remaining hours in the house, Diane decides to take a bath, the final baptismal comfort in what had been their home for several years. For some reason, Robbie and Carol Anne are put to bed even though the family intends to leave as soon as Steve returns. While the tub is filling with water, Diane sits with her kids who argue over toys. Both the boy’s truck and the girl’s doll are broken in two. The doll seems ‘decapitated’, reminiscent of the younger son in Close Encounters smashing a female doll for some reason. It could be Spielberg’s way of saying that the mind is often disjointed from the body of truth. Toy models of the human form and the machine lay mangled on the bed, setting the scene up for what’s to come next.

After a nice bath, Diane lies in bed and relaxes to kill a few hours. Meanwhile, Robbie tries to sleep but once again finds the jester-clown-doll a menacing presence in the dark. Worse, it suddenly goes missing from the chair. Then suddenly, all hell breaks loose. The doll ambushes Robbie from behind and begins to strangle him and drag him under the bed. Meanwhile, the paranormal forces are back with a vengeance and do a number on Diane.

Spielberg gets naughty once more, indeed Ron-Jeremic as the spooks pull her shirt up and seem to grab for her pooter(or cooter). It’s like something out of the horror movie The Entity(a favorite of Martin Scorsese) where a woman is raped by some invisible force, surely a perverse twist on Mary being impregnated by God. It’s as if Diane is being attacked by something akin to Harvey Weinstein’s unloosed id. Then, gravity goes haywire, and Diane is hurled to the ceiling, as if up is down, down is up. At least earlier, the gravity went from ceiling-to-floor, allowing for Diane and Carol Anne to fall back to reality. But nothing seems certain now. Worse, the supernatural forces, instead of mainly targeting particular areas of the house, have now taken over the whole thing like a bull in a china shop. The family thought the madness was over, but the spooks are only getting started, hellbent on revealing the Truth as to why they’re so furious.

If the Tangina phase of the narrative evoked Christo-Mythology, the denouement goes fully into Judeo-Sexual-Vengeance mode. Contra the Christian spiritual view where the soul seeks liberation from the flesh, the Jewish view of soul is generational, therefore profoundly sexual. Then, it makes sense that the vengeful spirit strikes out with a fury that is monstrously sexual. Not only does it grab at Diane’s snatch but gets really wild in Robbie and Carol Anne’s bedroom. Lucky for Robbie, he managed to outmuscle the jester-doll and destroy it by pulling out its stuffing, but he ain’t seen nothing yet as the closet, which had been the portal of the Christo-mythic light in the earlier sequence, becomes one big angry Jewish Vengeance-Vagina.

Indeed, it might as well be Andrea Dworkin’s big fat hungry beaver, especially as the room gets very vaginally pink. If the Christian soul is supposed to pass from Earth to Heaven, the Jewish Soul is supposed to pass from body to body down the generations. But, all those Jews killed in the Shoah were denied the chance to pass down their seed. As the buried-and-forgotten in Poltergeist likely symbolize the Jewish Dead in World War II, their ultimate form of revenge takes on sexual overtones. The closet turns into a gigantic Jewish Vagina that seeks revenge by trying to suck in the goy kids Robbie and Carol Anne.

Meanwhile, Diane finally regains her equilibrium and tries to save her children, but the spooks conspire to keep her at bay. Outside, she calls for help but slips into the swimming pool that now fill up with corpses as coffins break out of the ground. She is pulled up from the pool by the next-door neighbor who, however, is unwilling or too afraid to do more, especially as his wife forbid him to do so. (If Ben is meant to be Jewish, his reluctance to help could mean Jews are about looking out for other Jews, not risking their lives for goyim, which would be Dumb Polack shit. “Goyim ain’t your blood.”) Back in the house and having made it upstairs, she finds the hallway turning ‘psychedelic’ and elongating as she runs toward her children’s room. It’s like she’s running inside a dong growing long. It’s almost as if she’s running inside Ron Jeremy’s dong growing stiff.

She picks up speed and finally reaches the door, only to find Robbie and Carol Anne holding on for dear life as Andrea Dworkin’s big fat pooter has become like the ravenous plant in A Little Shop of Horrors. Diane just barely manages to pull them into the hallway, but more troubles lie ahead. No matter where she runs, coffins bust out of the floor.

No more Christo-mythology about the Light and soul-cleansing. Diane and her kids are confronted with what Spielberg and fellow Jews consider to be the biggest power of the cosmos: Jewish Covenant, Jewish Sexual Rage, and Jewish Historical Vengeance all rolled into one. The Covenant says Jewish blood is sacred, and Jewish souls have passed through the ages through Jewish blood and semen. To the extent that the murdered Jews failed to pass down the seed and produce children, they are smoldering with boundless rage. If Christianity is ultimately about the possibility of forgiveness and redemption, Jewishness is ultimately about survival and revenge(and total demolition of the enemy). Just as Jews are right to be eternally enraged about the Holocaust, the corpses tearing through the house are, in the movie’s conclusion, justified in their wrath. In the end, they are not the bad guys, not the ‘beast’.

The real villain is the greedy developer who defiled those bodies by (1) converting a cemetery into a residential development and (2) failing to dig up the coffins to be relocated to a proper burial ground.

Indeed, Steve arrives just then, driven home by Mr. Teague himself. As he sees dead bodies all around, he puts 2 and 2 together and figures out why all the shit’s been happening. Teague only told half the story earlier on the hilltop. The tombstones were moved but not the bodies, whose angry souls have been haunting the Freeling family. As such, what they’d experienced was more like a haunting than mere willy-nilly visits by poltergeists. In that sense, the movie is deceptively mistitled. Dr. Lesh explained that hauntings involve the dead and considerably more serious than short-term visitations by poltergeists. One thing for sure, Spielberg and fellow Jews intend the West to be Holo-Haunted forever. (Or maybe the term ‘Poltergeist’ was used because it sounds Germanic, and guess who carried out the Shoah?)

Dana arrives just then and screams in abject terror, a very Spielbergian over-the-top moment. She is pulled into the car, and the Freelings drive away(a moment added with grandeur in the ending of Jurassic Park). Behind them, pandemonium continues around the house, with water hydrants bursting and cars being overturned. Mr. Teague stands before the house aghast and bewildered. Before the house collapses unto itself, it blasts flames, state-of-the-art brimstone-and-fire, one of which strikes Teague like a bull’s eye. It recalls the climax in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Judaic Avenging Angels turn the Germans and the Nazi-sympathizing French archaeologist into melted cheese before reducing them to dust to be sucked by a vacuum cleaner in the sky. But unlike the Evil Nazis who are destroyed without mercy, Teague suffers no fatal wounds. Still, he’s shaken to his core. He stands there frazzled, and more importantly, ashamed for what he’d done.

It’s perhaps Spielberg’s way of saying that White Americans don’t quite deserve the fate of Germany, which is absolute destruction, but being part of the Christian West(that persecuted Jews), they need to be constantly reminded of the skeletons in their closet; they must haunted forever to be spared the total wrath of the Jews. (But then, as the Jewish definition of ‘nazi’ is now so fluid, white Americans could be as condemned as the Germans, especially with the MAGA movement in 2016.)

For many goyim in the US, the American mythos is about the New Beginning, washed of Old World sins. America is to Europe what Christianity is to Judaism. But, Jews, a people apart, never partook of this view of America as a christening of history. Jews prized America for its freedom and opportunities, a place where they could really make it big without being hampered by Old World biases, but their tribal connections and roots remained far more powerful than any ideological commitment to the Constitution or amnesiac plunge into consumerism. Of course, Jews often invoked the Constitution, but it was for the birds, to fool goyim into accepting the Jewish Agenda as being in tune with America’s founding principles. But, it was all just a shell game. Jews insist whites must reject racial identity and unity to better serve America’s universalist principles but, in the same breath, insist it’s as American as apple pie(and bagel-and-lox) to praise Jews uber alles and support Zion against whatever nations and peoples that Jewish Power happens to hate.

Now, the ending of Poltergeist could be explained as just a staple of the horror genre. While most horror movies do end with a clear resolution, a good number spring a twist at the end, a final jolt for the audience. Given the audience expects to be frightened, they don’t feel betrayed by these endings(even if unhappy, with evil winning in the end); it’s also good for sequels as The Evil still lurks. Consider the ending of Burnt Offerings, a shocking reversal just when the family, having regained its wits, is about to depart from the wicked mansion. Or the ending of The Ward(by John Carpenter), one of those expected-unexpected. But, the twist is integral to the meaning of Poltergeist, where the final revelation is less a conventional twist than a straightening out of what really animates the heart(and pud/poon) of the Jewish Soul, fueled by eternal anxiety and vengeance, a prayer to God to destroy, or at least mercilessly punish, all those who’ve murdered Jews(or stole their lunch money at school).

As the ashamed Teague seems grateful that he’s still alive, the house collapses like a house of cards and vanishes into a black hole, leaving only an eerie light. Unlike the Christian soul that leaves the tangible world behind as it passes into the afterlife, the Jewish Soul has earthly claims, like the idea of the Promised Land. So, whereas the Freelings, for all their nostalgia about the house, can drive away, the souls of the buried bodies(as proxies of wronged Jewish souls through the ages) must reclaim their sacred burial ground and everything on it. Notice how Jews not only ‘took back’ the Holy Land from the Arabs but have done everything to recover stolen Jewish property during World War II. Indeed, they’ve gone further and used every trick in the book to squeeze everything out of Germans, Europeans, and even Americans who must pay yearly tribute to Israel and expend huge military budgets for the sake of the Zionic Empire.

The Freelings drive into the night in the rain. They feel sullen(and sullied) but also what they hadn’t felt for some time: genuine sense of relief. Never mind Dr. Lesh’s paranormal ‘science’ and Tangina’s mumbo-jumbo about the Spectral Light. The REAL cause for all the troubles was the defiled corpses underneath the house. The rain reminds us of the Janet Leigh character’s driving to the Bates Motel in Psycho. A suggestion perhaps that it is over but not really over, i.e. the White West’s facing up to its sins is only the beginning, not the end.

Since the time when Poltergeist came out, Jewish Power has pushed all forms of Political Correctness and finally bared its full anti-white face with ‘woke’ tri-idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks that is designed to break the white race in body, mind, and soul. Give an inch, and Jewish Power takes a mile. Give a mile, and Jewish Power takes a light year. It is why the West is under the hauntings of Sorosian sorcery, and there’s no doubt that Spielberg, a committed Zionist-Globalist Democrat, has long harbored similar neurosis and hatred.

In Spielberg’s case, it’s all the more disturbing. While Soros is clearly vile and unhinged, one could still understand how a man whose childhood was so terribly scarred by the Nazi Occupation and Shoah could be driven to such hatred and vengeance. There’s no way he can forgive the West for what it did to his family and tribe, especially as his mental mode is Jewish, not Christian. Judaism is about vengeance, not forgiveness, at least in regards to goyim. (Forgiveness is reserved only for fellow Jews.)

In contrast, Spielberg grew up in America after the Nazis were utterly destroyed in Europe. True, he was bullied as a child by Dumb Polack types, but he also made friends with them; besides, many more white kids were bullied by black kids. Overall, his childhood was hardly a living hell, especially the kind white kids experienced when integrated with ghastly Negro kids. But that may explain it. If Soros hates white Christians/Gentiles because he spent his childhood years in the worst of all possible worlds, Spielberg’s resentments are the product of his rather sheltered childhood. If the child Spielberg had seen more of life(like Howard Stern who vividly remembers how blacks ruined his neighborhood), he might have realized that ‘Dumb Polacks’ aren’t the biggest baddies in the world. But people generally judge things in the context of personal experience, and the ‘dumb polack’ Christian types were the worst tormentors for kid Spielberg.

Indeed, something similar explains the discrepancy between black rage and white ‘woke’ rage. Blacks are full of ignorance when it comes to history, but their rage is the product of ‘survival’ in the jungle of their own making. Many blacks grow up in dangerous places that foster animosity and hatred, except that blacks prefer to blame whites(who lend an ear) than fellow blacks(who throw a punch). So, the source of black rage is real enough, even if the blame is directed at whitey.

In contrast, the ‘woke’ and Antifa types, who live in mostly white communities, aren’t distressed over matters of ‘survival’. Rather, because their communities are relatively safe(though considerably degraded since the riots of 2020), their politicized rage operates within the context of the Narrative sustained through indoctrination(aka education), propaganda(aka news media), and celebrity worship(aka popular culture). Especially as their lives are shallow and empty, they crave some kind of purpose and meaning, which is offered to them in the form of ‘social justice’ predicated on the notion that ‘white supremacists’ and ‘neo-nazis’ are hanging nooses everywhere, hunting down angelic homos, and about to make Donald Trump the Hitler-for-Life. Blacks are faced with real black problems(that could get them killed) but blame whitey, and ‘woke’ whites are obsessed with fake problems(of looming ‘white supremacy’) and fantasize about blacks as saint-savior-warriors against injustice.

Even though Steven Spielberg was never part of anything like the Weather Underground or some such radical group — given his generation and its politics, he would have seemed almost ‘conservative’ at least by comparison — , he was never disabused of the notion of the Magic Negro because he knew blackness mainly through movies and TV shows where blacks were usually harmless, kindly, wise, or ‘cool’. Seared in his psyche is the image of ‘dumb polack’ kids as the biggest jerks, the distant cousins of the Nazis. Unless manipulated and steered by Jews in the ‘correct’ direction, these barbarian goyim could easily go from allies to enemies, or from dogs to wolves. After all, Germany went from one of the more Jewish-friendly countries into the most anti-Jewish one. (Of course, Jews would understand better why the Germans went nuts if they themselves looked in the mirror once in a while and questioned what they did to make Germans so angry, but Jews aren’t much into self-reflection when it comes to goyim. Jews think, “we’re right, they’re wrong” and “we win, they lose”. The number of Jews who felt any remorse about what they did to Russia in the 1990s can be counted on one hand.)

The movie ends with the Freelings entering a room at the Holiday Inn. Soon after, the door flings open with Steve pushing the TV set out of the room. It’s a funny moment, and it seems they learned the lesson. But is it the right lesson? After all, the TV merely served as a medium in their house. It was really the vengeful spirits who were behind the horror. So, as long as the vengeful Jewish Spirit has taken over America, the Freelings and all other goyim will never get away from the haunting as Jews control the electronic media, the ghost machine. Indeed, as the camera pulls back, lights are reflected on the windows of the hotel like a pair of watching eyes.

Hide 38 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. While certainly one of the most concerted and nuanced tales on Spielberg’s quasi-spirituality, this also is a primary example of the clear flaws of the auteur theory. Speaking as a theory man myself, I understand the need to look at things indirectly to come to any conclusion at all, almost as if the spirits dictate how things turn out and that’s all well and secure, but as you point out yourself in passing, Spielberg was amongst many things, but quite preeminently, a conduit of popular myths and so went about this the way most showmen do: in a complex and energetic symbiosis with collaborators with similar minds and fancies. Far who did Spielberg depend upon to bring out his particularly personal sense of justice and retribution? Kaufman and Kasdan in making his second go at “The Ten Commandments.” Spielberg is one of the smartest fantasists in the creative world, not only, but definitely partly because he can recognize good ideas (better yet if they reflect his particularly contradictive upbringing). His work making “innocent” the vision of Kubrick is very comparable to Hooper’s work with him on “Poltergeist.” For as ripped from basic Jungian fantasies “Poltergeist” seems, you forget three other writers were involved – one of which was Hooper. And the film is far from an accurate portrait of Spielberg’s hang-ups of home and displacement when its filtered through very much a goy perspective as Hooper’s, not without its philosophy, but a harder and more liberal-humanist perspective. For there is no warmth to the light, to the womb of the return, and certainly none when Carol Anne is returned and the household is just a husk of what it once was.

    The auteurist reading of “Poltergeist” is a trickier subject, and is valid from the perspective of Spielberg’s writing, but besides the three other writers, it is as organic a betrayal of Spielberg’s biblical grue as it is organic a reiteration of Tobe Hooper’s materialist (secular) woes. L

    You know who else can be said to have “Orson Welles’s showmanship by way of Loony Tunes”? Hooper. (Cf. his 1964 short film The Heisters: It is just Hooper suppressed his childish wonder (Dante is the perfect medium between Spielberg and Hooper) and approached the world more like a Marxist (relatively). The ending of “Poltergeist” may lack that personal bite because there is no mothership nor motherland – it is all raided and ransacked territory.

    Hooper was not a stranger to Jungian thinking – he based Texas Chain Saw Massacre off star signs and what we cannot control.

    And who a decade before melded mediated imagery of patriots into something otherworldly and no-longer-human in his documentary work?×568.png

    Your thoughts are excellent, and remain fascinating and valid, but I’m not sure “Poltergeist” and its provenances quite reciprocate it lovingly.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  2. Honestly did anyone read this whole ‘spergy thing? I gave up about a fifth of the way through.

    Anyway, I’m curious if he brought up that this movie introduced its young actress into the world of Hollywood ritual child molestation. She likely died from internal injuries that were the result of that.

    • Replies: @Veracity
    , @Jas
  3. This is a great week-end read. I admit I started reading, but had to hit the pause button. All very good stuff for movie fans that loved Spielberg’s fantastic parade of hits from Jaws to ET. But he certainly lost his mojo beginning with Lincoln in 2012. He got too serious – to the point of being obnoxious with the lamest film he ever made – The Post.

    He needs to get back to his natural talent for combining wild-ass action scenes with amazing big screen flair and emotional punch.

  4. Veracity says:

    Much ado about….what? Storytelling, OK. Revelatory cinema, nah, all derivative. Spielberg is like cotton candy-one big sugar rush, a little crash, and then mostly amnesia until the next ingestion. A modern PT Barnum-This Way to the Egress!

  5. Veracity says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    Amen, brother. Gave up mid essay and skipped to the end. Keep wondering when the true nature of WWII concentration camps will finally be elucidated.

  6. Trinity says:

    Doesn’t take much talent to turn a popular book(s) like, “Jaws”, ” The Exorcist” or “The Shining” into popular movies. Really little more than plagiarism by a different name when you think about it.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @James J. O'Meara
  7. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre trailer is surprising, in that it shows the moment before every murder in the movie, with the exception of Nubbins getting crushed by the Semi.

    It’s really not gory at all. Very little blood. 2 by sledge, 1 by meat-hook/freezing to death, 1 by Chainsaw. Hardly a “Chainsaw Massacre”.

    The Texas Sledge-Hammer Slaughters just doesn’t have the same ring.

  8. Trinity says:

    I remember watching the movie, “Duel” as a kid. If I remember right, there wasn’t a lot of dialogue.

    “Duel” was a pretty original and unique movie. Today you have no original stories, just repeats of movies made 30-40 years ago, sequels to movies not worthy of sequels and endless comic book movies. Thought that Jews were supposed to be talented and smart??
    Wouldn’t know it by the crap Hollywood has put out in the last 25 years or so.

    In the early 2000s, Hollywood put out a similar storyline of a predatory truck river named “Rusty Nail” in the movie, “Joyride.” Decent movie when judged by today’s standards but not as good as “Duel.”

  9. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:

    Doesn’t take much talent to turn a popular book(s) like, “Jaws”, ” The Exorcist” or “The Shining” into popular movies. Really little more than plagiarism by a different name when you think about it.

    The movie versions of those books would probably not be a large part of American culture if not for Spielberg.

    Look at Spielberg’s early work, like his directing of one of the earliest Colombo episodes (“Murder by the Book”), and you can appreciate just how innovative and artistic he was since his earliest days.

    • Replies: @Trinity
    , @Trinity
  10. Trinity says:

    I believe all 3 were best-selling books before they were made into movies if I remember correctly. Jaws and The Exorcist were hits at the movies but I don’t remember the movie, The Shining being anywhere near as popular. I read The Shining and saw the movie on the small screen, book was much better IMO, the book usually is with a few exceptions like, Cool Hand Luke and Papillon.

    • Replies: @Bubba
  11. After The Night Gallery, Colombo, and Duel, Spielberg directed another TV movie before wading into feature films: Something Evil (1972). Something Evil, although it can be easily found on YouTube, is a bit of a lost film considering the prominence of it’s director. It has received none of the attention that Duel garnered. And in comparison with Spielberg’s other supernatural horror film, the bombastic Poltergeist, it is definitely more interesting. In Something Evil, Spielberg composes a film about demonic possession two years before Friedkin’s The Exorcist hit theaters.

  12. @poppyculture

    While certainly one of the most concerted and nuanced tales on Spielberg’s quasi-spirituality, this also is a primary example of the clear flaws of the auteur theory.

    Yes and no. Auteur theory emphasizes the role of the director, but this is clearly more Spielberg’s baby than Hooper’s. His ‘auteur’ stamp is unmistakable.

    I think Spielberg used Hooper like a Pooper-Scooper(or Hooper-Scooper) because he could get a bit wilder and less inhibited behind the name of a horror director.

  13. Trinity says:

    Colombo was a petty good series back in the day. One of my favorite Seventies television shows along with Baretta, Kojak, and Kung Fu. Never missed an episode of Kung Fu or Baretta back then. Favorite Colombo episode starred Robert “I dare you to knock this battery off my shoulders” Conrad.

    The Seventies, when television didn’t have 5 minutes of commercials featuring Muds and Blacks for every 5 minutes of programming and you could find something to watch on a television with only 5 or 6 channels.

    Seventies also was the decade of the mini series like Roots ( what a fraud) and Rich Man, Poor Man, where William Smith stole the show as bad guy, Falconetti.

  14. Hacienda says:

    I saw Jaws with my Jewish girlfriend and my WASP buddy and his girlfriend in a theatre in Indianapolis. When the head popped out from the hole in boat and Dreyfus goes bats for air and the whole audience screamed like a bomb hit them, that was the peak of movies for me and my girlfriend. Maybe the peak of the USA as a nation. So, Spielberg is okay with anything he did after Jaws. Anything with a scare surprise after that is weak tea. Saw Ridley Scott’s piss poor Alien, a complete derivative of Jaws. Hollywood has been chasing Jaws for like two generations now. And has never caught the beast, imho.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  15. @Trinity

    Kubrick actually used very little from King’s book, other than the title and character names; so little that King hates the movie and even remade a TV movie version of his own.

    “Really little more than plagiarism by a different name”; well, they did buy the rights to the books, so I guess that’s kinda like plagiarism, only legal; sort of like the difference btw rape and marriage.

    Now Hitchcock, on the other hand, when feeling uninspired, would buy rights to a hit play with the intention of filming it verbatim; he considered that the whole point, and would hard “open up” the stage with a few exterior shots. Hence, films like Rope and Rear Window.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  16. @Hacienda

    “Maybe the peak of the USA as a nation.”

    I like that: Ben Gardner’s head escaping from the hole in the bilge facade submerged in Steven Spielberg’s SFV pool as the beginning of the end of America.

    “Saw Ridley Scott’s piss poor Alien, a complete derivative of Jaws.”

    Alien is a haunted house movie in space featuring HR Giger’s gothic alien. Jaws is Moby Dick given monster movie beats. They are both great films.

    • Replies: @Hacienda
  17. @James J. O'Meara

    Stephen King’s The Shining mini-series, filled with garish SFX and his typically absurd, treacly dialog, is truly a horror. But not in the way he intended.

  18. Trinity says:

    I think The Sea-Wolf by Jack London and Moby Dick by Herman Melville could be made into good movies IF done by the right people. Both are classics on paper. Not sure IF they have made a movie based on London’s The Sea-Wolf. IMO, the movie Jaws is way overrated.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldlan
  19. I only saw Poltergeist on TV,years later. I didn’t think much of it,its not my type of movie,but when the ghosts pulled up the wife’s t shirt and exposed her panties,that really got my attention! Hell yeah,my fave scene.😉

    • Replies: @Ray P
  20. @Trinity

    Sea Wolf is the story of Wolf Larsen,innit?🤔 Yep that was a movie!

    Disagree about Jaws. Great movie imhfo.
    ” Were gonna need a bigger boat.” Great line.😆

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  21. I spend a lot of time haunting the film aisles of local used bookstores. The above article has made me realize that there are surprisingly few books out there about Spielberg. Loads of books on Kubrick and plenty on Scorsese. Tarantino is well represented and people still want to read about John Ford a half-century after his death. For whatever reasons, film journalists, historians, and scholars don’t seem that interested in Spielberg. The same is true of the public. There was a time when Spielberg’s name carried some weight with the moviegoing public. It doesn’t guarantee box office success any more. The returns from his last feature, the remake of “West Side Story,” were underwhelming despite all the publicity.

    The last Spielberg film I saw was “Bridge of Spies” in 2015. The Internet Movie Database says that his newest film, “The Fabelmans,” is a “semi-autobiography based on Spielberg’s own childhood growing up in post-war Arizona, from age seven to eighteen.” I can hardly wait.

    • Replies: @Director95
  22. Ray P says:
    @Bardon Kaldlan

    I saw Poltergeist as a fifteen-year-old in 1982 at the cinema with some mates and one lamented that the scene you mention hadn’t gone far enough. Poltergeist was conceived and shot as a horror movie that dazzled with its special effects and shocks but pulled back from going all the way as many slasher movies of the same period were doing (and Evil Dead the movie teenagers raved about). The same friend had been disappointed by the Flash Gordon movie two years earlier when Ornelia Muti (Princess Aura) wasn’t shown undergoing the full ordeal of her torture (‘No, not the bore worms!) More innocent times in a sense.

  23. @Judson Hammond

    I just read a book about Spielberg’s film career – “Make Spielberg Great Again” by Armund White.
    AW is a film critic for the National Review.
    It is available on Amazon in kindle format.

    This article could be expanded and revised into a book. Two suggestions: soften up the anti-Jew remarks and organize chrono by film.

  24. Bubba says:

    I was a young, pimple-faced teenager and read the novel Papillion in the early summer of 1973 or 1974. It had been translated into English and was an easy read for a young boy (I could not put it down). As for the movie, it was the first R rated flick that I had ever seen (and still have no idea why it was rated R except maybe for the bare-breasted native women, but that was no different from National Geographicat the time) and really appreciated that my father brought me to see it. Anyway, while I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and Steve McQueen’s acting, I remember telling my Dad and older brothers that I thought the book was much better. They all agreed.

  25. @Bubba

    I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and Steve McQueen’s acting

    McQueen in PAPILLON(or James Coburn in CROSS OF IRON) is unmistakably American.
    It doesn’t feel like a French tale.

  26. Hacienda says:

    Alien is a haunted house movie in space featuring HR Giger’s gothic alien. Jaws is Moby Dick given monster movie beats. They are both great films.

    I would agree with this if Alien was made before Jaws, but that’s not what happened.
    Stylistically, Scott is a great director in the racially narcissistic style. He did make a truly great movie- Bladerunner. Philip K Dick with enough philosophical content, but not too difficult, that lifts up what would have been a merely very pretty movie.

  27. Bubba says:

    Totally agree. I don’t remember anything French about the movie except for the names from the novel (which I should re-read before the end of the summer).

    And certainly nothing French about William Smithers brilliantly cast as the sadistic Warden Bardot.

    I think Dustin Hoffman was mediocre as the counterfeiter Louis Dega.

    Thank you for correcting my misspelling of Papillon.

  28. Jas says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    I skimmed most of the essay. It seemed like it took me ten hrs to read it. I found about 10% of it interesting or relevant. Poltergeist is coming out on September 20 finally on remastered blu ray and 4k. I will be getting it for sure. The movie has numerous flaws and inconsistencies but because it falls under the horror umbrella, I can forgive most of them. Sad that both daughter’s ended up killed in sexual rituals or terror IRL.

  29. @Bubba

    Four billy goats were browsing the dumpster behind the Universal Studios and found a pile of discarded cans of films. The goats opened a few cans and began eating the film.

    After grazing on the film, one goat said, “The book was much better.” They all agreed.

    credit Gene Siskel 1995

    • Replies: @Bubba
  30. I did not attempt to read this essay, but I did scroll through looking for occurrences of “Soros”, since I wanted to find out what this “proto-Sorosian nastiness” is. All I found were statements like, Spielberg may seem to be pro-family and not anti-white, but he’s definitely on the same team as Soros.

    Can anyone sum up for me, what there is in Spielberg that prefigures Soros?

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  31. Hmmmmm . . . I think we saw two very different films. The underlying tone of the film is absolutely sinister. The very thought of souls trapped on this plane was disturbing enough, but then to be under the thumb of some masochistic former cult guru bent on destruction —- that force is not trying to undo a wro9ng. It is wrong intrinsically.

    Your are mistaking the beings stuck in the earthly plane as attempting to do something — other than looking for a way home, t5hey are doing nothing. They don’t threaten. they don’t even engage in ‘fearing’. They move furniture about and slide by push or pull humans about the floor. Their attraction to the little girl is to as to the light, its a mistake, not an intentional threat. They see her as a way out, not a being to be removed or contr0olled. In fact, the film strongly suggests that it is the little child again — that has the power. Her innocence is attractive. her youth, her light.

    There is only one real threat and that threat is the beast. Which is generally considered the metaphor for satan or the anti-christ. The ultimate deceiver, who wants the little girl so he can control the others as well as her.

    one of the most powerful themes the film introduces is the nature of parenting as mother and father and the roles that each assu7mes or the expectations associated with each role. The scene in which the rescue takes place when the husband (Mr. Craig T Nelson – excellent job of dad) as strength and yet totally unprepared. He says he will never let go . . but as it turns out — ultimately lets go. His resolve and his role as bread winner is dressing to his wifes’ (Jobeth Williams — also a great performance as an open and exploratory conduit to the supernatural. There’s scene (exchange) that is invited to venture into who is the lead who is the disciplinarian. As it plays to the a relational dynamic that these two parents regardless of their roles are complimentary, even if the husband is out of the loop so to speak to what is actually happening. This is a women’s journey. Dad’s bulk as anchor isn’t much good for anything else. His resistance is a barrier to solving the matter.

    It’s the feminine diaspora of the spiritual and the supernatural and that is not singularly jewish.

  32. Enter two other woman, the wonderful Beatrice Cookson (Beatrice Straight) is not only open, a woman, but she is an educated and knowledgably researcher with two men at her beckon call. intellectual bringing the science to bare on the issue. Then to round out the feminine power play is Zelda Rubestien, the all in mystic, short in stature but totally in charge of everyone and the mission itself. If one wanted to make a jewish contention, it would be the jewish all knowing matriarch — who isn’t taking any nonsense . . . She can read minds, but isn’t into any male parler game trickery.

    I really enjoyed this film and appreciated the emphasis on intact family.

    Footnote: the men in this film are important messag3s. Th man next door is not only obtuse, discourteous, but he is also a coward. Totally unable to muster the chivalry to aid a woman in distress. the house is not quite as clean as thought. Mom ultimately gathers her hens to safety.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  33. dimples says:

    Attempting to read this article was impossible but I looked up the film on Wikipedia. Apparently it stars Craig T Nelson in a leading role. This actor is a major turnoff for me so I won’t be watching it. The film just looks like a standard ghost horror film anyway so no great loss to my cultural education I would think. While looking at Wikipedia it occurred to me that if you change one letter of ‘Jaws’, you get ‘Jews’. Is this an insider jew joke by Speilberg? Since the word ‘Jaws’ represents the great shark eating the innocent white people this has got to have major symbolic significance related to Jews devouring the white civilization here. Has Jung-Fried noticed this?

  34. Trinity says:

    I read the book years after seeing the movie. The same with Cool Hand Luke and One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.

    • Agree: Bubba
  35. @EliteCommInc.

    Anyone attempting to twist my comments into some kind of attack on Jews or women are whistling Dixie without a fife.

  36. Bubba says:

    Nice try. That is an oft-repeated joke long before Gene Siskel started writing for the Chicago Tribune and then became a PBS grifter.

    Sorry to hurt your feelings.

  37. @Mitchell Porter

    I was led through the same rabbit hole as you and all I can say is: don’t bother. Jung-Freud’s columns are not exactly revered for their coherence or logic.
    Ron Unz seemed kind of desperate with a shortage of columnists when he invited one of his more verbose commenters (Priss Factor) to step in and write for this site. Unz in the past repeatedly joked about that commenter’s thousand-word-essays-on-The-Godfather or something like that.
    Priss likes to use multiple monikers (aka sock-puppetry), and used to prefer female ones, for some reason. A moderator (whom I suppose to be Ron Unz himself, as he apparently handles everything solo here) even exposed that duplicity on occasion.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jung-Freud Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV